Keyes Loses Constitution Party Nod

Alan Keyes was not selected as the far-right Constitution Party's nominee for president over the weekend. I think there's a couple of interesting points here. First, the fact that this is getting covered at all may be a web difference. At least according to a Google News search, no one is covering this except the blogs.

A second interesting point is this thread on Keyes's site. A supporter posts a message about trying to get Keyes on the ballot as an independent, hears back from the moderator asking if he's volunteering, and then gets input from other posters as well. I'm not saying it's going to work (As I've said before, I'm pretty doubtful about third parties in general), but I think its interesting.

Women and political blogs

There's an interesting discussion going on right now about female political bloggers. It began with this post on Glamour's blog titled "Why are all the big political bloggers men?" MissLaura of Daily Kos responds here. I'm not sure what I think about this. Half the time, I don't know whether the bloggers I'm reading are men or women. And for every Markos or Josh Marshall, there's a Arianna Huffington or Ana Marie Cox. What do you think?

Bloggers on the Web Effect on Politics and Government

On April 4th, 2008 there was a discussion at NYU discussing the web's effect on politics. GroundReport has a full length video of the panel, under New York Documentary entitled "How the Web is Changing American Politics".

Some of the topics highlighted in the discussion were

• Success based on candidate's social network strategies
• Polls can no longer be trusted
• Bottom up approach (Power moving from the elite to the masses)
• Democratization of the media by blogging
• Utilization of the web by campaigns in the future

Taking the community from online to physical world

This story is pretty interesting. A group of Ron Paul supporters is trying to create several gated communities that consist entirely of people who believe in their ideals. At least according to posts on their forum, some participants hope to build a large enough base of support to be control the county government and perhaps elect a representative to the state house. I doubt this will be that successful - while Paul has a fair number of supporters online, it is something else entirely to move your family to an isolated part of Texas for your political ideals. But it is interesting to see someone try to take an online political community based around a single candidate and try to make it into a physical community.

Getting in on the Act

Looking to American websites as a model, British campaigners have begun to recognize the potential in developing more innovative online political communities.  Current traffic on mainstream political party websites in the UK lags that on other politically-oriented pages.  The possible culprit? Visitors lack the ability to "get involved."  As the major candidate sites in the 2008 Presidential race exemplify, providing supporters with ways to network and connect with fellow voters has become a mainstay of Internet campaigning for U.S. candidates.  One imagines that U.S. voters are not the only ones seeking a sense of online community in the political realm.

Farfallegate

There's a story today in the New York Times about recipes attributed to Mrs. McCain on John McCain's site being lifted from the Food Network and Rachel Ray. There's lots of web effects here - the recipes came from one website and were posted on another, the duplication was found by a person searching the web, and it was reported on initially by a website, The Huffington Post (a lot of interesting stories from them lately). While the "blame the intern" defense is getting some flack, I kind of buy it. Various studies have reported that plagiarism is up on college campuses in the internet age. And in the campaign sphere, where it is good staff work to find things your supporters have created and promote them, it seems easy to believe the line could have been crossed.

Online Ads Are Still Behind Mailings, Radio and TV

Almost everyday, a new story comes out discussing a candidate's online ad campaign, today's is concerning Hillary Clinton. Candidates are expected to spend $5.5 million on advertisements before election day, but less than 1 percent will be spent on online ads. Most money will be spent in the traditional outlets, TV, radio and mailings, according to a Marketplace podcast. The fact that online ads are cheaper than traditional outlets is only a minor factor in this discrepancy, given the disparity of the percentage. Online ads are considered important for different reasons; they are gateways to information, a community of supporters and fundraising tools, whereas traditional outlets are used to inform.

The American Invasion: Obamamania in London

Forbes magazine has an interesting article out discussing the interest in Barack Obama in the UK, which it proves by noting that Obama's website was the 11th most visited site by UK web users in February. I'm not sure there's a web difference here however. While perhaps the web makes finding evidence of interest easier, other countries have long been interested in what happens with US elections - especially when there's a dynamic young candidate.

