Database Woes

I'm in Seattle for the weekend at a Camp Wellstone training, and I wanted to share something from the "Technology" section from our campaign training notebook:

Maintaining current, accurate records of voters, volunteers, and donors is essential. A well run and well maintained database is a great benefit fro tracking potential and actual donors, filing financial reports, and running voter contact programs that might include voter identification, persuasion, and get out the vote (GOTV).

Amen! Over the last four weeks, I've been working with NGP to get Progressive Majority's old Access database imported to NGP's online system. It's been an excruciating experience, mostly because the old database was full of disjointed and inconsistent information. Everyone from our Development Director to state office volunteers had entered information, and as a result, the data was highly disorganized. In importing our data over to NGP, we had to deal with a host of problems-- past contributions were entered as pledged future contributions, joint household records had to be split into individual records, etc.

So it's been a trial. But I have a new appreciation for well-designed databases, especially those that are created with political campaigns in mind. NGP is specifically designed with campaigns in mind, and as a result, fields and pull-downs are built to make creating Call Sheets and FEC reports as easy as possible.

I'm also becoming increasingly aware of how important it is to have tech-friendly people working in political offices (Emi, I'm sure you'll appreciate this realization!). I'm convinced that one of the reasons I was hired was because I have a background in technology and am comfortable with computers, web design, blogs, and web interfaces. It's not enough to have a computer consultant on staff; you need politicos who are tech-savvy to really make the best use of the technology.

Strategic eCampaigning

I found the study I referred to in a previous post: it's one of Nielsen's Alertbox analyses called "Bush vs. Kerry: Email Newsletters Rated".

The most interesting section is the "Content Analysis" in which Nielsen comes up with the following statistics:

• Positive Campaigning: Bush 50%/Kerry 18%
• Negative Campaigning: Bush 14%/Kerry 49%
• Announcements and Instructions: Bush 15%/Kerry 1%
• Volunteer and donate: Bush 21%/Kerry 33%

Having subscribed to the Kerry email list, I can personally vouch for the incredibly (and annoyingly) high number of fundraising emails I received from the campaign. Everyone from Bill Clinton to John Edwards asked me for money, and it got old very fast. While the Kerry eCampaign focused on bashing Bush and asking for money, the Bush eCampaign focused on a positive message and getting people involved and educated. Definitely worth noting for future campaigns.

Hidden Identities

I discovered "Secret Simon" a few months ago and it's since become one of my favorites. When it was started, it was an outlet for "Simon" to talk about being gay without being out of the closet. At the time, the author was married (with two children), and used the anonymity of blogging to deal with his fears and concerns.

One of the most powerful things about the Internet is its ability to empower people while hiding their identities. I'm reminded of "Salam Pax," the Baghdad blogger from the early days of the Iraq War, who used the cover of the Internet to write about the invasion from the perspective of the ordinary Iraqi. What are the applications of this in the political world?

Help me out

I've managed to talk my supervisors into starting a blog for Progressive Majority. Currently, our WA and WI state offices blog about state issues and candidates, and we'd like to set up a blog at our DC Headquarters that syndicates in from the state offices. Anyone know of a good way to set this up with Blogger? The first task is getting posts from the blog to the PM website... and I'm not familiar enough with XML or RSS feeds to set this up. Help (gaurag at gwu dot edu) would be greatly appreciated :)

Who is your audience?

Idealist writes a thought-provoking post today about the language blogs use compared to the language used by the traditional print media. Idealist argues that the print media tends to use simple language (they say 6th grade level) whereas many blogs trend towards college-level vocabulary. It's not uncommon to stumble across a post on Kos or Red State that makes sophisticated arguments and obscure cultural allusions... and while this may have the effect of excluding some readers, it also raises the standard of political debate (I'm reminded of the West Wing, when Toby encourages Bartlet to "be the smart kid" and "raise the quality of national debate").

