Discourse on e-mail

I'm not North Carolina's most heralded political expert. I haven't written a book, I don't command five figures a month, and the one time I ran for office I lost (albeit by 150 votes). But I've done a lot of campaigning in NC. From upper Cleveland County (where our foothills start to become mountains), to the concrete jungle of Charlotte, to the affluent Lake Norman Suburbs, to the new urban landscapes of Chapel Hill and Davidson, I've staffed campaigns in almost every part of North Carolina. I've worked to pass transit initiatives; helped young, post-partisan leaders emerge across our state; and I've done some quixotic things (like trying to elect the Southeast's first LGBT Senator).

Feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but after the BlueNC radio chat with Gary Pearce, I found myself wondering: what on earth are the U.S. Senate candidates doing?

Granted, a lot of what they're doing is exactly what they're supposed to do. They have to be raising money non-stop, or they'll run out of it before early vote and not have the money to go up on TV. They have to be working behind the scenes to massage their political connections, if they have them. But they also have to introduce (or re-introduce, in Secretary Marshall's case) themselves to voters.

For example, Cal Cunningham has a list of hundreds of thousands of e-mail addresses provided to him by the DSCC. Though the first two e-mails were an introduction, and asked people to join the campaign, potential voters have now received fundraising request after fundraising request, with no incentive to stay on the list if they can't afford to give or if they haven't decided who to give to yet. They've received e-mails from at least 7 different people on Cal's campaign - that's no way to build a personal relationship.

Cal doesn't stand alone. I just got an e-mail from Sec. Marshall today that was a carbon-copy of a Cunningham Campaign attack on Karl Rove and Richard Burr (which, for the record, isn't a bad way to raise the money they'll need for this long race). Lewis is the only candidate to attack another Democratic primary candidate in his e-mails. When the e-mails are only negative attacks or requests for money (or both), it gets exhausting. Many friends have told me that Senate Candidate e-mails are now going in the spam folder.

Why would any normal person want to read these things? They're not uplifting, they don't create a narrative, they're (generally) uninteresting, and they're very one-dimensional. To quote a very catty Carrie Fisher, "If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive." E-mail is great for raising money, but can these candidates afford to use it so narrowly when it's their only consistant connection with voters? Cal's list might be big enough that his campaign doesn't care about attrition, but I'm sure Elaine and Ken are want for e-mails that are good enough to be forwarded, thus expanding their lists.

I'm trying to look at this race as an outsider, because I'm really interested in studying it objectively. I want the best candidate to keep both houses of the NCGA, and I want to beat Burr. But I'm also wondering what these campaigns are thinking. I've seen some great e-mail campaigns over the year (Obama, Dodd, and Dean for President, Al Franken for Senate), but not in this race. President Obama's e-mails were uplifting - and they got me to give. Dean's e-mails were passionate - and they broke fundraising records. Senator Franken's e-mails were funny, always entertaining, and not always about money - and they turned me into a fundraiser.

For example, take a look at this Al Franken e-mail:

Dear Oliver,

When our daughter Thomasin was in the second grade, her teacher asked each student to write a story about how their parents met. So, she came home and asked me how I met her Mom.

I explained that I was at what was known as a freshman 'mixer,' what she knew as a 'dance,' during my first year of college. I saw Franni from across the room. She was organizing some girls to leave and I really liked how she was taking charge, which, in hindsight, is not her best quality... Also, she was just beautiful. So I asked her to dance, and we danced. And then I bought her a ginger ale.

After the dance I escorted her back to her dorm and asked her for a date.

Thomasin wrote the story up with stunning accuracy. She told her class, "...my Dad asked my Mom to dance, bought her a drink, and took her home." Even at a young age, she had a keen grasp of the facts and a real knack for editing.

That night - the first night of the best thing that has ever happened to me - was exactly 40 years ago today. When I was running for the Senate, I used to tell people, "Franni and I are running for the Senate. If we win, I get to be the Senator." Well, we won. And what I said proved true - I get to be the Senator.

Another thing that's true is that I wouldn't be where I am today without the love and support of the most amazing woman in the world.

And, as we start the next chapter of our journey together, I wanted to send supporters like you a note. A funny story from long ago in hopes that you might take a moment today, remember a funny story about someone you love, smile, and be thankful.

All the best,

Al

P.S. Happy Anniversary Franni, I love you!

What was the follow-up? The very next e-mail was actually an e-mail from Franni, that did ask for money. I opened it because of this first e-mail, which I had forwarded to friends of mine. Some of the friends that joined the e-mail list after they got the e-mail from me gave money when they got Franni's e-mail.

Why should I not expect the same in my own state? Why shouldn't our candidates be beyond tired Washington tactics? Why isn't there an apparatus that wants me to be a part of the campaign - not just a donor?

Actually, I've received some good e-mails from NC politicos. A couple weeks ago, Andrew Whalen sent out an e-mail very similar to the Rove e-mails when Newt Gingrich was in town visiting the John Locke Foundation. Instead of the very vanilla e-mail I received today about Rove & Burr, Andrew's e-mail was funny and engaging:

I love the movie Back to the Future.

And just yesterday North Carolina Republicans and their friends at the John Locke Foundation (JLF) climbed into their DeLoreans and stepped on the gas until they hit 88 miles per hour and went all the way back to 1994.

You see, the JLF (that Raleigh-based think tank that spends thousands of dollars trying to discredit the hard work of public school teachers and policies that would guarantee affordable health care for every American) thought it would be a good idea to have Newt Gingrich be the keynote speaker at their Enchantment Under the Sea Dance...I mean anniversary dinner.

...

But the fact that GOP Chair Tom Fetzer (doesn't he remind you of George McFly?), and his allies are bringing in GOP heavyweights like Gingrich to raise money shows just how committed they are to turning back the clock on the change you've made happen.

That's something my little focus group (friends who vote, but don't follow politics every day) found funny and worth their time. It's because it's personal, it tells me a little about Andrew, and it gives me a reason to act. It makes me want to open the next e-mail from Andrew.

Why do I care about such a trivial thing as e-mail? Because, as I mentioned, it's the primary way the campaigns are interacting with voters at this point. This race isn't like Hagan's race - it's not going to come down to name ID winning the primary, and two guys in rocking chairs destroying the Republican. President Obama won't be driving turnout. The Senate campaigns don't have field offices across the state.

I care about e-mail because we're going to need Democrats that care about voting in spite of all the woes of the world, and right now they're only getting spam. Spam doesn't build a grassroots campaign. If the candidates aren't putting out engaging messages, most of the recipients would likely rather tune out and watch Tiger Woods rack up mistresses.

I'm aware that campaigns do not create atmospheres conducive to logic or common sense. To be effective, the job demands clarity of purpose and the absence of doubt. You have to believe every action matters, and you have to believe it when you tell people that the most important thing they can do this year is vote for your candidate. That sort of passion can blind you from reality, and what the rest of the world is thinking. It can put you in a place where reason goes out the window. I know this because it's happened to me and the people around me. It's happened to candidates I've worked for.

Maybe campaign mode is giving the candidates different answers to the questions I'm asking than the answers I have. But it is my firm belief that voters need a reason to care about these candidates, and that they need to believe that they're part of a conversation, not an obligation. That they want to hear about jobs, education, retirement safety, and health care instead of Karl Rove. That they want to know why they should vote for somebody, not against Richard Burr. And that if there's a message worth listening to, they'll prick up their ears.

This is meant to be perceived as constructive criticism. I think we have some candidates with great potential, and I want them to succeed. As always, I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I invite any of the campaigns to talk about what they're doing to reach voters prior to the April showers of TV ads and direct mail.

I also am aware that much of the communication right now is directed at party insiders - a different group of people than the primary electorate or the general election electorate. But it is the fool who thinks that, in this age of instant communication, they don't have the opportunity to reach a larger, critical audience. To the cynic who says that I'm being naive and not facing reality, I say that for better or for worse the Obama campaign has set a higher bar, and that the same old malarkey isn't going to cut it this round. Just as much as the cynic, I'm thinking about which message will resonate with donors, volunteers, and voters. I'm thinking about motivating people to vote, building a network, and winning.

I'm calling it as I see it. I saw first hand how a Senate campaign can fail, and I want these candidates to do what it takes to win. I want each one of these candidates to act with the creativity and the integrity that will convince me that they have the greatness of soul required to be a United States Senator. I believe I'm not the only one.