The Politics/Technology Discussion Is Going In The Wrong Direction

by Brian Reich | 9 Mar 2008, 3:00am

(This is cross posted on the EchoDitto SXSW blog)  

I have been in politics all my life. For most of that time I have been very optimistic about the potential for politics to have a positive impact on the world. And that optimism increased as I saw the potential for using technology to educate, engage, and mobilize audiences increase and become more integrated. It’s a fairly simple equation in my mind. Better politics help better people get elected and better people do a better job running the country (at whatever level they were elected - local, state, federal, etc.). And technology can help facilitate that on many different levels.

Of late, however, I have been down on politics — I am frustrated that the media and various other people talk about all the innovation and evolution in our political process, but the reality is far from that. I am saddened by the fact that our government fails to serve most of our population well, and some people not at all - and that tools are available to help expand the reach of government, but those in power don’t seem interested in using them in any meaningful way. I’m cranky about the fact that so many people look at technology as the solution, when there are obviously so many more more important factors.

Politics is exciting to watch and occasionally fun to participate in, but its not fulfilling its role in our society right now. Worse than that, our democracy is broken. And the rate at which change is occurring so that technology can play a meaningful role in fixing these problems is painfully slow.

What made me so frustrated today?
I was at a panel discussion this morning with a group of very smart political operatives from the internet space (several of whom are friends of mine). They were talking all about Facebook (one of the panelists was from Facebook) and user-generated videos that appeared on YouTube, list building and GOTV. Frankly, there wasn’t any new ground broken in the discussion.

So, I stepped up and asked the panel if they felt the shifting nature of politics, which increasingly recognizes the role of the community and gives some (though still not very much) voice to the grassroots community will spill over into better functioning of government, greater access for citizens, and an increased likelihood of real solutions being found for the problems facing our society. I think it was a good question.

The responses were not very good. Panelist answer ranged from “government doesn’t understand technology and has no interest in using it that way” to “the campaigns haven’t really achieved anything of significance, so there isn’t a model to transfer over to the operation of government anyway.” (Those aren’t direct quotes, FYI…)

So, I’m frustrated on a couple levels. First, I’m frustrated that the media (and people at a panel like the one this morning) obsess over the ‘paradigm shift’ happening in politics, when really very little, if anything, has changed at all. Second, I’m frustrated that nobody in the political space seems to look past the end of the campaign cycle to the job that ultimately their candidate/party will have to do when elected. I was in the political space for a long time (and am not that far outside of it now) so I understand the mentality, but I got into politics with the goal of helping improve our society and I feel as if the industry is just navel gazing far too much about this technology stuff. And lastly, I’m frustrated that you can get so many smart people together on a panel, or at a conference like SXSW for that matter, and not even begin to scratch the surface of the serious issues that need addressing.

I’ll keep hoping to find a panel, or a group of political professionals, who want to realize the true world changing opportunities that technology offers and how to actually improve our society.

TAGS :
leave a comment

Presidential Announcements v2.0

by Brian Reich | 21 Jan 2007, 2:00am

I had this really long, eloquent post written about how all the candidates are using the web to launch their political campaigns.   I hit the wrong button and the whole thing was lost.   I won’t try to reconstruct the entire thing, but let me try and summarize a couple of the key points.

John Edwards announced his campaign for the Presidency with a web video.   Barack Obama used a web video a few weeks later to do the same.   And now  Hillary Clinton, who announced her intention to run for President on Saturday, has used a video on her Website to break the news.   It seems you can’t be a candidate for President - at least not a Democratic candidate - without launching your campaign on the web.   (Memo to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, who announced their candidacy’s on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows — you might want to check to make sure your announcement registered at all, or consider posting the video of your appearance on YouTube to make sure people take it seriously).

Both the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post used Senator Clinton’s announcement to analyze the role that the web will play in the upcoming campaign.   The LA Times offers a brief history of the highs and lows of internet campaigns over the past decade, writing:

The Internet’s power both to make and break politicians has been vividly demonstrated in recent years.

In 2004, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean jumped from political obscurity to grab the front-runner’s position in the initial stages of the Democratic race largely on the strength of the interest and fundraising he generated online.

Last year, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) watched his reelection campaign — and his hopes of emerging as a prime contender for the GOP presidential nomination — go down in flames after a video clip of him addressing a young man of Indian descent as “macaca” made the rounds on the Web.