Also, its not clear to me how sustainable this interest is. I did a comparison of Google searches by UK users over the past year for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Gordon Brown. The trend definitely shows a lot of interest during the peak of primary season - all three Americans were briefly more popular search terms than Brown in February - and in Obama, who led Brown in searches for much of the spring. But Brown is now ahead of all three candidates again.

Ron Paul, More Inspiring Less Fundraising

The congressman from Texas continues to stay in the race for the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election. How does he stay in this race? "The Moneybomb," Paul leaves fundraising to his independent supporters, who have organized a net-roots campaign.

Money is Everything

At the end of the third quarter, money was everything, but at the same time the amount of web donators still did not correlate with support.

This video addresses several concerns in the fundraising arena

• No Money, No Campaign
• Old method of fundraising (Bundler-Lobbyist) leads to donor's maxing out early.
• Democrats out-raising Republicans across the board, due to lack of enthusiasm
• Bundler's may create animosity
• Internet donations may reflect grassroots support, but not as good at predicting votes

Candidates Should “Slow-Walk” Into Supporters’ Wallets

A new article gives some insight on how Obama has outpaced Clinton and McCain on the campaign trail. In January of this year, the article’s bar graph shows Obama spent $768,000 in web ads ($2.6 million in February), while Clinton spent $171,000 and McCain spent 151,000. Obama has raised $91 million in January and February of this year, Clinton has raised $37 million total online and McCain has raised $25 million, but has not released how much money was raised online.

All three of these candidates have raised money through ad targeting. The key difference between Obama ads and Clinton and McCain ads, may be the steps following clicking on the ad. After you click on all of the candidates’ ads, they ask for your email address and put you on their respective listserv. The Clinton emails ask supporters outright to donate. The emails from Obama entice supporters to participate in local activities, volunteer and learn more about Obama, rarely do the emails ask you for a donation, the article considers this technique, “slow-walking… into supporters' wallets” key to his success.

International Politics Update

I just came across two interesting articles about the intersection of the web and politics overseas.

-The ruling party in Malaysia now requires all candidates for internal party positions create a blog introducing themselves and their political plans. This is widely thought to be a reaction to the heavy losses suffered by the ruling coalition in the March general elections, which in part were blamed on underestimating the strength of campaigning online. Abdul Rahman Dahlan, secretary general of the youth wing of the United Malays National Party, went as far as stating that "[a]ll candidates must have blogs..if not, they are not qualified to be leaders.

-This article details how "the clash over Pakistan's future" is being fought on Facebook. Pakistan has censored several blogs critical of current President Pervez Musharraf. Facebook, however, has been left untouched. As a result, a lot of the online dialogue and debate over who should lead Pakistan has taken place in Facebook groups with names like "THE ONLY HOPE - MUSHARRAF" and "I think a turnip would make a better Head of State than Musharraf."

Gravel Online Ad

Mike Gravel, the former Democratic senator who attempted to win the Democratic Party's nomination for president has recently announced that he'll be seeking the Libertarian nomination. This recent Gravel video posted on YouTube encompasses for me the problems a Third Party candidate has in building a base of supporters online. It's gotten a lot of attention (over 117,000 views), obviously what you want as a third-party candidate, and presumably some viewers are now more supportive of Gravel than they were before (read the video's comment thread). But a lot of viewers seem to be watching it to make fun of Gravel. See these two blog posts by Entertainment Weekly ("a crazy old ex-Senator) and Matthew Yglesias ("a joke"), for example.

