Clay, in an email message, raises a good point about my response to his analysis of the Net's role in the Deanies' self-delusion. He asks if the Dean campaign would have spent $40M leading up to Iowa and NH if it hadn't (delusionally) expected to win and go on to raise more money.
Clay's right: For all their wariness about the outcome, ultimately I believe the campaign did think it was going to win big in those two states. (The $40M blow-out may also have been a bet-the-farm strategy. I don't know.) But how much of that expectation was based on Internet fever? E.g., had the polls accurately reflected the vote, would the Dean campaign have believed it was going to win just because there was so much Net activity? I don't think so.
That the Internet helped fuel the delusional belief seems undeniable to me. How it fueled it Clay lays out beautifully. How much it fueled it is much harder to figure out, and is deeply important because if we get it wrong, we will set false assumptions about what the Net is good for in political campaigns.
"That the Internet helped fuel the delusional belief seems undeniable to me."
Let's get real, David. Supposedly, you are the "Senior Internet Advisor." Isn't it one of your responsibilities to prevent such a disconnect from happening? What was your advice to the campaign at the time?
Do you find the Dean campaign any less delusional now, and if not, what is your advice now?
DH
"That the Internet helped fuel the delusional belief seems undeniable to me."
Let's get real, David. Supposedly, you are the "Senior Internet Advisor." Isn't it one of your responsibilities to prevent such a disconnect from happening? What was your advice to the campaign at the time?
Do you find the Dean campaign any less delusional now, and if not, what is your advice now?
DH
Dan, first, I am not "supposedly" a Senior Internet Advisor. That is my title as given by Trippi.
And, no, my responsibility wasn't to prevent a disconnect. I'm not a political advisor. I don't know what the electorate is thinking or how to win delegates. Quite the contrary. My role was and is to advise on Internet policy, and to kibbitz on Internet tactics. Since, as I've said repeatedly, I've learned far more about Net tactics from the campaign than it's learned from me, my kibbitzing role has been small.
Do I find the Dean campaign less delusional? Well, sure. It knew it was going to get wiped out yesterday. And the rope-a-dope strategy is clearly a last resort.
You sound pissed off, Dan. Why?
Posted by David Weinberger on February 4, 2004 05:14 PM | Permalink to CommentTest. (I can't resist saying this...you do need to update your eyeglasses. My sister did mine recently, as I had looked liked Henry Kissenger for years without realizing it.)
Posted by Pete on February 4, 2004 06:18 PM | Permalink to Comment
"That the Internet helped fuel the delusional belief seems undeniable to me."
Let's get real, David. Supposedly, you are the "Senior Internet Advisor." Isn't it be one of your responsibilities to prevent such a disconnect from happening? What was your advice to the campaign at the time?
Do you find the Dean campaign any less delusional now, and if not, what is your advice now?
DH
Posted by Dan Herzlich on February 4, 2004 02:32 PM | Permalink to Comment