Barely a factor in campaigning 11 years ago when Clinton’s husband won reelection as president, the Internet has become an integral part of the political landscape, with every major candidate fielding a website and seeking to create a virtual community around his — or her — campaign.

But with the recent advent of YouTube and other video-sharing sites, analysts said the most intriguing aspect of the evolving use of the Web may be as part of an immense game of political “gotcha,” in which campaigns seek to catch opposing candidates off-guard and off-message, as happened to Allen.

By contrast, the Washington Post took more of an editorial stance on what makes for good web video in Politics, offering this comparison Clinton, Obama, and Edwards:here) and has posted his announcement video to YouTube and other places.   He has  a MySpace page, a Facebook profile, etc.   He’s following the new media playbook pretty much to all the way.   We will have to wait and see how that works for him.

Unlike other candidates (coughBarack Obamacough), whose videos might have been produced by a guy with a cellphone camera, Clinton’s announcement was a veritable showpiece of Hollywood-style set design, lighting and cinematography. While Clinton, looking radiant in a red jacket and flattering makeup, affected the demeanor of a kaffe-klatching neighbor while speaking about the Iraq war, energy, Social Security and health care, the camera swung with pen dular subtlety between a background tableaux of framed family pictures and a fabulous table lamp exuding a warm glow. In fact, the background is so eye-catching, so crowded with totemic details, so bursting with semiotic potential, that I missed whole passages of Clinton’s statement the first time around. (And yes, I do want that lamp.)

The effect was one of breathtaking political shrewdness and brilliant staging, like a mash-up between “The West Wing” and Diane Keaton’s latest holiday heartwarmer. And for all its studied spontaneity, its air of having been pre-tested, choreographed, and managed to within a microfiber of Clinton’s mascara, it worked, if only to provide a little eye candy within a grainy sea of canned speeches and awkward iChats. The aesthetic sophistication suited Clinton, who, as a former first lady and a U.S. senator, would look hopelessly out of place in most other contexts (rocking the mom jeans in the Ninth Ward? Uh-uh. Maybe an ornate Senate office, but where’s the zazz in yet another wall of law books?), and the look and the script warmed up a woman portrayed as either an amoral ice queen or control-freaky dragon lady by her political opponents.

 

Three quick points: First, the novelty of launching a campaign on the web should have worn off a long time ago.   The web is not even close to being the most dynamic vehicle for delivering information anymore, politics has just been slow to embrace what virtually every major consumer brand and entertainment company in the world has been doing for the past five years.   A really nice website, a blog, or even a web video announcement is not enough.   Its time you ran a fully funded, fully supported effort online to promote your campaign - and to engage the audience that chooses to get its information there instead of through traditional news or campaign events (which are still important as well).   Second, announcing your campaign online sets all of our expectations very high that you, as a candidate, will remain committed to using the web.   John Edwards, you have already created behind-the-scenes web videos about yourself, recorded  podcast conversations about issues, and similar.   Are you going to keep doing that when you are visiting four states a day - so we can see what really happens to a person when they don’t sleep enough, eat healthy, or have  complete control over their message?   Hillary Clinton, you are taking your web efforts to the next level already,  inviting the audience to create the first guest blog post  to be published on  your site and hosting a series of live video chats with the web audience over the coming week.   Are you going to host live web-chats every week, about any topic?   Are you going to take on the large and vocal segment of the online audience who questions your policies, challenges your positions, and even insults you personally — or will your web campaign, like your offline efforts, be so highly managed and controlled that it fails to really engage people?   Finally, the media needs to find a better way to cover and express the value the web plays in this upcoming cycle than how they are currently doing it.   We have all read, time and time again, what a big impact the web is playing and will continue to play in politics.   Its time  to assign a full time, daily reporter to cover each campaign’s online efforts.   It is time to hold the campaigns accountable for what they say will be an online, grassroots fueled effort and  put the same scrutiny on their web efforts as you do on their fundraising, their television ads, their speeches, and — even in some  cases, their clothing.   Just as you have pushed increasing resources into covering traditional news through the online medium, now its time to recognize that the online efforts of a presidential campaign are also news and cover them accordingly.

