What Happened

There have been dozens, maybe hundreds, of articles written, TV hours spent, and blog comments posted about what happened in the 2004 elections.  Accusations of fraud continue to fly, but are being championed largely by the foil hat crowd (and Ralph Nader) at this point.  Maps of all colors and shapes have been created to explain every nuance and quirk of voting.  But at the end of the day, what happened is very simple: The Republicans won. The Democrats lost.  That’s right, more ‘red’ voters turned out than ‘blue’ voters in the places where it mattered most.

(Full disclosure: I am a Democrat, so it pains me greatly to write what follows – that the Bush campaign and the Republican Party outmaneuvered the Democrats in key areas, and at key times, during this election cycle.)

The Internet played a big role in this election cycle.  But websites and email did not replace traditional methods of political involvement.  Voters still needed to meet their candidates face-to-face and feel comfortable with their style of leadership.  The media successfully balanced the need for breaking news stories with long, thoughtful profiles and in-depth analysis of key issues.  And each campaign still sent direct mail, aired television ads, made Get-Out-The-Vote phone calls, held rallies, and granted interviews to generate favorable media coverage. 

The Internet is a powerful tool for campaigns.  When used effectively, technology can help to reduce the amount of effort required for volunteers to get involved, donors to show their support, and candidates to communicate more widely and openly.  And this past election cycle, the campaign that utilized the Internet to the fullest extent was the one that came out on top.  In my opinion, it was the Republicans.

What did the Republicans do?  Why did it work so well?

This election was decided on the ground. The Republicans had a better planned and executed effort to deploy volunteers to get out the Republican vote.  And they used online tools much more effectively than the Democrats to make that happen.

Bush National Field Director, Terry Nelson, told campaign volunteers over the summer that "The web has changed the rules and we are changing grassroots politics."  He said, "For many years, volunteers who wanted to walk their precinct, call voters in their neighborhood, or contact undecided voters in swing states to help a campaign had to visit the campaign office to get lists, call sheets, clipboards and brochures.”  Not anymore.  Back in June, the Bush campaign unveiled “Your Virtual Precinct,” a tool which allowed Bush supporters to set up their own ‘precinct’ of friends and family across the country to contact on behalf of the President's campaign," and a peer-to-peer network designed to help supporters "spread the word about President Bush's record of accomplishment by sending letters to undecided voters in target states." The system even offered users the ability to download a walk list, complete with map and directions in your neighborhood.  Using this system, and the accountability it provided to the campaign, the Republicans were able to identify, and then leverage the time and energy of their volunteers, at levels no campaign had reached before. 

Didn't the Democrats raise all that money online?

Yes.  Fundraising for the 2004 cycle was a whole different ballgame than it was even two years ago.  Both national campaigns successfully took full advantage of the fundraising opportunities online by quickly and inexpensively conceiving of, writing, delivering, and then watching as their online fundraising efforts generated significant returns.  The Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee collectively raised nearly $100 million online and 527 groups like MoveOn.org and ACT added nearly $100 million more.  John Kerry's campaign raised 60 percent of its contributions through its Internet site, many from first-time donors making small contributions. The Bush campaign raised nearly $15 million online, but ultimately looked more to large donors to fund their efforts, focusing their grassroots support in the field.  Conservative groups like the Club for Growth chipped in $20 million raised online to the Republican effort.

Political Communications 101

The Internet allowed all campaigns, no matter the size, to communicate in a more focused and effective way this cycle.  But neither campaign took full advantage of the opportunities that were available.  The Bush campaign spent more money on cable and radio, targeting their messages to reach specific demographic audiences, particularly rural voters who tipped the balance to the President.  The Kerry campaign did not spend as much on cable and radio as the Republicans, and they didn’t look to the Internet to fill that gap either.  In messaging as in ground operations, Republicans seized the opportunities online much more effectively than Democrats.  They had compelling, timely, and well delivered messages that both attacked and defended against attacks, and reinforced their overall campaign messages and themes.  The Democrats, meanwhile, passed on most opportunities to deliver messages online in a targeted way – to people reading the newspaper online or perusing a health care-related websites for example.

More than 40% of those who use the internet have gotten political material during this campaign, according to the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press – that’s a 50% increase than the number who had gotten such information in the 2000 campaign.  Look at it another way -- in 2000, some 30 million Americans getting news about politics online; and in 2004, that number more than doubled to 63 million.  In the final few months before Election Day, more than four in ten Internet users used the web to find information that helped them decide how to vote.  Some bloggers were receiving one million-plus visitors per day in the final weeks of the campaign.  So the fact is, more Americans are turning to the Web for political news and information, and the entire political process is being elevated to new levels as a result.

The number of people reached and dollars raised by the campaigns was higher than ever.  The Bush campaign was said to have as many as seven million email addresses in their database, compared to just 2.5 million for the Kerry campaign.  But the numerical advantage alone did not deliver a victory for the President.  Republican campaigns simply made better use of their audiences.  Consider that during the final week of the election, the Kerry campaign continued to send out fundraising messages – nearly 2/3 of the messages Democrats received from the campaign asked for a contribution, while only 30% focused on getting out the vote and just 14% focused on issues or current events.  In contrast, of messages the Bush campaign sent during the final week, only 8% focused on fundraising, while 38% focused on getting out the vote and 54% focused on issues.  The Bush campaign crated a direct line to their supporters to ask them for what was most imminently needed: votes and unity on issues.  The Kerry campaign sent as many messages, but asked for something far less urgent in the final days leading up to an election: money.

Lessons Learned

What lesson do I want people to take away from this election?

The Internet has created new opportunities for political campaigns and organizations to more effectively communicate with their stakeholders. A strong web presence and strategic use of email and other online tools allows an organization to reach supporters and donors, volunteers, and the media more effectively.  These online tools must be incorporated into the overall strategy of an organization and used as a key extension of everyday activities to maximize the benefits they offer.  Remember, web users are not like the target audiences for television and direct mail, and they need to be approached differently.  Web visitors spend far more time searching and learning. Where a costly television commercial may attract a viewer's attention for only 30-seconds, or a direct mail piece may steal a quick glance before finding its way into the recycle bin, the average Web user could spend five or ten minutes at a time actively gathering information at an organization’s website. The Internet is simply a more effective tool for educating and energizing subscribers or supporters than any other.  But if you look at it only as a tactic, for raising money, or sharing only the information you believe is best, you are missing out on a lot.

Update: I want to credit my colleague, Shayna Englin, for helping me to focus some of these thoughts -- and for inspiring the words.  I encourage you to read her thoughts on how the Democratic Party should respond.

Comments (1):

Interesting read, thanks

Add a New Comment

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345f886c69e200d8345f962669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Happened: