Why the YouTube Debate Matters
by Patrick Ruffini :: July 28th, 2007 1:05 amWhy am I so worked up about the YouTube debate?
Because I want to win.
This is not an emotional issue for me. It is rather a business decision about whether or not the Republican Party will be able to compete effectively over the next twenty years or so. The media business has had to respond to the brutal realities of the digital world; in his most candid moments, the editor of the New York Times talks about the death of the print edition. Is anyone thinking about what GOP, Inc. looks like 10 or 15 years from now?
Zack Exley has long been the online bete-noire for the right. He’s had George W. Bush personally call him a “garbage man,” which of course, made him even bigger than he already was. He recounts how the Kerry campaign, which he was part of, planned to wage a conventional Democratic campaign in 2004, being outspent by the Bush machine by 2 to 1 or more. Until something incredible happened. Kerry became the nominee, and the money just started pouring in from the Internet, and it was enough to almost match the fearsome Ranger-Pioneer apparatus.
However, if any of the GOP campaign managers are expecting the same thing to happen when their guy emerges as the nominee, they’re setting themselves up for one big disappointment. What they need to realize is that the potential for online fundraising and mobilization that the Kerry campaign worked to maximize had been entirely created by the progressive movement at large: the blogs, MoveOn and other large and small online grassroots organizations and the campaigns of the other primary candidates, above all the Dean campaign.
As Joe Trippi noted the other night in Charleston: that online base-building process has not yet happened on the right. Walking away from the YouTube debate is just one more way that the Republican establishment is stubbornly refusing to get started.
Here’s that Trippi video I commented on earlier. The part that you campaign managers need to watch starts with about 2:33 left in the tape:
In 2004, the Democrats could have expected to be outspent by 2-to-1. In March 2008, it’s the Republicans who’ll have to brace for that fate. As Zack correctly notes, Democratic online fundraising has proven to be just as potent as Republican bundler programs AND Democrats now have bundlers of their own. (Sorry guys, but this was entirely preventable.)
This is the part where you’re wondering, what in the heck does YouTube have to do with money? If I go on YouTube, will I raise tens of millions? You have to be kidding right? I’m glad you asked.
At the end of the day, the issue is not YouTube. The YouTube debate snub is the symptom, not the disease. If Republicans fret about a simple debate format, which is really just the modern version of the 1992 townhall debate, how in the heck are we going to be make the really bold, gutsy decisions to transform our campaigns so we can raise over $100 million online and recruit millions — yes millions — of volunteers over the Internet?
If our campaign operatives believe the comfortable lie that 95% or more of the action is offline, we will never have the vision or the capacity or the incentive to change. We will never announce our candidacies online. We will never do a Sopranos video. We will never successfully inflict a Macaca moment on a vulnerable Democrat. We will never raise any real money online. We will never build the kind of organically grown lists of 2-3 million that MoveOn or the Kerry campaign or ONE built. We will never have the courage to empower our supporters to power us out the rough patches, as John McCain could easily have done two weeks ago.
We will instead be defensive and afraid of the new world, and that’s no way to win.
What’s the alternative? Simple. You start by setting what business writer Jim Collins calls “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” (BHAGs). And then you work tirelessly to meet them. You make the online campaigns matter, in the macro sense of everyone knows that’s where the action is, and that’s where the real decisions are being made. Online, audiences follow content. The progressive Internet was dead until — holy crap! — they were actually organizing, funding candidates, and outwitting the traditional engines of the left. There’s no reason that can’t be true for Republicans. They said we couldn’t do GOTV in rural and suburban areas — until we did it. They said we couldn’t recruit 1.4 million volunteers in 2004 — until we did it. And I’m optimistic that they’ll say we’ll never know how to use the Internet — until we do that too.
If you think this is about snowmen, you are sadly mistaken. These aren’t frivolities. These are the fundamentals. Without fundamentals, we die.
So, the answer is no, I don’t want to be arguing about a stupid debate format. I want to be talking about transformational change in the way we practice politics, and a wild overreaction to a little openness in a debate is what’s getting in the way of that. The campaign objections to this debate are like a group of astrophysicists quibbling over multiplication tables.
Or maybe some anonymous campaign aide is right and I do have a “narrow focus.” But that quote is revealing in itself. I can assure you that the Democrats don’t think of this stuff as a “narrow focus.” And if you win, you’ll get to learn that lesson the hard way in seven months.
IT’S FUNNY THAT MITT ROMNEY talks about “respectfulness.” Because I always assumed that was a two-way street. The Save the Debate coalition includes many grassroots supporters of the various candidates, but two I’d like to single out are Ann Marie Curling, of the Elect Romney in 2008 blog, and Josh Hersh, who just spent his summer working his heart out for Rudy Giuliani in Des Moines. They aren’t weirdos or recluses or pedophiles, but two of the strongest supporters of their candidates you’ll ever meet. If they were ever to get off the bus — not that they will — word would spread and hundreds more, many generations removed, would follow. That’s the kind of energy that super-volunteers like Ann Marie and Josh can bring to a campaign.
And, candidates, you are snubbing them too!
That’s what so sad about this whole debate. If your campaign’s best supporters feel alienated by your online efforts (or lack thereof), or feel like you’re not giving them the tools they need to evangelize on your behalf, isn’t the issue on your end, not theirs?
But isn’t this a macro problem, and it isn’t about the Internet or YouTube. It’s not just that they won’t listen to YouTube questions. It’s that they won’t listen on immigration. They won’t listen on spending. They won’t listen on standing strong for the troops. Rightly or wrongly, conservatives’ sense of betrayal in the second term is rooted in one key theme: they won’t listen. That’s the root cause of the anemic state of grassroots activism, online and off. They won’t listen.
Listening doesn’t mean pandering or bending to the will of your audience. It does mean engaging them in a meaningful dialog, telling people why you disagree, and respecting them. It means pugnaciously tearing into the other side with logic and facts. When George W. Bush has tried too hard to seem “Presidential” and “dignified” and “above the fray” his approval ratings almost always dropped. Why are our candidates seeking to repeat that mistake?
In fact, virtually the only sustained rise in Bush’s approval ratings not related to a terrorist attack or a war came during the 2004 campaign, the time when he appeared the least Presidential, the time when he tried hardest to appeal to us as a regular guy, the time he wasn’t afraid to confront — even ridicule — his opponents.
Take note, Governor Romney. Decorum is highly overrated. I don’t want a President who’s Presidential. I want a President who fights. Especially when we are at war.
Tagged: debate 
grassroots online politics youtube
Comments (9) 
Trackbacks (3) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
To Patrick,
Thanks for mentioning my name. I know I’m probably not that popular within Romney circles right now, but I would be remiss (and as a side note NOT ME) if I were to just stand back and let this go. We worked so very hard to make this a reality. In the beginning it was just going to be the Democrats that would participate through this medium, and it’s just utterly frustrating to see this happen. I have stood by my candidate through thick and thin for over two years, and part of being supportive of someone is offering constructive criticism when you see them doing something wrong.
Anyway, I fully support the cause you’re putting forth here, and can only pray that these candidates wake up and proverbially “smell the coffee”. I’m afraid that long term this’ll have more impact than what they’re calculating.
Ann Marie Curling
Founder - Elect Romney in 2008
PR@electromneyin2008.com
The YouTube debate among Democrats was the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen in politics. I pray all GOP candidates decline to participate. Leave the sophomoric attempts to gain votes to Democrats, please. What absolute trash!
Youtube and the blogosphere effectively promote a more direct dialogue between voters and their elected representatives and voters and other voters, contributing to the broader goal of restoring a more informed and involved electorate.
However, the CNN/Youtube format was a gross misapplication of a technology with great potential to accomplish the goal stated above.
The only difference betweeen the Youtube/CNN format and any other towhall style debate was that the questions were coming from videos with a bit of Youtube style flair. The questions were heavily vetted and carefully chosen by CNN in a way that stifled any semblance of a truly open forum. After watching about 30 minutes of the debate, it was clear to me that CNN chose videos that contained nothing more than echoes of the MSM ethos that CNN so desperately tries to inject into the socio-cultural fabric of our society.
Youtube should be ashamed for selling out its disruptive reputation to align with the leftist MSM heavyweights. CNN strapped a harness and reins onto Youtube and took it for a ride. That Youtube and Google would agree to such submission and control by a traditional media outlet can be explained only by the political leanings of its founders and management.
Youtube and the Internet carry great potential to recreate and reenergize the public forum. However, that objective should be realized by the voters and their elected representatives without manipulative handling by the very traditional media machine that cheapened the forum in the first place.
The candidates questioning the CNN/Youtube debate format are not snubbing you and me, the everyday voter. Rather, they are snubbing the MSM’s theft and manipulation of one of our greatest “new media” tools.
Mr. Ruffini and Ms. Curling, please do not conflate the CNN made-for-TV Youtube debate format with the Youtube format in its pure state. The two are NOT the same. I respectfully urge you to reconsider your positions and use your influence as bloggers to help your readers see the difference. We conservatives should be applauding the wise hesitation of Giuliani and Romney on this matter, not accusing them of dodging contact with the voters.
Youtube and the blogosphere effectively promote a more direct dialogue between voters and their elected representatives and voters and other voters, contributing to the broader goal of restoring a more informed and involved electorate.
However, the CNN/Youtube format was a gross misapplication of a technology with great potential to accomplish the goal stated above.
The only difference betweeen the Youtube/CNN format and any other towhall style debate was that the questions were coming from videos with a bit of Youtube style flair. The questions were heavily vetted and carefully chosen by CNN in a way that stifled any semblance of a truly open forum. After watching about 30 minutes of the debate, it was clear to me that CNN chose videos that contained nothing more than echoes of the MSM ethos that CNN so desperately tries to inject into the socio-cultural fabric of our society.
Youtube should be ashamed for selling out its disruptive reputation to align with the leftist MSM heavyweights. CNN strapped a harness and reins onto Youtube and took it for a ride. That Youtube and Google would agree to such submission and control by a traditional media outlet can be explained only by the political leanings of its founders and management.