It should be an exciting couple of years for those of us who live, work, and love the online medium.   I will definitely be watching to see what happens.   I hope the political world realizes the potential that it has to reach and engage the audience before and lives up to its end of the bargain.

Update: I wasn’t totally fair to Bill Richardson.   He has a very nice website (

TAGS :
leave a comment

John Edwards’ Online Presidential Launch

by Brian Reich | 30 Dec 2006, 2:00am

The online world is buzzing about the online-heavy launch of John Edwards’ campaign for President.   Jeff Jarvis summarized it this way:

So John Edwards announced his presidential announcement on YouTube in a video made by Andrew Baron and Joanne Colan of Rocketboom (who put up their own interview the next day) and Chuck Olsen (who, Andrew reports, is flying with Edwards to make video for the official campaign site). The digital cool doesn’t end there. Edwards tells you to text the word “hope” to a given number to get more instructions; how mobile. As NewTeeVee reports, he has Robert Scoble trailing around with a camera as well. He’s “live-bloggin” (their usage, not the usual meaning) at Daily Kos. He’s trying to create is own sort of Peace Corps called One Corps with people signing up online to do good deeds under his brand (they will “fight poverty” and, oh, while they’re at it, flog candidates who “support One America ideals’ [that was the old name of this campaign effort] and spread the word by calling radio stations). And tonight he’s having an online town hall from Iowa.

How cyber can you get?

Is this all just a publicity stunt to look modern and cool or is this a turning point in how campaigns are run? We’ll know in about a decade.

I think we will know whether John Edwards, and other candidates for President in 2008, are serious about the use of the internet and change the way they campaign well before a decade has passed.   Change is already taking place.   I wonder what impact those changes will have on politics - and what use of online is really worthwhile when promoting a political activity like this.   What will John Edwards’ next announcement look like and how much of his campaign will be geared towards the online audience (as opposed to complementing his outreach to all audiences, to balance or bypass television coverage, for example)?   How will the online momentum that he is able to generate translate into real votes on Election Day (remember, Howard Dean had all the online momentum before the 2004 primaries began but couldn’t translate them into wins in key primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire, dooming his quest).  

I have high hopes for the Edwards campaign and their online efforts in particular.   But I don’t want this to become a debate about what an internet-driven campaign should look like, or a media-driven frenzy over ‘who is going to be the internet candidate’.   Every candidiate should launch their campaigns online  in some way because a big part of the electorate looks online for some part of their news, or political information.   But every campaign, Edwards included, should also have a substantial grass-roots base, a sophisticated media strategy, a good message and some credible policy positions,  advertising,  and a host of other things.   The smart campaigns know this.   And when we look back in November 2008 at which candidate was elected as our next President, it will be the one who mixed all those pieces best that wins the day.  

TAGS :
leave a comment

Political Ads on iPods?

by Brian Reich | 19 Dec 2006, 2:00am

From Washington Whispers…

The Future of Politics in an iPod
It wasn’t long ago that we told you of how the Democrats and Republicans were preparing a new way to reach voters in 2008 through their mobile technology and iPods. Well, now we know why. Republican pollster David Winston tells us that new research found that 40 percent of 2006 voters ages 18 to 34 own iPods. And many don’t make time to watch lots of tv, choosing instead to TiVo their faves or record podcasts. So what will be the best way to reach those critical voters in 2008? Through their iPods, he says, especially when the mp3s go wireless. “That’s the next environment,” he predicts, “where people will get their information.” His tip to the pols: Make the ads riveting. The best example: losing Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele’s family-focused tv ads, some of which featured a cute Boston terrier.

I think he’s on the right track.   The big question, at least for me, is whether political advertisers will recognize the difference between the message and the medium.   An iPod, like any other piece of technology, is simply a delivery mechanism for content.   People like watching TV, listening to music, and playing games on their handheld devices because they are away from home or don’t have access to other forms of technology where they usually get that stuff.   Will political ads be compelling enough to get people to watch, simply becuase they are available for an iPod or similar?   its not about the content of the ads alone - as he suggests.   Its about the political process as a whole as well.

TAGS :
leave a comment

Google CEO says Internet is key to campaign win

by Brian Reich | 30 Nov 2006, 2:00am

Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, told Republican governors yesterday at the internet was going to play a big role in politics.   More importantly, Schmidt gave some examples of cool ways the internet was already changing politics.   One example from overseas:

Schmidt said the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain got a taste in the run-up to its elections last weekend, when someone used the Google Earth satellite mapping feature to photograph the ruling family’s lavish houses, and posted them on line, juxtaposed next to the homes of ordinary citizens.

