As if The Bat never happened 29 June, 2007
Posted by Zack in 2008, Dean Bat, FEC Deadlines, Howard Dean, Joe Trippi, Online Fundraising.trackback
On this day in the parallel universe of the 2003-2004 cycle, we were all watching history being made. The politics of money in presidential primaries was being turned on its head forever by a daring gamble by Joe Trippi. Or so we thought at the time. None of the 2008 campaigns on either side have attempted to repeat the Dean 2003 miracle. As a result, no second tier candidate will break into the first tier, and Big Money will dominate just as it did in the first quarter of this year.
As we entered these last 48 hours before the June 2003 FEC filing deadline, it had become clear that Trippi’s Big Gamble was, unbelievably, beginning to work. Days earlier, he had stepped outside of the fundraising expectations management game and started up a new game all his own.
Just days before the FEC deadline, Trippi sent an email to supporters in which he came right out and admitted Dean had not raised enough money in the 2nd quarter to be taken seriously any longer (he was only just barely taken seriously as it stood). Dean would, essentially, be out of the running when the results came out.
So Trippi asked Dean supporters to make the impossible possible: to turn the dark horse, no-chance, insurgent candidate into the winner of the Money Primary–to show for the fist time ever that grassroots donors could over power the lobbyists, the lawyers and the CEOs. Specifically, he told them (in a series of emails that kept pushing the goal higher and higher) that if they donated an additional several million dollars in the last days of the quarter, that Dean would blow past the expected fundraising totals of John Kerry and John Edwards, the two leading establishment candidates. He told Dean supporters that this was a fool proof way to use the establishment’s own stupid rules against it. The media would have to anoint Dean the new frontrunner if he beat the current frontrunners at their own money game.
Many inside the campaign thought Trippi’s gamble was crazy. They didn’t believe supporters would or could donate what was needed. The gamble would dramatically raise expectations, precisely when the campaign should be doing everything it could to lower them.
Because, and only because, Trippi was the campaign manager, and not an “Internet guy,” he had the power to pull the trigger and go ahead with his gamble.
The Internet team created a special graphic progress meter for the gamble: a baseball player holding an inflated bat. (“Hit one out of the park for Dean!”) The bat quickly became a rallying point for Dean supporters. Posted and reposted on the campaign blog and other blogs, and always available and (mostly) up-to-date on the campaign’s contribution page, the bat was the physical symbol of how much supporters had accomplished and how far they had to go. The bat induced many supporters to give over and over again.
Two days before the deadline–which is right where we are today–it was clear that the gamble was working. Dean had caught up to where Kerry and Edwards were rumored to be, around five million dollars for the quarter.
From this point on, every donation became an offensive, rather than a defensive move. The grassroots simply couldn’t believe that it was winning at the Big Money game it had always loathed. The effort gained new momentum as thousands who had just given gave again.
Many staff at all the other Democratic campaigns were glued to their screens on that Sunday and Monday, the last two days of the quarter. They couldn’t control themselves. Many Kerry and Edwards staff especially were overcome with dismay. Laws of politics which seemed as predictable as the laws of physics had been suspended–it was like someone shut off gravity. Others couldn’t help but be swept up in the excitement. Carol Moseley Braun’s finance director couldn’t stop herself from contributing to Dean herself–and was fired a couple weeks later when the FEC reports came out. (She quickly found a job at Dean.)
Why haven’t any lagging candidates–especially John Edwards or John McCain–dramatically called upon their bases to catapult them forward this quarter? And why have all the candidates so prioritized high dollar fundraising over small dollar fundraising? (For example, the ratio of grassroots fundraising to high-dollar event fundraising totals last quarter was roughly the inverse of Dean’s Q2 2003 ratio.)
Sure, everyone’s sending out urgent fundraising emails asking for support at this “critical deadline.” And there are progress meters. But no one has staked their campaign on this moment–even candidates who could conceivably be knocked almost out of the race by it.
The reason is this: Dean’s June 2003 miracle was not accomplished by an email–or by any clever web strategy. It was accomplished by a special and sincere promise to its supporter base: “We’re going to stand for what’s right–and we’re relying completely on you to give us the strength to succeed.”
It was something similar to John McCain’s 2000 campaign, which was the first big show of grassroots online fundraising power. In both McCain 2000 and Dean 2004, you could see the sincerity and the passion in the candidate himself. In both cases, only half the credit goes to the candidate. The other half goes to campaign managers and media consultants who were not afraid of real passion and real honesty.
In this race, I think we’ve got some candidates who’ve got incredibly exciting stuff going on inside their heads. With the right support, I think they’d be ready to have an amazing relationship with their supporter bases, and would love to be running a Dean 2004 or McCain 2000 style of campaign (at least in terms of passion and sincerity).
