Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding the Scope of Participation

by Mike Connery, Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:22:48 PM EDT

I'm in the deep south (Mobile, AL) for a wedding this weekend, so forgive me if my posts are a little looser on the stats/research and heavier on the thematic riff.  It's a hell of a weekend to be partially out of pocket.  I share Shai's sentiments about Chris and Matt's departure, but the show must go on, and I hope I can do my part.  And if you haven't seen it, I don't have time to fully blog it this weekend, but check out CIRCLE's new analysis of 2006 youth turnout.

So today I want to riff a little on numbers 35-39 of my youth vote theses:

35. Culture is a progressive's natural advantage.  We should use it.
  1. 95% of the people in these constituencies won't ever care about politics as much as you do.
  2. Asking them to participate in hard core political actions (canvassing, phone banking, etc.) as their first introduction to politics is doomed to failure and low conversion rates.
  3. Politics must be made relevant to the life of a person if you want them to participate and make civic participation a habit.
  4. This means there must be a ladder of participation providing substantive involvement for people at multiple levels of engagement.

Culture is a progressive's natural advantage.  From Hollywood to Madison Avenue, the creative class leans heavily democratic.  Most often, that translates into money for campaigns, or a pretty face on the trail.  Rarely does it mean employing the natural talents of that segment of the base.  We see it when campaigns hire political consultants to manufacture stale, uninspiring ads while guys like Bill Hillsman get locked out.  This is as true on campus and among young professionals as it is among the "adults." Yet if you look at the work of someone like Michael Moore, or watch An Inconvenient Truth, creative use of media (old and new) can be one of our biggest assets.  Considering their media consumption habits and the growth of new outlets for that creative energy online, this is doubly true when reaching out to young people.

I don't mean to traffic in stereotypes - there are certainly exceptions to what I'm about to say - but in general, political involvement on campus and among young professionals typically draws membership from a specific type of person: (ex)poli-sci majors and aspiring politicians/staffers/policy wonks.  The volunteer and leadership opportunities in youth activism are similarly limited: donate money, canvass, phone bank.  

I fully understand that democratic youth groups are under enormous pressure to justify their existence to the party and to political operatives.  That means they need to quantify their work and produce tangible results: voters registered and GOTV'd; doors knocked and phone calls made.  Volunteer efforts are generally focused like a laser on producing the highest numbers possible in those categories.  But that leaves a lot of people who (understandably) don't want to participate in those activities out of the Party.

It doesn't have to be that way, and I worry that by not reaching out and involving these folks while they are young, we're making more work for ourselves (and shooting ourselves in the foot creatively) further down the line.  These lost volunteers have a lot to offer, and Democratic youth groups, and the progressive movement generally, need to make an effort to expand the scope of what it means to volunteer to include the types of activities and talents that these other people who are left out can offer.

More after the jump.

Usually I talk about this in terms of "social" activism - membership in groups like Drinking Liberally, or voter registration at concerts.  But that's only part of the equation.  There are a lot of potential volunteers who can contribute beyond voter registration or participation in dual civic/social functions.  Graphic design students or young professionals can volunteer to make high quality materials.  Web designers can upgrade the many, many out of date websites.  Aspiring film makers can manufacture creative video like that by Phil de Velis or the folks at Barely Political.  There are folks on campus throwing kick-ass parties, but they're making deals with local bars and clubs, not working with the College Democrats.  

These skill sets and deliverables are just as valuable to young and old progressives as 20 phone bankers for a day.  They can help build a better brand (and let's face it, College Dems and Young Dems need a better brand among our peers) and reinvigorate politics for those who find it stale and uninspiring.  These people are resources just waiting to be tapped.  Getting one professional graphic designer as a volunteer can link you to a whole network of such folks who might be willing to lend a hand.  By building relationships with film and computer science departments on campus (instead of just the poli-sci dept.), you could create a steady stream of volunteers who can provide free, quality work(maybe even for-credit) that fill large gaps in the capacity of our youth organizations.

When we talk about the problems facing youth organizing, we typically speak of structural problems such as the lack of institutional knowledge (lists, best practices, etc), bad management, turf rivalries between competing youth groups, and lack of interest from the local party.  These are all big problems, to be sure, but let's not forget that narrowness of vision, and a limited view of what participation looks like is just as much a problem.  Let's be sure that in the rush to meet quotas and quantify our work we take time to look beyond the next election cycle and restructure our organizations to create room for many different types of people and many different forms of activism.  This is particularly true of the budding cultural creatives among us.  Rather than treat aspiring Hollywood and Madison Avenue or more indie types as ATMs to tap once they've attained success (or worse, apathetic because they don't want to cold call strangers), let's build strong ties with them now, while they are young, and maximize this natural advantage we have over conservatives.

I'd love to hear any stories from College or Young Democrats who have tried to build these relationships.  Success stories or failures; there's something to be learned from each.  

Tags: Culture, organizing, participation, youth vote (all tags)

  • 66 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Email
  • Permalink

Comments

66 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I'm off to the wedding, but I'll be back on tonight to respond to comments.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 12:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

The volunteer and leadership opportunities in youth activism are similarly limited: donate money, canvass, phone bank.

Mike - Great post.  

First off, as a former field organizer and someone who will always think in organization terms first and foremost, let's acknowledge that the reasons these forms of action are so wide-spread and available is because they require the largest number of individuals to be accomplished.  Secondly, let's note that the most effective way to turn out voters to the polls is by voter contact, so phone banking and canvassing are crucial to any campaign operation.  Field is critical.  Third, let me say that ALL volunteers are asked to do these tasks before they are asked to do anything else - that is not an age thing at all - it's a numbers thing.

What you point out though, is that young activists should not be limited to this.  That's absolutely true.  What's also true, at least based on my personal experience, is that they aren't.

There is always a void to be filled on campaigns; there is also always a lack of people to fill them. Individuals who step up and fill these voids are quickly snapped up and utilized.  My own path to a political career got started because I signed up to canvass for Kerry/Edwards in late 2004.  By election day I was running an entire field office's GOTV operation.  Making that move took less than 8 weeks.  

By March of 2006 I was employed by the DNC working as part of their internet team.  Certainly, not a job I expected to have back at the end of 2004, but I took the work I could get, moved around a lot to get experience and I found my niche...

These days, I'm on the other side of the fence - I'm the campaign staffer and not the volunteer  or entry level staffer, and what I see in campaigns that I've worked on, and that I've volunteered on is pretty much always the same - the folks who prove themselves on the phones or in the field, doing what could be considered menial work (but which I would argue is actually pretty critical), are noticed and they move up in the food chain.

This is a young person's business, but it's not an easy one.  But dedication and willingness to work hard are quickly rewarded.  I think I'm proof of that.  I think my friends who work in this business are proof of that too.  Young people are doing amazing work on campaigns - and doing a lot more than phones and doors.  They are also doing amazing work running progressive youth organizations, YDA has really been impressive the last few years, ForwardMontana continually amazes me - just to name my two favs.

The issue I think we need to address, as young professionals, is how we support each other and how we help each other move up the ladder.  There are a lot of great organizations, like DemocraticGAIN for one, that offer training, job lists and networking opportunities.  For women their is WIN, The Women's Information Network, which helps train and network young professionals in DC.  I know there are a lot of similar organizations in states and within different YDA/CDA organizations.  I think this is a crucial part of the equation.  If you want to start a career in politics, you've got to do your homework.  Like anything else, it's a business, and it's one that relies very strongly on relationships.  And learning how to find these networks isn't always all that apparent.  I know I spend a lot of time talking with newbies on campaigns or interns or volunteers and I try to help them make these types connections.  

I know I am where I am because I met people who did this for me, who helped me get the lay of the land and who showed me the ropes. I fell into this business, so maybe my story is a little bit odd.  I never aspired for the career I had when I was in college - but regardless of that, it didn't take me long to get the career I wanted once I discovered how much I love doing what I do.

So I would ask, to other young professionals or young people who want to be political professionals, what organizations, resources have others found helpful on their path.  Or, if none have been helpful to you yet, what information do you need?  

by Tracy Joan 2007-06-16 01:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

Field organization is so important.

My own experience came in 2002, when I worked field for a Congressional campaign in Eastern Indiana.  Getting people involved is so critical, and a huge impediment that we have is that candidates build up organizations and tear them down at the end of each election cycle.  If you see my post below, I'd like to se a real rebirth of the party as a democratic organization.  And for the party organization to be well integrated with other social organizations so that there isn't a huge disconnect between politics and people's lives.  The Bowling Alone hypothesis (Putnam) comes into play here, the decline of social capital has made America a harsh place where the social glue that encourages people to be good to one another has disintegrated.

Continuing organization is very important.  The outsourcing of field work has done huge damage to grassroots organizing within the party, but I see a role for something like a cooperative organization owned by the employees contracting out workers to Democratic campaigns and other progressive organizations.  Doing this would allow field organizers to have health insurance, and semi-stable employment.  I'm talking about organization like the screen actors or building trades where you have the labor organization (in this case a cooperative) contracting out field staff.  So this way you can take the boom and bust out of field work that affects the young college graduates who go into this kind of work.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-16 02:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

> Field organization is so important.

I would really like to see some proof of this.  Due to utter disgust with the current situation my spouse volunteered a considerable amount of time in 2004 and 2006 for both local and national campaigns - the first time in her life she had ever done anything like that.  Unlike me she is very good at talking to and bonding with people.  She was assigned to large amounts of canvassing and phonebanking.  In her opinion, the net effect was either zero or less than zero (many people told her that if they received one more Kerry call they were going to vote for Bush as revenge).  The gotv work she did on Election Days was perhaps marginally effective - but only marginally.

As I said I really question the effectiveness of these 1860s campaign tactics in the TVized, suburban world of the oughts.  And I think there should be a real hard look at it before dumping in more resources.

sPh

by sphealey 2007-06-17 05:31PM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

read get out the vote and the yale studies.  this is pretty established, based on real research and the examination of results.  one of the things i have trouble with about democrats is that they don't spend enough energy doing post-election analysis (republicans spend up to four months after even year elections doing this)...

by bored now 2007-06-17 06:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

Here's another study

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/pdfs/king_nic kerson_2005.pdf

by adamterando 2007-06-17 09:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

So I lied.  I'm still around in my hotel room for about another 15 minutes.  The time change between NY and AL keeps sucker punching me.

A few thoughts:

First off, as a former field organizer and someone who will always think in organization terms first and foremost, let's acknowledge that the reasons these forms of action are so wide-spread and available is because they require the largest number of individuals to be accomplished.  Secondly, let's note that the most effective way to turn out voters to the polls is by voter contact, so phone banking and canvassing are crucial to any campaign operation.  Field is critical.

No disagreement here.

Third, let me say that ALL volunteers are asked to do these tasks before they are asked to do anything else - that is not an age thing at all - it's a numbers thing.
...
the folks who prove themselves on the phones or in the field, doing what could be considered menial work (but which I would argue is actually pretty critical), are noticed and they move up in the food chain.

Not to be crass, but I guess my point is that this is fucked up and needs to be reevaluated.  Volunteers should be given tasks tailored to their interests and skills.  Yeah, field is the beast that must be fed, but if you get a guy who can/wants to design you hot materials for your canvassing or events, but has no interest in personally canvassing, and all you offer him is that job knocking on doors because he's got to "prove himself," or "work his way up," you've lost him and his unique skill set.  We need to make room for those folks, and I'd argue that on campus and in other youth orgs, we should find ways to actively seek out those types of people and include them in our work.

I think I'm in a pretty good place within the progressive movement.  I've got the opportunity to blog here on MyDD on the weekends, I run my own blog, which does pretty well, and I've got a good gig at a social justice organization.  I've only worked field twice in my life.  I worked for NYPIRG after college for two weeks and then quit, and I canvassed 1 day for Howard Dean in New Hampshire.  Neither had any impact on where I am today.  And quite honestly, if my place in progressive politics had relied on my working a phone bank or canvassing, I would not be where I am today.

I got here because other options were available to me that called on my specific skillsets and interests.  I worked GOTV/Registration at concerts.  I've written materials that others have used to canvass and talk to voters.  And I've done a lot of blogging and online community building.

I know lots of other folks - graphic designers, coders, even film makers, whose involvement in politics had nothing to do with working field.  And that's a good thing because these folks are all great, talented assets to the movement but they wouldn't be with us today if they had to phone bank and door knock their way up the ladder.

The issue I think we need to address, as young professionals, is how we support each other and how we help each other move up the ladder.  There are a lot of great organizations, like DemocraticGAIN for one, that offer training, job lists and networking opportunities.  For women their is WIN, The Women's Information Network, which helps train and network young professionals in DC.  I know there are a lot of similar organizations in states and within different YDA/CDA organizations.  I think this is a crucial part of the equation.  If you want to start a career in politics, you've got to do your homework.  Like anything else, it's a business, and it's one that relies very strongly on relationships.  And learning how to find these networks isn't always all that apparent.  I know I spend a lot of time talking with newbies on campaigns or interns or volunteers and I try to help them make these types connections.  

All great and valid points - but really for another post.  I've discussed professionalization with you somewhat in this exchange, but in my post what I'm talking about is volunteer work.  Getting folks on campuses or early in their careers to contribute their work for free to help  out college and youth organizations that have limited resources to hire staff.  I think we need to lift our eyes up from field long enough to figure out how we can incorporate them into our work.

I really believe that culture and cultural creatives are some of the biggest assets we have.  We should figure out how to maximize their value and place in our daily work.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 02:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

Yes.  Absolutely.  However, I'm saying is that there aren't always enough tasks for every creative type.   So you go with the folks who have proven themselves.

I think you could also argue that crappy field lit or websites are evidence that there is a place for people to do something more suited to their interests.  And if that is true - then just do it, prove yourself that way.

Look at the YearlyKos organization - that's a group that has really mastered getting the best out of people.  Gina Cooper and her team worked very hard to utilize people's talents and skills, they are an all volunteer organization that did an amazing job and they did it because Gina asked, "What can you do? What do you want to do?"   But also because people came to Gina and said, "I'm gonna do this" and they did.

I think everyone can learn from that model and I think people tasked with volunteers should be trained how to utilize different skill sets; we can certainly do a better job of that.  Campaigns/Organizations aren't perfect, but we can be better.  

by Tracy Joan 2007-06-16 02:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I think you could also argue that crappy field lit or websites are evidence that there is a place for people to do something more suited to their interests.  And if that is true - then just do it, prove yourself that way.

I guess my response to that is this (and please bear in mind that I'm talking about youth organizing, and from an organizational perspective - NOT from a campaign perspective):  

If you are building a new website, or starting to dip your toes into online video, is the random volunteer off the street who worked real hard at canvassing and does some video/webs stuff on the side the person you want doing it?  

Or if possible, do you want to work with volunteers who are pre-professionals and can produce higher quality content?  Isn't it worth the time to try to forge those relationships?  And again, to emphasize, I'm coming at this from the point of view of an organization - NOT a campaign.  Organizations have much more time to create these relationships and they can be long-term relationships not bound by any election cycle.  

That seems valuable to me.  From people's reactions, it seems very different from what happens - particularly in campaigns - but that doesn't make it wrong.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 08:50PM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

woa...

campaign, organization, it shouldn't matter.  volunteers should fill out skills survey anyway.  but it is still likely that one's first experience will be in the high needs area, not a high skills area.  we use a question on our volunteer forms that asks if they have a particular skill that they think will be valuable to a campaign.

your change of emphasis from campaign to organization is a bit confusing to me.  most organizations don't canvass.

finally, sure, relationships matter and it is the easiest way to recruit volunteers but i certainly wouldn't want my volunteer coordinators taking the kind of time you seem to infer...

by bored now 2007-06-17 04:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I got here because other options were available to me that called on my specific skillsets and interests.  I worked GOTV/Registration at concerts.  I've written materials that others have used to canvass and talk to voters.  And I've done a lot of blogging and online community building.

I know lots of other folks - graphic designers, coders, even film makers, whose involvement in politics had nothing to do with working field.  And that's a good thing because these folks are all great, talented assets to the movement but they wouldn't be with us today if they had to phone bank and door knock their way up the ladder.

Don't you see how this can be seen as elitist and anti-democratic.  Speaking from my own experience as a field organizer, in many cases you have young college students who volunteer for campaigns and expect that they are going to be writing policy briefs and writing position statements for candidates. They don't want to work their way up in the party, and they end up driving away long time activists who know the area if campaigns cater to the college kids.  

You have to put in your dues before you can expect to be entrusted with leadership duties. And the problem with what you're saying is that it supposes that all young people go to college, and that having gone to college makes them more suitable for leadership than the young man or women who's gone through a skilled trades apprenticeship program and is working as a carpenter or plumber.  

Why should people who haven't gone to college have their voice count less than those that have?  I don't think that college education should be a prerequisite for party leadership.  Some of the best party leaders I've known didn't have college degrees, but they had worked their way up in the party.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-16 03:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

This is kind of a comment in the vein of what both you and Tracy Joan are saying.

Field is important because it is the heart of democracy. People need to do field not just because it's critical to turn and motivate voters, but because it's part of our civic duties as citizens. One thing that has been lost (or severely degraded) is the idea that living in a democracy comes with certain responsibilities. One of those is to communicate our knowledge with our neighbors so that we can maintain an informed citizenry that can hold those in charge accountable for their actions.

It's hard to go out and talk to people. Especially people you don't know. And especially when it's dark outside. But that's part of what it means to be an engaged citizen. Yes those other skillsets are useful, but when it comes down to it, we need people to do field in order to keep our democracy healthy.

