Netroots and Grassroots
This NPR story about the Connecticut Senate race focuses on the influence the netroots had on this race. Bloggers did exert as lot of energy and influence but without a combined grassroots effort it wouldn't have mattered. Winning in politics is similar to a military style campaign. You cannot win solely with air power. You must have boots on the ground. When you combine the two you have a powerful force for change.
In Connecticut and elsewhere recently, the netroots and bloggers (the air campaign) created awareness, raised money, motivated volunteers to go get involved, and kept the rest informed of events on the ground. The volunteers provided the boots on the ground. Many of them went as a result of the netroots efforts and many kept up to date on events through the blogs.
A ton of bloggers were on the ground Monday and Tuesday reporting directly on the campaigns. They broke the actual story of Joe's website shenanigans, a story media outlets like CNN completely botched.
Another lesson from Connecticut is how important the website and email are to a modern campaign. The Lieberman camp never grasped this until their grossly inadequate site crashed. It had little traffic previously because they never understood the importance of new, fresh content. If you want people to visit your website you need to give them a reason to return. That means providing something new. Provide something they want and/or need. Go look at Ned Lamont's website. It has a blog which fosters interaction and discussion, it has material to download, it's constantly kept up to date. In short, it's a model for what a modern campaign website must be.
The chief reasons Lamont won were he was where the voters were on the issues. Joe Lieberman was out of touch and out of sync with Connecticut voters. Ned gave them a viable, credible alternative. He motivated them to seek change and they responded. He also had money. That's huge. In fact, that's really the primary difference between what happened in Connecticut and what happened in Pennsylvania.
When Chuck Pennacchio began his Senate run here he didn't have the wealth to instantly pour a million dollars into his campaign. We were always operating in crisis financial mode. He couldn't keep staff because the funds weren't there to pay anyone. The lack of money prevented him from getting his message out to the mass of voters. Where he was successful doing so he ran well. All in all, I've seen little difference between Ned and Chuck, except for the money.
Lamont was able to hire professional staffers immediately. They began getting his message out immediately. The voters, hungry for a change (as in Pennsylvania) grasped his message and responded. This is the quandary of modern politics: to succeed you must either have money or access to it. Ordinary citizens cannot run for federal office and succeed. It's time to seriously examine the effects of this and consider alternatives. Several states have adopted Clean Elections practices.
Clean Elections is campaign finance reform that levels the playing field. It greatly reduces the reliance on access to large donors and the obligations that accompany that money. When someone gives you $12,000, as Richard Mellon Scaife did for Mike Folmer (and that was just through his PAC, it doesn't count his personal contributions which were substantial), there's a price attached. It means Mike Folmer has to vote the way Scaife wants him to vote. When the NRA supports Bob Regola it means we don't get common sense gun safety laws passed and children and police officers die.
The money corrupts the system. It corrupts the politicians. It also means candidates must spend most of their time raising money instead of talking directly with voters. How many of you have actually been to an event for a Congressional, Senate, or Gubernatorial candidate this year? And we're, for the most part, the political junkies, people heavily involved. The average voter will never meet Ed Rendell, Bob Casey, or their Congressional candidate this year.
It's time for change. Vote for change.
In Connecticut and elsewhere recently, the netroots and bloggers (the air campaign) created awareness, raised money, motivated volunteers to go get involved, and kept the rest informed of events on the ground. The volunteers provided the boots on the ground. Many of them went as a result of the netroots efforts and many kept up to date on events through the blogs.
A ton of bloggers were on the ground Monday and Tuesday reporting directly on the campaigns. They broke the actual story of Joe's website shenanigans, a story media outlets like CNN completely botched.
Another lesson from Connecticut is how important the website and email are to a modern campaign. The Lieberman camp never grasped this until their grossly inadequate site crashed. It had little traffic previously because they never understood the importance of new, fresh content. If you want people to visit your website you need to give them a reason to return. That means providing something new. Provide something they want and/or need. Go look at Ned Lamont's website. It has a blog which fosters interaction and discussion, it has material to download, it's constantly kept up to date. In short, it's a model for what a modern campaign website must be.
The chief reasons Lamont won were he was where the voters were on the issues. Joe Lieberman was out of touch and out of sync with Connecticut voters. Ned gave them a viable, credible alternative. He motivated them to seek change and they responded. He also had money. That's huge. In fact, that's really the primary difference between what happened in Connecticut and what happened in Pennsylvania.
When Chuck Pennacchio began his Senate run here he didn't have the wealth to instantly pour a million dollars into his campaign. We were always operating in crisis financial mode. He couldn't keep staff because the funds weren't there to pay anyone. The lack of money prevented him from getting his message out to the mass of voters. Where he was successful doing so he ran well. All in all, I've seen little difference between Ned and Chuck, except for the money.
Lamont was able to hire professional staffers immediately. They began getting his message out immediately. The voters, hungry for a change (as in Pennsylvania) grasped his message and responded. This is the quandary of modern politics: to succeed you must either have money or access to it. Ordinary citizens cannot run for federal office and succeed. It's time to seriously examine the effects of this and consider alternatives. Several states have adopted Clean Elections practices.
Clean Elections is campaign finance reform that levels the playing field. It greatly reduces the reliance on access to large donors and the obligations that accompany that money. When someone gives you $12,000, as Richard Mellon Scaife did for Mike Folmer (and that was just through his PAC, it doesn't count his personal contributions which were substantial), there's a price attached. It means Mike Folmer has to vote the way Scaife wants him to vote. When the NRA supports Bob Regola it means we don't get common sense gun safety laws passed and children and police officers die.
The money corrupts the system. It corrupts the politicians. It also means candidates must spend most of their time raising money instead of talking directly with voters. How many of you have actually been to an event for a Congressional, Senate, or Gubernatorial candidate this year? And we're, for the most part, the political junkies, people heavily involved. The average voter will never meet Ed Rendell, Bob Casey, or their Congressional candidate this year.
It's time for change. Vote for change.
posted by PA progressive @ Friday, August 11, 2006
<< Home