The government tried to censor the photos, which instantly boosted their popularity, he said.

He also said that Google was taking steps to limit the effectiveness of ‘Google-bombing’ - a tactic of manipulating search results to promote a specific topic.   Some bloggers used this tactic to help promote flattering  news about Democratic candidates and unflattering news about their Republican opponents during this past Election cycle.

You can read the full article here.

On a related note, Mindshare (where I work) released a white paper last week about the impact that technology had on this past election cycle and how candidates should use interactive techniques in the future to win elections.   I hope you will download and read it.  

 

TAGS :
leave a comment

Why Candidates Watch What You Buy

by Brian Reich | 31 Oct 2006, 2:00am

AdWeek has an article about micro-targeting - the political strategy of using lifestyle data (magazine subscriptions, shopping habits, etc.) to target and communicate with voters.   I am quoted.

My first quote is about the value of micro-targeting:

“You are now targeting based on behavior,” says Brian Reich, a senior strategic consultant at Mindshare Interactive Campaigns, a Washington public affairs shop that handles lobbying and ballot initiatives. “You understand a lot more about a person based on how they spend their time and money, rather than on how they identify themselves.”

My second quote is about the difference in approach to elections demonstrated by the Republicans and the Democrats:

The Democrats’ data-gathering strategy pales in comparison. Prior to this year, some states lost or discarded voter data between elections, according to the DNC. And unlike Republicans, who handpick candidates early on and develop corresponding campaign messages before the upcoming race, Democrats often find themselves playing catchup — waiting until a candidate gets the party nomination, then figuring out how to sell him or her to the voters.

The disparity between these arrangements is obvious. “If you wait until [a nomination] to tell people you have to mobilize, you have a problem,” argued Reich. The Democrats are now in a scramble —and the stakes are high. Many political observers are predicting that the GOP may lose its lock on both houses of Congress. But for that to happen, the Democrats must win 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

I have never tried hid my frustration with the Democratic Party and its use of technology.   I wrote an article for Personal Democracy after the 2004 cycle about the mistakes I felt the Democrats had made in developing their database for example.   And while the Democrats have made a much larger commitment than many expected over the past two years, I think the Republicans are are still far ahead of the Democrats, and have a more practical approach to the use of technology to support their election activities.  

The Democrats will probably win big next week — take control of the House, maybe the Senate as well.   Still, the Democrats will lose some close seats because the Republican message and turnout machines are using technology in a more focused and efficient way.   They have identified the most important political  activities and found ways to use technology to support their efforts - whether its targeting and message delivery, opposition research, Get-Out-The-Vote or similar.    In other words, technology is not the story.  

If the Democrats  do win big, the message that more needs to be done will likely be lost… the focus will be on the  President’s failures in Iraq or the corrupt practices of the Republican leadership in Congress.    Political experts and the media give credit  to liberal bloggers, or the few candidates who  found a way to  tap MySpace  or YouTube  with changing the face of politics.   And while there is some truth to that, and they all deserve some credit for pushing this discussion forward, there is more to the conversation.

Democrats continue to invest in technology, and I believe they are closing the gap that exists between them and the Republicans in this area.   But, there is still a fundamental difference in the philsophies of the two parties — and until Democrats position technology as an element of the campaign, and not the story itself, the Republicans will continue to have an advantage.

TAGS :
leave a comment

Candidates Click Into Interactive Tactics

by Brian Reich | 27 Oct 2006, 2:00am

My CEO, Dan Solomon, has an op-ed in today’s Media Daily News.   It begins:

SINCE THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, we have seen a seismic shift in the online world–a transition that took political campaigns and advocacy organizations from a dependence on text-heavy, “static” Web sites and vaulted them into the dynamic world of blogs and vlogs, RSS feeds and news aggregators, social networks, video and photo-sharing, mashups and video e-mail.

Political campaigns, both issue- and candidate-based, are experimenting with the new interactive tools, and trying to figure out how to turn clicks into loyal followers and convert energy into action. Not every technology that is available to candidates is a good fit–and campaigns and other issue-oriented groups traditionally trail the consumer marketing world when it comes to trying new things. But, with the communications landscape changing and audience expectations rising, the need to adapt is clear.

