website statistics

Archive for the 'Blog Consultants' Category

Four Blogs, Two Candidates and One Year Later

Balloon Juice, The Daily Dish, MyDD and Taylor Marsh

Three’s a trend, and this is Blog P.I.’s third post in a row leaning on juxtapositions; this time, the subject of two posts from late 2006 and early 2007 have converged in a way I certainly couldn’t have imagined at the time. Both were about bloggers’ attitudes toward the presidential campaign then still taking shape, and if one can make any definitive predictions in politics, it’s that you can never make definitive predictions about the future. And this is all the more true on the morning after the primaries in North Carolina and Indiana.

  • In October ‘06 it was The Agony and the Apostasy, about the leftward drift of two well-known (onetime) conservative bloggers, Andrew Sullivan and John Cole. Sullivan claims to believe everything today that he believed in the early 2000s, but the day-to-day effect of his blogging is pretty much the opposite. Cole has gone from a Republican supporter of the Iraq war to a sarcastic critic of all things Republican.
  • Then in January 2007, Hillary in Blogistan: On Blogads, the Netroots and Peter Daou, a lengthy reported piece about the Internet advertising campaign directed by Daou, coinciding with the official launch of Clinton’s presidential bid. That post also explored Nevada blogger Taylor Marsh’s incensed reaction to being excluded from the original ad buy. This post also referred to MyDD as “one of the leading anti-Hillary sites on the left.”

So how much does a year change? Quite a bit. The 2006 post wondered about which way the two apostates would break in the 2008 race:

It seems plausible that Sullivan and Cole could support a Republican for president alongside their erstwhile compatriots, but probably not until after the primary is decided.

My answer, hedging as it was, does not seem to have stood the test of time.

  • In the year and a half since, Sullivan has moved his blog from Time to The Atlantic and, in concert with his recent criticism of the Republican Party and conservative movement overall, he has become one of the most prominent supporters of Barack Obama. So much so that The Atlantic published a December cover essay by Sullivan presumptuously titled “Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters.” On the Republican side, Sullivan had preferred McCain over the runners-up, in large part based on McCain’s opposition to the Bush administration’s torture/interrogation policies. Of course, Obama holds the same opinion. Sullivan was no doubt pleased with last night’s results in North Carolina and Indiana, but one cannot escape the sense that he’ll miss the Clintons.
  • Cole, meanwhile, has become an even more constant, if not more ardent, supporter of Obama’s candidacy. Like Sullivan a former 1990s conservative, he acquired no later appreciation for Hillary Clinton. And like Sullivan, he now sees her worse attributes similar to what he doesn’t like about the modern Republican party. He remains a member of the Pajamas Media advertising network which is run and largely populated by right-of-center blogs such as Instapundit and Protein Wisdom. But now he’s also been using the Democrat-oriented ActBlue website to raise money for Obama (and Obama alone) which probably makes him the only blog simultaneously affiliated with both Pajamas Media and ActBlue. As for the primary results, Cole was exultant, apparently staying up most of the night blogging the results.

Clearly, neither are rejoining the Republican camp anytime soon. More interesting, though, is what’s happened with Taylor Marsh and MyDD.

  • At the time, Marsh was leaning strongly toward Edwards and was unimpressed by Clinton. But regardless of her displeasure with the Clinton campaign’s ad buy, barely two months later she had changed her mind and made the case for Clinton. Even before then, her site had started to turn anti-Obama, especially after he dissed her home state by skipping an AFSCME-sponsored presidential forum in Carson City. Since then, she has been one of the most ardent pro-Clinton bloggers and one of the most committed Democratic opponents of Obama. And only just this morning, with the primary results clear, is Marsh shifting again: recognizing that Clinton cannot win, she will oppose John McCain without making the case for Obama.
  • Meantime, MyDD has undergone even bigger changes than the other three. In this case it wasn’t a change of mind, but a change of bloggers: in July of last year, the two principal authors, Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller, decamped for an entirely new website: Open Left. Their new blog has now become a new leading anti-Hillary site, as MyDD once was. Meanwhile, MyDD has shifted back to reflecting the opinion of the site’s original founder, Jerome Armstrong. Armstrong stepped up his own blogging and brought in a new contributor, pro-Hillary Todd Beeton. Armstrong had previously been a consultant to Mark Warner, former governor of (and all-but-guaranteed future senator from) Virginia, but since he exited the presidential race more than a year ago, Armstrong has become an unflinching proponent of Hillary Clinton. So much so, in fact, that it has been the source of conflict between Armstrong and his former co-author Markos Moulitsas, to say nothing of the wider leftosphere. Today, Armstrong is sounding a little more apathetic than Marsh, merely affirming that the Clinton campaign has the right to continue on.

