Personally I think traditional field organizing died in 1980 when the mass migration to the suburbs/exurbs hit the tipping point. It is the "Bowling Alone" thesis as applied to politics: people stay at home and watch videos (or post to blogs). They don't participate in membership organizations.

This is masked by the Republicans using churches, particularly megachurches, as organizing levers. That is one membership organization that many suburbanites DO participate in. But perhaps the only one. The Democrats keep trying to recreate the one-to-one model of the 1920s, but the vast majority of Americans just don't behave that way anymore and without the megachurches it won't work for them. When was the last time you heard a comedian tell a door-to-door salesman joke? That's right, you haven't: we don't have door-to-door salesmen anymore. Because the tactic doesn't work.

sPh

J. McCutchen

Welcome to Camp Obama

Attended the mid-August session which Ganz facilitated in SF. Initially I had my doubts. Now I am one of three team coordinators in Congressional District 8. About building networks designed to survive the particular election around which they arose.

And yes, the concept is to treat voters like citizens not advertising targets, atomized victims of any and every flim flam that comes from on high.

No more mushroom clouds.

Email available on this account if you want to volunteer. Join the group, we're cloning teams now

There's an analogy here from the world of organized labor.

The style of unionism that was increasingly prevalent from the 1950s on was "business unionism". The union was a service organization and its members were customers. This is like the "marketing model" that Andrew describes in his post.

In the 1970s, insurgent labor activists began promoting a more grass-roots form of unionism that focused on continuing engagement of the rank and file. This philosophy resembles the idea of treating voters like citizens, as Andrew puts it.

Notwithstanding the challenges of our atomized society, I believe these new models are necessary for the survival of the respective institutions--unionism on the one hand, and progressive democratic and Democratic politics on the other--to which they are applied.

If the Democratic leadership doesn't get a backbone and stand up to Bush, I'm not sure it matters how they field organize because I believe the rank and file is demoralized.Tom

J. McCutchen

Look on the bright side. Republican rank-in-file Feel their pain

I appreciate your support for the ideals of this but am asking for a practical understanding of how it works. I am very active in local politics at the neighborhood level, but whether from the top or bottom of this process I'm asking what actually happens at the end of the rainbow?

Sorry if my post came off sounding negative. I'm being serious. From a campaign communications/organizing perspective, what's the feedback mechanism? What results do voters expect?

Are organizers objectively polling the populations they interact with based on key issues and then are the campaigns receiving and using that input in a serious way to affect their operations and policy positions?

If this is just a more down-to-earth, localized and human way for grassroots organizers to develop quality relationships that 'engage' people that's great and I'm sure it will bear results. If it's more than that (which seems to be what's promised) how does it actually work?

Consider the old ward boss model without the corruption. If you can deliver voters in your neighborhood, then frankly you should also be given a voice in the party's candidates and issues that are important. You'll know that Sally down the street needs a reminder call to go and vote or that John needs a ride to the poll or that Dan needs an absentee ballot. If you deliver, you can also demand--even if it's just getting a pothole fixed.

But you add all those neighborhood activists up and you have a serious threat to the existing party structure. And this structure is delivering elections by a hair and issues that remain unaddressed because the narrow-focus of lobbyist groups hold sway. Potential voters develop cynicism and don't vote--low turnout and low activism and high dissatisfaction.

Easy? No. The remnants of the tattered Dem party structure will fight it tooth and toenail because their power would be undercut. Lobbyists would be undercut--think they'll be happy? Our current elected leaders--think they want to learn new power structures with new names and have to learn what these folks want?

Thanks to both of you for the thoughtful follow-up. I will take a deeper look and consider GO membership.

Best of luck in your efforts!