I basically have two points to make here:
(1) When the media talks to us like we're children, it's refreshing that blogs talk to us like we're adults. Shouldn't we aspire to a level of discourse greater than that found at the 6th grade level? Is that an intellectually elitist thing to ask? I don't think it is. The Internet offers a wealth of information for anyone with a keyboard and access to Wikipedia or Google. When you're reading a newspaper and you don't know something, it might be frustrating; but when you're on a site or blog and run across something unfamiliar, it's incredibly easy to look it up and expand your world. That's a powerful thing and I'm reluctant to argue that new media should model its language after the traditional media.

(2) Considering the demographics of people who use the Internet (and to be clear, I don't have statistics handy), I'm fairly sure that the median level of education among Internet users is significantly higher than that of newspaper readers. If you narrow your universe to just blog-readers, I'm certain the level of education will be even higher. People who read and write blogs are, as IPDI puts it, "online influentials" who shape opinion in their real-life and cyber-communities. Why limit their experience by talking down to them?

The Blog as Safe Space

Over the weekend, you might have noticed a big ruckus over John Edwards' remark that Howard Dean was wrong to say that many Republicans don't make an honest living (Editor's Note: I was at the conference when Dean made that remark, and like many of his other statements, it was taken wildly out of context... *sigh*). While it's become quite chic for "moderate" Democrats to distance themselves from Howard Dean, Edwards on his blog today clarifies his remark and claims "Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years."

Ha! Nice try, Johnny. Here we have a wonderful case of an establishment politician presenting one message to the traditional media, and quite a different message to the blogosphere. Here's the intro to his remarks:

What a flap has arisen over a disagreement about the way something is said! I was in Nashville over the weekend, thanking the good people of Tennessee who supported the Democratic presidential ticket this year, when I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn't done a good day's work. Of course, I didn't think so, and I said that. I don't think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either. I disagreed with him, and I said so. And, I want to be clear, I would have to say so again if I were asked again. I said a lot of good things about Howard's outreach program and invigoration of the internet as a communication and fundraising tool, but no one wrote about that. Instead the headlines blared that I disagreed with Howard. And then the flap arose: A chasm! A split! A revolt! Instead, how about: Nonsense!

We are both talking about the Republicans and their failure to address the needs of working people. We both agree with this basic truth: This Republican president and this Republican majority are not doing what they should be doing for working people in this country. That's a core belief we need to fight for. And what's more, we agree that we - all Democrats and all working people - should be complaining, criticizing, and generally speaking out about this critical failure of the Republican party and offering our positive vision for America. And we have.

Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years.

Thanks, Jerome!

Jerome Armstrong over at myDD posted a shout out to Progressive Majority's campaign trainings during the Take Back America Conference. While CAF organized the talking-heads part of the conference, PM was hosting training workshops on fundraising, mobilization, GOTV, etc. Jerome makes a great point here, in talking about the role of the Internet in campaigns:

A well run campaign uses the internet by bringing on individuals within each of the existing campaign areas, that work together and apart. The absolute worst implementation is for the campaign to let the hackers or the web designers take on the role of strategic implementation. Formulation and implementation of internet strategy from the leadership of the campaign is what most often is missing. Rare still, is the decision-maker that knows what to do in this area, and even rarer are those in such situations that are willing to cede control in an area they are not with expertise. But they are emerging.

Isn't that what this class is all about? It can't be enough to have technical expertise-- what's required is knowledge of the most effective ways to apply technology to the desired end. Just like you can't let the media folks plan a campaign (see the Kerry campaign for a great example), you can't let the techies run the place either.

Convio's (Lack Of) Conscience

Many DC non-profits and political organizations use Convio, an Internet consulting firm that provides web and eCampaigning services. Well, it turns out that Convio, which provided consulting for the Dean campaign last year, also consults for the anti-gay, right-wing Alliance for Marriage. I think it is highly disingenuous for an organization that offers valuable political services to hide behind "company policy" when choosing its client list. Setting aside the fact that Convio claims in its "Right to be Heard Policy" that it doesn't work for clients who "promote prejudice and hate" (riiiight), this issue raises the question of whether in the world of new media, companies should (or are obliged to) clarify their political positioning. Technology may be neutral, but the application of technology is anything but. If an ammo store sells guns to cops, it should be held to a different standard than the ammo store that sells guns to criminals. Similarly, I sincerely hope that the progressive/liberal/Democratic community will hold Convio to higher standards.