What is the Internet useful for in political campaigns?

The general consensus of many of the “old guard” political consultants that I have come in contact with is that the Internet is not a successful tool for driving messages. This group believes that the best way to promote a campaign’s messages is through earned media and paid advertisements on television, cable, radio or print media. Messaging is considered the top priority of campaigns and is central to the majority of their actions. Part of this disbelief regarding the Internet’s potential among “old guard” consultants certainly derives from a fear that they can’t control their message online (something that has been debated online since the Dean campaign). However, many consultants believe that, regardless of online message control, it is impossible to convince people of anything through Internet tactics.

There isn’t a political consultant in their right mind who would advocate completely ignoring the Internet. However, the Internet is not considered to be the top priority in lower budget campaigns because political consultants don’t see evidence that the Internet can convince people that their candidate/cause is better than their opponent’s.

The real question boils down to this: What kind of medium is the Internet? Is it a reach medium? Or is it a reinforcement medium?

To clarify, I consider a reach medium to be one where a message distributed on the medium reaches and is consumed by a population of people. Thus, if the message is effective and the consumer is receptive, the message will impact the person’s opinion on the matter at hand. Television and the radio are the best examples of reach mediums. They both amass large audiences and more importantly they affect the opinions and decisions made by those consuming them.

Whereas, a reinforcement medium is one where people explicitly seek out opinions similar to their own and through consumption strengthen those opinions. Niche publications and ideologically affiliated publications are the best example of reinforcement media. There is certainly an argument to be made that certain television channels and radio stations are reinforcement media. However, as a whole I view media to fall on a spectrum falling somewhere in between a pure reach medium and a pure reinforcement medium.

“Old guard” political consultants would argue that based on people’s online habits, they use the Internet to reinforce preexisting opinions, rather than seeking out information from both sides of an issue in order to choose a stance. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been an academic study based on whether or not the opinion of “old guard” political consultants is accurate on this issue.

As such, one of IPDI’s next major research projects will be to look into the political information consumption habits of people. I believe any research must combine survey data similar to the Pew Internet & American Life Project with a controlled experiment that specifically watches people’s consumption habits.

We are looking for input on how such a study could be conducted. My current thoughts entail giving people a news story about a topic such as the economy, global warming or foreign affairs. Following the article the research subject would be provided with a list of stories from a variety of ideologically coded news sources, which they would be required to click on at least one. The experiment would be preceded and followed by a questionnaire regarding their views on the issues at hand, in order to determine how their opinion changed over the course of the exercise.

Do you think an experiment in this style would work? Do you have any ideas to improve the study? Please email me at akellner@ipdi.org.

Caveat: If the Internet is jus t a reinforcement medium, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There is fairly substantial anecdotal evidence that the Internet is very successful at rallying the base and invoking them to take action. A recent example is the number of people who have volunteered for the Obama campaign that was initiated and often carried out entirely online.

It’s 2008. We call this the digital era. Yet, in the United States we seem to lack political leaders with a vision for technology, much less an interest in the ways technology can make all levels of government services more efficient, effective, and accessible to regular voters.

Yes, indeed, the rumblings are starting to get a little louder – snuggled, as they currently are, within our niche community of tech-savvy politicos and politics-friendly techies. Is a technology transformation upon us?

For some, the transformation begins when elected officials use technology to listen. There’s a word – listening. In the middle of an election season that has seen a glut of staged conversations, online and offline. Andrew Feinberg rants about some of these so-called listening exercises today at Capitol Valley. There’s a difference between talker at voters and listening to them.

Talkers get headlines. Listeners get things done.

Like fixing potholes and handling case work, increasing the efficiency and efficacy of government programs. A year ago, IPDI published Constituent Relationship Management: The New Little Black Book of Politics, which looks how political campaigns and elected office can use online and offline feedback loops to run case management and constituent communications. Many elected officials and political candidates already use database platforms to help this process.

The next step? Government institutions that employ tech-enabled feedback loops to deliver better goods and services.

In their Politico column, Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry write about some of the ways in which foreign citizens and governments are using technology to listen and act, including e-petitions in the United Kingdom and the government of New Zealand’s wiki for a new Policing Act. As Rasiej and Sifry put it, you can use the Internet to file your taxes, but you can’t use it to make suggestions on how your tax dollars ought to be spent:

Imagine then, that the next time you file your taxes online, your government asks for your feedback on how those tax dollars are being spent. Or it takes your suggestions on how to make a law more understandable. Or it helps you find groups near you that are doing things that benefit your community. It may sound mundane, but today in America, it would be the equivalent of a revolution. How much longer do we have to wait to bridge yet another digital divide?

What about tech policy?

At the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, Robert D. Atkinson writes,

we need a debate in America that focuses on the most important issues like to get fast broadband networks to all Americans; how to use IT to transform our health care system, transportation system, education system, and government; and how to encourage all organizations to become digital, thereby driving productivity and income growth and a better quality of life.

Atkinson thinks that better private-public partnerships can help create an environment of “digital transformation.”

Over at Open Left, Matt Stoller blogs about the successful efforts of blogger and member of the California Democratic Party platform committee, Dante Atkins, to get Net Neutrality in the party platform:

California Democrats, in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, support policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet. California Democrats strongly agree with recent rulings by the Federal Election Commission that political communications, including blogging, which take place independent of a political party, committee or candidate, receive a media exemption from campaign finance regulations. California Democrats further reaffirm their support of the right to free speech as expressed in the First Amendment, including the right to critique any elected official or comment on any and all public policy, whether during war or peace, without fear of reprisal.

 Perhaps it is time that we — voters that we are — begin to expect more from our elected officials and encourage digital leadership on our blogs as well as in our voting booths.

Someone or some group has started an Anti-Romney for VP online petition. Like any online petition, I’m not sure how successful this one will be. I read over some of the comments and chortled.

A few favorites of mine: “Get a conservative or get lost”, “Romney would make a great VP. Don’t listen to the inbreds.”, and “Please, not that guy!”

There were more than a couple of entries that do not merit repetition. From the Democratic perspective, it’s good to see the Republicans haven’t fully embraced/coalesced around McCain yet.

I ran across an interesting article in The New Republic about Jonathan Schilling - a man who monitors HRC’s Wikipedia page.  Near the end of the piece, the author does a bit of interviewing with another Wikipedia defender who monitors BHO’s page.  Both pages are long and full of references, but considering the viscous nature of this primary fight, I am surprised that only Obama’s page is locked.  Have the Wikipedia vandals already decided she won’t win and thus its not even worth vandalizing her page anymore?

I am quite impressed with the amount of time and energy these guys have devoted to their respective causes.   They have tasked themselves as editors of a system designed to not have a single editor.  I do not envy them; keeping the pages clean cannot be easy, especially with the heated primary we have right now.

Recently, I’ve taken a turn to looking into what was written about the so-called “Internet candidates” of the 2000 election. On the right, we had John McCain, who managed to pull up an astonishing $3 million after winning the New Hampshire primary through the use of….get this…pop-up ads! On the left, we had Senator Bill Bradley, who was criticized by Silicon Valley leaders for spending more time on real estate taxes during a two-decade Senate tenure than on the promotion of high tech issues. (Strikingly, Senator Bradley became the first Presidential candidate to raise a million bucks on the Web without putting so much as a donation link on his Web site’s sidebar, choosing instead to hide a donation hyperlink in a short paragraph encouraging voters to help out.)

The New York Times reported in February of 2000 about the McCain phenomena:

Several bits of evidence suggest that Mr. McCain’s success is of a different order than anything seen in many years. His presence on the ballot is driving voter turnout, starting in New Hampshire and sweeping through South Carolina and Michigan, where twice the normal number of voters went to the polls. He pulls big crowds that clearly adore him. Their excitement undercuts the conventional wisdom about citizen apathy, as does the explosion of Internet fund-raising that has brought him $3 million in the space of a few weeks.

In Washington, Republican leaders are assuring each other that Mr. McCain’s appeal is personal rather than based on issues like campaign finance reform and using the budget surplus to save Social Security and Medicare.

Similar sentiments have commented about the successful Web candidates today: Barack Obama and Ron Paul. As a piece of food for thought, I have considered the possibility that it may not be a campaign’s savvy use of the Internet that makes an “iCandidate” but an intrinsic value within that candidate him or herself. The campaign can guide and nudge, but beating overwhelming support out of the Internet will be a nugatory exercise sans a message with appeal to voters familiar to nooks and crannies of the World Wide Web.

Barack Obama’s forensic ability and “change” message bequeathed him a wide swath of followers who were (generally) younger and therefore less likely to be concerned with online giving. Ron Paul’s idiosyncratic message allowed support for his candidacy to thrive on Internet institutions such as Digg or YouTube because the truly tech-savvy have always been more likely to the beat of the libertarian drum (witness the need for overflow rooms at Google headquarters in California when Congressman Paul visited…there was no such need for more rooms when the more establishment types walked into Mountain View).

Perhaps its the man or the message that yields Internet attention, and not a stronger Web-based campaign tactic. Those who try to apply the Ron Paul example of diffusing most power to supporters with little to no supervision from the campaign in 2012 will probably be disappointed to find that they will not garner $35 million in contributions.

Granted, I began this blog post solely as an excuse to highlight the fine work of Todd Domke in the Boston Globe today. A nice sarcastic piece at each of the Presidential contenders (although I do have a personal vested interest in hoping Mike Huckabee goes somewhere beyond Wheel of Fortune).

This did spark a little thought about the wild and wacky failed prognostications of the past election cycle. John Edwards’ firewall in Iowa, Chris Dodd(!) as the possible breakout candidate, Rudy Giuliani’s frontrunner status…this has essentially proven just how bad we all are at this game of punditry. And we’ve been no better when it comes to technology.