Also, it sounds like you're creating a class of people that can "get out of" doing field. It's like "Hey you're artistic and can design posters or can write well? Well you don't have to canvass then. That will be left for these poor schmucks over here". I agree that we need to maximize the usefullness of people's skillsets. I, for example, can make maps if need be, but I also expect to canvass and phone bank because it's what needs to be done for a vibrant party and a vibrant citizenry.

by adamterando 2007-06-16 04:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I agree, there should be no "getting out of" field work.

And no, this isn't about "paying dues" either.

It's like this. Nobody (that I know of) LIKES doing household chores like washing dishes, doing laundry, picking up, taking out the trash, etc. But if you live alone or with a roommate there is no "getting out of" doing your share of cleaning up and helping out.

What disgusts me the most are the types who leave their socks wherever they've taken them off or don't put things away once they're done with it. If you live alone and don't care, no big deal. But if you live with anyone, this kind of thing can create lots of tension. If they don't care either, then I hope you like living in a constant mess.

In society however, NO ONE lives in complete isolation from anyone else. This means EVERYONE needs to do their share of chores to ensure that good people are elected and if that means doing a phone bank, walking in a parade, doorknocking/lit dropping then so be it.

Good grief. No wonder the country is a fucking mess. No one can be bothered to do anything they don't like. Talk about spoiled brats who act like they'll die if you tell them to pick up their room.

So long as you cater to this mentality and continue to perpetuate the culture of narcissism rather than instill in people the need to do things like take out the trash, clean out the cat box, or changing a baby's diaper, this country is truly doomed because none of you have an iota's understanding of the grunt work it takes to maintain the backbone of family, society, country, or planet.

Grow up.    

by NeoLotus 2007-06-16 09:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I basically agree with you, NeoLotus, but I think your tone is not helping the cause.

I was inspired by the way Chris Bowers talked about the importance of field, and I got involved and am now a frequent field volunteer as well as a precinct captain and a local committee member.

The point should be that this really matters and so people should want to help.  I wonder whether the approach that Mike is suggesting might also be a way to get more people to listen that message.

by oldhoya 2007-06-17 09:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

Thanks. And sorry about the tone. I have an 11 year old daughter who can't be bothered with doing basic chores. I didn't like them either as a kid but they ARE a necessary part of getting things done. Not everyone gets to do what they want all the time. That said, there is also the element of sharing or trading in the sense that we'll do something you like then we'll do something I like.

I suppose the paradigm I operate on is that society is family writ large. Everybody works and sometimes we do things we don't like in order to get to do the things we DO like. Business before pleasure as it were. So many of the values I grew up with just aren't in operation anymore (born 1958). I try to teach them to my daughter. But it's an uphill battle because those values are no longer part of the fabric of society. The whole thing has shifted from "we" to "me."

BTW, I'm a philosopher and have a master's in urban planning but our society and culture does not value my skill or talent except to shuffle papers. I am also associate chair of my county unit. None these people are interested in grunt work either. They'll do a potluck picnic and the fair booth but not much else.
So, if I come across disgusted you'll know some of the reason for it.

by NeoLotus 2007-06-19 09:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

Also, it sounds like you're creating a class of people that can "get out of" doing field. It's like "Hey you're artistic and can design posters or can write well? Well you don't have to canvass then. That will be left for these poor schmucks over here".

I think this is probably a long term conversation to be had, but bluntly, yeah, I guess I'm saying that.   Because to me it's a zero sum game.  And I don't view the folks doing field as poor shmucks - their committment level is just deeper.  

It's about two things for me.

1.  Creating that ladder of participation that draws people in.  Eventually, maybe those folks designing a new website or making your posters WILL come to the realization of the importance of  field and they will start pounding pavement or making phone calls.  But that won't happen if you don't engage them now.
2.  Conservatives make the most of their connections - to big business, church groups, etc.  They maximize their resources.  Your argument here reads like you just want to throw away creatives because they are hard to work with.  Maybe that's true, but that's why this is a longterm conversation.  We need the creatives and the activists to have an understanding of and respect for each others work.  They can give us a huge advantage that we should seize.  No major social justice campaign in the last 50 years has succeeded without cultural support as well.  Dylan drew fans to hear Dr. King.  Sprintstein and Van Zandt drew people into No Nukes and anti-Apartheid campaigns, Bono and the One Campaign, Live Earth/Inconvenient Truth for Gore and Climate Change.  

But cultural support comes in lots of shapes and sizes.  It's ours for the taking - not to replace field, but to amplify it.  I'm just arguing that we need to figure out how to do it.

If you can make maps - that is awesome.  I'd hope that you hook up with all sorts of social justice groups to help them apply GIS to their work.  I hope they'd pay you well too.  But if you're willing to canvass, then you are already higher up that ladder of participation than most people ever get.  Asking folks with limited interest to step from no engagement to that top rung is a hard-ass sell.  I'm looking for ways to step them up slowly, and take advantage of what they can offer along the way.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 09:23PM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

first of all, creative types are not a common volunteer.  most campaigns actually have to look for creative types to help them, they don't commonly walk in off the streets.  out of the eight aldermanic campaigns i was involved with in the spring, half of them asked me if i knew anyone who could help them get something up on you tube.  the waguespack campaign called for help with their website.  two others wanted suggestions for communications.  i think everyone but waguespack asked for help with message.  so it is hard for me to believe that most campaigns wouldn't recognize the opportunity of a creative type and use it accordingly.

of course, that's not the experience of college students, most who probably get involved in a presidential or senate campaign (where there's very little chance that you'll get that opportunity unless you live where the hq is) or through something like moveon.  

finally, again, i don't think getting people involved in what the campaign needs to be done is that difficult.  it comes down to training and expectations.  most volunteers want to help, but don't know how.  if you send them into the field with proper training, they are thrilled.  i'd guess that in my experience only about 1 in 20 will refuse to canvass or phone bank under those conditions.  i get the feeling you think it's reversed...

by bored now 2007-06-17 04:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I understand where you're coming from on this and especially in terms of social organizations that don't do voter contact year round (although I think there's an argument that College Dems should be doing voter contact year round). But there's another side to this as well.

Perhaps it's a problem of political education as much as it is throwing people into grunt work that they hate or however you want to put it. Look at unions and the field work they do. Now I bet you that most of their members would not even think about doing field work if they were not part of the union. But the union not only provides bargaining power, it provides a political education. Through that education the members realize that contacting voters and their other fellow members is part of their responsibility as a collective organization to ensure a vibrant democracy, educate others, and to further a more progressive vision. They also realize that if they don't reach out to other voters/members, they ultimately are hurting themselves because they run the risk of helping to elect someone that will not fight for their values/needs through their own inaction.

So for people that will "never" do canvassing or phone-banking. Perhaps the problem is that they have not had a proper education on just how important these aspects are to society and to their own well-being.

by adamterando 2007-06-17 07:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I think that is right.  (It's the whole reason I helped to start this back in 2003.

I'm just wondering if there's another way we can help these people become involved (and help ourselves to what they have to offer) that is halfway between "Just" education and the nuts and bolts of field work.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-17 08:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

What do you do with all the people who aren't willing to do field work? One of the reasons Young/College Dems have mediocre reputations is that all too often it boils down to "Who wants to work their ass off for no pay?" Some people just aren't passionate enough in a candidate to do that, or aren't looking for a career to work their way up to.

Where are the options for those people who aren't looking for a career, but want to contribute in a non-field manner?

I'm guilty of this having worked on a campaign, but many times if you get someone who doesn't want to spend a day doing grunt work, you turn them away. But if that person happens to be a fantastic graphic designer, we might be able to use their services. For free. Or maybe one campaign doesn't need them, but another needs one. I'm beginning to ramble, but the point is that I think more work needs to be done to tell volunteers, "Ok, so you won't phone bank, is there any other way you can help us?" Otherwise politics can seem like nothing but drudgery, when we all know that there are plenty of wonderful opportunities.

by pluto101 2007-06-16 07:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

There are many other tasks other than straight canvassing or phonebanking.

As Tracy has pointed out, there's a real limited number of positions that require "creative" skills.  The most imnportant positions in a campaign are where the wheels meet the road, where the campaign comes into direct contact with voters.

Most volunteer positions with campaigns are going to involved either voter contact, or support positions doing things like stuffing envelopes for direct mail campaigns.

Campaigns aren't about self-fulfillment for individuals, they're about collective efforts that yield collective benefits.

There's a mental shift that comes from recognizing this.

To qoute JFK.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

The problem that I see with catering to "creative" types is that it turns this around.  The type of people who flinch at field work are the same ones who are not asking what they can do for the party, but what the party can do for them.  And that's a problem when you're running a campaign.  Because catering to one "creative" type is likely to drive away dozens of loyal long time party activists who see their work being denigrated.