Taken as a whole, the four websites defy categorization, dissimilar in cause and effect, except in that their content has changed dramatically over time. And I am sure that whether McCain or Obama takes the oath of office next January, I don’t want to make any predictions about which candidates each site will be supporting in 2012.

There are Two Things Wrong With this Picture

F7 with Huckabee and Romney and Obama

If the question doesn’t make sense, then read this:

At Rightroots, we have built a way for Republicans to rally behind their new nominee right out of the gate. We’re asking all Republicans to donate online to the new nominee next Thursday, February 7th. …

On February 7th, we’ll set up a page on Rightroots for you to give to the nominee and show you our community’s results in real time. …

If the nominee is McCain, we still have to do this. His campaign especially is running on fumes financially, but they’ve shown they can be effective with an even a small amount of money.

You can’t read the fine print on the screen shot above (well, you could if you squinted) but here’s what’s relevant:

The Super Tuesday primaries are over and February 7th is here. On Tuesday, Senator John McCain established himself as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, with Governor Mitt Romney and Governor Mike Huckabee winning primaries and caucuses throughout the nation.

Please give generously to the major Republican candidates who remain active contenders for the nomination…

It’s fair to point out that Romney did not officially suspend his campaign until a few hours after the page went live, but it’s also fair to point out that by February 6, McCain was the only realistic nominee. Also fair, Romney was still there as of the last revision of this post. My own initial coverage of the February 7 effort was quite favorable, so I would be derelict if I failed to follow up and say that anyone who bought into the initial pitch — let alone gave money — should feel misled.

The February 7th Sign or: Stop This Train, I Want to Get On

Patrick Ruffini has announced a new Rightroots-branded initiative called February7.org. The premise is simple: Republicans are likely to have a presumptive nominee by the morning after the morning after Super Tuesday (Tsunami Tuesday for you First Read fanboys and girls). This primary has not been as ugly as the Democrats’, but it has been ideologically dispiriting, mostly featuring candidates who fell short of conservative ideals. An early fundraising push could help rally the GOP while the Democrats are still fighting amongst themselves.

That nominee is most likely to be John McCain, while Ruffini has switched his support from “Rudy to Romney,” as he put it Tuesday night. Therefore, the most likely scenario is he will have to grudgingly switch again in about a week. If the move is a painful one for many, better then to get it over with. But there’s more to it, as he explains in the announcement on his own site:

You can probably tell that I have strong views about this nomination contest. Win or lose, I’m equally convinced of the importance of getting behind the eventual winner. A nation at war cannot afford Hillary or Obama in the White House. …

Beyond just showing support for our nominee, we’re doing this to help solve a concrete strategic problem for our Party during the month of February.

The simple fact is that when it comes to contributions from others, our candidates are broke. They’ve spent it all on Florida. No one is up on TV in any February 5th state, while Hillary and Obama have money to burn (I saw Clinton ads in California last weekend). Based on the fact that they have money to play with and have held a fundraising advantage throughout the cycle, there is a chance they could start pummeling our candidate with negative ads right away.

If we fundraise the same old traditional way — with fundraising events and direct mail early and banking on Internet enthusiasm late — we will lose. There is no way we’ll be able to get the money when and where we need it. On the Internet in particular, contributions come in late, often too late for the money to be spent effectively. We’re hoping to help frontload some of this money so that the candidate can use it against Hillary/Obama right away. When it comes to giving, early is the new late.

Well said. But for my money, the best part of the website is that one can toggle between “Stop Hillary” and “Stop Obama,” not unlike a blog that lets you change the background color:

Stop Hillary at February7.org             Stop Obama at February7.org

Please notice that no “Stop Edwards” version was created.

P.S. I first heard about this through a Twitter account Ruffini set up last week: Twitter.com/February7. I followed the account back, but of 111 users Ruffini followed, only 13 followed it back. That 11.7% rate would be terrific if it was direct mail, but it isn’t that. Twitter marketing has been the focus of much discussion over the past year, but here is some evidence that the medium strongly favors established personalities — Ruffini is one, but @February7 is not. And setting up new Twitter accounts is fun, but not all that effective.

To Boldly GOP Where No… The Blog on the Edge of… Sorry, I Got Nothing

Via Buzz Brockway on Twitter and Peach Pundit, artwork from a new article in Campaigns and Elections:

Campaigns & Elections artwork featuring Erick Erickson, David All, Patrick Ruffini and Rob Bluey in Star Trek uniforms

A hearty congrats to all featured, and I think my colleague the Virginia delegate to QandO may be quoted in the piece. Yet the pay wall leaves me wondering. As a resister of all things Star Trek (and sympathizer with K-Lo at The Corner on this) I’m not sure if I should be envious; Matt Lewis’s Town Hall commenters are pretty harsh, and not just the Ronulans.