Four of these new technologies seem to hold the greatest promise and deserve a closer look for those wishing to have their message in the mainstream–or even a small rivulet of community thought: social networks, video, mobile and mapping.

Read the whole essay…

TAGS :
leave a comment

Must Read NY Times Magazine Article

by Brian Reich | 26 Sep 2006, 2:00am

The New York Times Sunday Magazine published a must-read article this past weekend about Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and his efforts to keep control of Congress (and looking ahead, the White House) in Republican hands.   On its face, it seems like a pretty basic bio article, but dig a little deeper and you will see some key signs of the Republican strength and sophistication with regard to the use of technology to support their politics.

Some choice excerpts:

When Mehlman talks about politics, he doesn’t talk about Machiavelli; he talks about “Moneyball,” Michael Lewis’s book about how the Oakland A’s employed statistical modeling to assemble a powerhouse baseball team, sending to pasture the old-line scouts with their years of calling it from their guts. “We are the party of €˜Moneyball!”‘ Mehlman proclaimed, practically shouting and bouncing on the balls of his feet, talking to a room of slightly bewildered Republicans in California last year. “They measured everything. We are doing the same thing in politics.”

And this…

Back when Mehlman took the job of party chairman, Republican command of the technologies of winning elections seemed the icing on the cake. Now it seems more like the cake itself. If there is one defining question in this campaign, it is whether the two big Republican Party weapons in this age of Bush — voter turnout and national security in the post-9/11 era — can be wheeled out again to overcome a political environment that has curdled for the Republican Party. As in 2002 and 2004, the White House has been hitting Democrats on national security and terror in a choreographed way, with a rollout that began, predictably, around Labor Day. But Democrats are pushing back this time, arguing that Bush’s policies have if anything made the world a less safe place, an argument reinforced by the continued images of turmoil from Iraq. Polls show that the Republican advantage on the issue is not what it once was, and even some Republicans worry about how many times the White House can credibly go back to this same well.

By contrast, the intricate political machine that Mehlman has built to identify and turn out Republicans is growing, and if the election in November is close, it could provide the Republican Party with the fire wall it needs. Democrats have, if belatedly, learned lessons from what the Republican Party has done and are adopting many of the same techniques. Still, no one thinks the Democrats have caught up on get-out-the-vote, or even can catch up before Election Day. Harold Ickes, a long-term national Democratic leader and one of the smartest strategists in either party, didn’t hesitate when asked if he thought the Republican Party had lapped the Democrats in the area of targeting and turnout. “Yes — there’s no question about it,” he said. Ickes’s response was revealing because he has embarked on a private effort to build a national database of registered voters, an implicit rebuke of the slower pace of Howard Dean, the Democratic Party leader, in this area. And Ickes was warm in his appraisal of Mehlman. “The general view is, he’s very good,” Ickes said. “They have good systems and he’s a good system person.”

 And this…

Mehlman has for this election taken what the Republican Party assembled in Ohio in 2004 — a database of every voting-age resident that includes voting history, party registration, demographic data and consumer history — and expanded it, he said, to include every voting-age American in the country. “In Ohio, in ‘04, we got the tip of the iceberg,” Mehlman said. “What we did over the last two years is we got the entire iceberg.” With that kind of data, Republican campaign workers in every state in the country can identify potential Republicans who may never have voted before and bring them to the polls. To help neighborhood organizers plot their door-to-door visits — and to make what might be a dreary exercise at least interesting — the Republican Party uses satellite pictures from Google Earth to chart the routes for house-to-house canvassing.

There have been two early tests of this machine already in this election cycle, and both were encouraging for Mehlman. The most recent was in Rhode Island earlier this month, where Republicans dispatched 72-hour teams to help Senator Lincoln Chafee beat back what had seemed to be a very threatening conservative challenge by Steve Laffey, the mayor of Cranston. (Mehlman and other top Republicans concluded that they had no chance of keeping the seat in this Democratic state if Laffey won.) Turnout shattered the Republican primary record for the state, set in 1994: 62,099 people voted, a 38 percent increase. Republicans said their 86 get-out-the-vote volunteers made 198,921 contacts with prospective voters in the final 11 days of the campaign. As Chafee declared victory, Democrats could not help taking note of these numbers. And earlier, on June 6 in California’s 50th Congressional District, in San Diego, in a special election to replace Duke Cunningham, the Republican congressman from San Diego who quit in scandal, the Republican Party put the full press of a 72-hour plan to work. The Republican, Brian Bilbray, squeaked out a victory with 49 percent of the vote over the Democrat, Francine Busby. That was a race, Mehlman said, in which turnout was able to overcome a very challenging environment.

Why is this a must-read?   Too many Democrats, too many liberal bloggers, too many people in the media have already written the Republican party off this cycle.   If Democrats take either and/or both the House or Senate, the blame will go to the President, the credit to a small group of consultants, etc.   The story is practically written already.   But elections aren’t that simple.   The Republicans’ numbers are bad, the issues are not breaking in their favor, and their leadership is about as unpopular as any group of people ever to grace the political stage.   But behind all of those problems remains a very solid system for mobilizing political action when and how it matters most.   If the Democrats fail to gain a majority in the House or Senate (and my personal prediction is that the Democrats will come close, maybe win 13-14 seats in the House and 2-3 key Senate races, but ultimately fall short), the reason will be clear - at least to people who read this article.  

Turnout wins elections. And the Republicans have a system in place to ensure strong turnout even in the most dire of times.  The Democrats have struggled for years to catch up in terms of technology and strategy on this front.   There is no evidence to suggest that will change this year.   But no matter the outcome, political professionals (and particularly those Democrats, bloggers and media folks) should be watching to see how this technology gets deployed and the impact it has.

TAGS :
leave a comment

Public Looking for Political Information Online

by Brian Reich | 21 Sep 2006, 2:00am

There is lots of news today to suggest that a growing number of people in the United States  are looking for political news and information online.

The Pew Internet & American Life released  a memo/study  saying the number of people looking online for political information is at its highest point ever, a big deal given we are in a non-presidential year election with voter turnout in many places coming in at depressingly low levels.   They write:

On a typical day in August, 26 million Americans were using the internet for news or information about politics and the upcoming mid-term elections. That corresponds to 19% of adult internet users, or 13% of all Americans over the age of 18.

This is a high-point in the number of internet users turning to cyberspace on the average day for political news or information, exceeding the 21 million figure registered in a Pew Internet Project survey during the November 2004 general election campaign.

In addition, the Wall Street Journal has two articles this morning about new ways that the public can access political information online.   The first article highlights how social networking sites devoted to politics are popping up, focusing on a handful of relatively new projects like HotSoup, Essembly, and MorePerfect.   They also note a shift among the big players in the space towards political topics.   They write:

This month, Facebook, a social networking site with more than 9.5 million members, launched an Election 2006 network, creating stock profiles of around 1,400 candidates with basic information like their name, office, state and party. Facebook, of Palo Alto, Calif., then reached out to the Democratic and Republican National Committees to encourage candidates to expand on them. The site also launched an election “Pulse” feature that ranks candidates in various races according to how many Facebook members who have elected to support at least one politician support that candidate.

And a number of political candidates already have pages on MySpace.com, a unit of News Corp. Len Munsil, the Republican running for Arizona governor, recently asked his 19-year-old son to create a profile for him. “You have to find every way possible to communicate inexpensively with voters, especially younger ones,” says Mr. Munsil, who checks his profile — which features a background photo of supporters waving placards, a head shot and a campaign video — every few days. Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is running for re-election, was pleasantly surprised to find he had a MySpace presence. “We have no idea who put up the MySpace profile,” says a campaign spokesman. “But we would like to be in touch since it is so supportive.” Facebook and MySpace accept political advertising.

The second article discussed how political ads, and other video, are starting to appear on video sharing networks.   They posit this as both an effective way to bypass traditional television (which, in some markets, will compete with the upcoming baseball playoffs, or just may be too expensive for most campaigns) as well as  present a candidate’s case to some different audience groups.   They write:

The technology that’s been flooding the Internet with videos produced by everyone from teenage skateboarders to major entertainment companies also is beginning to affect the political process. Sites like YouTube.com, Google Video and Blinkx.com already are filling up with candidate commercials, news clips, interviews and even amateur satirical videos.

