Why Pat Toomey Lost

[Kire]

Why Pat Toomey Lost
by Jerome Armstrong
Apr 28th, 2004

There will be gnashing of teeth among Conservatives, over President Bush coming in 3 days before the primary, to deliver his ringing endorsement of Senator Specter that delivered the win (take a view at "Three for PA" and tell me that's not worthy of 15,000 votes). But Conservatives shouldn't blame Bush for Specter's winning, a campaign should expect it's opponent to use every piece of its arsenal. No, the reason why Toomey lost is that his own campaign blew it--they didn't use their entire available arsenal. Toomey's campaign didn't use the netroots that had coalesced surrounding his campaign. The decision-makers in the official campaign of Toomey profoundly under-utilized the internet, both in terms of in-state organizing, communication with supporters, and national fundraising. Toomey lost, and he could have won. They had the opportunity sitting here, and his campaign directors failed him by not grasping it.

I was traveling in Pennsylvania circles during last summer. We were consulting for Charlie Crystle, who was ramping up his own Senate campaign for the Democratic nomination, but ultimately decided against running, so I was paying pretty keen attention to the GOP primary as well. Folks on the ground there didn't have any idea that Toomey was going to be a strong contender, but on the net, the strength of Toomey was already self-evident in its potential. As one of the original strategists working with Trippi and the Dean campaigns use of the internet, I can smell what's working on the net a gig away, and there was action happening for Toomey. His meetup numbers, like Howard Dean's in the beginning of 2003, took off on their own initiative; Toomey volunteer websites and blogs sprang up by the end of 2003, it was happening. But unlike the Dean campaign, Toomey's campaign didn't embrace the internet.

More: http://jerome-armstrong.mydd.com/story/2004/4/28/32321/0325