here's an interesting analysis of the Dean campaign . . .

[OneBlueSky]

by a Dean supporter . . . apologies if it's been posted before . . .

Exiting Deanspace
by Clay Shirky
Corante Tech News
February 3, 2004

http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/02/03/exiting_deanspace.php

(I'd post some excerpts, but my computer's copy function isn't cooperating this evening . . . sorry . . . )

[Raya]

1. Profound Analysis. Deserves wide distribution

[bearfartinthewoods]

4. excerpt

February 03, 2004
Exiting Deanspace
- Posted by Clay Shirky at 1:50 PM
I wanted to wait ‘til today’s polls opened to post this, because I wanted it to be a post-mortem and not a vivisection. What follows is a long musing on the Dean campaign’s use of internet tools, but it has a short thesis: the hard thing to explain is not how the Dean campaign blew such a huge lead, but rather why we ever thought that lead actually existed. Dean’s campaign didn’t just fail, it dissolved on contact with reality.

The answer, I think, is that we talked ourselves, but not the voters, into believing. And I think the way the campaign was organized helped inflate and sustain that bubble of belief, right up to the moment that the voters arrived.

snip

Dean’s campaign was never actually successful. It did many of the things successful campaigns do, of course — got press and raised money and excited people and even got potential voters to aver to campaign workers and pollsters that they would vote for him when the time came. When the time came, however, they didn’t. The campaign never succeeded at making Howard Dean the first choice of any group of voters he faced, and it seems unlikely to do so today.

If this thesis — call it the ‘mirage’ thesis — is too strong for you, consider its cousin, where the campaign was doing well until the last few days. In this version, one New Hampshire voter in three dumped Dean after no event more momentous than a third-place showing in Iowa (rarely known to track to New Hampshire elections) and a little hootin’ and hollerin’ in the concession speech (to use Sharpton’s memorable phrase). Not one Dean supporter in three, mind, one voter in three.

[D G]

2. It really goes beyond the Dean campaign

It is a good story for any campaign to read, especially if you are interested in Internet use in campaigns (and all campaigns use the Internet now to some extent)

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

3. Very long, but a good read

Has some very useful information to start with to re-key a similar movement in the future without making the same mistakes and mistaken assumptions.

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. i hpe you are right about the "lessons learned"

n/t

[WiseMen]

6. Its like a book. Writer is brilliant but hard to read a novel on the net

[blm]

7. My question remains, Why did the press help CREATE this illusion?

Were they that fooled or were they the reason that the illusion lasted as long as it did?

[felix19]

8. Media saw the entertainment value

of promoting the Dean campaign during the doldrums. The Sleepless Summer Tour was a thrill for them. That translated into interest among the public, and huge crowds all over the country. That led to enormous fundraising prowess -- which, btw, we still have -- which in turn led to more hyped media coverage, and so on.

Then Gov. Dean got "above himself" after the major endorsements and he said out loud that he would undo some of the media consolidation legislation, break up the monopolies and give the media back to the people.

IMMEDIATELY, he became anathema to the very media that had so wildly pumped him up. Funny how that works, isn't it?

The bubble burst. That meant that a lot of folks who were really only supporting him because of the front-runner perception sloughed off. Dean's core support is about as strong now as before though.

His message hasn't changed. He hasn't changed. What was begun continues.

And he has a much larger core of support than he otherwise would have had without the hype of last year. He started as a barely perceptible blip on the screen. He is a definite player now.

Why should they want him OUT now when he's still running a good second, still running a good campaign, still speaking truth, still motivating crowds, still delivering the message? He's doing better with voters than the other candidates who are not being ordered to get out by the media. Why should that be?

I've seen how the vote has gone and talked to some of the voters, interviewed some former Dean supporters, and the picture is beginning to clarify for me: Dean's support is about where it should be, given the nature and character of his message. He's never taken a popular political stand, only a "correct" one. That has meant an amazing influence, but not necessarily votes.

Old Line Progressivism -- which is what Dean represents -- is NOT popular and never has been. It's hard work. It means a real and continuing commitment to the democratic political process. It means being involved, informed, and outspoken. And it is a threat to the established (and corrupted) powers that be.

Voters key in to the message, but they don't necessarily follow through. But that doesn't invalidate the message.

And it sure ain't over yet!

[blm]

11. hey ol' buddy, ol' sparring partner, ol' pal.....

I can actually concur with some of your points here.

;)

[KoKo]

12. Your assessment and the linked article's observations are both interesting

I think your comments clarify what some of us feel. And, Deans Populist message is the message we need to keep focused on, no matter what he does in the polls or these caucuses.

I just hope he will stay in for his message...same as with Kucinich. If they can just keep in their running Campaigns on a shoestring, or wish and a prayer if it comes to that....it's too important for those of us who want changes in the Democratic Party to resist those who want their message drowned out early.

[joshcryer]

13. Well said, couldn't have said it better myself.

That's basically the jist of it.

[DebJ]

9. If the guy in #2 never had a campaign, then where does that leave the

rest of the candidates?
Of course, Terry McAuliffe doesn't believe in primaries, actually.

[bread_and_roses]

10. Fascinating article

I was particularly interested in what I understood to be the methodology of counting supporters. Supporters were "logged" by the reports of field workers? In all the campaigns I've worked on, we had people going door to door, but we "counted" support via telephone polling that was pretty straightforward: ie, "are you definitely for, leaning toward, definitely against, leaning against" the candidate. These polls change over time and have proved pretty accurate.

We take it as a given that support verbalized face-to-face could be politeness, or simply a way to get rid of the face at the door.

The other points were also interesting, and the article is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in campaigns.

[bread_and_roses]

14. kicking this

in the hope that some others read and comment on it. I am really interested in what some others here with experience on campaigns think of this analysis.