If I let myself get demoralized I take it as kind of my own fault, and say shame on me.  Andrew Golis' column brought back memories of my re-induction into activism after too many years of inaction.  It happened through the Dean Campaign.  I never thought I'd find myself lying on the floor in an Irish pub (read the rest of the sentence before jumping to conclusions) hand-writing letters to Iowans, using my own words with no prompting or censorship, addressing the envelopes and putting on my own stamps.  We didn't win in Iowa, but many of us didn't go away.  I found my liking for activism reawakened:  I became a conference junkie (wow... I hope people read this carefully before my reputation flies out the window), and I will move into higher gear once (if ever) candidates think Rhode Island is worth bothering with.  Get out there and field organize...forest organize, vineyard organize, swamp organize, and, dare I suggest it, suburban tract McMansion organize. 

aMike

=== We (meaning those of us posting here) are not a group that joins political clubs and committees and actually works at getting someone elected. Instead, we make up our own minds about who to vote for based largely on what we see on TV. ===

sPh

sPh wrote:

"Personally I think traditional field organizing
died in 1980 when the mass migration to the
suburbs/exurbs hit the tipping point. It is
the "Bowling Alone" thesis as applied to politics:
people stay at home and watch videos (or post to blogs).
They don't participate in membership organizations."

Well I half agree.

I agree that people who stay at home and watch
TV are much less likely to be participate in political
organizations or anything else.

http://www.tvsmarter.com/documents/democracy.html

But I do think that people who stay at home and post to
blogs are more politically engaged than the TV watchers,
although perhaps not as much as those involved in
face-to-face organizations.

http://www.newpolitics.net/node/158?full_report=1

Getting off the couch is better for our physical
health, our mental health, and our civil health.

For instance, I like sending workers out to bus stops early in the morning while people are waiting for their bus to work.

I'm sure such encounters are thrilling for all those commuters attempting to wrest a few moments of peace and quiet reflection from the hectic day before them.

=== Hoppy, you could this weekend go knocking on neighbors' doors between 10 am and 2 pm just to identify supporters. Think about where you live and set a goal of 50 addresses that you're personally going to keep track of for the campaign. Don't worry about anything else but those 50 addresses. It's all very polite and not pushy and definitely not "I HAVE to convince the Hillary supporter..." Low-key and neighborly is what you're aiming for.
.
After a few weekends, you have the following information on your 50 addresses: 13 Republicans who won't be voting for a Dem (yes, ask); 2 vacant with "for sale" in front; 2 no answers still; 5 Hillary supporters; 5 Edwards supporters; 5 Obama supporters; and 18 undecided.

Agreed and a good point.

Obama supporters, see my reply to Hoppy above.

Supporters of all other candidates, I agree with sphealey and Florida Democrat. :)

The dimension that needs to be addressed for me to understand how this "new approach" can tie neighborhood organizing to poltical campaigns is how you deal with issues of voter registration, party affiliation and the unresponsiveness of national campaigns to local input.

By this I mean that most issues around which neighborhood organization in most neighborhoods take place are local, non-partisan issues -- land-use, public amenities, crime and policing, local schools, etc. Not that these are not issues that have a politics but that if you introduce politics (ie, try to them to partisan politics) you lose a significant portion of your potential citizens -- even those who might themselves share those politics, because they start to regard the nascent organization itself as political (in the worst sense, of insincere) and therefore not civic.

So I'm all in favor of organizign and empowering citizens but I don't see how that helps you mobilize people to vote for a political party, unless your local leaders themselvs, as a result of the credibility they might develop through oranizing in the neighborhood, can be the ones to tell local citizens how to vote. Thats very imporant in down-ballot races but for a presidential race, its hard to see how local leaders are going to get more attention paid to their views by their neigbhors than the cacaphony of national and local print and electronic media, direct mail, robo-calls, etc.

