Zack Exley, Kerry e-Campaign

The Left criticizes the Kerry campaign for being too top-down. But we strove to go after results that would actually move the vote or get more volunteers on the ground in an organized program that would persuade voters and get our Kerry voters. And we also strove to get more money so we could run ads. We raised $122M online. The vast majority didn’t come from discussion groups. We sent out emails, giving people reasons to give, or reasons to go volunteer. [Yeah, but IMO they should have let more air into the campaign. E.g., MeetUps are a great way to bring new voters into the campaign. This is an argument I have had with Zack more than once, and have lost every time.]

Dan Gillmor, newly self-unemployed

I’m horrified at how bad the media coverage of the campaign was.

We have used the Internet in campaigning, but we need to think about how we should use it for governance.

Interesting things are going on stemming from the notion that journalism is becoming a conversation. In the future, I hope we see much more of people throughout campaign coverage. I want to see prominent wikis in campaigns that cover every issue so we can get a deeper understanding of what candidates believe.

Sunshine Hillygus, Harvard

I’m going to play the role of curmudgeon and point to unintended consequences.

First, the Net has removed some hurdles to participation, but only for those who are politically motivated and interested. [Really? Scott Heiferman said that said 50% of meetup attendees were new to politics.] Also, the Net increases class bias in the electorate because you have to have a computer and interest.

Second, it increases polarization. People reinforce what they believe. And the anonymity lets you profess more extreme views.

Third, the Net has contributed the pressure on the mainstream media to produce faster, more scandalous, lower cost news. They are pressured to report on things that have not been verified.

Chuck DeFeo, e-campaign manager for Bush-Cheney

Our campaign was 1:1 marketing, viral marketing. [The electorate isn’t a market!] We were most interested in building community in geographic space. E.g., “Parties for the President,” modeled a lot off of what MeetUp did. These were like MeetUps in your home. And our “Walk the Vote” and “Neighbor to Neighbor” programs. When you signed up, we pinpointed undecided voters near you. In a typical campaign, you’re bused to a part of town where you don’t know anyone. Instead, you could do it on your own time, talking to your neighbors. That’s a much more powerful statement. This helps to build networks of people for future elections, including local ones.

Q: Why did the Bush campaign turn off international access to their web site?

Chuck: In the final weeks, it was more important to get our message out to the electorate.

[A ruckus occurs because Chuck won’t say why allowing international access would prevent American access. Zack says, “He doesn’t want to say it, but they were hacked.” Chuck denies it, but won’t answer why they shut off access. Dan asks if they were afraid of a denial of service attack. Chuck repeats the same canned phrase. It was bullshit.]

Chuck: We had three missions: Raise money, get out Bush’s message, and empower our constituency.

[Zack lightly refers to that last mission as “hippie.”]

Q: Has the Net helped make the mainstream media’s coverage so dreadful?

Dan: The Net worries me because the news cycle is all the time. That puts pressure on the press to report fast but not well. I think the public service side of journalism is beginning to be abandoned. I don’t know how to fix this.

[Overall, what happened here was generally true of the day. This was a panel of fascinating people made less interesting because of the panel format. Too many panels! Not enough hallway time. I think I’m just not cut out for panels. But, tomorrow, it’s all open discussion. Looking forward to it. (Jarvis on the same topic.)]

Categories: Uncategorized dw