Structural Changes in Online Fundraising

Benjamin Katz and Mark Rackers wrote a “how to” on successful campaign fundraising in the modern era on behalf of their company. In this article, they discuss the newfound closeness between the candidate and the supporter. They suggest that campaigns send out a weekly newsletter and a personalized letter less often to direct the recipient towards sites with more info and places where they can donate. Another web difference between campaigning on the phone and through mail and campaigning online is in infrastructure and amount earned. In the past staff and volunteers called supporters and supporters pledged certain amounts. The actual amount the campaign would receive would often be less or none at all and would only transpire after follow-up calls. Online fundraising allows supporters to donate in response to a direct message or add from the candidate and the money deposited will go immediately in the campaigns account. For smaller campaigns there are even websites that will help campaigns set up a website to accept donations online, for a service charge or course.

Bob Barr's Team Touts Early Internet "Success"

The Barr campaign put out a press release touting his "success" on YouTube over the first week his site there was active. I understand their desire to attach to the previous fairly successful internet campaigning by Ron Paul. But really - 67th that week - is that something you should tout?

Meta-Campaigning

How's this for meta? The McCain campaign has created an official Facebook group dedicated to recruiting people to go to McCain's Facebook Page and add themselves as supporters. The goal of the group is to get more friends on McCain's Facebook page than Hillary Clinton has on hers. Notice that they're not trying to get more Facebook friends than Obama... after all, they want to set a reachable goal.

More on Compete.com

I can't emphasize enough how interesting and relevant the compete.com blog that Meg wrote about earlier really is. A recent post compares Obama and Clinton's web "face time" for the month of March. In cyberspace, Obama has clobbered Clinton. Obama's wikipedia page had 4 times the number of readers as Clinton's. YouTube viewers spent 10 times as much time on Obama's channel as Clintons. And what does this translate to in the physical world? Obama out-fundraised Clinton 2-1 in March.

The Pennsylvania primary will be a very intriguing test as to whether internet time translates into votes. Out of all Pennsylvania residents who have visited Democratic candidates' websites, 65% visited Obama's site while 35% visited Clinton's site. Will this make a difference on April 22? We'll find out soon enough.

To Vote For Barack Obama, Dial 1-866-IDOLS-01

This AP story by Lillian Cunningham and Rebecca Knowles makes the (in my view) incredibly patronizing argument that younger voters are participating more in the primaries this year because the success of shows like American Idol have created a culture of the masses actively participating in creating celebrities. The jump from creating a pop start to creating a president is a natural one, according to Cunningham and Knowles.

Despite the condescending tone, Cunningham and Knowles do make some cogent claims about how the web has changed politics. Some highlights include:

• A switch in campaign strategy from "the old, vertical, expert-to-layman approach" to "horizontal, peer-to-peer interactivity.
• The ability of social networking tools to conscript potential candidates.
• A starting point for engaged young people to become involved in politics.

More Party Blogs

To follow up a bit on Meg's post yesterday, here's a few more party blogs.

Constitution Party
The Populist Party of America

One thing I think is interesting is that the Green Party, which if you had asked me to guess I would have said is most likely to have a blog, doesn't seem to have one. They give a list of independent blogs here that are Green-leaning. (Green Commons is especially interesting, as I'll discuss in a later post), but don't seem to have one of their own.

An Online History

The Museum of the Moving Image takes an intriguing look at the history of campaign websites in its online exhibit, "The Desktop Candidate."  The first election to feature campaign websites was the 1996 race, though the technologies employed were, by today's standards, simplistic.  Not surprisingly, the Clinton/Gore website and the Dole/Kemp homepage were both used to emphasize the candidate's Internet policy views.

Four years later, the 2000 race featured a much more integrated use of the Internet in campaigning.  Attack websites (anti-Bush, anti-Gore) were even launched, aimed as discrediting the other major party candidate.

By 2004, candidate sites functioned "as the online version of candidate headquarters."  The exhibit notes, however, a declining emphasis on the website in 2008, and increased use, instead, of e-mail and social networking tools.

A gallery of all the major party sites from 1996 through 2004 is featured in the exhibit.

