The tools are far ahead of anything available on the GOP sites. It pains me to say that, but it's not even close. There far ahead of anything on the Democrat sites as well.
"Democratic Sites" see also Democrat Party Phrase
In the Daily Digest yesterday, Josh mentioned my ongoing problems with McCainSpace. It took 18 days to get the site submitted and approved.
I ran into issues with its obscenity filter (a problem I also had with the RNC's version of this tool), I sat in limbo for days, tried again only to find out that my previous attempt was now hampering my current attempt, and finally made it through the gauntlet to earn my site.
All this made me ask if it was worth it. I decided to answer that question by comparing McCain's social networking to Barack Obama's. Assuming that McCain represents the best of social networking on the right, and Obama is the best of the left, who's winning the battle of the tools? (Stop snickering!)
McCainSpace
McCainSpace allows five options for managing the site:
The options sound good - giving you the ability to control your page, maintain your own e-mail list and distribution mechanism, and manage a donor network.
As with most things Internet, the limitations quickly become apparent. For instance, I want to send an e-mail in my own words asking people to give, or to join the campaign. I can't. I can add a blurb to the top of an official campaign message, but I can't create my own from whole cloth.
I also can't reach out to other supporters. I'd love to organize a coffee klatch in my neighborhood. Can I use the e-mail mechanism to reach other supporters in my area? Nope. Can I arrange an event that gets posted to the site so others can find me? Nope. There is no way to interact with other supporters.
It’s called Social Networking for a reason. If it doesn’t allow for networking, it’s not very social. If I want to send e-mail only to my friends and people I already know, I have Outlook for that.
Now, I can understand the campaign not wanting a detractor to sign up, and immediately begin e-mailing anti-McCain messages to real supporters. Maybe some sort of workflow approval system would provide a check, but that brings me to my next point.
Even the modification of my site text is limited. I can change the copy, but when I submit my content, it goes back into the approval queue. Based on the issues I had with getting the site up and running, I don't know that I want to bet on the queue working very well.
BarackObama.com
Most of my criticisms of Barack Obama's site, by way of comparison, are minor points related to trivial issues. The profile creation process is a perfect example. Obama lists issues that I might care about. Among them are:
There may be some jargon of the left that I am not familiar with, but it seems these five items are rife with repetition. Equality, social justice, and economic fairness all seem to be ways of restating the same issue.
Obama's offering, unlike the tools available on Republican side, do not seem particularly concerned with the "fuq" in my blog title. Neither the url or the name KungFuQuip were rejected.
The tools are far ahead of anything available on the GOP sites. It pains me to say that, but it's not even close. There far ahead of anything on the Democrat sites as well.
Obama allows users to create their own blog, to create events, to fundraise, and to network together. The ability to organize laterally is present in every one of Obama's tools and stands in stark contrast to McCain's top heavy style.
What happened to 2004?
Achievement in almost any field comes from taking that which came before and building on it - making it better, faster, easier to use, or more attractive. The Bush campaign learned from the Dean folks in 2004. We saw the power of lateral organizing and empowering our supporters. We didn't, in my opinion, go far enough, but we moved the ball as much as the GOP system would allow.
We focused our attention on finding and recruiting supporters, and giving them tools to reach voters, whether by phone, e-mail or door knock. We allowed them to host events, but more importantly, we allowed them to open the doors to other volunteers. Their invite lists wasn't pulled from their personal address book. It included other Bush Volunteers who lived nearby. It connected neighbors who had never met, and allowed them to work together for the benefit of the campaign.
The current crop of Republican sites indicates that nothing was learned from the success we had. Nobody is building on what was done before. Nobody is taking the last generation and making it better. Nobody saw, in that model, the power you can have by opening the system and giving control to the user.
On the Democrat side, the only one I see who has actually learned from 2004 is Obama. He has taken the best of the Dean model, and the best of the Bush model, and come up with a very good package.
The only thing I am not seeing is the inclusion of voters in the mix. I suspect that's coming. The inclusion, specifically, of "Organizing" as an event type leads me to believe they're already hard at work.
If Obama can tie the events on his sites to arranging precinct walks with maps he provides, or volunteer phone banks with scripts and call lists from his voter file, he may well be unstoppable. There's certainly no indication on the right that any of the candidates know what it's going to take to compete.
The tools are far ahead of anything available on the GOP sites. It pains me to say that, but it's not even close. There far ahead of anything on the Democrat sites as well.
"Democratic Sites" see also Democrat Party Phrase
That was actually supposed to say "Democrats' sites", but blame the partisan in me. It comes out inadvertently sometimes... My apologies.
Haha. No Problem, as long as it didn't go unsaid.
myspace.com/AlGore08
It might be worth mentioning that the reason Obama has appeared to have learned so much from Dean in 2004 is that Obama has hired a fair number of the Dean web team. This explains a lot.