Youtube and the Internet carry great potential to recreate and reenergize the public forum. However, that objective should be realized by the voters and their elected representatives without manipulative handling by the very traditional media machine that cheapened the forum in the first place.
The candidates questioning the CNN/Youtube debate format are not snubbing you and me, the everyday voter. Rather, they are snubbing the MSM’s theft and manipulation of one of our greatest “new media” tools. Mr. Ruffini and Ms. Curling, please do not conflate the CNN made-for-TV Youtube debate format with the Youtube format in its pure state. The two are NOT the same. I respectfully urge you to reconsider your positions and use your influence as bloggers to help your readers see the difference. We conservatives should be applauding the wise hesitation of Giuliani and Romney on this matter, not accusing them of dodging contact with the voters.
Patrick,
You are broadly right about the present and future importance of the internet. You are also particularly right about appearing to run from appearing on the YOUTUBE debate because anyone who uses the internet and has even the slightest interest in politics will pick up on this and perceive that Republicans can only exist in a controlled bubble as Bush does. The myriad of justifications posted above to spin a way out of this range from the simply silly to the bizarre. If we have candidates who can’t stand up in front of a crowd of ordinary people, even some wearing funny suits, and answer what are mainly routine questions what does that tell you, and everybody else, about the nature of our candidates. If a woman isn’t frightened of them what does that tell you about America’s mayor? There is also, of course, a wider issue. We are going have to accept that for the forseeable future the democrats are probably going to make more effective use of the internet because of the demographics of our party affiliation. When it comes to the 18 to 35 demographic, particularly the college educated segment of it, the democrats are way ahead and these are the folks who are most tech savvy. That said, on the narrow issue, if the Republicans dodge this debate they are going to get a world of grief from the media and democrats. And who can blame them, we’d do the same.
Patrick, do you have anything to say about having our presidential candidates asked questions by people like the guys from Red State Update? One of their on-going jokes is that Dunlap is trying to run Jackie for President in the Republican primary. Those guys get to ask our candidates a question? Why? CNN is going to put them on TV instead of a serious question by a citizen because it’ll make people watch. It’s political entertainment. That’s not degrading?
Are we out of serious things for our presidential candidates to discuss? Can somebody who supports these debates please explain why we’re lowering the level of discourse to the level of “wassup?” and comedians asking questions with a webcam in their faces?
No Ruffini, the scary part is how casually you speak about the Republican Party’s interests as if they’re more important than the interests of the people.
This was a compelling little piece on the issue. But I still thought the CNN Youtube debate was largely entertainment and I didn’t stay to watch it like I did the more serious, informative style debates. I personally would not like to see my candidate of choice belittled or trivialized by that type of reality-TV set up. I liked the suggestion that Romney and Giuliani do a two-man debate on FOX that same night, betcha zillion bucks that gets more views than the CNN tripe.
There are a couple of compelling reasons for Romney to demonstrate his high level of presidential decorum and dignity by attending the debates and don’t rely on questionable appeals to indeterminate name calling:
• The debate is the sin de qua of the democratic process and our Constitutional free speech guarantees.
• Presidential action that displays a strident and unrelenting courgage and fearlessness in the face of media insults be they from late night comedy or politically interested internet geeks. That is the steel girded backbone Lincoln and all of our greatest leaders exhibited on a daily basis.
• Being an active part of the conversation is the absolute prequisite to authenticity and our respect.
• Avoid alienating YouTube community and the heightened risk of retaliatory mash ups that make you and your supporters look like oafs.
• Free media coverage. Bling. Bling. Mr. President. Your campaign coffers and supporters will appreciate them apples.
• Listening to the American public and learning about the issues, if that’s important on your unilateral agenda.
• Freely admitting that in the 21st century the true and robust dignity of our presidential office is sufficiently resiliant enough to withstand an army of YouTube videos.
[…] Patrick Ruffini has written a great piece on the GOP’s crisis with new media that has suddenly come into focus because of the impending snub of the YouTube “People’s Debate.” (And I’m not just recommending it because he gives me so much airtime in the article.) […]
[…] We should surrender no turf in the competition and that includes YouTube. Patrick Ruffini weighs in: If our campaign operatives believe the comfortable lie that 95% or more of the action is offline, we will never have the vision or the capacity or the incentive to change. We will never announce our candidacies online. We will never do a Sopranos video. We will never successfully inflict a Macaca moment on a vulnerable Democrat. We will never raise any real money online. We will never build the kind of organically grown lists of 2-3 million that MoveOn or the Kerry campaign or ONE built. We will never have the courage to empower our supporters to power us out the rough patches, as John McCain could easily have done two weeks ago. […]
[…] After balking at the opportunity to participate in such a debate this summer, the Republican candidates gave into pressure from conservative bloggers, led by Patrick Ruffini and David All. Nearly 5,000 video questions were submitted to YouTube, and judging from the number asked at the Democratic debate in July, we can expect to see about 40 tonight. […]