Lastly, my view on "Camp Obama" is that its a noble exercise and I'm all in favor of it -- but I don't see how it helps Obama win primaries. That is, unless they are organizing only in districts and precincts that they already consider to be primarily composed of high-target voters (those likely a) to vote in the Dem primary and b) to vote for their candidate -- which I presume in this case would mean african-americans) then I don't see how local organizing that is not micro-targeting (ie identifying specific supporters, leanders and undecideds and then educating and mobilizing them on election day) helps them on primary day. If my very very modest neighborhood organization were to be an example, the best we could hope for is to turn out a larger % fo voters on election day and because I live in a 70-30 precinct, presume most of those are democrats. On general election day, that helps. But on primary day, how does that help any particular candidate?

What if the feedback from the neighbors is not the message that Obama (or any other primary candidate) is campaigning on?

stl, I responded above to your post to Hoppy but it got misplaced. I'm wondering since we're talking about a presidential election as an example, how you account for the impact of print and electronic media, mail, etc on those supporters you've identified at the doorstep.

J. McCutchen

Hoppy,

Our volunteers surely will speak with undecided voters - one on one stories of why you support a candidate are far more persuasive than any recitation of talking points or policy bullets

The teams' primary objectives do not involve persuading undecided voters however but rather:

1. To identify and add new volunteers to create other teams, "clone" them so that we ideally have each of the 200 odd precincts in CD8 covered for GOTV;

2. through canvassing and phone banking of campaign targeted groups using computerized database available to one person on each team, to identify Obama voters, committed voters

3. Turn THAT vote out thru absentee and election day GOTV

We have usual visibility events as well. Sen Obama's appearing next Friday at a huge fundraiser at Bill Graham Civic. Groups are starting to table all over town. We're having house parties; establishing Students for Barack Obama chapters on local campuses, manning booths at street fairs and festivals etc.

But it all comes back to the volunteers in their teams. We run the campaign albeit with coordination from the State Campaign office. These grassroots networks survive 2008 whatever happens.

That better????

We've a group in Sacto if you'd like to join up!

J. McCutchen

What if the feedback from the neighbors is not the message that Obama (or any other primary candidate) is campaigning on?

If that's the case (and sometimes it is!), the field hears about it before the consultants at the head shed -- bet on it.

If the neighbors don't care for a candidate's message, she's in deep sh*t

J. McCutchen

Having walked SF precincts in more races than I care to recall, and having been a precinct captain in the past three SF mayor races (well funded, well staffed very professional, traditional field ops), I won't dispute that it is labor intensive but it is far more effective than phone banking.

A precinct walker can cover 8-10 doors/hr. A phone banker can do 20-25 calls

You don't walk a precinct once Hoppy. You do it time and time and time again

And then you do it again. But you do not knock on every door. Hillary for instance might choose women or some age cohort or whatever

Obama blacks, hispanics, under 40 fer instance and in either case, I don't suspect that either campaign will be contacting other than frequent, likely voters

Absentee voters esp

Properly done, a field operation is far more taregeted than you've described

J. McCutchen

And what you have is nothing. GOTV, field ops can raise a candidate's vote 2-3%. Done the old fashioned way...door-to-door

Those "megachurches" are networks but you are deluding yourselves if you think for a moment that the Dems are just victims of some great GOP IRS conspiracy.

You speak as if the campaign tactics of the past 30 years or more are something new, something to be preferred, something that gives the Dems some sort of edge

Bollocks!

Where have you been? In a coma?

J. McCutchen

In theory if not in practice there is no difference - national/local

Understand that the goal is to create local networks of like minded folks. At the local level, if you've done any campaigning at all or looked at a vote results map, people sort themselves. If in SF we create 40 7 person teams, that network will survive and work on local races.

By contrast, Mayor Newsom has grasped the communitarian approach, sort of, with his "re-election" campaign and his SF Connect city volunteer networks.

His campaign is not www.newsom4mayor.org but www.actlocallysf.org.

This communitarian field organizing is the next thing not the 30 year old mass marketing model as Andrew so eloquently condemns

Our Florida union organizer is understandably negative...I don't blame. Union organizing is pretty much an oxymoron..for the past 30 years

Perhaps I wasn't clear. There are already local people; the existing executive committees and clubs.