I've had to put out fires where I've had a "creative" type, someone who didn't want to work the phones or do canvassing, come in and take a real attitude that angered the local county chair, and threatened to drive away long term activists.  I had to ask the "creative" type to please leave, so that it didn't damage the campaign.  That's the context that this all occurs in.  Often when you have someone who wants to come in off the street, and take a leadership position, which is what designing flyers and the like is because it involves crafting message, you end up driving away more help for the campaign than you gain from involving this person making flyers or something else.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-16 08:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

Don't you see how this can be seen as elitist and anti-democratic.  

I don't see this as elitist or anti-democratic.  Those folks and myself brought things of value.  In some cases we innovated and created new models. We brought activism to places where none was occurring, and we created messages that reached people who weren't being reached by traditional field campaigns and campaign messages.  

It was effective and entrepreneurial, and it happened outside the realm of traditional politics but it bolstered traditional politics.

But it's true that none of those things would have happened if we had to go through the "field mill."  In fact, they happened directly because traditional field work didn't at all appeal to us.

Speaking from my own experience as a field organizer, in many cases you have young college students who volunteer for campaigns and expect that they are going to be writing policy briefs and writing position statements for candidates. They don't want to work their way up in the party, and they end up driving away long time activists who know the area if campaigns cater to the college kids.  

Well, I certainly didn't just argue that young people should be given responsibilities like that.  And I specifically blogged about the Young and College Dems and other youth groups.  I'm not sure I follow your last sentence here.  Can you explain?

You have to put in your dues before you can expect to be entrusted with leadership duties.

I never said anything different.  I'm talking about other volunteer opportunities OR alternate leadership roles/paths.  No one is talking about putting amateurs into leadership positions that are already filled.

And the problem with what you're saying is that it supposes that all young people go to college, and that having gone to college makes them more suitable for leadership than the young man or women who's gone through a skilled trades apprenticeship program and is working as a carpenter or plumber.  

I said no such thing. First, I'm talking specifically about college organizations, OR groups that focus on young people - high school college or otherwise.  I'm not privileging any group, or closing off any avenue.  If folks want to work their way up through the field operation - awesome!  Do it.  I'm arguing for a broadening out as to what types of work can constitute "paying dues" for those who want to be professionally involved, but even more so I'm arguing for a system that allow more people to volunteer with the skills they have and are willing to lend.

Why should people who haven't gone to college have their voice count less than those that have?  I don't think that college education should be a prerequisite for party leadership.  

I don't know where this is coming from.  I never suggested anything of the sort.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 09:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I think that at least in part the inability of the written word to convey context and meaning is coming into play here.

Which is mighty ironic, because I'd argue that's much the reason that a lot of the creative work your talking about is ineffective and inefficient compared to face to face communication where you can convey context and nuance.

I'm talking specifically about election campaigns in my comments.  I think that you're talking about something much wider, and I missed that on the first read.  Yes, we're fixated on elections, it's pretty much the reason that this blog exists, isn't it?

About the "field mill."  Part of the problem is that we don't have a good program set up to create a lasting party organization that exists beyond the current election cycle and treats field workers well.  This turns people off to field work.  The very long meta-meta post I made in this thread hits on this.  In the US the existence of parties as social insititutions that extend beyond elections has been on the wane.  This is not the case in other nations, where parties remain very much social institutions.

About my comment about driving away long time volunteers, this is from my personal experience.  I was a CD president when I was working field, and I brought down some college dems to another county in the district.  We hadn't been there 15 minutes before one of them started bitching about not wanting to do canvassing (they knew that this is what we had come down for) and suddenly, some of the local activists who were supposed to have gone out canvassing with us disappeared.  

Another case was where we got a guy in from the 21st century dems who went in telling the candidate how they should talk to Sen. Bayh about this and that.  They lasted less than a week until they were returned to sender.

And about paying dues.  In the end, campaigns are about either about GOTV (getting out the voters on your side to the poll) or Persuasion (convincing swing voters, or soft R's to vote for your candidate.)

When you're talking about doing things like flyers, have a graphic design person come in and produce a multi-color pamphlet instead of going with a Xerox copy in black and white may up the cost from $0.05 a piece to a $1 a piece or more.  Does having colors and pretty pictures really have 20 times the impact that a well written black and white flyer with lots of space clearly communicating themes does?  If not aren't you wasting money that could be better spent elsewhere?

Now web work can be better, but I'm talking about simple things like using youtube.  But again if you have someone come in and make a really heavy duty website that has flash animation and all the rest, tou can quickly run into overkill, and make the website really cool, but entirely unusable.

You can't let the medium become the message, and that's the danger when you let the creative types loose in a campaign.  Suddenly it becomes about have a 16 color glossy flier that has $1/unit cost, instead of a xeroxed copy with broad themes that costs $0.05 a unit. When you concentrate on message, the medium doesn't really matter.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-16 09:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

You are right, I am not talking about campaigns.  I'm talking about permanent pieces of youth organizing infrastrucutre (Young Dems, College Dems, etc.) and their long-term presence on campus or in the community.  This blog is about campaigns, but it's also about infrastructure and best practices, too, right.  

You make good points, and I see where you are coming from now.  We were definitely talking past each other.

I'm definitely coming at this from a different perspective than other people, having spent all my time working for 527 and 501c3 organizations and never having worked a traditional.

And maybe you are right that even for youth organizations the cost/benefit ratio in terms of time, resources and impact aren't there.  

But I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised that most people's reactions seems to be so knee-jerk against my suggestion.  As if a lot of democratic youth organizations didn't have a branding problem that a little more work with creative types might in some way help solve.  Or were already maximizing their presence on YouTube and Social Networks with kick-ass events and videos . . .
 

by Mike Connery 2007-06-17 06:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

I think the focus should be upon what each volunteer can offer, not what the campaign wants.

So let's say I was on a race and this amazing writer drove up from Florida...I'll always regret having her on the phones.

by Bob Brigham 2007-06-16 08:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

:)  

by Tracy Joan 2007-06-16 09:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Building a Movement

Just a few comments not in any particular order.

You've touched on something important.

Parties in America have become seperated from social organizations as the result of the professionalization of political space.

As much as the old "machines" were attacked as corrupt, in many cases the strong local organization of the Democratic party facilitated popular participation in politics.  In English, politics wasn't about million dollar TV ad buys, it was about calling upon legions of volunteer activists who identified with the Democratic party to go out and canvass in their neighborhoods.  A large part of the problem with modern politics, is that the local party as a social organization is dying in many parts of America.

Looking beyond our borders, I think that it's important to recognize that America is unique in that popular participation in government arose before industrialization.  The last real class restrictions in America ended in the 1840's with the Dorr Rebellion, an armed insurrection by poor whites seeking to overthrow the requirement that a man own land property worth $143 (in  1840's dollars) established by the Rhode Island Charter of 1663. The West provided a safety valve for class pressures in the East, allowing poor whites to leave disenfranchisement in New England and start new lives in the west.  Remember that it Women's suffrage passed first in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho.

In his book It Didn't Happen Here:Why Socialism Failed in America, Lipset points to the arrival of democracy before industrialization as one of the reasons that socialism never came in America.  Now at this point, you may be asking what this has to do with movment politics.

The answer is that where in Europe social democratic political parties emerged out of the socialist and trade union movements, so that political and economic rights were intertwined, in America the political sphere has been seperated from the economic sphere.  Democratic rights (that should be with a small d) end at the workplace door.  Further, in countries like Spain, the casas del pueblo served as headquarters for the Spanish Socialist Party, but were more improtantly social centers for the working class.  In Britain, the Labour party was long dominated by TUC (Trade Union Confederation) union leaders who could vote proxy for their members in part matters.  The Labour Party was an outgrowth of the trade union movement. Message came before method.  Parties had very clear messages that weren't blurred to allow for "big tent" politics.

In the United States, initial developments towards a social organization of political life were killed as mass media allowed candidates with money to weaken the party organization.  As much as the growth of "partisanship" in America is decried, let's be honest, American political parties are weak and have little control over their candidate's messages.

When people rail against partisanship they aren't arguing for more individualization of politics as has happened as candidates have become independent of party organizations.  They are railing against the small elite group of persons who have access because they can afford to max out on donations for the primary and general (that's $4600 each campaign cycle in plain English.)

It certainly feels like we're inching back to Rhode Island 1841, where the political participation is predicated on whether or not one holds wealth.  And the democratic credentials of the political system are called into question as "pay to play" becomes the rule.

So I'd offer up two suggestions.

1.  There's something to be said for the development of political parties as social organizations allowed to develop organic connections with other aspects of social life.  Taft-Hartley and 1973 campaign finance law, limit union participation in politics, but the development of seperate social wings organized as 501 (c)3 organizations by the Democratic party, labor unions, and other consituency groups is a good idea.  David Bonior's work with American Rights at Work is an important example of how this could be carried out.  A social center like that provided by the Spanish casas del pueblo that extends the party as a social organizations whose pursuit or social justice extends beoynd elections opens the door for greater popular participation.