As a software developer and Obama supporter, I can tell you that the Obama tools represent at least 1000 man hours of development time. It's possible that parts are built upon open source software, but there's still a lot of investment here. My point is that there's simply no way that development of the website wasn't started well before his January pre-annoucement. In fact, my personal belief is that it was probably started before the November election.
Whether or not this was in an offical capacity for OFA or whether these key people had built the system over the past couple years on their own is anyones guess. If I had to guess, I'd say it was the latter, and the fact that they had a proven track record and a mature code base probably got them the job to begin with.
I have to disagree with you that the internet tools on the DeanForAmerica.com site were an "accident."
Software doesn't organically mutate from lesser life forms. It needs to be designed and written. After it's deployed, specific features are added in an organic way, based on community feedback, but it took vision to pull off what they did.
I know you weren't trying to minimize the efforts of the DFA team but I think it's a mistake to characterize them as just stumbling upon a winning internet formula.
There are some gaps, but this is my sense of the rough geneology of the tools:
1) Moveon has tool for people to create their own events
2) Moveon coder Patrick creates "get local" for Dean campaign
3) I hired Clay Johnson to build "deanlink" (social networking tool) for Dean campaign
4) Clay Johnson, Jascha and others from Dean campaign start Blue State Digital.
5) Blue State Digital is hired for post-Dean software development, in return gets full ownership of code base from Dean campaign
5) Blue State Digital builds software for DNC, and one of its principals (Joe Rospars) works for DNC
6) Blue State Digital adds group functionality to its code base for Progressnow.org.
7) Jim Brayton (Dean alum, Obama's webmaster) hires Joe Rospars of BSD as New Media Director and buys iteration of code base for Obama
You can see these tools described here:
http://www.bluestatedigital.com/2006/01/groups_and_chapters.html
http://www.bluestatedigital.com/2006/01/personal_fundraiser.html
These are years, not hours, in development. I don't know that the coding is the hardest part, but the development of a smooth social experience.
You are so my personal hero.
I quit my job in November 2003 and drove to Hanover, NH and volunteered out of the Upper Valley office. I did a lot of Vis/door knocking/etc but I also did a lot of really rudimentary excel programming that pulled numbers from the campaign website and gave the area organizers the data they needed. Especially in the January GOTV efforts.
I really appreciate your rundown of the Obama apps. I did say "At least 1000 hours" because that was the least possible amount of time I figured a project like that might take.
Seriously, what you did at DFA was the best thing I've ever been a part of. I've never been happier to sleep on a floor and suck down $1 cheeseburgers as I was for those few months.
Part of what's excited me about Obama is the familiar faces.
From Dean to Obama (but what about Edwards?)
Mike--
Thanks for that very cogent and frank analysis of how social networking tools are, or aren't, being deployed by the leading presidential campaigns.
You put your finger on one of the most important and little-noticed changes in presidential politicking: the idea that it might be good to enable your supporters to connect laterally to each other, let go of some control, and gain enhanced grass-roots volunteer involvement in return. In 2004 Dean did this largely by accident rather than design; now at least a few major campaigns are doing something truly unprecedented. Imagine if a large membership group (MoveOn, Common Cause, the NRA) decided to introduce its members to each other at the local level and then get out of the way.
It's not a coincidence, I think, that Obama's campaign has such a good platform for doing this. Its pedigree flows from the Dean campaign, where various people envisioned a "DeanSpace" that enabled registered volunteers to connect with each other...to the efforts of Dean's follow-on organization, DemocracyforAmerica, to refine the tool (see DFALink: http://www.dfalink.com/)...to the work of former Dean folks at Blue State Digital on such projects as Colorado's ProgressNowAction (http://www.progressnowaction.org) and the DNC's Partybuilder. One common thread in that pedigree is Joe Rospars, who is now Obama's internet director. They saw the power of lateral connection and campaign-as-network, as now you are seeing it blossom around Obama.
At the same time, we shouldn't write off what Edwards is doing in this arena. His site isn't as elegantly designed as Obama's (and one might argue whether that is a strength or weakness--I personally find his home page overwhelming but there sure is a lot of life demonstrated by all the content displayed), but if you join OneCorps--or even if you don't--you can very quickly zero in on fellow Edwards supporters in your immediate area. Not everyone is divulging personal information, but I found one guy a few miles from me who put up his name, his picture, his IM, where he works, what town he lives in, etc. So, in terms of enabling lateral connections, Edwards is doing as much, if not more, than Obama.
There's one additional wrinkle to Edwards' use of social networking on his site that hasn't gotten much attention: the use of points to reward people who do things on the site, and thus involve the community in helping filter content. Mike, you've written a couple of times about how campaigns that let go of site control will have to deal with the vandals who maliciously post obscenity, etc. Edwards seems to have a smart solution to this problem, at least as relates to what blog posts make it to his front page--they need to be recommended by a certain number of people first, and you gain points for doing so. I'd like to see a concise explanation of their points system (couldn't find it on a quick glance around their site), but it appears they have developed a hybrid solution that could very well be extremely useful in helping the campaign ID its most active volunteers.