The utilization of these groups is only to select a small consulting group to help design a local media campaign. It is not designed to build any new network.

My point on civic groups is that Liberals just need to start participating and speaking up that they are liberals with liberal solutions.

That is not a campaign strategy. It is not door to door and it is not GOTV. It is just a general comment that Liberals should start "coming out of the closet".

Your comments about speaking both sides of the issue would be more productive if you specifically pointed out what you believe to be the contradictory statements. That way I could explain in greater detail.

J. McCutchen

I know my posts have been somewhat scattered and that is why I forgot one of the key ingredients of the grassroots network concept - RESOURCES

To make it concrete, my team has

1. Law school admissions director
2. principle in a local PR firm
3 two grad students
4. an SEIU organizer
5. a lawyer and sometime street hack - me
6. a high school student who worked New Hampshire senate last year at Exeter
7. an international IT planner

Some hacks, some newbies..but all of us are bringing resources to the campaign other than just our shoe leather, dialing fingers etc.
Resources, creativity, motivation

Will it work? As I've said, I dunno. There's a big time problem but if Obama is the nominee and/or the winner can coopt these teams from California to South Carolina, that nominee will have assets no other national Democratic campaign has had since the 1930's

Sure we need a good candidate. Lots of money. Sharp advertising etc etc etc...

That's nothing new

This is. Many of the comments above are from hacks like me who've been there and done that. I am here to testify that you do not know what you are talking about.

I didn't a few weeks ago myself.

PS the Happy Hour EC roundup reminded me...We've just added a homeless person, a homeless coalition activist to this rather improbable collection

> jexter
> Having walked SF precincts in more races
> than I care to recall,
.
jexter,
I love central cities. I have lived in central cities. I was doing neighborhood organizing on the south side of Chicago while Mr. Obama was exploring some alternative recreational substances. I am a disciple of Jane Jacobs.
.
Most USians don't live in central cities. Your experience in central San Francisco will get you exactly nowhere in suburbia and arrested in exurbia. 10 doors PER HOUR? Even in the fairly dense suburb where I am currently exiled that is a pipe dream. And as hoppy noted elsewhere in the thread very few people answer the door in today's society to begin with.
.
sPh

J. McCutchen

YOU're GETTING IT!

That's the whole point. That's the angle we worked for 2 of the 3 days training.

Hell that's what my problem was going in - "What in the hell are we gonna do for 3 days?" You can teach basic field work in less than 6 hours, intensively. That is what Hillary's doing with Hillstars.

Every field director I on the planet begins her pep talk with "Tell folks why YOU are supporting the candidate"? Sound familiar? Lots of very committed and otherwise articulate people cannot do so much less articulate their values as a group. You know this.

Emotion, your story, not somebody's talking points ..that's what we worked on for 20 of the 30 hours. Building flat org of common interest volunteer teams prepared to tell their stories to others - volunteers and identified supporters to motivate to act with EMOTION

You should have followed the links in Andrew's posts.

Emotion is the heart of the entire Ganz organizing approach.

Will this work?

I have NO idea

Is it different?

You bet.

Thanks for reminding me of Lakoff.

This was my experience with the Matsui campaign - one with ample money, a good candidate, party support, and more volunteers than they could use. She would have won in any case.

Good grassroots work bring in up to a few percent of the vote. But, if the candidate is behind in the polls by 10% or more, it just isn't going to win the election for him. And, getting up to within 10% is a job the candidate has to do with good advertising, good press coverage, and good ideas. I see this as the problem Obama faces - he isn't even creeping up to within 10% at this point.

And, if I tried re-visiting the same households several times in a few months before the election I would actually lose votes for my candidate and possibly get a police escort out of the neighborhood. I'm not in a suburb either, but it isn't a typical center city area. When I did a canvassing effort for Obama in a center city, targetted area, filled with theoretically ripe Obama voters, my partner and I talked to two people that afternoon, in 3 hours - no one else would answer the door, or they did and couldn't speak English. New campaigning ideas are needed, and I don't have any.

Hoppy in Sacramento

This is an anecdotal story that may be on topic, though it is only about one successful creative approach to countering someone with a 'marketing approach'.

This is a two and a half year old story about my small town, about 1,700 population and growing due to good schools and location. I was appalled to see that an ex-mayor, who had [deservedly, I believed] lost his long time mayoral office four years earlier, was running again for that office. One day this guy's extra large professionally done yard signs had magically appeared at all the best intersections and approaches to the town. I won't go into all the history of why I did not want to see that ex-mayor retake that office.

I acted on my own and consulted no one. I personally wrote and signed and printed at my own expense hundreds of copies of a one page paper. I wrote mostly of the town's spirit and rich history, but included a gentle chastisement of this ex-mayor who at least should have apologized to the townsfolk for some undemocratic behavior he had engaged in a few years back. I was concerned that the rapid growth of the town meant that a lot of folks simply didn't know some of this relevant history. I knew that the present mayor who was running for re-election had done a good enough, if not flashy, job. I had no personal connection to officeholders, nor had I ever been very politically active, but I had attended town hall meetings in which the citizens rose up against this ex-mayor over a serious issue that affected all townspeople. Mostly I was quietly living in this town and not, as far as I know, very well known except by close neighbors.

Then two days before the election, I started walking. By the end of the second day, I had delivered a copy to each house in the town except for the north precinct which got missed because I simply ran out of time. I believe I walked six hours on the Sunday and nine hours on the Monday before the election day of Tuesday. The guy I wanted to lose actually did lose the election, only taking a majority of votes in that north precinct.

I am telling this story because I believe that it does underscore the importance of local contact and the role of passion/emotion in elections. Whoever can tap into that with a positive uplifing message is far ahead of the marketed candidate.

An outstanding effort.

In Florida there may have been some questions about campaign law violations; only because this state is so weird.

I believe that in a small town environment that tactic can work very well for local elections.

I don't see the same tactic working for a Presidential campaign where locally known personalities are absent.

===But don't rationalize the status quo please. You don't know what you are talking about
.
Trust me ===

There are no easy, snap answers, Hoppy. Neighborhoods vary all over the map.

I actually start from my own conviction that the majority of Americans support Democratic policies. I firmly believe that.

You may see it a waste of time, but I suspect that's because you want a much higher success rate. I want to find a few who get energized and those few can find more. That's how movements are built.

Florida Democrat, you are right that 'the same tactic' is not necessarily transferable to a Presidential campaign.

But, the ingredients of that small town success can play a part of a Presidential campaign, ingredients being 1] motivated citizenry, 2] creativity, 3] timing, and 4] personal message rather than or in addition to distributing a candidate's materials.

FWIW, I am highly motivated to create a similar action on behalf of the presidential primary candidate of my choice, who has spoken directly to the need for citizens to be engaged. So, notwithstanding the fact that I am a single citizen, and being realistic about 'drops in the bucket', I am, in fact, engaging my creative juices toward translating that small town action into the larger picture. The only absolute failure is to not even try to make a difference.

I agree.  I think, too, we've been seduced into thinking that if the result isn't immediately "big" then the effort isn't worth it.  We need to recognize that lots of littles make a big.  I don't need to convert 1000 people.  I don't need to convert 100 people.  I need to convert 10 people, and convince half of those to convert ten people.  This technique certainly has born fruit in terms of fundraising in the last two quarters.  If it works for fundraising, why wouldn't it work for "voteraising".  I don't need a mega-congregation in a suburban evangelical church.  I need ten people out of the fifty per cent who stay home to decide not to stay home next time, and I need five of those to decide that they can make a difference too. 