But the article isn’t public, so I can’t judge for myself, nor can bloggers or their commentariats. C&E publishes much of its content on the website, but right now there is a little C&E dollar icon symbol next to the one article that’s actually about bloggers. Who are the ad wizards at C&E who came up with this one?

I also wonder if the falling out between David and Erick (and others) from a few months back gets any inches. My guess is not, and even if I’m wrong, it makes me think it’s too bad Wonkette doesn’t report on its city’s industry in the same depth as Valleywag (retooled in early 2007) or even Gawker (retooling, but not pulled).

Certainly the Beltway and the District is as much a company town as the Silicon Valley/Palo Alto, so where’s the 100-word-version? Someone, please, quote the key grafs in a blog post. Make it so.

And to tell the truth, I probably watched ST:TNG on afternoon television for at least thee years in middle school.

Update: I have now read the article, and I am pleasantly surprised that the kerfuffle noted above is indeed covered, and that author Walter Alarkon even used the word “kerfuffle.” Aside from the annoying Star Trek motif and an embarrassingly lame pull quote, the article does a reasonably good job of explaining the current challenges Republican web strategists face. If the piece brings a wider awareness to these issues, it’ll have done all it needs to.

You can read the article here in the original layout; thanks to Theodora in the comments for bringing it to my attention. Still, the snazzy NXTbook software (which doesn’t even live on the C&E page) features no plain text, so it’s next to invisible to search engines. Likewise, it doesn’t let you copy and paste, so it’s next to useless for blogging.

Updated again: In the comments, it has been pointed out that there is an XML page running in the background, so it’s not a total SEO disaster. Meanwhile, Rob Bluey is weighing in…

I wasn’t going to post it, but I feel the need to set the record straight. For starters, I hate Star Trek.

Why Buy the Book When You Can Get the Blog for Free?

The number of books about the political blogosphere climbs ever upward, and today I see that yet another is on the way, from Democratic Virginia blogger-consultants Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox. The book won’t be out until the middle of 2008, but Feld announced it in a post on Raising Kaine last night. It’s called “Netroots Rising: How a Citizen Army of Bloggers and Online Activists Is Changing American Politics,” and it’s already listed on Amazon:

Netroots Rising by Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox, as seen on Amazon

Wait. I think I need to do an exaggerated double-take, for comic effect:

Netroots Rising by Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox, as seen on Amazon

Forty bucks? What is this, a college-level textbook? A coffee table book? Merely oversized? Is it 800 pages? I buy enough books that my Amazon Prime account pays for itself, and I can’t remember the last time I shelled out this much for a book that wasn’t out-of-print.

For comparison, here are the Amazon listings for other recent (though indeed they are all recent) books about politics and the Internet:

Political blog books by Garrett Graff, Matt Bai, Glenn Reynolds, Markos Moulitsas, Jerome Armstrong and Hugh Hewitt

These aren’t all new, and they’re not all hardcover. But you’ll see that the two released this fall — the tomes by Graff and Bai — are indeed hardback, and with Amazon discounts they cost less than half of “Netroots Rising.”

It is certainly the kind of book I would be inclined to buy. I bought most of the books listed above, mostly from Amazon, and mostly when they were brand new. But at forty bucks, I may just have to apply for a library card.

Rightroots, Big Red Tent and Slatecard: An Assessment

Logos for Slatecard, Rightroots and Big Red Tent

Online fundraising startups are a longstanding interest of Blog P.I. In our year and a half, we’ve devoted more than a few posts to the subject, including the progressive, Democrat-supporting ActBlue, the conservative, Republican-aligned newcomer ABC PAC/Rightroots, attendant security issues and flawed coverage often (but not exclusively) in the Washington Post. The last time I wrote about it, Rightroots had relaunched, and two similar Republican fundraising startups — Big Red Tent and Slatecard — were announced and on the way shortly.

Now, all three have been up for more than a month, which I think is enough time to make an early comparative assessment.

For those playing at home: Rightroots is a reboot of the ABC PAC/Rightroots slate that saw a trial run fairly late in the 2006 cycle, controlled by McCain adviser Becki Donatelli, former Giuliani Patrick Ruffini and Mike Turk, an outside adviser to the Thompson campaign. Big Red Tent is an outside-the-beltway venture by a pair of Austin, Texas web consultants Ryan Gravatt and Brad Jackson. Slatecard is the brainchild primarily of ubiquitous DC Internet guy David All and web developer Sendhil Panchadsaram (who strangely has no website that I can find).

