So, now what?
While a lot was going on during the campaign concerning the actual campaign, there has been a lot of concern over the future of the Republican Party. Certainly, here in NH, what has been tried in the near past has failed and we will not be returning to the times of the middle to distant pasts (where Republicans dominated) either.
In fact, I just received the Post Election Newsletter from the NH GOP from the Chair, Fergus Cullen. I understand that some level of spin is going to happen, I bet you can tell my reaction to this:
...New Hampshire has clearly not become a blue state, but remains a competitive toss-up state where neither party has a built-in advantage...
Huh? Are you kidding me? The Dems control the Governor's office, the Executive Council (approves contracts and such), the Senate, and the House. WHAT PART OF BLUE IS RED? And the part of the problem is that the NH GOP letter talked about the Prez race, the Senate, the Congressional, and the State level races. And stopped there. Nothing about how the Party did at the County level nor at the local levels.
And that's a BIG problem.
The first part of fixing a problem is being honest in admitting there's a problem. Here in NH, there are BIG problems (already, the knives are out and one can hear the sound of metal on the grinding wheels). But it is not limited to just this small state where the GOP has lost its way.
As with all things, current environments change; the structures that were built for that time have to change. Or die, as the Republicans have basically done by not understanding that what worked for decades is a losing proposition.
Oh, they had warning, especially here in Central NH. At the chance of alienating many, in 2006 I did yell at the Republicans for doing such a dumb job of campaigning - all but expecting that they would win just by putting an "R" next to their name, stick a couple of signs in a couple of weeks before hand, and stick an ad in the paper a week ahead of time.
Did it work in this cycle? Were there those that did more? Absolutely, and they did deserve to win, and some did. But not most, and they didn't. NH has become a Democrat state even more - because they WANTED it more - and spent more. Republicans assumed that a 17% rise in the state budget was a sufficient meme to win - they were wrong. They thought that the manhandling in the House would mean something to the general citizenry - it didn't. They thought that the top would carry the down ticket. It didn't.
They lost sight that there is little of the farm teams to pick from and have no to little infrastructure to build it. Worse, no motivation. Swinging for the fences, they've goofed on the singles.
And I will have to say, the Dems totally overwhelmed the Republicans online and in cyberspace. Email blast after eblast from the top to the bottom of the ticker - over and over again. Yes, very similar in style to each other, but they had buy in from the top Dems nationally (as Doug received and shared with me) - we had no equivalent of a Hillary signing a plea for funds for our state senators or house reps! On message, on message, on message - consistent up and down and across - and always asking not just for money but for TIME and TALENT! Over and over again.
Our friend John Hawkins over at RightWingNews has another in his series: "Building a RightRoots Movement Part 2". His emphasis this time is on blogs, and starts off with BLOGS:
The "Blog Guy"
I worked for Duncan Hunter's campaign and have had a lot of other friends who have worked on campaigns. Here's how it tends to break down:
1) Most campaigns know absolutely nothing about blogs and do nothing with them. So, they don't have "blog guys."
Certainly on the Right, this is true
2) A few campaigns have "blog guys" who know nothing about blogs. I had one person I know complain to me that he was talking to a top campaign's "blog guy" who had never heard of Hot Air or Instapundit. In other words, these campaigns know so little about blogging that they don't even know how to hire people who do know something about it.
And given that all politically active people are already on the 'Net and many "civilians" are there as well, this will doom them. The good bloggers are tied in, smart, do their homework, and can be both an advance warning of trends or can shape perceptions. Ignore at your peril (and yes, take me with a grain of salt).
3) When you do get a quality "blog guy" on the campaign, they inevitably end up being an afterthought -- the lowest person on the totem poll other than the interns. The campaign's "blog guys" can generate donations, stories, grassroots interest, and a lot of good ideas for the campaign.
Personally, I think any senator or presidential candidate should have someone competent handling their blog work. Congressional candidates? Not so much, although some of the congressmen in high profile races could have benefitted from having someone working the blogosphere for them.
Here I will disagree with John. A lot of money is spent even at the Congressional level - even a small amount spent to "stipend" a good blogger to act as "ears and eyes" and report back what they see out on the 'Net would be a worthwhile investment. Trends, what the hot topics are from the "ordinary" person putting up posts or comments could be invaluable. And what "the other side" is saying - because the Left politicians ARE using bloggers!
Being able to simply link up what some bloggers are saying could have a good ROI on messaging alone. And remember, links are the coin of the realm in the blogging realm - taking the next step to link up pro (and even some anti-candidate) bloggers could have great benefit long term with little cost for the earned gratitude of getting the links. No, the idea is not to generate "suck-up" posts or attract syncophants, but to let those that have shown to have influence others that their ideas matter.
That being said, ironically, I'm not so sure that candidates actually need blogs. Campaigns tend to want to approve every post, they're very careful with their messaging, and they're very stuffy and formal in the way they communicate. That may be fine for the campaign, but when you apply that out to a blog, it typically makes it very boring.
I disagree that they don't - with campaign intensity being pushed down every cycle out on the 'Net, it will be needed. I agree that we bloggers tend to be quite independent minded. Certainly, campaign managers would have to know that the positives will outweigh the problems if they have done their jobs right in picking a blogger and giving them their head. But, as John points out in #1 and #2, the staff will have to learn what a blogger is anyways (hint - ask a few bloggers out there who the good ones are, contact them, then ask who might be approached to help either as "eyes and ears" or on staff) in order to make this work.
Next post - comments on what he said about state level blogs.....
Comments
Posted by: Bandit | November 6, 2008 10:51 AM