weaving the dean into the front
I've had so many exchanges in email and offline about the role the Internet is playing in this election, and I continue to be struck by the will of many to believe that it matters not at all.
But let's remember this: We're about to see an amazing shift in passion and attention in this Democratic Primary. To those who insist the Internet matters not at all, what explains this?
The issue is not how many people you have on your mailing list; the issue is how many are writing and persuading and building a community around your candidacy. One candidate has done that bettter than anyone else. Congratulations, Governor. Whether or not this is how campaigns should be run, it is exactly how elections should be won.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (16)
Professor Lessig, have you given any thought to joining the Dean campaign? You should be his technology czar and help form copyright and technology policy! I want to see you making policy with the good doctor!
I've been intrigued by Dean's campaign blog for some time and by the interconnection between his audience there and the favorable image he has among MoveOn.org members. Given the attention his blog has received, I'm somewhat surprsied that other candidates haven't followed his lead.
here, here... I'll register another vote for being (or suggesting) a technology czar for Dean. That could be a great move considering no one has done it this early in the campaign... (and that Prf. Lessig would be a fine choice, as well).
"... it matters not at all"? Myself, I wouldn't go that far.
It matters less than people who live and breath the Net for a living think it does? I'd say that's an important lesson to keep in mind (and I write the preceding as one of those people)
I'm very skeptical about campaign fundraising hype. One bump does not a win make.
Oh, another vote for "Lessig for Technology Advisor". Good for the campaign, good for you, and practically no work involved but some speechifying - go for it :-).
Come on Lessig -- get on board. :)
Seth, scepticism is always necessary, but what happened this week was truly unprecidented. The Dean campaign raised almost $4 million dollars online in a WEEK from grassroots small donors. You're right -- he needs to prove this wasn't a bump. But it certainly got everyone's attention.
I agree that the Net is important, and win or lose, Dean is helping the eventual Dem nominee (likely Kerry or Edwards) because they will inherit this great operation in the general election.
Anything which comes from a campaign press-release is an immediate red flag to me. I've seen far too much "The Internet!!!!" hype in my life. I have a sneaking suspicion that there's more to the story than we've been told, as there almost always is. Perhaps some contributions have been "bundled" from large organizations somehow.
Dean seems to be a decent guy, don't get me wrong. But finding angles to generate hype and buzz is what campaign managers are supposed to do.
Dean looked really bad on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago, fumbling with answers and looking uninformed on foreign policy. Republican analysts were chuckling and pronounced him a new McGovern who'd they be more than happy to run against. Of course it's early days yet and Dean does seem a decent guy. But Joe Lieberman is also a decent guy, and as the Establishment candidate he's got to be the favorite for winning the nomination at this point.
No matter who the Democrats ultimately come up with, I'm afraid Bush will eat their lunch. He's got the most money and all the friends in business, and that's what matters these days in America.
It's not a campaign press release. It's 59,000 individual contributors with an average contribution well below $200 (unless the campaign is lying, and we'll find that out on June 15). Having that many donors to an underdog candidate 7 months before the first votes are cast is pretty significant.
Let's look at it this way: In the last week of the quarter, Dean made collected more donations than he collected in the entire first quarter (that was $2.6 million, btw). Dean raised more money online than Lieberman raised total, and like I said, these are not people cutting $2,000 checks.
Take a look at the campaign blog, and you'll see people who are really excited about this candidate. There's a reason for that. And it's translating into big bucks.
Lawrence Lessig for President! (Well, why not?)
It's 59,000 individual contributors with an average contribution well below
$200
This is exactly the sort of statement which says to me "Beware! Hype alert!". It's given without information to allow much of a comparison, as to what it does in fact mean. If what would be a $2,000 check is now done by PayPal, that's nice, even mildly innovative - but not indicative of anything new, except that people now send money using online payment systems, and it's wise for candidates to take advantage of that.
"Take a look at the campaign blog, and you'll see people who are really excited about this candidate."
I don't doubt it. Again, one of the best things that blogs do is generate talk.
I don't need to look very far to see people really excited about Libertarianism. And they get around 1/2 of 1% of the presidential vote. Let that be a cautionary tale about confusing talk with action.
Hey, please, but no thanks. I think Dean is brilliant and it is wonderful beyond belief to hear a candidate speak so clearly and powerfully about matters of truth and right. But I've spent my (recent) life writing things that would make sure I could and would never be eligible for anything political -- so I could write and think about what I think right.
So good luck to the Doctor and to everyone else who speaks truth clearly. But there is a place, I hope, for people who say what they believe, without fear about whether it will make it easier to
(1) get votes, (2) get clients, (3) get money.
The Dean campaign's use of the Internet goes beyond just fundraising and MeetUp organizing--they're using it, brilliantly, to launch a sort of "distributed media creation" (my clumsy term) initiative as well. Sort of the Internet revolution meets the digital-video revolution, another seismic shift that is ripe for exploitation.
The Dean campaign recognizes that supporters are good for more than just forwarding emails and sending in money--they have talent and other resources, too. A traditional campaign just sucks in money and considers volunteers to be flyer-handing-out machines (too reductive, I know--and I'm not knocking the value of canvassing). But if all of the video cameras, computers (for editing, Photoshop), weblogs and talent among all of the Dean supporters can be harnessed effectively, that will add an incredible amount of real $ value to the campaign--value that most campaigns to date utterly waste. I might not have much money to give Dean right now, but I CAN offer him shooting and video-editing services for which he'd pay tens of thousands the regular way.
They just announced an Assignment Desk to help try to organize these creative resources. This one innovation could change everything. "Become the media" has never felt less like a pipe dream.
(FYI, Dean MeetUp tonight, nationwide.)
Rob,
There's some interesting comments on Deans' Meet the Press appearance on www.dailyhowler.com, admittedly from a Dem partisan. Esp. interesting are the comparisons with the W's appearance in 2000.
Yes, sure, why not, a "technology czar" to work alongside the "drug czar" and "terror czar" and "security czar".
A lot of czars for one USSR... err... USA.
E-democracy is dangerous. It pulls us away from the street.
Backing a guy for saying the right stuff is the inevitable
outcome. And missing the guy who has it, and who does it.