2.  Legislation to reorganize parties in America on the European membership model. This would be modeled under the system of public financing of Presidential elections.  The Presidential system uses a $3 checkoff on tax forms that doesn't affect your tax liability.  I would like to see this increased to a $15 to create a system of public funding for all federal candidates.  The second part of this system would involved requiring that voters be members in good standing of a political party in order to vote in the primary for federal races for that party.  Individuals who have made the $15 checkoff will have their name communicated to the FEC, and by registering as member of a political party will have their $15 released to the party opganization in their home state. Spending of this money would be controlled by elected CD district committees, and a state committee handling the distribution of funds for Senatorial and presidential races. By limiting general election spending in this way, parties have to compete to get voters to register as members of their party in order to compete.  And everyone has an equal say.  On primaries, I'd like to see donation limit calculated by multiplying the federal minimum wage by 40 hours (this would $206 now.)  The idea is to involved people in  political parties by removing the inequities created by money where millionares can max out, and working people can't afford to donate.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but those are my thoughts in no particular order.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-16 02:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Building a Movement

Some of the remedies you suggest might work, but you don't want to make joining a party a separate action or push the price up too much. I don't know about party membership in other European countries, but in Britain joining a party is a conscious act entirely divorced from getting on the electoral roll. This meant that in 1994, in a country of around 60 million people, Blair was talking about wishing for a "million member party". In fact the high point was around 450,000 members. Nowadays, after years of Labour ignoring its base, the number is below 200,000, which just makes it more and more inclined to ignore its members.

Granted, in the UK case there's still involvement through the unions, which have a vote at party congresses, but making joining a party an active act is a bad idea for party democracy.

Sorry to have gone off topic from your own tangent, but it's worth pointing out that reform, though necessary in certain respects, should not make it harder to join a party.

by Englishlefty 2007-06-17 08:11AM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

i gotta disagree with your general thesis.  canvassing and phone banking are hardcore activities, but young people take to them (those that do) just as easily as adults, perhaps even more so.  the key to getting people involved in both is a) training, and b) message.  young people need to understand what they are doing, and why they are doing it.

in my campaigns, we run people through a 40+ minute training that is supposed to include role playing for every volunteer before every activity.  i write a new training protocol for every campaign and activity (although they are largely based on prior efforts).  we insist on people being trained even if they've done this before.

equally important is the script.  not only should you not be asking people to go out and wing it for you, but you need to insure that your campaign's message is getting across and is internally consistent with the rest of your messaging.  that's why we insist on a message sequence plan before we start communicating with voters.

i'm also a little unconventional for democrats on message and the materials we use for canvassing (although this is more common among republican campaigns): most of the democratic campaigns i've seen have people slave over the canvassing materials as if voters are going to read them.  so they insist on bullet points and white space, making it eye-catching, etc.

i'm more contrarian here.  i don't think very many voters actually read canvassing material (unless it's a brochure), and this has been borne out in the studies i've seen on the subject.  otoh, voters do tend to listen to canvassers at the door.  WHAT YOU SAY is more important than the materials you leave with voters.  so i generally write out canvass materials with the canvasser in mind, not the voter.  we are not only trying to reinforce the message, but to reinforce the canvasser.

that's why it is so important to train volunteers, regardless of their age, and to make sure they are communicating your script (campaign message) exactly.  most volunteers find the insistence of using a script reassuring.

there are two more techniques we've used that seem to make it easier for young people to get involved, especially with canvassing.  first of all, we use drivers as team leaders who keep an eye on their team and get them materials and take them to turf.  many young women have mentioned to me that this makes them feel safer out on the streets.

secondly, we prepare canvassers more extensively.  i always provide a one-page breakdown of the area being canvassed.  even if they live in the area, it doesn't mean they know the neighborhood.  i'll often include a google earth map to help people get their bearings.  we give people a contact sheet with phone numbers for any questions they might have.  we use q-slips and insist on volunteers writing down any questions so that the candidate/campaign can answer them.  we tell people not to answer questions on policy areas -- even if they know the answer.  and we always include the area's polling location (which is the most common question).

young people are willing to get involved, but they don't know what to expect (especially the first time out).  we tell people when we are recruiting them that all we want is their presence and a happy, smiling face (which is the most important thing).  we'll take care of the rest.  people who come to my canvasses always feel like they are well prepared and ready to go after we are done with training.  and that makes it easier to convince them to come back...

by bored now 2007-06-16 01:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

You misrepresent my thesis.

Canvassing is important, and young people do it.  I don't deny that, and anyone who saw Obama's Walk for Change couldn't possibly argue that young people don't canvass with a straight face. Young people can be great canvassers, and your comment gives some solid advice on how to make that happen.

But my thesis wasn't a screed against canvassing.  It was a recognition that if all you focus on is canvassing, you are missing out on a lot of people who won't canvass.  You can't deny that those folks are out there and they make up a hugely disproportionate number of the youth electorate.  99-1 is not an out of bounds ratio, and in fact I think it's probably pretty generous.  

My thesis is this - that other 99% of the democratic youth electorate that isn't going to canvass for you have other skills that we're not taking advantage of because when we think of what volunteers look like and what they do, we focus on canvassing and phone banking to the exclusion of all else.

My thesis is that there are other things that those folks can be doing - graphic design, web design/construction, video and audio production, event planning - that are valuable to youth organzing, and efforts should be made to capitalize on those skills and bring those folks, who have a different perspective on political activism, into the fold of Democratic youth organizing.  

My post isn't a refutation of the importance of the basics (Field, GOTV, Registration), rather it's a call for young/college democrats to expand  their membership (and leadership) outside of the traditional roles of "field" or "fundraising."  

If we can harness the power of those aspiring cultural creatives, we can raise the cultural cachet/brand of Democrats in general among younger voters - particularly on campus.  That in itself can help make traditional field work more effective.

Peer to peer is the best form of outreach, but I know that when I was in college I wouldn't have considered a young democrat to be my peer.  We occupied totally different worlds.  But if they actually had done some cool stuff on campus, or seemed in any way relevant to my lifestyle at the time, my attitude might have been different.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 01:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

I agree with everything your saying. I'm trying to think of how that would be applicable to students at my school.

As for institutional memory, one of the projects I'm helping on is the Activist Resource Center. Ideally, this would be a resource for student activists to host institutional memory - which administrators are easy to persuade, how do you get a club chartered, where do you find x, etc. But more, it's a way of building community across the activist community. A lot of times, activists don't know what others on the campus is doing. It's a networking opportunity - representatives from each club will (hopefully) come to ARC meetings and share success stories, ask for help with problems their having, and hopefully get to know one another. ARC has been around for a long while, but it's never really taken off, or rather, if it has, it fell back down in the past few years I've been in college. Ideally, we'll have a physical space, but so far the administration has been annoying about that... as for now, we just have our virtual space which is in its infancy: http://brandeisarc.org/

by afertig 2007-06-16 02:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

My thesis is that there are other things that those folks can be doing - graphic design, web design/construction, video and audio production, event planning - that are valuable to youth organzing, and efforts should be made to capitalize on those skills and bring those folks, who have a different perspective on political activism, into the fold of Democratic youth organizing.  

I agree.  However, adults have these skills too.  And it's rare for someone to walk into a campaign and be entrusted with a task like this.  Campaigns are delicate things and relationships are based on trust.  You have to prove yourself.  That's true of campaigns and it's also true of any business.  Say you were a young professional who worked in the TV business, before you get to direct, you're likely going to be a PA.  Same with retail - before you become a manager, you're gonna be a sales associate.  Why should politics be any different?

Like I said in my post above, if young folks want to take part in these more creative tasks, they need to get their foot in the door.  So the question is how do you do this?  And how can we help young professionals find this entry point?

by Tracy Joan 2007-06-16 02:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

I would also say, that especially with local campaigns, if you are ignoring these more creative pools of talent when you are recruiting your volunteers, you are missing a huge pool of talent.

I've always advocated for touching base with the creative outlets on campus and seeing if folks are interested in helping design websites/flyers/materials, but I was also an oddly eager theatre major once upon a time.  The problem goes back to the demand for these skills sets is small and the pool of people who want the job or want to do this is usually pretty big and you can only fill it so many ways.  I'd always fill it with the person willing to do the mundane work rather than the person too good to canvass or pick up a phone.

by Tracy Joan 2007-06-16 02:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

Tracy,

I think it's awesome you reached out like that.  I think that should be a best practice that is just standard SOP.

I'd just add - especially having worked with some media interns in the last few weeks at my job - that between YouTube, FaceBook, etc. the need for fresh media content is huge.  If you've got lots of film/video/audio folks interested, there should be plenty for them  to do.  On a campaign or for a campus/youth organization.

And if you've got more Graphic design folks than you can handle, hold a contest or something.  That's not really good for a campaign, but again, I'll stress that I'm talking about institutions, not campaigns.  

