Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:National Democratic Training Committee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 days ago by Footnote Pete in topic Proposed Reception section additions and changes

Carey Committee

[edit]

That's according to Open Secrets. MJLTalk 20:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Citations behind paywalls

[edit]

This applies more widely, but footnote 20 cannot be accessed due to the Washington Post's paywall. Non-pay walled sources are preferable, along with more complete and clear statements about the information in the cited source. In the case of footnote 20, the reader is unable to find more detail about the vaguely referenced fundraising criticism. ClathrateRemonte (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

For future reference, this is footnote 20. MJLTalk 04:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've resolved the issue by adding a link to an archived copy of the article that's free to access. Historical-idealist (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
More sources:
https://newrepublic.com/article/143615/democrats-emails-strategy-haywire
But Their Emails
How the Democrats’ online outreach strategy went haywire.
Sarah Jones
The New Repubic
June 29, 2017
Kenneth Pennington, the former digital director of Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, calls this a “churn and burn” approach that exploits voters. “A dirty secret in the email fundraising industry is that most of the people giving are senior citizens,” he told the New Republic in an email. “For a less net-savvy generation some of these emails that put you on ‘FINAL NOTICE’ are confusing and scary enough. The prospect that your donation will be quadruple-matched may also be enticing, if you really believe it.”
https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/mothership-strategies/
Influence Watch
Mothership Strategies
--Nbauman (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Open Secrets

[edit]

I was trying to figure out how much of the NDTC revenue went to programs, and how much of it went to overhead. I couldn't figure it out.

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/national-democratic-training-cmte/C00603084/summary/2018

In 2017-2018, they spent a total of $6,557,222, and $2,708,002 (41.66%) on fundraising. That seems pretty high.

They gave Mothership Strategies $2,398,561. Is that the same as "fundraising"?

Can anybody confirm that? --Nbauman (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Proposed Format section additions

[edit]

Hi there! I'm proposing changes on behalf of my work at Footnote Fixer for the National Democratic Training Committee. I've written a full proposed draft here, but I'm submitting requests section-by-section for ease of review. This request covers only the Format section to start.

  • Reason for the change: The changes are proposed to give a more full overview of their training formats and partners. The current section cites six sources across three sentences, with several redundant to each other. The primary source URL is antiquated (traindemocrats.org → traindems.org) as well. I'm also proposing two new sentences: a characterization from Vice, information about their digital and AI trainings from Wired, and a 2026 figure on training volume sourced from Politico.
  • References: All sources are shown in the proposed version below.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks so much in advance for your review! Footnote Pete (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reply 29-JUL-2026

[edit]

   Go ahead approved  

  • An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asks the COI editor to go ahead and make the suggested changes.
  • Please ensure all added references are formatted according to whichever system is already in use with the article. (See WP:CITEVAR.)

Regards,  Spintendo  20:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Confirming that I have made the changes to the article, following the WP:PAID disclosure guidance and linking to this request. Thanks for reviewing the additions! Footnote Pete (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proposed Reception section additions and changes

[edit]

Hi again! I'm proposing additional changes on behalf of my work at Footnote Fixer for the National Democratic Training Committee. I've written a full proposed draft here, but I'm submitting requests section-by-section for ease of review. This request covers only the Reception section.

  • Reason for the change: The current Reception section omits significant coverage of who has engaged with NDTC's work (Underwood and Frost, honorary co-chairs Porter and Williams, a Sanders partnership, a statement from ten Democratic governors, and candidates describing their use of the training). Separately, the Mothership Strategies passage is the section's longest item right now, and much of it describes the firm's commission rates and business model rather than NDTC, which should be covered at a dedicated Mothership Strategies article instead. I propose trimming that part back while keeping the core criticism itself intact.
  • References: All sources are shown in the proposed version below.

Please let me know if you have any questions, I'm very happy to make tweaks here. And as always, thanks in advance for the review! Footnote Pete (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Footnote Pete The edit looks like an improvement over the current section. The only thing that needs to be changed is the final line that says its current consultant is Sapphire Strategies, since it involves original research, as the source at Open Secrets does not necessarily indicate the change.
check Partially approved by an impartial editor for all additions and changes except for the final proposed sentence related to Sapphire Strategies. You are free to make the changes yourself, following the current citation style, so long as you note your COI in the edit summary. AaronNealLucas (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Completely understand on that piece. I've removed the Sapphire Strategies sentence and implemented the rest, using the current citation style. Really appreciate your review here, thanks so much! Footnote Pete (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Aaron, would you be able to update the tag as "partially completed" for the edit request above? Was going to do it myself, but realized that it might log me as the person who reviewed the edit request then somewhere. The edit has been implemented per your instructions. (Thanks, and sorry for the ping here.) Footnote Pete (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proposed History section additions

[edit]

Good morning! I'm proposing the third set of changes on behalf of my work at Footnote Fixer for the National Democratic Training Committee. I've written a full proposed draft here, but again, I'm submitting requests section-by-section for ease of review. This request covers only the History section.

  • Reason for the change: The current history section is very truncated, and ends in 2019, not reflecting any recent developments. The updated section below expands on their work greatly, and adds several sources to back up the programmatic shifts that they have done. I tried to add in sources that explain both its purpose for its founding and the actual work that it's done since it started.
  • References: All sources are shown in the proposed version below.

Please let me know if you have issues with the above content, happy to make changes if folks have edits for me. Thanks so much for your review in advance! Footnote Pete (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply