Evaluation and Who Won.
The evaluations of the Bush and Kerry campaign email newsletters was interesting, but less than inspiring. Like most evaluations of this last presidential campaign I feel not only unmoved, but more than a little disappointed.
Ok, so most of the disappointment comes from being with the guy who lost. I'm used to loosing: never having voted for a winner in a federal campaign, very few at the state level, although a few more at the local/county level, and never having done anything to help a winner (beyond voting for them, and often that was just out of voting my party slate). But I'm disappointed by the interpretation of the last campaign.
The three Nielson readings for this week were very interesting, but I'm seeing an analysis which doesn't respond to the needs of those whose work he is evaluating. I'm happy to see that Nielson feels that both campaigns included plenty of content, and, as Nielson says: "if something is interesting, you can forgive many usability sins."
GOTV and fundraising are great things to do with your supporters. But your supporters are your supporters. You suck money out of them and make sure they show up to vote. Other than that, get them to show up at events to make the candidate look good. Ok, they can do a few other things too, like get me coffee.
If I were a U.S. median voter I could see having voted for Bush in this last campaign. I just don't get it in Ohio. Now, I'm from Franklin county, where Gore beat Bush by a little over 4,000 votes in 2000. In 2004 Bush lost to Kerry by just under 50,000 votes in the county. So I guess I should stick to local issues?
I've been listening to a lot of people say here is what Bush did right because he won, here is what Kerry did because he lost. In my religion they both did a lot of things wrong, they are failures as leaders, Kerry being unable to inspire, and Bush being intellectually dishonest. We are all sinners though, as I've said before: democracy should be an open process.
I'll stop foaming for now.
Ok, so most of the disappointment comes from being with the guy who lost. I'm used to loosing: never having voted for a winner in a federal campaign, very few at the state level, although a few more at the local/county level, and never having done anything to help a winner (beyond voting for them, and often that was just out of voting my party slate). But I'm disappointed by the interpretation of the last campaign.
The three Nielson readings for this week were very interesting, but I'm seeing an analysis which doesn't respond to the needs of those whose work he is evaluating. I'm happy to see that Nielson feels that both campaigns included plenty of content, and, as Nielson says: "if something is interesting, you can forgive many usability sins."
GOTV and fundraising are great things to do with your supporters. But your supporters are your supporters. You suck money out of them and make sure they show up to vote. Other than that, get them to show up at events to make the candidate look good. Ok, they can do a few other things too, like get me coffee.
If I were a U.S. median voter I could see having voted for Bush in this last campaign. I just don't get it in Ohio. Now, I'm from Franklin county, where Gore beat Bush by a little over 4,000 votes in 2000. In 2004 Bush lost to Kerry by just under 50,000 votes in the county. So I guess I should stick to local issues?
I've been listening to a lot of people say here is what Bush did right because he won, here is what Kerry did because he lost. In my religion they both did a lot of things wrong, they are failures as leaders, Kerry being unable to inspire, and Bush being intellectually dishonest. We are all sinners though, as I've said before: democracy should be an open process.
I'll stop foaming for now.
2 Comments:
While I tend to agree with you on everything from socialism to, well, populism (okay so that's not a huge range there), I disagree with your point, "GOTV and fundraising are great things to do with your supporters. But your supporters are your supporters. You suck money out of them and make sure they show up to vote. Other than that, get them to show up at events to make the candidate look good." I disagree because I think the real power of Internet politics is not fundraising, although it works well for that purpose, but community-building. That said, I agree that more focus needs to be on actually turning out the campaign's Internet supporters. Not only that, but educating and training them adequately beforehand or at least making sure the right supporters turn out -- see Dean's Perfect Storm in Iowa for an example of how GOTV can go horribly wrong.
Have you noticed that Kerry's emails still have lame titles? Why isn't he or his staff willing to take constructive critism? Or are they just clueless, not seeking criticism out?
Also, we don't need to work to turn out Internet supporters - those guys will always vote. We need to work at organizing them to reach out to others, friends and family, and turn those softer folks out to vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home