Campaign Geography

Although posted last summer, Compete.com offers an interesting take on the Red State/Blue State dichotomy.  Populated by dots that each represent 100 visits to the particular candidate's website, maps breakdown the geographic distribution of politically-inclined Internet users.  Regardless of party, the coasts are clearly the most connected to their preferred candidate's online presence.  

Summer Data

Democratic candidates

Republican Candidates

A more recent analysis was conducted in November 2007.  On the Republican side, Ron Paul, though clearly not the frontrunner, commanded the online attention of the largest number of states.  While the Democratic distribution evidenced significant traffic to both Obama's and Clinton's websites, Obama led in the number of states "won," as well as in the total number of "votes."

November Data

Democratic Candidates

Republican Candidates

Though I doubt there will be a direct correlation between states "won" in terms of site visits, and states claimed in the general election, it will be interesting to see how close such an analysis can come to predicting the actual outcome of the election come November.

Parties Can Blog Too

Not only do candidate websites feature blogs, but political parties are also getting in on the action.  

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Few Third Party websites appear to have blogs (or the slick design of major party sites), but a few exceptions exist, including:

Communist Party USA

Libertarian Party

A Millennial Makeover

Millenial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics, by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, posits that the digital age has brought about a turning point in American politics.  In an excerpt featured in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the authors note that, while on the surface, political shifts have been marked by landmark sociopolitical events (.g. The Great Depression), the underlying forces remain changes in "generational size and attitudes and contemporaneous advances in communication technology."

The Internet age embodies nothing if not both of these mechanisms.  Referred to as "Millennials" in the book, and digital natives in other contexts, those who came of age in a networked world manifest a different set of beliefs and values than their parents.  "[As the generation] moves into positions of power and influence in society, the new generation demands that the nation's institutes change ..."  The explosion of Internet campaign tactics is, thus, but a manifestation of a changing tide in ideology and, eventually, infrastructure.  It is clear that regardless of whether MySpace and YouTube remain on the "It" website radar, campaigning has entered a new age where connectivity is the name of the game.

MySpace Pages of Third Party Candidates

A while back, MSNBC posted this article on the MySpace pages of third-party candidates for president. Now, none of the candidates listed are even close to the same tier as the major Third Parties - the Greens, Libertarians, etc. - much less the Democrats and Republicans, but I think the article raises an interesting point about the problem of using the internet as a campaign tool. It costs nothing to set up a myspace page and declare yourself a candidate for president. Would a serious candidate have a chance to break through the clutter - at least if he or she didn't have the wealth of Ross Perot or the name recognition of Ralph Nader - and even have an impact on the race?

I'm not sure this is a bad thing. As I guess I should make clear in writing about this area, I'm not sure that third parties are a good thing. But it seems to damage hopes that the web can be great force to overthrow our two party structure.

Overview of the Web and Politics

This article by Faisal Hoque of BTM is a very good primer to how the web has affected and is affecting US politics, especially presidential campaigns. He traces the roots of web politicking from Bob Dole and Bill Clinton through Obama. He also provides examples of how candidates are using the web and, more tellingly, how much they are spending on web-based campaigning.

The one thing I take issue with is his statement that "Social networking, Internet-based tools and innovative thinking will disrupt and transform our electoral process. " I definitely disagree with "disrupt" and I'm not even sure I agree with "transform." In my view, the web is like adding a power tool to your toolbox. It makes daunting projects (like getting out the youth vote) possible and may even replace some older, outdated tools (like door-to-door canvassing), but you're not going to throw out your hammer (rallies) or screwdriver (TV ads).

Bob Barr

Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman, has announced he is interested in running for president as the Libertarian Party's candidate. Interestingly, he not only used an internet site to make the announcement, but also specifically credited internet support as one of the reasons he's thinking of running, saying "There’s been a tremendous expressed to me both directly and indirectly on the Internet." See an article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution here. As the article indicates, he seems to be directly tying his campaign to that of Ron Paul. In a way, his use of the internet makes sense. As another article in The AJC indicates, in person he often draws fairly small crowds - fewer than 50 people in one recent appearance. By posting on Antiwar.com, he not only taps into a crowd likely to be his supporters but also just gets to speak to a much larger audience at once.