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 09:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

I was also an oddly eager theatre major once upon a time.

I can totally see that! (in a good way)

by clarkent 2007-06-16 11:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

1.  I think there is an important distinction between local campaigns and stuff like presidential campaigns.  Presidential campaigns have plenty of creative types on staff.  But local campaigns might be in need of free graphic designers for example.

2.  I think having so many creative class types in the Democratic party is also a plague in disguise. Often times our party structures run into the "herding cats" phenomenon where everybody thinks they know best.  

That means that we do need to find a way to harness that creative power more effectively.

3.  I fit the campaign worker stereotype.  I canvassed and made phone calls as a high schooler and college student.  Rose up to be head of my college democrats, was a political science major and am now a political professional.

I'd love to hear from someone who got involved in Democratic politics without first being a pound-the-pavement volunteer, or an internet guru.

Are their examples we can follow?

by KickinIt 2007-06-17 01:18PM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

i agree that there are some people who won't canvass/phone bank.  we disagree about 1) the proportion, and 2) the reasons why.  our volunteer forms have about two dozen opportunity items on them, and young people tend to make up a majority of the volunteers we get.  perhaps that's why you misunderstood my comment, because i agree that all volunteers need to be given choices about what they can do.  but most volunteers will do what you want them to do, and if you explain exactly what the campaign's needs are, they are more likely to do it.  i think the real reason why there are different experiences on this is expectations: the expectations of volunteers, as well as the expectations of the campaign.  most volunteers want to be used efficiently and effectively.  and that's where the campaign comes in; if the campaign is prepared, if they train their volunteers for whatever job they are being asked to do, and if they don't abandon them (especially in the field), then young people are likely to get into it -- even in the hard core activities.

let me summarize: i agree that not every young person will want to canvass or phone bank, especially if they are not given strong reasons for doing so.  campaigns are responsible for giving volunteers options (which means they have to be prepared) as well as reasons and training for what they want them to do.  i fault the campaigns, not the kids there...

by bored now 2007-06-16 02:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking...

Two points:

1.  Again, I'm not really speaking to campaigns.  That's not where my experience lies and it wasn't the topic of my post.  I'm speaking about permanent organizations - 527s, 501c3 and c4s, PACS, etc.
2.  I'm talking about the folks who don't even walk in to fill out your forms.  Thats where a big disconnect is in this conversation.  I"m trying to figure out how we can get those folks working for us.  This is about expanding the volunteer base, not reassigning the existing base to other tasks.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-17 06:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
On my campus...

I think this post applies to mostly post-college youth, in my experience.

Asking them to participate in hard core political actions (canvassing, phone banking, etc.) as their first introduction to politics is doomed to failure and low conversion rates.

I've found almost the reverse on my campus. In 2006, during the race for the Governor and for Congress, we had tons of people wanting to phone bank. We set up day long cell-phone banks with lists, and at our weekly meeting we held a phonebank in the evening. In addition, while it was tough to get people to canvass, whenever we did canvass we got a pretty high number of students to show up. Our highest turnouts of students were, of course, political rallies, even if it meant traveling a bit. Asking college students to participate in phonebanking, canvassing and rallying is the best thing because it kept people active, busy, and at the end of the day when we released our stats we could have something tangible to point to. We could say, "We did this." And, of course, there were social events after.

Then, after the election, groups started to wonder what, exactly, to do. Here in MA, it became hard for me to justify membership in the college Democrats. Our State Reps and Senators are overwhelmingly Democratic, we had just won the Governorship, we have Kerry and Kennedy as our Senators, and an all Democratic Congressional Delegation. And while we made tons of calls for Congressional races across the country, exactly what are we supposed to do, in an off year? Special elections in other districts seem very far off. It makes much more sense to be an outside group pushing Democrats a certain way, or an independent group altogether.

The obvious answer seemed to be to focus on social activities and issue based campaigns. But if that's what we're doing, why not join any of the plethora of other groups on campus (environmental, labor, feminist, etc. groups). Moreover, everybody comes to the Democrats (or Democracy for America for that matter) with their own particular agenda and issues they want to focus on, so people were split on what, exactly, we ought to be focusing on.

More, as you said, "Let's face it, College Dems and Young Dems need a better brand among our peers," and I wholeheartedly agree. People see it as the political wonk, poli-sci club. Shouldn't be that way. As for social events, a la Drinking Liberally, it's unclear to me how that would be any different than just having a party with like-minded people in college--which is what we do anyway. So how do we expand the group socially?

In terms of branding, one of the main problems I've found is that students would rather not be associated with the Democrats. There are a lot of progressives on campus, which is why DFA and other groups are incredibly successful here. But to join the Democrats is like joining an establishment, an institution, rather than something cool or fun. And turning that around has proved more difficult than I thought. Holding social events -- dances, parties, etc -- wind up attracting the same crowd that would come to events for Democrats anyway. And then when that doesn't seem like a good time to most people, the labeling of the Dems as "uncool," continues. In fact, holding a bad social event is probably worse than no social event just because it solidifies the stereotype.

Does this make sense to anybody else? Is this just us?

by afertig 2007-06-16 01:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: On my campus...

This makes great sense. The Democratic party does not cater to young people and their more progressive ideas.

The Republicans, though, having become such an extremist organization is perfect for young right-wing ideologues.

phat

by phatass 2007-06-16 02:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: On my campus...

Ari, you touch on a great point here. For those who don't know, the DFA Brandeis group in MA is absolutely kickass. They've done some incredible work since they were founded in Fall of 2005. I think the Brandeis DFA group became such a great success because of great leadership. They were founded by DFA summer '05 intern Aaron Voldman, who got Ari and many others on board with him, and then Ari was a DFA intern in summer '06, and helped make them even stronger for the Midterms.

The point is, maybe the problem isn't identifying the non-field niches and supporting those activities. Maybe the problem is that the progressive movement isn't doing enough to equip the Aarons and Aris of the world with the tools they need to lead their own youth organizations. Aaron and Ari got to go through a summer internship at DFA, but many more potential campus leaders just don't have the resources to travel to a remote corner of the country (Burlington, VT) and be an unpaid intern for a few months.

I think the key to get youth organizing off the ground on any campus or city is to first cultivate kick-ass young leaders. College kids will be more comfortable if they have a fellow student telling them why phonebanking and canvassing is so essential rather than an older field worker. They'll be more comfortable when that classmate trains them how to phonebank and canvass, and they'll be more comfortable when they have that classmate right next to them as they do it.

by Luigi Montanez 2007-06-16 07:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: On my campus...

Thanks Luigi! I really appreciate the compliments.

by afertig 2007-06-16 07:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

>young people are willing to get involved, but they don't know what to expect (especially the first time out).  we tell people when we are recruiting them that all we want is their presence and a happy, smiling face (which is the most important thing).  we'll take care of the rest.<

How about telling them that being pissed off is appropriate these days and instead of we'll take care of the rest...try tapping them for creativity, energy, enthusiasm and brains.

I'm old but dammit Mike's post spoke to me.  I'm sick of being tapped to phone bank, canvass, give money and shut up and let "us" take care of the rest.

Mike is onto something important here.  The war ended in Vietnam because young people and some old ones too got pissed.  I don't remember a lot of happy, smiling faces and that generation didn't trust the power structure to "take care of the rest."

If anything is going to change besides just getting Democrats elected....it will take passion, energy, brains and enthusiasm and appreciation for those qualities in Democrats of any age.

by jd2 2007-06-16 02:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

The level of bogus generalizations here is amazing. This is a vast culture with many kinds of people. Here on the Left Coast we at Drinking Liberally are just starting to understand what real grass/net roots organizing is about.

The old memes aren't gonna cut it.

The key is to get people thinking about the  political component of their lives. Most never have or at best have spent very little time doing so. But....

It does not take them long to get up to speed once you point out a few connections. Corporatist representation in the legislature equals no health care is one.

Phone banking, canvass yadda and yadda. To gain recruits for the progressive movement ya gotta show 'em how politics affects their life and listen to them when they respond.

Not ask for free labor.

by Pericles 2007-06-16 02:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Almost everyone expects to be the next Carville

And, I might add, the 1992 version, not his present evil twin.

I've had the fortune/misfortune (depending on the outcome) of working a number of campaigns over the years. I started out phone canvassing - someone noticed what I was doing (and how I was doing it) and in the next election cycle I ended up writing and running polls for state legislative district races. I was sent to the state party campaign management "school" - a three day hang on to your hat white knuckle overview.

Over time (and successive cycles) I've been thrown into deeper waters. I've done advance. I've written and produced radio and television ads. I've managed state legislative district and countywide (larger than a legislative district) races.  I call it the Starship Troopers method of campaign staffing - "You're it, until you're dead or I find someone better."

The volunteer pool in my area includes high school students, college students and long time residents. During this past election cycle our local coordinated campaign headquarters was run in the last few weeks of the election by a high school student (she did a fantastic job). She got her start in 2004 in the phone bank and doing door-to-door.

When I've managed to get volunteers (you always ask for twice as many as you'll need because only half as many will show up) I've always tried to engage them in as much of the process as possible. The rare volunteer animals (and the most prized) are the ones who show some initiative.

The sad truth is, there are too many tasks in a campaign and not enough people to do them. It's a constant numbers game and a vicious type of natural selection. First, you show up. Then, you work your way up by being good.

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-16 07:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Almost everyone expects to be the next Carvill

So if a college student with video editing skills, a camera and a great sense of humor shows up and wants to work on campaign videos for YouTube, your idea is to throw him into some field/canvassing work?

Or if you're the head of a college Democrat chapter that doesn't have any video editing/production capabilities, or has a subpar website, you're OK focusing all of your recruitment time trying to find more canvassers instead of spending a day or two talking to folks in the film or computer science departments and figuring out a way to get some free labor from interested students?

I don't mean to be flip, I'm really trying to understand some of the responses here.  Because I'm not arguing against field, but a lot of folks' responses - including yours - seem to be boiling down to "nothing but field."

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 08:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Almost everyone expects to be the next Carvill

So if a college student with video editing skills, a camera and a great sense of humor shows up and wants to work on campaign videos for YouTube, your idea is to throw him into some field/canvassing work?

Nope. What'd I'd say is "go for it".

The tricky stuff about this particular hypothetical is the direct association with the campaign. In my state, if this student was directly associated with a campaign and produced a video we'd have to approve all content and put the "paid for by" disclaimer on the video along with trying to figure out the campaign reporting requirements with our state Ethics Commission. Which we would certainly try to do. On the other hand, if the student did it own their own and posted it to YouTube they wouldn't be really working "at" the campaign, would they?

In 2004 I spent a lot of time working at our local coordinated campaign headquarters (one of the few cycles in the last few  in which I wasn't directly managing a campaign - mostly because I had spent an inordinate amount of money and time working for Howard Dean during the primaries) for John Kerry and Claire McCaskill's gubernatorial race. Believe it or not, I've had this particular conversation about volunteers before. In that cycle a large group of "organized" students, independant of any campaign (I'm trying to be diplomatic here), spent almost all of their time building a club float to represent the party for the college homecoming parade which was scheduled shortly before the election. They built a float.

It's about what is effective. Knowing our area very well I can tell you what works. Direct mail, direct mail, direct mail, and direct mail. That along with door-to-door and phone banking. We do not live in a media market (praise the lord!) of any consequence. Now, if anyone (and I do mean anyone) wants to take some initiative and get in on planning or creating any part of this stuff I certainly let them have at it.

The majority of my work is with countywide races and state legislative district races. There is no glamor for anyone in these contests.

The final approval of the design for walking pieces (door hangers and wall hangers) and the campaign graphics (for those frackin' yard signs and damn 4 x 8s) are usually done in June with production in July. Our students are gone in that period. In my experience even the most rabid activist wants nothing to do with a local campaign that far out. Oh, how I've tried.

We do our campaign mailings in house - a technique I call the "personal form letter" - it works quite well. Participate in analysis and targeting? You bet. There ain't a lot of glamor in flagging voter file records in May and again in August (when students aren't here or aren't interested). Participating in writing the mailing? You bet, but then again, I tried, no love there. And forget about helping put the mailing together.

The vast majority of "activist" students come back here at the end of August. In election years they get organized and/or solicited for help as soon as possible, but usually around the beginning of September. And for the coordinated campaign - what starts happening at that time? Field.

In my experience I've run into this too many times to count: "I want to work for the U.S. Senate campaign or the presidential campaign, why should I work for your local campaign?" I answer, "Because we'll put you to work doing more than phone banking and door-to-door (but we'll do that, too)." The answer I get, "But, I want to work on the U.S. Senate race or presidential campaign". This conversation invariably happens in September.

I've never had a campaign staff. There's always too much to do and not enough time to do it.

The sad part, if anyone wanted to get real hands on experience with any of the campaigns I work on  all they'd have to do is show up.  

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-17 03:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Almost everyone expects to be the next Carvill

See, put that way, this makes sense.  But I'm also not arguing from the standpoint of a campaign.  In my mind, I'm thinking of 24/7/365 organizations like the College Democrats, the Young Democrats, 21st Century Dems, DL 21C, etc.  These groups - particularly local chapters - are frequently short on resources, but long on time as they are not bound the the campaign cycle you described above.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-17 05:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Almost everyone expects to be the next Carvill

These groups - particularly local chapters - are frequently short on resources, but long on time as they are not bound the the campaign cycle you described above.

Oh, but they are bound to the campaign cycle. That is, in our area their membership disappears in the off years. The nature of our potential college student volunteers is that they are around for one cycle (if they're good and we're lucky - two cycles)(if they're good, and we're lucky, and the student is on a slow track to graduation - three cycles). Most of the students at the college leave the area after graduation - in a sense, we break them in for someone else.

Our talking past each other is because we all come from different practical experiences. This is not uncommon: When I attended campaign management school we had a session on voter files (a lot of us already knew them forwards and backwards). The  out-of-state expert started the lecture with, "The first thing you do is acquire your voter file and then separate the registered Democratic Party voters out..." I raised my hand and was called upon, "Uh, voters in Missouri can't register by party..." The expert gave us a pained look and appeared to mutter something like, "Oh my god..."

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-17 06:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Almost everyone expects to be the next Carvill

Our talking past each other is because we all come from different practical experiences. This is not uncommon: When I attended campaign management school we had a session on voter files (a lot of us already knew them forwards and backwards). The  out-of-state expert started the lecture with, "The first thing you do is acquire your voter file and then separate the registered Democratic Party voters out..." I raised my hand and was called upon, "Uh, voters in Missouri can't register by party..." The expert gave us a pained look and appeared to mutter something like, "Oh my god..."

Oh.  I see you don't live in a civilized state :) that has registration by party and has voter rolls that tell us which primary you voted in like Indiana.  Which makes it much easier to seperate your hard Ds that always for us, from the soft Ds that have to be reminded to vote (GOTV opportunity) , from your swing (vote in different primaries depending on the year) and fall (don't vote primary) Soft R (Vote in GOP primary but not always. Hard R (will never vote for us.

And of course we don't waste money competing for Hard D's and R's, because nothing's going to change their mind.  So that's maybe 25% of the electorate.  Soft R's and D's are probably another 25%, and we don't compete for for Soft R's unless we have a lot of money, and or are in a red district.  And the other 50% is Fall voters, who we really have no idea how they vote.  So we only really compete for about 2/3rds of the voters, and using NCEC data, we can reduce must run GOTV and persuasion and canvassing runs down to maybe 125 precincts out of the 600 or so in a Congressional District.  And if we're lucky we'll acutally walk them all.  And you really need to plan to walk at least twice to make an impact.

Primaries and the 2-3 weeks before the campaign are when you do GOTV, the rest of the campaign is all about winning over the 50% of voters that don't have strong party id.

I was a college student when I ran this, but I was unique in that I lived at home during my undergrad.  And had been working with the local party since I was 16, and made a point of making sure my College Democrats worked with the local Central Labor Council. That's where I learned to love Miller. Free and in quantity as it came.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-17 07:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Almost everyone expects to be the next Carvill

...state that has registration by party and has voter rolls that tell us which primary you voted in like Indiana...

I'd heard that there were magical places where people registered by party.

With at least 25% turnover in our county voter file every two years you can understand why we have to phone bank and canvass - just so we can get started.

You now know why I have such a short temper around here.

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-17 09:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Databases

I hope that at the national-national level there is someone in the Democratic Party who has and understnads how to use good databases.  What I have seen at the state and state-national level is database capabilities and skills straight out of 1967.  Which might be unfair to 1967 database practitioners.  

I observed one state-national campaign using its volunteers to look up data on a green-screen system and type it by hand into a (horribly bad) web form interface to another system.  When I inquired about the possibility of using scripts, export/import routines, etc to do the work automatically the response was... not positive.

sPh

by sphealey 2007-06-17 05:39PM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
Re: Databases

there are at least three database initiatives going on right now within the democratic party (counting hillary's, who didn't trust the party to get it right).  add to that a grassroots initiative so that smaller/local campaigns can access it.

the advantage that republicans have is that they started more than 24 years ago, and don't have a history of purging national databases (like terry mcauliffe did when he was the head of the dnc).  they have continually tested their data and added to it.

btw, i offered to do a presentation called "inside the voter vault" at yearly kos, but they didn't seem interested...

by bored now 2007-06-17 06:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Almost everyone expects to be the next Carvill

Oh, but they are bound to the campaign cycle. That is, in our area their membership disappears in the off years.

Right. So this is my fault.  My post is part of a much larger argument I've been making for over a year on my other blog.  Some of that work has been posted here  on MyDD, but not all.

