I describe my technical expertise this way. I don’t know how they put the little people inside my TV; but I know how to use the clicker. I have found it to be a good perspective. I am like lots of people who need to use technology. It needs to be simple. PHILOSOPHY
Like Governor Patrick (and my friend Lori) [and me too — Bob], I LOVE Massachusetts based companies. On this score, both VAN and Sage fit the bill. (I am pretty sure there are additional local entries in this niche as well.) [And please tell me who you are, so I can profile you too — Bob] I wish each of them continued success, growth and profitability driving their employment levels to ever dizzying heights. I also wish them numerous MA based competitors who enjoy the same results. There is a HUGE need to make information available to real people in usable formats and the market has not even begun to be tapped. If you have ideas, jump in. I am not convinced by claims that “everyone else” does anything a certain way. Having a thirteen year old son has got me practicing to bat that one back many times in the next few years. The reason I am such a huge fan of Governor Dean s “50 State Strategy” (and why it was so successful last year, by the way) is that it recognizes that in fact every state is unique. What works in Utah will not necessarily work in Ohio and most certainly might not work in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, we will work hard to recognize that this principle extends even further. Every geographically defined community is different and every community that cuts across geographic boundaries is also unique in its own way. Even less likely to convince me is the argument that “this is the way the Republicans do it.” Please! Even before the less than flattering post mortems on the Karl Rove “permanent Republican majority” era, I found those arguments to be so much balderdash. Campaigns (elections in particular) are won by individual people. Those individuals are (of course) the candidate and their supporters who take the time to do the work to introduce that candidate and what that candidate stands for to voters. First, start with voters they know and then voters they have some connection with and finally (in priority order) voters they do not know. There has never been a campaign that I cared about that was won by a strategy, a technique or a technology. On the other hand, there probably have been a few that were lost by one of these over rated factors. That is particularly true for folks who look at these factors as some kind of “silver bullet” for victory. Having said that, providing those individuals effective tools to accomplish their work is the hallmark of an exceptional campaign. We strove to do that last fall with some success while keeping the focus on direct voter contact goals. I have learned to break down campaign data use into three sections: data (the voter file), what you want to with it and the tools to make that happen. o Unquestionably, the voter file is an area where there is a huge benefit in broad collaboration. This is true because the data is a commodity. It is the same for every race. The quality of the data (and the lack of quality in some instances) is the responsibility of the party. Neither VAN nor Sage nor any other vendor has control of that aspect. In fact, they all get their data from their candidate clients who get it from us so it should be identical. Data problems are the result of many factors. Some are beyond our control and some we can be much better at. The “scrubbing” of data is a constant task for every campaign. The Mass Democratic Party is, has been and will continue to be proactive in working to enable the compilation, updating and maintenance of the DNC’s national voter file.
o It is important that the next step is to determine what you want to do with the data. The answer to that question should drive the choice of selecting a vendor or developing tools in house.
o The choice of tools should be the last step. Too often the tool drives the activities because of its particular strengths and weaknesses. That is a mistake. I always worry about getting caught up in the sizzle of the latest, greatest thing (the bells and whistles). In the Patrick campaign, our decisions on what we wanted to accomplish with the data led us to a number of additional vendors (the Team Patrick fundraising application and our blast email tool for example) and to develop many of the tools in house (the Caucus Tool and the Community Tool in particular, DevalPatrick.TV was a combination of outside and in house resources). Most importantly, the party provided direct access to the data while complete control of the vendor relationships belonged to us. That allowed us the flexibility to create appropriate solutions for our campaign. I want to preserve that option for all candidates and I would advise any campaign manager not to cede control of that relationship to anyone (including the DNC or MassDems). You’ll live to regret it probably at the very worst moment.
THE POINT?
OK. So what does all this mean for this discussion regarding the degree of Massachusetts? participation with the DNCs sole source contract with VAN?
(1) We have and will continue to fully participate in the creation and maintenance of a National Voter File in cooperation with the DNC and the Association of State Democratic Chairs.
(2) We have and will continue to provide access to the state voter file to any Democratic candidate for a modest fee that reflects our costs. We will do so without regard to which vendor the candidate chooses to manage the data or if they choose to do so without the assistance of a vendor. Our target for turn around time for providing the data (in any common format) is 24 hours.
(3) We are in the very early stages of defining what we as a state party want to do with the data in addition to providing it to candidates. As we launch into that, I promise there will be plenty of opportunity to weigh in with your ideas.