The January 1, 2000 edition of Newsweek, for instance, talked up the future of e-books, suggesting that by 2010 such a product would be in the midst of intense competition with paperbacks. It also gee-whizzed about folks having glasses that multi-tasked as computer screens for an arm-band keyboard/memory. These were projected as being the new office norm by 2010.

Likewise, I remember reading in 1999 about the plethora of middle-school students with laptops that was supposed to be standard by 2005. The $100 laptop notwithstanding.

So, what does this all mean? I suppose nothing more than the old adage that Web 3.0 will be completely unexpected and unlike anything we can predict…as well the politics that will emerge out of it.

Perhaps its a signal of what Senator Obama called the “political silly season” last night, but the New York Times ran another controversial story recently. Oh, perhaps its not quite as enthralling as sexual innuendo regarding presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, but it might be enough to get a few technogeeks to fisticuffs (or at least a LAN contest of World of Warcraft).

Simply put, Barack Obama is a Mac and Hillary Clinton is a PC.

The article, remiscient of attempts to read into the Bush campaign by analyzing their bumper sticker, looks at the Web sites of the Obama and Clinton camps. The metaphor is intentional, and (for obvious reasons) the interpretations of the campaigns will line up with the media-created story arcs.

That said, there is certainly an argument being made here. As the Internet becomes ubiquitous, we will expect a smooth, classy, high-tech, user-friendly….Mac-like experience? As the generation of narcissism and self-esteem classes grows into their 20’s and 30’s, we will expect to be catered to with nice visual effects and a user-friendly, “do-not-shout” pitch.

Obama-Jobs ‘08: The Wave of the Future.

For those of you attending (or thinking of attending) the upcoming Politics Online Conference, consider attending two panels I have assembled: Social Networking/Media Strategy of the Presidential Campaigns and Open Source Advocacy. While it may be too soon to say that this aspect of online campaigns is the “be all, end all” of online strategy, there have been some great innovations in this space this campaign cycle.

Social Networking/Media Strategy of the Presidential Campaigns

The panel includes Justine Lam, eCampaign Director for Ron Paul; Amy Rubin, former Deputy Director of New Media for John Edwards; Katie Harbath, Deputy eCampaign Director for Rudy Giuliani; and Michael Turk, former eCampaign Director for Bush-Cheney ‘04 and my fellow blogger at techPresident.com.

The panel will explore two contrasting views of using the social web for campaigns: it has not been useful (for some) and it has been essential (for others). I suppose where you sit is where you stand.

In any event, come join us at 3:30p on March 4 and join the debate.

Open Source Advocacy

On March 5 at 3:00p, I am chairing a second panel on Open Source Advocacy. This panel will explore how open source software, software that is free to use, though not necessarily free to implement, can help advocacy organizations. The panel includes Michelle Murain, who blogs on Non-profit technology at the ZenofNPTech.org; Ryan Ozimek, President of PICnet and a core Joomla developer; Michael Haggerty, President of Trellon and a core Drupal developer; and Jo Lee founder of CitizenSpeak, an open source advocacy campaign tool that integrates with CiviCRM.

Both panels should be very interesting and I encourage all to attend.

IPDI’s very own financial director, Chris Brooks, who moonlights on campus as the chairman for the George Washington University College Republicans, made CNN last week. In a short three-minute video you can see here, Chris and a few other GW students managed to get their two cents in about college-age voters’ use of the Internet.

Chris, like most of us here at IPDI, is a compulsive Web surfer and admits as much in the video. While this expression of love for 24/7 access to the candidates might scare off a few Luddites (mostly because that’s all that is really left of that movement…just a few), Chris is a good example of how plugged-in young voters can enjoy greater breadth of knowledge about the candidates than our parents’ generation could through newspapers and once a night newscasts just by heading over to the dot-coms for the news networks or junkie sites like RealClearPolitics.

And I am not just saying this because Chris is the guy who fills out my paycheck…although a small blogging bonus could never hurt!

Next Thursday (February 7^th) IPDI and GW’s Graduate School of Political Management are hosting a postmortem Super Tuesday discussion that will look at

• How has this primary session challenged and confirmed the expectations of pollsters, political analysts, and the media?
• How has technology shaped the way the primaries will unfold?
• Did Super Tuesday change the political game?

Speakers include Mike Allen (Politico), Ana Marie Cox (Time.com), Charles Ellison (BlackPolicy.org and IPDI), Frank Greer (GMMB), Mark McKinnon (Public Strategies and President of Maverick Media) and Maya Rockeymoore (Global Policy Solutions). Ron Faucheux, a faculty member at the Graduate School of Political Management, will moderate the discussion.

Details:

Thursday, February 7, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

The Jack Morton Auditorium, located on the first floor of GW’s Media and Public Affairs Building, 805 21^st Street, NW (Corner of 21^st and H Streets), Washington, DC 20052

RSVP is required. RSVP to ipdi@ipdi.org. More details here.

Speaking of events, check out the lineup at our annual Politics Online Conference. Tickets are filling up extraordinarily fast, and we’re one month out. Register soon!