Wow - the Dodd folks write each other incredibly polite and well thought out emails. Or this exchange is completely faked. One of those. :)

http://www.bivingsreport.com

This is so annoying and disheartening. It's annoying that campaigns engage in this kind of faux-human-interaction crap, and possibly more annoying that people fall for it.

I assume emulating teh SpamKing works -- otherwise why bother -- but it's really a downer to see that A) online politics revolves around chicanery and dishonesty in just the same lame ways as the traditional form, and that B) this election cycle is clearly not producing any wave of innovation at all similar to 2003/04.

This is possibly even more annoying than Obama's "email from a random supporter," as it plays on the false perception of a mistake.

What's next? "OMG! How did these photos get online!!!"?

Ugh.

I knew Josh Levy would be all over this the second I opened it. But that's an important point -- I opened it. More correctly, they got me to open it (probably because of the blank subject line). Is it a trick? Sure. But they got a higher open rate than if they went with a boring "We need to raise money now" subject line.

We're seeing that it's just getting harder and harder to get people to open email. I think the time has come where campaigns need to be breaking news via email. I mean actually breaking news, not a leak to the media, or a press release, then an email send a few hours later.

If Dodd goes with public financing, he should announce it first over email to his list. When Obama made his Technology Platform public, he should sent that to his list before even speaking at Google's campus. If email is a way of speaking directly to your constituents, then do that, and bypass the media. Keep readers on their toes and have them want to receive the emails.

I think this little bit of self-revelation from the Facebook page of Matt Browner-Hamlin (Dodd internet guru) earlier today says it all:

Yes, this open rate trick simulates a behind-the-scenes look at politics - which is what citizens want - but it should be taken in context with the things Dodd has done which authentically open up his operation, the use of live uStream video and IRC chat Q&A sessions with members of staff, for example.

Luigi points out that email efficacy is waning, a change which is seismic. So consider then that Dodd's campaign is the one that has built what I think is the most effective post-email-reliant internet outreach innovation with their VOIP to your Senator citizen whip tool. http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

By and large, successful integration of 3rd party widgets, and community networks, is what is passing for innovation this cycle - from Ron Paul's meetups achieving self-sustainability with ChipIn widgets to the use of niche online SocNets for targeted and decentralized mobilization.

Josh is right that the front runners aren't innovating in 2007 as much as Dean did in 2003, but others are trying. Which amounts to an evolution of sorts.

My sense is that the online revolution so many former Deaniacs long for is going to have to happen outside of the party structure and without a cult of personality from celebrity politicians to drive it's growth.

Which will make it more difficult and more lasting.

Just a little pushback. The disappointing thing continues to be how terrifically risk averse all of this stuff is. Dodd deserves credit for his immunity stuff, one of the few actually courageous moves by any candidate at any point this cycle, and one that was followed up with some interesting technology and which generated a fair amount of buzz. Well done there. It's the exception.

All the rest of the stuff is fluff. Dodd's team puts live webcams up for the internet team. Does anyone really believe the internet team is where anything central to that campaign originates from? It's a nice thing to do, as is having a Q&A with some staffers, but ultimately it doesn't impact the race, reveal anything interesting about the campaign or let people meaningfully participate. The result is that these things don't inspire support because they're effectively meaningless.

As you say "The big three" are probably more deserving of critique, and I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular. But the timidity and lameness is ubiquitious. It's really annoying.

Ron Paul's supporters are proving quite well-disposed to self-organization (contrary to what one might think of libertarian leaning types), and his campaign benefits from this because they're crazy/risky enough to generate that level of interest.

That said, social fundraising itself is nothing new, it's just been markedly absent from most other campaigns, which to me is more a sign of flaccid support or a disinterest in independence (or both) than anything else.

The problem I have with this email is that it insults the intelligence of the recipients by assuming they won't be able to see through the facade.

Here's a question: what if a campaign sent out an *actual* thread of emails discussing the content of a donation campaign? Would that have been more or less successful? Then again, if this happened, it would eventually lead to campaigns sending "real" internal emails and "public" internal emails, and we would end up in the same place.

I think what this fundamentally boils down to is that any campaign which tries to control their image is inherently "fake," and allowing transparency is antithetical to their desired control. Since it's true that supporters like to feel that they have an inside scoop in how the campaign operates, campaigns can choose to either be transparent, or they can put up a Potemkin village. I guess there's a third option, which is to tell supporters up front that much of the internals of the campaign is not for their eyes, and will be controlled by a small number of people.

A campaign like Ron Paul's doesn't have to worry about this sort of things (yet), because the movement is bigger than the candidate, and the actions of the supporters have so far been more newsworthy than the actions of the staffers.

We need to remind ourselves that the reason why Dodd, and any campaign, sends out this kind of email is to raise money. If they are successful at doing that, it is a successful email. I doubt any of the staffers are having these Salinger-esque handwringing sessions about authenticity. If they have to use spammy or gimmicky tactics raise money, they'll use them.

While we all try to determine whether we're viewing an actual email thread among staffers, the campaigns are tallying the money the emails brought in.

Perhaps, but then TechPresident writes a story on it and maybe the next one won't be as successful.