(4) Our vendor relationships are always under review and as contracts expire, none will be automatically extended. At this time, I am not convinced that endorsing or mandating a single proprietary vendor in order to gain access to the voter file for Massachusetts Democrats is the right way to go. Could that change? Possibly. But if you want to convince me, you can leave these arguments at the door:
Everyone else is doing it one certain way. This is the way Republicans do it. It’s FREE. (In my experience, there’s no such thing as free. Sorry if you still believe there is.) The Massachusetts Democratic Party has enjoyed considerable success in achieving our primary goal of electing Democrats. The potential for building on that success to broaden participation and build a robust grassroots network of engaged Democrats across the Commonwealth is what drives me. Over on Roland St, we are pursuing important initiatives (keep an eye on RomneyFacts.com , get ready to pull out all the stops for our nominee in the 5th CD and if you liked the grassroots philosophy of the Deval Patrick campaign, you will love the new and improved MassDems.org to be unveiled later this fall). Moving aggressively to support local Democratic committees and activists and accomplishing more in 2008 and beyond keeps me focused on our priorities.
In my opinion, the decision about which vendor is best for a particular campaign to accomplish their goals is best left to that campaign.
John E. Walsh
Chair
Massachusetts Democratic Party
Please share widely!
is da man. Just sayin.
I’ve got no dog in this hunt, but I do think it’s in the interest of the Democratic Party–nationally–to have at least two healthily software vendors competing for business. If you get into bed with one, the other one either goes out of business or can not generate enough revenue to develop new features. Over a moderate period of time–a few years–the innovative technology leader you picked as the sole vendor will lose their edge and gets to comfortable. There is no incentive to push the envelop, because they are the only viable game in town.
<
p>
The Dem establishment (DNC and State Parties) should develop a long list of feature criteria that ALL software vendors must meet. Assuming more than one vendor meets these standards, each vendor is “certified” as a Democratic campaign software vendor and any state party or campaign can confidently license the software knowing it meets current standards. After each election cycle, new innovations are considered and the standards are improved and all vendors have to meet these standards in order to stay certified. (And among the standards is complete interoperability, so that data can flow between different platforms seamlessly. So if the state party has the data on Vendor A’s platform, a candidate for Gov. can make their own choice about platforms and not worry about data formatting issues.)
<
p>
This approach gives us the best of both worlds. The Dem establishment sets a minimum floor on standards and certifies only the vendors that meet these standards. This gives us peace of mind to know our side is using software that is quality. At the same time we maintain a competitive situation with at least two (and there would be more) vendors either competing on price or adding additional features from which campaigns and state parties can make a decision with.
The DNC carefully analyzed the systems that are currently available. A choice was made to go with a particularly usable, grassroots friendly package. Most states opted to go with this choice and to fully participate in the 50 state strategy, choice of VAN and the ease of communicating with the DNC national database, etc. MA happens to be home to both SAGE and VAN. VAN got most of the national business, although there are other companies that offer somewhat comparable solutions for smaller and niche markets (though not SAGE). So, here we have a state chair who is quite lovable but doesn’t understand “how the little people got inside the television box” and just came off a successful campaign using SAGE. Despite the fact that almost everyone who worked with SAGE complained about it, there is no interest in discussing why there were complaints, what the real issues and problems were nor how or why VAN might be a better alternative for many candidates (and it’s a FREEBIE to the state parties).
<
p>
The people who are expected to use SAGE are not asked for their opinions. Only one campaign has the add-on that was developed for the Patrick campaign. Others have to go their own way and maybe they’ll get something they need or most likely they won’t. Message to some Dem canddiates: if you don’t like it, so what. We’re not here for you.
<
p>
It’s a free market, and in a free market those products that are best survive and others don’t. If 47 other states are now using one package, that would probably mean that those 47 states are not using SAGE. Wouldn’t that be an indication that this is not the superior and latest technology product? When a company’s market share decreases so dramatically, it’s make or break time. It becomes risky to rely on something that may or may not have the financial backing and technical expertise to respond to the competition.
<
p>
Why are there such close ties between MDP and SAGE? What is it that prevents a decision from being made to go with something that is out-of-the-box ready for all campaign needs? Why can’t the playing field be leveled for all Dem candidates? Why should MA be an exception?
<
p>
I’m not expecting an answer.