I see my post above as part of a larger argument that those groups need to figure out a way to become relevant outside of campaign season.  Part of that is to adopt some of the strategies of groups like Drinking Liberally, particularly in the off times, part of it is smarter training and codifying/transferring of institutional knowledge in the "off" times, and part of it is figuring out how to get more of these creative folks involved to give the group a shot in the arm and a dose of relevance to a wider section of their constituents.

This post is an exploration of one of those possibilities, but that didn't really come across.

That's ok though.  I think it's sort of out there now, and there have been a lot of good discussions provoked by this.  I certainly learned a lot more about my ideas from the perspective of a campaign operative.  

by Mike Connery 2007-06-18 04:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Almost everyone expects to be the next Carvill

Right. So this is my fault.

Actually, no. It was just an expression of my practical reality.

You want to try something in a campaign. Knock yourself out. If it works I'll join in the celebration. I certainly won't get in your way. All I ask is that you don't get in my way.

I'm all for constant engagement in the processes of politics. I'm a firm believer in educating people about those processes.

There is no magic formula for electoral success at any level. You try something - if it works, you tinker with it to try and make it work better the next election cycle - if it doesn't work, you tinker with it in the hope you can make it work the next election cycle.

When you run a campaign you make a lot of judgement calls about where to spend time and resources - constantly. Experience helps. You prioritize based on monetary resources, people, and time. And don't think I don't agonize over those decisions. In the last cycle I lost by 36 votes out of 15,000 cast. I'd rather lose by 3,000.  Every day I think about where I could've got those 37 votes. Every damn day.

So, when somebody tells me on that volunteers don't like doing field work I understand. At the same time I have to prioritize for a campaign with limited resources. I need to make choices, especially about time (you can never get more time). I need to make choices based on efficiencies.

In 2004 when I volunteered for the coordinated campaign locally (Kerry/Edwards and McCaskill for Governor) the field plan was in place. We never had enough people, but it was in place. Another activist didn't want to work the coordinated campaign field plan and decided on his own (good for him) to register and troll for new voters in areas which were underperforming Democratic precincts. With a superhuman individual effort he registered over 300 new voters. Then, right before the election when our headquarters phone bank was implementing the GOTV plan he showed up with his list (which was not compatible in format) and insisted we use the phone bank to call them all to get them to the polls. We couldn't divert our understaffed plan to implement his. The gist of the anger and bitterness was that if John Kerry lost our county by 300 votes we would never again be on speaking terms. John Kerry lost our county by 3000 votes.    

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-18 05:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I feel like we've had this exchange before

but you are in Missouri, right?

by clarkent 2007-06-17 05:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I feel like we've had this exchange before

Uh, yup to both.

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-17 06:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking: Expanding

Smaller races!!!!!!!!!!

They translate into bigger and more varied jobs.

I ran for Board of Ed. in a 180,000 registered voter district.

My treasurer, campaign manager, e-outreach, and yard sign managers were all college students. They were all doing something they saw as interesting and helpful for the experience as it would apply to their futures.

There are many places for film, graphics designers, issue briefers, etc. in smaller races. Being involved in a local race really gets the juices flowing.

The same is true in terms of local county party roles/job slots.

On a bigger up-ballot campaign, face it: the messaging and graphics roles are filled. There are only a few such slots while there is a need for many more canvassers.

Every campaign needs a treasurer. But a big campaign, say for president, needs proportionately fewer treasurers than it does canvassers.

Therefore, the part of the answer to matching interests to volunteers at the entry level is to make people more aware of opportunities to work for down-ballot races.

by demondeac 2007-06-16 07:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Beast Must Be Fed

Just walked in from my wedding.  Gonna try to answer as many comments now as possible, some might have to wait until tomorrow.

There are a lot of great comments.  Two points that seem to keep coming up are the idea that Field is the beast that is always hungry, and must always be fed.  The other point is more a meta observation on my end that everyone is permanently fixated on campaigns and not on organizations whose works supports campaigns but is not bound by the cycle (non profits, 527s, college Dems, young Dems, groups like the Bus Project or Forward Montana, etc.).  Those groups can use the extra hands and their work goes on beyond the first Tuesday in November.

Field may be the beast that is never satiated, but by saying that you are missing my point entirely.  

There are a lot of people who will never, ever, ever, ever do field work for you.  They're not interested in professional political work or working their way up the ladder.  Never the less, they may have valuable skills that we can use and that they are willing to lend.  My point is that failure to adequately engage cultural creatives, who I see as one of the more valuable allies of hte progressive movement and who fall into that non-field category is a failure of imagination on our part.  My point is that it would be beneficial to figure out a way to work with them.  

I think this is doubly true for youth and campus organizations where EVERYONE is an amateur and resources are even scarcer.

by Mike Connery 2007-06-16 08:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Beast Must Be Fed

Some people will never do field, yes. But the higher level tasks require more management from the campaign too - time and effort that isn't always available.

It is (relatively) easy to train somebody to canvass, hand them their clipboards, and off they go. But for the more creative stuff, first you have to figure out what you need, then explain it to the volunteer, maybe even some training?, and work through multiple drafts etc to finish.

Depending on the campaign and when in the cycle, better looking graphics may not be worth the staff time and investment required to get there. As opposed to those staffpeople using the hours to make fundraising calls, talk to reporters, recruit more volunteers to do the door-knocking nobody wants to do but needs to get done to hit your win number.

Fully utilizing every potential volunteer to their highest capacity is not always possible. Sometimes really the best thing anybody - everybody - can do is knock those doors and hit those phones.

by lpackard 2007-06-16 09:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Beast Must Be Fed

> t is (relatively) easy to train somebody to
> canvass, hand them their clipboards, and off they
> go.

In my experience the typical canvasser and phonebanker receives essentially zero training, and if they don't come to the job Internet-savvy and fully read-up on the candidate's positions and arguments they won't get that information from the campaign.  

sPh

by sphealey 2007-06-17 05:34PM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
grrrrrrrrrrr... that completely sucks...

by bored now 2007-06-17 06:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Beast Must Be Fed

Message.

I think that part of the misunderstanding here is that the people here talking about the importance of field and the relative lack of need for "creative" types on political campaigns as compared to broader types of campaigns.

It's all about message.

Creative work involves control over the message, and that's something that campaigns are most can't relinquish. Furthermore, field work is where campaigns are won or lost.  If you have a good field campaign that uses locals to do canvassing, that moves voters.

Candidates control the message, because they are the ones being presented to the public for election.

Broader collective organizations like 527s and other non-profit groups are a whole other matter.  They exist in many case to use push message, not candidates. Also as Demodeac said up thread, down ticket races are where the skills of "creative" types are most in need.  But is the volunteer who's unwilling to do field work be willing to put their graphic design skills to work on city council or county clerk's race?  These are the places where you have more opportunity for "creative" types, although I still think you seriously overestimate the need for this relative to the demand.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-16 09:12PM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
never, ever, ever, ever...

this is just so radically different from my experience.  see other responses for the rest of your points...

by bored now 2007-06-17 04:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I can see it from both sides here

I volunteered for a local candidate who was pretty internet savvy actually, but his campaign was field, field, field. I was at an early meeting on his approach to the internet, and I worked on trying to do a series of YouTube videos about the campaign. But as a volunteer, I had a really hard time working on the project. With canvassing and phone banking, I knew I would be doing something from 1-5 on a Saturday, for example. With filming the candidate, I couldn't be certain if I would be starting on time or finishing on time, or whether I would show up to something, only to have it cancelled due to scheduling conflicts. Ultimately, I didn't get much usable material, and I ended up spending most of my volunteered time on internet research, plus the usual field tasks.

The trick isn't just pulling in people who would otherwise not get involved, it's getting them involved in ways that would actually help the campaign. The thing of it is, if the campaign had worked harder to make use of my talents on video, it would probably not have amounted to as much as a few afternoons of voter contact, even if we had managed to turn out a good product.

by clarkent 2007-06-17 01:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Beyond Canvassing and Phone Banking

I'm more than a little late to this party, but of all the comments, the one that stuck out to me was lpackard's:

Some people will never do field, yes. But the higher level tasks require more management from the campaign too - time and effort that isn't always available.

I think you got a lot of pushback on your article because you took on field, which -- while it does suck up volunteer hours as the election approaches -- isn't really the problem. The problem is that cultivating and engaging young, highly-skilled individuals at the start of the campaign, when that time can be invested in management and training, is not a routine practice in Democratic campaigns.

Flyering at campuses for volunteers for the last 4-6 weeks is the norm, and if those are the terms on which you're engaging young activists, then it's going to be a pretty surface relationship. It's as short-sighted and destructive as having the candidate tour black churches the weekend before the election, and both serve to turn off and embarrass a lot of your most valuable and talented allies.

by scvmws 2007-06-18 04:06AM | 0 recs

Login

 

Sign-in-with-twitter-lighter

Advertise Blogads