Last weekend, I signed up for each one and made some nominal contributions. Since then, I’ve continued poking and prodding. I thought about putting together an elaborate chart comparing their features side-by-side. Perhaps in a future post I will, but for now, but I don’t think that gives as clear a picture of what I thought about them. Instead, this post collects my observations, with screen captures. It’s a long one, so I’ve tucked the rest of this post below the fold. Follow me…

Continue reading ‘Rightroots, Big Red Tent and Slatecard: An Assessment’

The Modern Age

Update: Looks like I’m Twittering it instead. Twitter — live-blogging that works.

It’s been slow around here, since I have been pretty busy, but I should have some interesting posts later this week — as tomorrow I’ll be attending the Modern Media Strategies workshop (not to be confused with New Media Strategies) at the Heritage Foundation, made possible by Rob Bluey and David All, among others, and co-sponsored by Google. I won’t promise to live-blog it — I tend to think that live-blogging is not all that interesting — but I should have some thoughts on it afterward.

Until then, here is my latest favorite toy based on my other latest favorite toy:

Blog P.I. on the iPhone

But I will have my laptop and digital camera handy, so there is a chance I will live-blog it. We’ll see what happens.

Fundraising Awareness

Earlier in the week Matthew Mosk, a political reporter for the Washington Post, posted to Post.com’s The Trail an arguably unhelpful and inarguably un-insightful post about the disparate fates of the best-known online fundraising apparatuses (apparati?) of Democrats and Republicans:

Democratic candidates for federal office have seen more than $25 million come through the web site ActBlue — some of which will eventually flow to the Democratic National Committee for use during the general election. Republicans, meanwhile, have seen just a tiny ripple of activity on the ABC PAC web site — $385 raised for the presidential candidates to date — which is supposed to be ActBlue’s direct competition.

Sure, at one time it was supposed to be. But as this blog and other blogs have pointed out, it’s never had the kind of support such that it should actually be spoken of in the same sentence. Not to mention that several journalists, including Mosk’s colleague Chris Cillizza, have (apparently ignorantly) misrepresented what ActBlue means to different Democratic candidates.

Mosk’s brief report is of a piece with this, not knowing or bothering to differentiate between the two websites. Is it fair to point out that Democrats are doing better with their independent online fundraising tools? Absolutely. Is it fair to compare ActBlue’s total fundraising figures over three cycles compared to ABC’s (admittedly underwhelming) year in existence? Not without explaining the situation, it’s not.

But it gets worse:

Now there is a new effort to change that. R. Rebecca Donatelli, a pioneer of Internet fundraising who help raise some of the nation’s first online dollars for John McCain in 2000, has revealed she and partner Michael Palmer are working on a new, and she hopes improved, version of ABC PAC to launch this fall. While she continues to work on behalf of McCain, she said she is optimistic the improvements to ABC PAC will help all of the Republican candidates. Given the numbers they are posting on the site right now, it would be tough to make things worse.

This “new effort,” as Mosk doesn’t adequately explain, is a second go at the same operation by the same person responsible for ABC’s ineffectiveness. Worse, though, Mosk is apparently unaware of other new ventures by GOP activists in the same space. Even before Mosk’s posting, there were two new efforts gearing up to do same thing:

Both sites have yet to prove themselves, sure. But considering that Mr. Mosk was moved to write a post about ABC PAC, isn’t this worth an correction? Or better yet — another post?

Open Season

Last week Ari Melber from The Nation asked me to comment on the prospects for Open Left, a new blog from Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller, which launched on Monday. Accepting my fate as a known critic (and risking the “concern troll” label), I willingly responded with my predictions for the site. Melber was just looking for a quote to illustrate his column, but today he’s posted the entire exchange at Personal Democracy Forum. Here’s a sample:

Whatever happens to Open Left, it won’t be like HotSoup. [AP Reporter Ron] Fournier and company had no idea what to do with an online community or even how to build a website and no clear idea who their audience was. These guys don’t have that problem. I think the better analogy is HuffPo — that website is very successful, but it’s not quite what Arianna originally envisioned. The netroots will come to the table, and probably so will the offline activist orgs. Campaign professionals, not so much.

Not enough for you? See the whole thing here. For my thoughts on the (apparently defunct) disaster called HotSoup, see here.

