MSNBC: Democrats battle over voter data

[MH1]

Important article here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11718475/

A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.

The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.

(snip)

This section may be of particular interest to Kerrycrats:

Technical problems
In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the DNC began building a national voter file, and it proved highly effective in raising money. Because of many technical problems, however, it was not useful to state and local organizations trying to get out the vote.

The pressure on Democrats to begin more aggressive "data mining" in the hunt for votes began after the 2002 midterm elections and intensified after the 2004 presidential contest, when the GOP harnessed data technology to powerful effect.

In 2002, for the first time in recent memory, Republicans ran better get-out-the-vote programs than Democrats. When well done, such drives typically raise a candidate's Election Day performance by two to four percentage points. Democrats have become increasingly fearful that the GOP is capitalizing on high-speed computers and the growing volume of data available from government files and consumer marketing firms -- as well as the party's own surveys -- to better target potential supporters.

(in other words, what we've been saying.)

If anyone has time to post and sheperd this in GD-P or LBN, pls do...I'm a bit busy digging salt today.

[Mass]

1. Useful, but not very useful if the work to rebuild the grassroot is not

done.

Typical Clinton's work. Believe in technology, but not in the power of grassroots.

We need the two, not just one.

[karynnj]

2. Tay, wasn't the "aggressive data mining" the Republicans

part of the basis for Kerry's questioning of Choice Point at a hearing last year. Kerry's comments on the use of data in this way are very well taken.

The combination of databases that contain huge amounts of data on people coupled with high speed computers would let a good statistician develop models that can stratify people into groups where the groups would have different likelihoods of voting (Democratic). The other thing it does is give you the possibility of targeting different people with messages tailored to them.

Having played with far less data - telephone usage detail info - putting the pieces together gives you more information than the individual pieces. Kerry's comment about the customer not consciously signing away knowledge of his whole life. (bad paraphrase)

I have mixed feeling on this. When I read the NYT article that mentioned that Republicans targeted people based on things like the type of car they drove - it was clear that they were using these large data bases. It likely was beneficial - so to not do it would put use at a disadvantage.

The other thing that is interesting here is that the Clintons are building their own system. (Can we please say they are "free lancing"?) This also seems to match with Tay's comments of 2 of the 3 groups working together. The 2008 primary is clearly going to be nasty.

[wisteria]

3. I remember that committee meeting and JK pointed questions.

And, I think the data base should be for the DNC not Hillary and Bill. They do play to win don't they? I think nasty is not a strong enough word to describe the primary. The Clinton's, like the Republicans, are not above using sleaze and perhaps deception in order to win. I am beginning to think this election is as much about Bill as it is Hillary.

[karynnj]

4. You can tell even from the way they've started

Bill's obnoxious declaration that we lost because Kerry was weak on defense was uncalled for. First he and Hillary don't have better credentials and it gives credence to the RW theme. (Also, his snarky letter to the ROTC guy who had helped him out was really no better than Cheney's having other priorities. I don't fault him for avoiding it (every guy I knew was looking for a way to do so), but once he was out that letter was uncalled for.)

Now we know why they want money now. They really do use Republican tactics. (Oddly, cheating and being nasty will appeal to some on the DU board.)

[wisteria]

5. That is unfortunate. It doesn't make me feel secure for our country.

I hope that for once and for all, the Clinton's spend their money and get smacked in the ass anyway. Then I hope Bill retires from the limelight and Hillary becomes just another Senator,because unfortunately, right now they have much to much say and pull in our party.

[MH1]

6. GD-P thread

apparently up for awhile but I missed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2500239

[TayTay]

7. This is a part of the 'silent civil war' within the Dem Party

The stuff I posted this weekend about the DCI (Democratic Campaign Institute) is an example of where the fault lines are in this debate. There are DNC style 'wars' going on that are not really strictly 'issues' based discussions. (No matter what DU in general says.) They are also struggles to see HOW the Democratic Prty moves forward and what tactics we employ to move forward.

The DLC people (Okay, give me a better phrase for this or give me time to think of one as this is not strictly accurate as we all know) are very technocratic and believe that the 'fix' for what ails the Democrats is in the people we choose to run and not in the the very way that we have organized the Party. The election loss in '04 was John Kerry's fault becuase he was a 'bad candidate.' If we had a clearer candidate and a clearer message that was advocated to appeal to moderates or centrists then we would have won. (Don't get angry yet. There is bleed between things here and there is a grain of truth to this, but it is not the whole truth.) I dislike this theory now and I disliked it in 2000.

The other school, very broadly speaking, believes that the Democratic Party is not organized properly, is top heavy with consultants at the national level and at the top of the State Party structures. The consultants aren't talking to people in the field and don't know how people think. They over-estimate the affect of polls and numbers and such (the very things that consultants are paid to produce, btw) and aren't 'people smart.' Our voters, as it was pointed out to me at the conference, are often people who work 2 or 3 jobs for $8.00 an hour and the consultants of the world can't relate to those folks. (And 'those folks' are our base. This is the Democratic Party. I really think some Democrats at the top refuse to acknowledge this and would rather turn in their base for a suburban, richer, whiter and more middle class base. But this is our base, these are the people the Democratic Party represent and advocate for and think of when developing programs. This is who we are.)

The numbers are great and we need more technology and people who understand technology. But we also need to get our asses out into the streets and neighborhoods of America and begin to ask people what they think. (We own the Democratic Party. As Parag pointed out this weekend, people often come to Washington DC and want to tour the national headquarters of the DNC. They will say, "so, this is the Democratic Party." Parag always responds with, "No, the Democratic Party is found at union halls and schools and churches and baseball fields and such all across America. This is just a building. You are the Democratic Party.)

Ahm, this is a huge, huge topic to discuss. I have already written more than anyone should have to sit through in a single post. Maybe we can break it down some more. As far as '08 goes, we shall see. But I can see, in some candidates, who has a direct background in grassroots organizing and is ready to try another model for increasing the Dem vote and who is still trying to be technocratic about it. We don't need to fix the message. We do need to decide who we are talking to and craft a consistent and clear message. We do need to touch base, early and often with 'our voters' and not write off anyone. I think that is the way to go. So does the DNC under Gov. Dean. I also understand who this threatens and where it hits certain people and how they would not like it or the implied shutoff of that nice, nice money that has been coming in on consultancy contracts. sigh!