It would be a little easier of the clique running Washington gave me something to brag about in the next couple of months, but I'm pretty sure I can find ten people I know and get them to the polls, and I'm fairly certain that five of them are so disgusted with what is going on that, given a little encouragement, they'll go out into their network of friends and associates and find ten more each. . .etc. etc. etc.

aMike

hoppycalif2: gross violations, you allege, and when ask for specifics, you answer:

'due to the extremely lax monitoring of the status of spending and fund raising by the group, both by the group leaders and by the Obama campaign.'

which answer is a gross violation of the responsibility you have to back up allegations with facts, not just follow with another generality about 'extremely lax monitoring'.

I suspect you have no specifics.......which puts your allegations into the category of 'drive-by smears', you know the kind which try to inflict damage in a way which offers no possibility of explanation, investigation or truth determination.

The campaign does not provide any funds for these volunteer efforts. So either you were involved in raising funds that never got delivered to the campaign at all AND/OR you took those funds and used them for the group's purposes. Neither one is allowed and if you knew it was going on, it certainly reflects badly on the members of the group.

And, no, it most certainly does NOT occur in all campaigns because of limits in the rules. That's simply an excuse.

If you want to message me with the details, I will personally follow-up with the campaign.

J. McCutchen

There is NO inconsistency. I guess I've not been clear here. The only difference is in democratic party friendly social networks. We're talking past each other.

Many dismiss what they mistakenly label the "megachurch" advantage of the GOP. If only they'd just go away, if only the IRS would enforce the First Amendment.

Convenient isn't it, but all they're doing is what Ganz advocates you do...witness. They witness to how God annointed George Bush to smite 'those who hate our values'

What are you people so freaking afraid of? Don't you have values?

Don't you have stories to tell? And if you told them are there not 9 of 10 posters on this thread who share them and want to work with you to WITNESS?

Sure there are. You know it. I know it

Again, this is what Lakoff is all about.

Also see...

Tools: Harvard KSG Practicing Democracy Network

You'll see that there is no inconsistency whatsoever

> You see when you get right down to it, you
> haven't the foggiest notino of what you are
> talking about neither practically or as a matter
> of scholarly research
>
> In fact you are talking right out of your ass

Tell me: how exactly do you know this? Because I am disagreeing with you?

The attitude you are displaying throughout this thread is one I have encountered repeatedly from the "big field dudes" sent to my community from Washington DC and the state capitol, by the way, and is another reason that me and many others have ended our participation in that game.

sPh

local networks of like minded folks

HEre's the rub; it presumes that people are going to agree, or even share the same inclination, up and down the line. That may work in a place like San Francisco where there's a greater degree of ideological homoegeneity and in which the electorate is well informed about local as well as national issues, but its not a model for linking community organizing in most of the country to a national presidential campaign.

Quick example -- I've worked the past few cycles for a very popular local progressive office-holder and since she has had an active field operation in her district for several cycles, her supporters are well identified and enthusiastic about her. But I learned that I could not count on those supporters to be for Kerry in 04 precisely because her popularity came from appearing pragmatic and effective on local issues. So while her supporters are a "group of like minded folks" when it comes to land-use planning, crime/safety, parks, traffic, etc, in fact they are by no means "like-minded" on the big national issues of 04 -- choice, the war, federal tax policy, health care.

So there's a big big difference in theory and in practice between national and local, unless you're dealing with a district where your strategy is "blind pull." And in that case, is all the "citizen engagement" a necessary and efficient use of time and field resources?

My view is that one of the most efficient things field can do is to do door-to-door lit drops, esp if the lit is comparative. Saves the campaign a ton on postage, harder for the opposition to track, less backlash against comparative campaigning, and if your field person does happen to find people at whom who are willing to talk and provide feedback, so much the better.

.> . Learn first. Then speak.
.
Advice you should take to heart.

sPh

And I will repeat jexter: the attitude you have displayed throughout this thread is one that I have encountered again and again from "big field dudes" sent to my state and my community from DC and the state capital - and it is an attitude that was one of the factors that turned me and many I know off from the entire concept of canvassing.