If You Want Something Done Right…

A big story of the 2008 cycle will be how the GOP catches up to the Democrats in online organizing — or how it doesn’t. That the left has a more effective online infrastructure and activist network scarcely needs demonstrating, but whether the Republican party realizes that this matters is an open question. In fact, it’s not even clear that most conservative bloggers realize this. Since the beginning, conservative blogging has been marked more by punditry than activism — 9/11 was the starting point for the right-blogosphere, compared to Howard Dean for its counterpart — and most are content to keep on doing just that.

But there is a growing realization, in some quarters, that they need an answer to the Dem-leaning netroots, and that it won’t happen by itself. This is exemplified by a recent diary user-submitted blog entry — “The Difference Between Daily Kos and Red State (hint: Not favorable to Red State)” — asking whether conservative bloggers would organize to support a candidate for retiring Rep. Marty Meehan’s Massachusetts seat:

This is why the Left Netroots are killing us. They actually mobilize and work to get their candidates elected. Whereas on most Conservative sites, all you get is the same-o same-o. … The Dems and Left Netroots have no fear of supporting (quite strongly) candidates in the reddest of seats. We need to contest this special election.

The commenters were certainly responsive, and it’ll be interesting to see if they actually carry through. As of now, Republican bloggers have no game plan and few connections to state and local parties. Their predicament resembles that of the Democratic netroots circa 2003 — and they famously went oh-and-something before backing a slate of winning candidates in 2006.

All of which raises several interesting questions, most of which I’m not prepared to analyze here. But the thread following the post raises a few. One is whether the online right is willing to make ideological concessions in the name of winning seats. Here’s one comment to that effect, from the blogger behind My Election Analysis:

For all their many, many faults, Kossacks are actually willing to accept a significant amount of ideological diversity in their caucus to win these types of districts. This is actually one of Kos’s main points. Stephanie Herseth has a lifetime ACU of 49. That’s in the range of Arlen Specter’s rating, but they would never dream of primary-ing Herseth with someone from the far left of the party. Sure they primaried Lieberman in blue Connecticut, but they wisely let the Nelsons (lifetime ACU 53 (NE) and 41 (FL)) of the world have a pass. If a Republican is going to win this seat, he or she is going to have to be a fairly liberal Republican. There is simply no way that a pro-lifer or a candidate who isn’t pro-civil-unions at least is going to win a federal election here. And he or she will probably have to be a Christie Whitman wishy-washy personality overall. But are we really going to tolerate them, or are we going to have a Club For Growth candidate challenging them after their first term?

That is an excellent question; after all, it was only a few months ago they were going about unseating liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee (and hounding the NRSC for supporting him).

This leads to another question: The Dem-leaning netroots have a much more contentious relationship with their party’s existing operatives than do the nascent rightroots (aside: eventually today’s netroots should be called the “leftroots” and “netroots” can become a catch-all term for online political activists, but we’re not there yet). But if online Republicans do step up and ask for a bigger voice in their party’s campaigns, will there be similar acrimony to what happens on the left? Here’s R.E. Finch, in the thread:

I’ve harped. I’ve cajoled. Last January, I worked for a couple of weeks to develop a really sharp template proposal for a Conservative-based netroots program, then tailored it to the needs of some GOP candidates. I had it looked over by some of my more campaign-savvy associates, then tweaked it and pitched it. What happened? … [T]his idea was a non-starter. I sensed a strong aversion on the part of the GOP apparatus to engage any people-intensive tool over which it cannot exercise complete control. The thought of adding a netroots coordination section to a GOP campaign plan scares some of these people in a herding-cats sort of way. Maybe right now that isn’t an unreasonable position to take. … But for the long-term I doubt the GOP can shun coming up with its own ways to use this new medium’s people resources to its advantage.

Surprising? Not hardly, especially if you take Mike Turk’s experiences with Bush-Cheney ‘04 and the RNC into account. Maybe it won’t be acrimony per se — for example, it’s hard to imagine Erick Erickson and NR getting into it like Markos Moulitsas and TNR — but estrangement instead. That’s the status quo, and there are few signs of change ahead.

Ultimately, it may be up to Finch, the RedStaters and their allies to take on Internet party-building projects themselves; the Republican establishment will only “get it” once everything has been done for them. That seems to be David All’s conclusion:

I continue to read about the success of ActBlue, and I’m tired of waiting for something to emerge organically which will help our guys out in the field. If you’re interested in being a part of a Republican counter-part, send me an email. I will head up the development/implementation effort if you will financially support its development. Only serious replies. We don’t have much time.

It’s a start, maybe. Republican bloggers can build an infrastructure without Republican consultants. But that brings us to another question: Can they do it without Republican money?