So it turns out–at least for now– that Trippi 2003 was a fluke, a lesson that went unlearned. (Sure Trippi’s at Edwards now, but not in charge.) The grassroots will continue to use the Internet and other new technology to assert its influence on the 2008 cycle. The local communities and national networks that were forged in the 2004 cycle have continued to grow and thrive. Now, on both sides, they’re enthusiastically gearing up for this new fight. But so far, all of the major candidates and campaign managers continue to relate to this base only through gimmicks and abstract references to “the grassroots nature of my campaign.”
Zack,
I’m a big admirer of many of things you’ve written since the ’04 season…
And you outline some of the great chutzpah of the Dean campaign here.
But, speaking as an Obama supporter, why is it that so many of the initial leaders of the netroots movement (like yourself) are so unwilling to give credit to the Obama campaign’s amazing outpouring of support.
250,000 donors in the first two quarters! That is astounding!
Yet you, and so many other voices, keep telling me and my fellow supporters that the Obama campaign doesn’t really care about us…
No matter how much BarackObama.com is featuring compelling stories of low-dollar donors who feel deeply committed to the campaign. Donors who don’t feel that they are being duped by “gimmicks” and “abstract references.”
From my perspective using My.BarackObama.com to organize both nationally and in Vermont (I was a volunteer with the Dean Web Team at HQ, also), the Obama campaign has been remarkably open to working with grassroots leaders around the country. This is no gimmick. It is an essential element to the campaign.
The over 70,000 of us who’ve created profiles on My.BarackObama.com are not part of some “abstract” notion of political involvement. The 10,000 people who canvassed for Obama on June 9th weren’t following some marketing slogan. We are actively engaging with people both on and off line to get Obama elected.
We are responding in record numbers to a direct appeal for — yes, our money — but also our direct active engagement.
As you know, 90% of donations in Q1 were $100 and under. 50% were $25 and under.
We, the grassroots supporters, do not feel duped by the campaign. We honestly believe Obama’s call that direct involvement is the only way he can win.
That’s not to say that I don’t agree with many of your prescriptions for running a Web-savvy campaign. Or that perhaps some at the top of the Obama campaign are less than sophisticated and enthusiastic supporters of this model. But, so many people in the campaign and in the grassroots are not letting any possible indifference interfere with the jobs we feel we need to do.
So, what’ll it take for the Obama campaign to get at least a bit of credit for embracing large elements of the what made the Dean campaign such a transformational moment in political history?
I am new to online political life except for my work with http://www.moveon.org from 2003. I just can’t believe that everywhere i go i see Barack Obama. I mean who are all these people? Yes i am one of them but wow every site has a obama this or an obama that. It just amaze’s me how so many people are involved with the Obama way of life. I was told that someone thought that Obama didn’t have much of a presence online and so i had to come here and wonder where does this person go online? Are they leading a sheltered life? Being on AOL and just checking profiles i can find 10′s of thousands of Obama supporters. Maybe this person Zach needs to come out of the closet? Hey Zach, are you ok? Do you live in the past or are you open to new things? If you need help just do a google search on my screenname and you can follow me to places you may have never seen.
bye love Danielle
Yes, as I said — the grassroots are stronger than ever before. And they’re giving Obama the strongest support on the Democratic side. And don’t get me wrong: the Internet team there is a doing a great job—and amazing job. It’s all wonderful.
But it’s precisely all that grassroots energy that make me (and perhaps the others you refer to) frustrated with the unwillingness of the top brass to dive in fully.
The campaign itself and the candidates time is not *primarily* oriented around the grassroots. Obama tips his hat to the grassroots frequently. He makes a quick video from time to time where he asks the grassroots to participate or thanks them for participate.
But how much of his time is spent on “call time”? How much is spent at or going to the $1,000-a-plate dinners?
Why no Sleepless Summer tour? It’s because the traditional finance people and establishment advisers convinced him to spend most of his time raising the Big Money instead of spending most of his time actually WITH the grassroots. As for the fact of 90% of contributions under $100 — that’s not because of strong online grassroots fundraising. It’s because of a strong direct mail program, financed mostly by the big high-dollar event money. (Same reason the GOP has always had such a low average contribution.)
Obama came to my state (NC) a few weeks ago. There was a fancy dinner with local athletes and some famous musician. But, “Obama made no public appearances. His campaign said he was giving no interviews and was not making him available for photographs. Reporters and photographers were kept beyond shouting distance when Obama arrived in Durham on Thursday afternoon for a private meeting with local political leaders.” (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/604973.html)
Thanks for the response, Zack (I’d comment on TechPresident, but can’t seem to create an account just yet)…
I agree that the Obama campaign is not perfect in this regard. I personally would love to see Obama do a two or three sentence blog post every single day about something that struck him on the campaign trail. Nothing message tested. Just Obama writing in his own words. I think the site is missing that level of personal interaction from the candidate. (Though, to be fair, there was a great Father’s Day video and a great Mother’s Day blog post — but that’s about it for direct communication to the online community).
