I’m all in favor of candidates and the Republican Party collecting as many e-mail addresses from supporters as they can. Despite the rise of social networks e-mail is still the most powerful tool for connecting with online supporters. Ask the Obama campaign how e-mail is treating them.

Candidates and parties use gimmicks to get e-mail addresses. Sen. John McCain has an earmark petition
on his site. Another technique is the survey. I received an e-mail from the National Republican Congressional Committee asking to fill out a survey. They claim my opinion will “help [them] regain the majority in 2008.”

The questions are the same loaded ones I’ve gotten for years by snail mail from conservative/Republican groups asking for money. At least in the NRCC’s case they only want my e-mail address and zip code. No donate button in visual range.

Commenters at Michelle Malkin’s weblog noticed this too. Walterc wrote:

What a slanted questionnaire. I was expecting something a little less self serving that would actually get some valuable feedback from the constituancy (sic).

This was just asking me to sign off on their campaign rhetoric.

Pabarge is even more cynical:

I’m sorry but this survey is complete spin and a shill for donations. None of these people intend to follow through on the Republican agenda. They know our hot buttons and they’ll push those buttons when they want money, but once they get re-elected they’ll stab their very own published agenda in the back.

This survey does not even provide a place to give these RNCC mutts a piece of our minds.

Sad.

I give no $$ to the RNCC until I see some sign of real change.

I don’t blame them for their negative remarks. The questions treat the reader like he’s ignorant of current events. Look at Question #3: “Do you agree with the Nancy Pelosi Democrat Majority’s decision to impose massive tax hikes on the American people?”

What Republican would say, “yes?”

Look at Question #7: “Do you support the Democrats’ efforts to give federal government bureaucrats complete control of your health care costs and choices?”

What Republican would say, “no?”

This survey is full of these types of questions where the answer is obvious given the audience. There seems to be no point to this “survey” other than getting an e-mail address.

What could the NRCC do better? At the very least they could have a form for people to send comments or an e-mail link to an inbox that was actually looked at.

The NRCC has a weblog that allows comments so they’re not opposed to accepting feedback. They weblog and the survey could have linked to each other letting people give their feedback.

The best the NRCC could do is ditch these loaded questions and actually ask their supporters/donors how they can better serve them. To me talking about the online media as a conversation feels cliche and soft, but it fits. The GOP in general is in a rut. The conservative base feels alienated and ignored. They need to be engaged. On the internet it’s all about interactivity and participation. People aren’t passive when they’re chatting with friends or uploading photos or writing weblog posts or making YouTube videos. They don’t want to sit there and be shoveled campaign messages. They want to feel like they’re part of it.

I would advise the NRCC to dump this survey and start a real conversation between the chairman Rep. Tom Cole and the NRCC staff and supporters. They should talk about the most contested races. Where does the NRCC think they have the best shot at taking Democratic seats? What issues resonate most in what localities? What’s the status of the
investigation of the NRCC’s finances?

Have give and take. There’s bound to be negative comments. They should be welcomed. There’s sure to be more wisdom and good ideas outside the NRCC than inside.

The NRCC could set the standard of how Republican organizations engage with supporters in our highly-networked, highly-interactive age. Listening to your customers works for the most successful businesses. The GOP should do the same.

[Cross-posted to The American Mind.]

Yesterday Facebook announced on its blog that its more than 65 million users now have the ability to better define their political views by choosing the "Political Party" that they support.

In other words, whereas before folks like me had to choose either "Conservative" or "Libertarian" to identify my political views, I can now choose the political party I represent instead, e.g., Republican Party. Now, it's important to note that your choices are not limited to Facebook's pre-loaded Party options as I was still able to write in "Conservative" and "Libertarian" and avoid Facebook's suggestion to support the "Conservative Party - Norway" or the "Libertarian Party - United States."

Here's a quick before and after of my profile:

While my friends Michael Whitney and Nancy Scola argue that this is a bad move (and make some very good points that I hope the Facebook team notices), I disagree. And I do so both as a "Republican" who supports the "Republican Party" and as a small-businessman who uses Facebook to better target a message for my clients.

First, for me personally, I've always been an "establishment" guy so I'm proud to support the Republican Party. I've always wanted to label myself as a Republican who supports the Republican Party and now I'm able to do so. Finally.

Second, as someone who utilizes the Facebook advertising tools, this change will allow me to better target a message to those folks who raise their hands proactively as Republicans who support the Republican Party.

The bottom-line is that No change at Facebook will go unnoticed because the site impacts every facet of our lives, and the lively discussion on both sides of the aisle is a credit to that. The Facebook team should listen to the smart people raising good points but I believe that this is a step in the right direction.

Thoughts?

Submit your question to the YouTube debate here.

We lost the Senate in 2006 because of the Internet, so to ignore it this cycle would be political malpractice. With that in mind, the NRSC has written a 39 page Web manual for Senate campaigns with tips on engaging bloggers, avoiding "macaca" moments and even how to ask for money online.