We're rapidly approaching the point in the cycle where it's necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, it's almost time to assess the state of various campaigns to determine whether or not the netroots and grassroots should support them, or not.
The Presidential campaign truism has it that Democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line. And it's true to a certain extent: Democrats do fall in love. We fall in love with candidates that say all the right things and make all the right ideological moves. Appeal to grassroots power and we go all agog; it is what we do.
However, we in the netroots, as much as we do indeed fall in love, have learned a few things over the years. There's a misconception out there, to the effect that we back candidates based solely based on ideological affinity.
This misconception is false.
Those campaigns that received strong netroots backing in the 2006 cycle and in the present environment were distinguished by several key factors.
Professional organization: top-notch, competent staff, a media plan, an outreach plan, a ground game, and a flexible, supple strategy for winning. Examples are Webb, Tester, and Eric Massa.
Fundraising: winning elections costs money, pure and simple. There's a nearly 1:1 correlation between a campaign's ability to raise money and a campaign's ability to win. In fact, that correlation is stronger than that between winning and the partisan makeup of a district. That's why John Hall and Kirsten Gillibrand are in Congress right now, and very likely to stay there for as long as they want.
Profile: for a campaign or candidate to be considered for netroots backing, there needs to be consistent outreach to the netroots at the state and national level. The people who got the backing that netroots candidates get - Scott Kleeb comes to mind, or our very own Brian Keeler - don't just post the occasional Daily Kos diary, they engage the communities involved. These are not glamorized press releases, they are conversations.
Party committees: Contrary to what one may believe, party committees are supremely unsentimental organizations. They also uniformly have a lot on their plates in this cycle; for the House, we're looking at potentially fifty battlegrounds this year, in the Senate, perhaps ten, certainly eight, in the state Senate, six at a minimum. There are no indispensable districts, not on a playing field this wide. No single campaign will be able to proclaim itself a candidate for committee rescue, because there will always be better contenders for the dollars involved.
Primaries: there are several primaries currently being run in this state. Some of them feature clear distinctions in ideology or competence, others do not. Of the two factors, both of which are important, expect a shift towards those candidates seen as being able to win, a function of competency above all.
Activists are, now that the Presidential primary has reached its close, looking very hard at the campaigns down-ticket. These are, essentially, investment decisions: where do I put my time, my money, and my efforts? Campaigns would be well served by selling themselves as exactly that: investment opportunities. The down-ticket races in this cycle are up against the most glamorous and exciting candidacy in recent Presidential history, that of Barack Obama; in the competition for activist dollars and elbow grease, what's going to be required is a solid product.