As per direct mail, I think you’re partly right, but I believe that roughly 50% of donations in Q1 came from online. That’s not to say, of course, that the direct mail pieces didn’t push some folks to the Web, however.
And why no Sleepless Summer Tour (arguably the absolute highpoint of the Dean campaign)? Well, Obama’s been on a nation-wide Sleepless Spring Tour for months, bringing out huge crowds — and gathering supporters and cash along with it.
As far as private events (Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times has made similar grumblings), here’s my take on that…
When you have 20,000 people coming out to see you, I think it’s only wise not to highlight (necessary) private events (which of course Dean attended, as well) lest you alienate those who’d be turned away. As anyone who has invited anyone to an Obama house party can tell you, you’d be surprised how many people — excited about seeing Obama in person — need to have it gently explained that he’s not actually at every single event where his name attached.
Finally, I’ve respected you greatly for recognizing the need to synthesize traditional and modern campaign techniques (net and grassroots, email and direct mail, top-down and bottom-up) and I think that the Obama campaign is doing a fairly admirable job with this — even without a campaign manager or chief strategist who really seem to “get” the concepts you’ve been advocating.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
I agree with “fairly admirable”.
But I was hoping to see the revolution continue.
It *is* continuing among the grassroots, of course. But I was hoping to see it continue all the way right into the heart of at least one of the campaigns.
Well i know one thing. Is the grassroots is strong enough to bring him down in a NY minute if we so decided to do. However, that is not in our thoughts. It does go to show we have the power right now. Could we lose that power? I doubt it. Remember there are many many of us. However, i don’t think Barack is forgetting us. The staffers are another thing. They seem to be in this for their career. Myself i am not interested in a career. I am sure many are though and for them i wish them well. Myself i do what i do because i have two boys who i don’t want to feel obliged to join and be in a STUPID WAR. I also don’t want anyone to feel they have to join like i did during the vietnam war and fight in a war we should have never been in.
I should probably cross post what i wrote at your other site Zach so others can see my view which is much more expanded to fully explian myself.
http://techpresident.com/node/1663#comment-818
By DANIELLECLARKE at Fri, 06/29/2007 – 6:23pm
There that way no one gets confused as to my opinion here.
I’m a little confused by Zack’s complaints when it comes to Obama. I don’t know what the other candidates are doing so I can’t comment. When it comese to Obama though, I feel I’m very engaged via the internet and I’m disabled and almost home-bound.
I’ve neglected my own recently-started boiler-plate blog to contribute to the blogs maintained by Obama groups. I’m a member of over a dozen communities on his site, and several offsite. When the campaign can’t get rights to post video recorded appearances, I can go to YouTube and several other sites to find Obama’s latest. Many campaign volunteers with a video camera post truly grassroots videos that I love to watch, and I know convinces many new viewers that people just like them are excited and working hard for Obama. And all the millions who’d love to be part of the 10s of thousands seeing him in person can do so vicariously at any time, thanks to ObamaTV.
I’ve found groups for him on all the news seeding services. I’ve downloaded a free PDF of his best speeches. I can download and burn CDs and DVDs to hand out for the campaign, as well as flyers. Every event taking place anywhere in the country is clearly posted on his site, his updates are timely, and his site provides a very user-friendly system for setting up events in your own community and drawing people you’ve never met personally. Thousands of house parties have been organized online, where Obama or his wife Michelle call in to touch base with the people attending everywhere.
I’ve only received two direct-mail appeals, about three phone calls from the campaign, but I’m more in touch with this campaign than I’ve ever been before. Most of us who participate do so without personal handholding from Obama, and we feel that’s fine, it’s our responsibility – that’s the whole point of the grassroots campaign.
Finally, I’m one of those very poor donors drawn by the web, though ultimately I was called and donated when someone was available to match me and help me feel like I donated more. My social security disability only leaves me with $25-50/week to live on, but I donated $25 one month. I’ll donate more time than money, but it’s Obama’s great web organization and communities that makes that possible and fruitful.
I liked Dean, but all I recall doing online was some chatting and confirming attendance at meetups, and donating (I still could work back then). I certainly don’t recall surpassing 250,000 donors for Dean in one quarter. I didn’t meet as diverse a group of supporters for Dean as I have for Obama. More of Obama’s supporters are first-timers in political campaigns than I met in Dean’s campaign.
Today I read Clinton’s campaign expects to come in second to Obama in fundraising this quarter, even with all her lobbyist, PAC and bundled donations, and the vast majority of donations to Obama are like mine, very small from very low budgets. ‘Nuff said, eh?