This new medium naturally opens up new possibilities for negative campaigning and for gaffes to be magnified into major campaign issues. For example, an amateur video on YouTube.com about Montana Sen. Conrad Burns shows him falling asleep at a hearing. Numerous Web sites carried footage of Sen. George Allen, of Virginia, calling an aide to his Democratic challenger “macaca,” considered by some to be a racial slur.

But video on the Web is going beyond mudslinging. It’s also beginning to help inform voters. Numerous TV stations that televise debates are for the first time posting them on their Web sites so they can be watched at any time. Some civic groups are putting short video interviews with candidates on the Internet so voters can make side-by-side comparisons. Startup sites like thepeoplechoose2006.org and election.tv are trying to create video-rich sites that provide information on races throughout the country.

The fact that people are looking to the internet for political information should come as no surprise.   There are still not enough campaigns and candidates waging effective campaigns online, but there are some very encouraging signs from both sides of the aisle.   Still,  there is still more work that needs to be done - by candidates and campaigns, technology gurus, and voters/audiences if the online medium is going to truly revolutionize the political process.  

Right now, the net is mostly being used to push existing content — position papers, television ads, etc. — to new audiences.   While important, and in  some cases effective, this is not full utilization of the medium.   Online presents opportunities to make the political process interactive –  candidates and campaigns have to think about new and different ways to present their content, or better yet, create content that exists only online and recognizes the opportunities for  a different interaction.  

Technology gurus, like those building social networks, have to accommodate conversations about serious issues — and embrace the fact that political conversations are different than conversations about music, movies, consumer package goods, or life (dating, etc.)  that typically drive social networks.   Simply putting people in an online space together and suggesting a political interaction does not a productive discussion make.   Social networks dabbling in the political space need to program aggressively, support networking activities with relevant, timely, and compelling information, and tie those conversations to  voting and other actions.   For example — where is the section on YouTube that allows users to search for political videos by category?   Where is the area of MySpace that allows you to find charitable, advocacy, or political organizations to join and become involved with?   There is so much potential out there that is not being realized.

Finally, the audience needs to demand more.    The consensus is that voter turnout and engagement in the political process is low because the campaigns  don’t reflect the voters interests.   Maybe so.   But the public  shouldn’t stand for recycled position papers and empty-headed rhetoric online.   The public shouldn’t  bark at the moon simply because some blogger says that  is what they should do.   If you are looking online for information and you want to  have your issues addressed, demand more from both your candidates and the technology gurus.   Tell them what you want.

I am encouraged by the growth in interest of political spaces online.   I just want more.

TAGS :
leave a comment

Why Deval Patrick Won

by Brian Reich | 20 Sep 2006, 2:00am

Deval Patrick captured  Tuesday’s Democratic nomination for Governor in Massachusetts by a substantial margin (50% vs. 27% for venture capitalist Chris Gabrieli and 23% for Attorney General Tom Reilly), and in the process may have ushered in a new era for Massachusetts politics.  

Deval Patrick won for a lot of reasons — he was a new, fresh  face in a state screaming for leadership and accountability, he  has experience and vision to suggest that a new, more successful  course can be charted for a state who’s economy and social policies are, at best, mixed up right now.   But, perhaps most of all, I believe Deval Patrick won the Democratic nomination for Governor last night because he ran a different kind of campaign.   As the Boston Globe wrote this morning:

But a key factor in Patrick’s victory appears to have been the field organization that he and his staff built. It drew heavily on the Internet to organize supporters and to raise over $1 million in campaign donations. His political base included 8,000 volunteers across the state, many of them new to politics, and a field organization that identified over 100,000 committed Patrick voters.

I will use this space to analyze some of the elements of his online campaign over the next few weeks and highlight the pieces that all campaigns should be leveraging to educate, engage, and mobilize voters.   The political establishment from around the country will be watching the seven week campaign in Massachusetts to see whether Deval Patrick, the first African American nominee for Governor in Massachusetts can take home the prize in November, focusing mostly on the money raised and spent, television ads run, and campaign messages the Republican nominee, Lt. Gov Kerry Healey and Patrick use to set themselves apart from each other.    They should be watching what Patrick and his campaign team does online because it  may very well  set the tone for how politics is waged - online and off - for years to come.

TAGS :
leave a comment

  
Next Page →

  • RSS Subscribe to this blog's feed

  • Recent Posts

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Pages

  • Latest Tweets

  • Archives