I question though, whether this strategy makes sense. After all, the purpose of a third-party campaign isn't to win, but to get your message out. What good does it do just to preach to the choir if that's your goal?

Justin TV - Obama, Clinton, and McCain

Since I thought there might be some interest, I looked into what comes up when you search for Clinton, Obama, and McCain on Justin.tv, figuring there might be unofficial sites created by their supporters.

There's not much there. There are two Obama sites under the user names obama and obama2008, but obama has only one video available and obama2008 has none at all. A search for Hillary Clinton brings up one video called "Hillary Clinton sucks" and a video of a Hillary speech on CNN. A search for John McCain brings up one video on Ron Paul's site.

Ron Paul and Justin.Tv

One of the things that is immediately apparent when you go to the website of the Ron Paul campaign is its perception of the importance of social networking. While the Clinton and Obama campaigns' websites place social networking in relatively small type in the bottom left of their main pages (and the McCain campaign doesn't mention it at all), on the Paul site the social networking icons are as large as much of the rest of the site. Even more interesting, however, is its use of one of those social networks - Justin.Tv.

Justin.Tv is notable not just for its strange Gorilla-with-a-camera logo (which, I'll be honest certainly helped draw me in in the first place), but for allowing the posting of live streaming video. This allowed the Paul campaign to communicate with its backers in a different way - instead of just putting up ads or campaign experiences, they posted live conference calls with supporters and updates with their precinct captains. They seemed to really let people into the inner workings more than others had in the past. You can see the archive of their videos here.

It also probably helped Paul connect to a large number of his hard core supporters - internet users (see for example this article from the New York Times). Justin.Tv has existed for barely a year. By using the service, the campaign helped show it was keeping up with the latest trends online.

Third-Parties

One other issue we'll be looking at is how the use of online campaigning by third-party and lower budget major party candidates. Is there a web effect here? Can these candidates with a smaller initial base of supporters and less press coverage use the internet to make an impact? Or as one writer on the subject has noted, "[T]he Internet lowers the cost of campaigning and enhances the ability of anyone to coalesce a large number of supporters. But if you’re not already well known, how will people know to find you?"

Transparency and Fundraising Online

Apparently the Clintons have decided to yield even more transparency after releasing their tax returns for the past 7 years. Now the Clinton campaign has unleashed a new technique for web fundraising. When you contribute online for the Pennsylvania primary, you can choose where you would like the money to go. The website, “MyPA” shows the campaigns’ progression in meeting goals for each category. The Clinton camp has been innovative; in the past there has been a musical contest, a chance to watch a debate with Bill and a chance to roll on the trail with Chelsea. Time will tell if this innovation can surpass Obama’s new million in a minute campaign, began by independent supporters.

How Much More Do You Need to Raise to Compete on the Web?

Is there a connection between fundraising online and support? On January 25, 2008, the John Edwards campaign was celebrating their “grassroots support”, because they rose more than $230, 000 in a day along with $3 million in the first 25 days in the quarter. 93 percent of the donations were said to be in amounts of $100 or less. According to my own calculations, he had at least 2,300 supporters in one day. I would think with that this kind of support should have pushed Edwards past January 30th. Although, in a world where everyone is breaking records due to the lower barrier of entry of donations that has been created by the web, how much is enough to win?

Official blogs: Is anyone reading?

A recent (December 2007) analysis of candidate blogs revealed a surprising fact, considering the popularity of political discourse across various media: the number of people who subscribe to candidate blogs is relatively low.  While the article notes that the number of subscribes to a particular candidate's blog correlates with the candidate's relative popularity, the low number of subscribed readers indicates either that blogs are not as well read a campaign tool as the campaigns seem to hope, or not many people know that subscribing to RSS feeds can make keeping up with a blog much easier.