We Need Your Money NOW! Send $20, TODAY!

The case study of "Zero to over $338,000 in 18 days using a volunteer website and blogs" is a perfect example of using urgency as a fundraising tool.

Any fundraiser will tell you that people+urgency=dollars. The Internet is such an excellent tool to raise money quickly. Imagine if the recall folks hadn't used the Internet. There's no way they would have raised that much money in such a short amount of time if they sent a mailer or made calls. The awesome thing about the Internet is that it enables fundraisers to produce asks in a short amount of time using little manpower.

In Ohio, Cobb and Badnarik had a deadline to meet. They used the power of the Internet along with the power of urgency and played up on the anger people were feeling because of the Bush win. Reading the comments, it seems like Cobb might have benefited from reading the Fundraising Primer. Non-secure donations, no contact information? I wonder how much could have been raised if some of these glitches hadn't occurred?

I Want YOU to be a Fundraiser! 

I Want YOU to Be a Fundraiser!

The Political Consultant's Online Fundraising Primer is a great read! One of the things that really jumps out to me and is threaded throughout the primer is what a great way online fundraising is to engage a large number of small donors in a campaign's activities.

I'm not surprised in the least the bulk of online contributors are small donors. Online fundraising is much more grassroots oriented. I think it's very interesting how the Internet can turn small donors into big donors by enlisting them as individual fundraisers for their party, candidate or cause.

A May 2004 Washington Post article highlights that a number of everyday citizens are becoming fundraisers. On the Republican side, "Bush's reelection team said it has received a donation from at least one person in every county in America." From the Dem side, "Netervala is not only writing a check to the campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). She's also organizing a $50-a-head fundraiser that she hopes will bring in $10,000. " This is really amazing to me.

The primer is a great resource for campaigns to enlist small-turned-big donors. It outlines in an easy to follow format details of a successful fundraising strategy down to the details of when to send a fundraising email (Thursday afternoons). Empowering supporters to form their own "teams" like the RNC and the Dean campaign is a great way to spread any message and recruit fundraisers. One person who holds a BBQ at their house for 40 close friends at $50/head can easily raise a $2,000 dollar donation.

If one in ten Americans is an Influential and “tells the other nine how to vote, where to eat and what to buy”, then any campaign can certainly recruit that person to raise money.

Solicitation from friends is something we're getting used to. I can't tell you how many emails I've gotten over the last year from friends asking me to pledge money to their Breast Cancer/Diabetes/AIDS walk. Why would politics be any different?

Now All I Have to Do is Find My Coffee Cup That Says, "Proud Member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."

The Washington Times ran a story today about Sen. Durbin (the No.2 Senate Dem) blaming the "right wing" for Howard Dean's comments. He says "The right wing has got the agenda moving. Fox [News Channel] and everybody's got the agenda. It's all about Howard Dean. You've bought into it," Mr. Durbin said. You can't let up on it. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves." With all do respect, Senator, why should the right and the media be ashamed for quoting Dean verbatim? Not one of his comments has been taken out of context.

The No.1 Senate Dem is delusional too! "As all of you know, there isn't a single person, whether it's any of us in this room or Governor Dean or [Republican National Committee chairman Ken] Mehlman, that haven't misspoken," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said at a photo opportunity with Mr. Dean in his Senate office before that meeting. " Senator Reid, I find it ironic that you say this when your party is so quick to jump on President Bush when he "misspeaks."

Instead of attacking the right and the media, maybe the Dems should spend their energy actually building some sort of a party that stands for something, anything. It would also behoove them to work with Chairman Dean on communication skills, something he has yet to grasp the importance of.

Fundraising Memo to Democrats

Memo
To: Everyone left of center
From: Blusher
Date: June 9, 2005
Re: Fundraising Advice

It has come to my attention that the Democrats are going though some rough times raising dough. As a Republican I have to admit that I am somewhat delighted. For some reason, though, I'm going to be nice enough to give a little advice on a few changes your party can make to up those numbers.

1. Muzzle Howard Dean. I am serious about this! His comments have gone past offensive to just plain comical. I'm halfway expecting him to go on Oprah next and pull a Tom Cruise. What big donor wants to give money to this wacko?

2. Get Dean and Joe Trippi to make up. The lack of success Dean's having with fundraising is making it increasingly obvious Trippi was the brains behind the online fundraising "revolution" that campaign spearheaded. If Dean can't keep his mouth shut, he'll turn off big donors and have to rely on small donors to fund the DNC. This actually might work for him. During the 2004 presidential campaign, he was very successful at bringing in small donations over the web. But the only way to get supporters to point and click is to give them a reason. This brings me to my next piece of advice.

3. Find something to stand for. Your party is not for anything. You're just against everything the Republicans are for. This is why you keep losing! GW won fair and square in '04, so no one can "stop" him anymore.

4. Stop losing. If I were one of your big donors and had given you money to fund the campaigns of this guy and this guy, I'd be pissed! Cause no matter how much I give, you fools keep picking the terrible candidates to run.

So take my advice here. Start winning and the skrill will follow.

"Buzz, Blogs, and Beyond" Try Saying That Three Times Really Fast

I just read a great article on the Personal Democracy Forum's site. It summed up a report, BUZZ, BLOGS, AND BEYOND:The Internet and the National Discourse in the Fall of 2004, put out by Pew.

The gist is that bloggers may not have as much influence creating buzz as they think.

“Bloggers are not themselves super columnists or super advocates,” opines Dr. Michael Cornfield, a senior research consultant to the Pew Internet and American Life Project." Cornfield continues, “Bloggers are as much hosts of the conversation as they are directors of a sort of show or columnists.”

“The difference between [blogs] and a discussion forum and a town meeting is that people were all discussing what they had just seen on the Internet,” remarks Cornfield in reference to the contentious documents. “When they’re all looking at the same thing, that’s when the buzz factor hits.”

I tend to agree with Cornfield's comments. Blogs are only one part of a host of media and non-media outlets that tend to create buzz. Blogs, Internet stories, cable and network news, newspapers, and Influentials all collectively create it. Take the whole Downing Street Memo. Sure it may have created buzz on liberal blogs, but those blogs are not creating buzz around the country. I'd say a good majority of Americans couldn't tell you what it is. So there you go, a perfect example of blogs generating buzz in their little echo chamber, but unable to generate buzz among the public becuase they are only a small piece of an overall buzz creator.

Why is John Edwards Still Talking About Two Americas?

Great question from The Hotline's Last Call today:

"Our question is which America has access to John Edwards' One America blog?"

Edwards' blog recently came onto my radar this week after his response to the Howard Dean comments (see my previous post). After browsing around the website, I've got some comments I'd love the One America Committee to ponder.

First, how ironic is it that he's trying to fuel his "One America movement" on the Internet? Completely leaving out one of the Two Americas he's always blabbing about (which for the record, I do not believe in his "Two Americas theory")!

Second, wouldn't it make more sense for Edwards to address societal issues like the digital divide to bring in the "other America" who obviously doesn't visit his blog and probably doesn't know who he is?

And lastly, I haven't heard of Edwards doing much to create "One America." I think it's safe to say this whole "One America Committee" is more a platform for his '08 presidential bid than anything else.

Memo to Howard Dean: People in Glass Houses...

I just read an article in The Washington Post about how Dean isn't doing so well fundraising for the DNC. In the first four months of the year, the DNC only raised $18.6 million compared to $42.6 million raised by the RNC in the same amount of time. If Dean was such an effective Internet fundraiser during his presidential run, why can't he replicate that success for the DNC?

It also doesn't bode well for him that two prominent members of his own party, Senator Biden and former Senator Edwards both distanced themselves from him this week. Dean's off-the-wall comments such as the latest, a"lot of them [Republicans] have never made an honest living in their lives," continue to show that he is so far from the mainstream of America. Even his own party loyalists are getting tired of these shameful comments. I happen to know a lot of Republicans out there who have worked very hard making an honest living only to have Democrats like Dean advocate heavily taxing their hard-earned money. And I can sure think of a few Dems out there who aren't exactly making honest livings themselves.

I Never Thought I Would Use the Words "Flat" and "Britney Spears" in the Same Sentence

Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat makes some alarming points that every American should pay attention to:

Dirty Little Secret #2: The Ambition Gap
The second dirty little secret, which several prominent American CEOs told me only in a whisper, goes like this: When they send jobs abroad, they not only save 75 percent on wages, they get a 100 percent increase in productivity.
....

One cannot stress enough: Young Chinese, Indians, and Poles are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top. They do not want to work for us; they don't even want to be with us. They want to dominate us- in the sense that they want to be creating the companies of the future that people all over the world will admire and clamor to work for. They are in no way content with where they have come so far. I was talking to a Chinese-American who works for Microsoft and has accompanied Bill Gates on visits to China. He said Gates is recognized everywhere he goes in China. Young people there hang from the rafters and scalp tickets just to hear him speak. Same with Jerry Yang, the founder of Yahoo!

In China today, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America today, Britney Spears is Britney Spears-and that is our problem.

Though I don't wholly agree with the Sylvester Brown article, I think he does bring up a good point that the MSM covers some insignificant stories and that most would rather hear about the latest gossip (MJ and Vaseline) than watch an interview with a brilliant author like Thomas Friedman who obviously has a lot of "newsworthy" information for everyone.

I am guilty of loving celeb gossip. I read Page Six every day. But I also read The New York Times and The Washington Post and The Hotline and not one of my role models has a house in Hollywood.

Why don’t our kids and the MSM treat successful men and women business leaders like celebrities? What does this say about the current and future state of our society? Will Americans ever wake up and see that the entire world has flattened around them while they were watching Britney Spears’ latest True Hollywood Story on E!?