I’ve held off jumping into the iPad fray for the most part, waiting until I can actually buy the 3G version outright before making my own conclusions. But there was always one thing I knew the iPad could truly revolutionize- and it’s already in development.
According to via -
Project Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization that promotes higher voter registration rates in low-income and minority communities, announced last week that they are working on a mobile-device-friendly voter registration application, according to a press release, that will work on anything from the BlackBerry to the magical iPad.
But a magic wand it ain’t: In the release, Project Vote admits that there are only four states (Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) that allow electronic voter registration. …
Using a mobile voter registration application, a volunteer canvassing a neighborhood […] is supposed to be able to collect the information of a prospective voter right there on his iPad, then electronically transmit that information along to that state’s board of elections, or secretary of state, or whichever group is responsible for administering elections and voter registration.
Pretty impressive, no? This could truly revolutionize the way we think of political volunteerism. This has already been used in small part in several races recently- from the McDonnell to the Scott Brown race- I even was able to use a blackberry in a local special election.
However, while the Project Vote organization calls itself “a nonpartisan organization”, when you do more digging you find
Working with our field partner, the community organization ACORN, Project Vote in 2007-2008 conducted the largest and most comprehensive voter registration drive in the history of our two organizations, a 21-state community-based operation that succeeded in collecting over 1.3 million voter registration applications.
That’s right- the same Acorn that was recently involved in the prostitution scandals, and more importantly, embroiled in the over the last few elections. Project Vote for the surge in support for Obama campaign in the last election, and was , bringing in more than 150,000 new African American voters. While Politifact says that Project Vote is in 1992, their relationship since then has been rather murky, with Project Vote defending accusations against ACORN as - even as the FBI launched a probe into the allegations of fraud.
The simple truth is that it’s just a matter of time before we have an entirely paperless campaign experience. Volunteers might be able to download an application onto their own devices and head out to targeted areas near them via their GPS-enabled Google Maps service. From there, they can go door-to-door, armed with an entire visual interactive experience for constituents. Or perhaps they’ll collect names and signatures for ballot initiatives or primary ballots, showing a compelling video that leads directly into a signup form. All of this will come directly from a single paperless device that broadcasts the signature to the database instantaneously.
But what happens when this tool is first used by the same people who infamously in Nevada? The potential for abuse is tremendous. This will be something Republicans need to watch carefully, as oversight on matters like this will be hard to scale. As a developer of iPhone applications, the potential excites me- I would love to have a client that would recognize the potential of such a service, but I am also concerned about the potential impact on elections when people attempt to use this for more nefarious purposes. We need to move political volunteerism into the future, but not at the cost of election fraud and manipulation.
]]>The effective use of technology provided a boost to the Brown campaign absent in far too many Republican operations to date. Scott Brown wisely talked about bread-and-butter issues throughout his campaign, and offered to the electorate a pragmatic contrast to Martha Coakley. Like Obama, Scott Brown had been a state legislator. Whereas President Obama grew strength from the experiences of his youth and background, Senator Brown likely benefited from his professional life, as a lawyer married to a television reporter, and as a member of the Massachusetts National Guard.
The charismatic and articulate forty-first member of the present Republican caucus in the United States Senate has thus galvanized his party in ways others had not. This was true even as the prospects for electoral success by Republicans was growing nationally. In this sense too, Brown is for the right what Obama is to the left; indeed, despite the excitement surrounding his win, 2008 was a Democratic year.
Much of the excitement generated by President Obama during his first year in office has faded away as the realities of governance have set in. Now, there is a growing despondence being felt in the Democratic Party over the actions and inactions of the Obama administration. The State of the Union speech this year was enough for the president to possibly regain some traction, but of his own creation remain.
President Obama spent the first year of his administration . The White House took a risk by putting the president front and center on one big policy reform initiative after another. Now, President Obama has been left with little to show for all the attention paid. As likable as the president is, and as popular as he remains in much of the country, he could not to Martha Coakley the seat once held by Ted Kennedy.
In Scott Brown, Republicans certainly have a rising leader on the national stage. However, he should be weary of repeating the mistakes made by President Obama. Being the person out in front on a particular issue set comes with risks. Due to his domestic policy prominence in his first year, President Obama has left himself to take some of the blame for the prolonged recession, the , and the recent unpopularity of Democrats nationally.
Scott Brown should be one of many leading voices in the Republican resurgence. However, he is a single person. A movement to succeed always needs more than one prominent figure. Some who voted in 2008 for the first time may now be learning this lesson, but it is relevant to Republican strategists too.
]]>I admit that I believe that the GOP is on the verge of a 2010 blowout. As for the magnitude of said blowout, I think it’s too early to say, but in my mind there’s a real chance that Republicans could retake one of the chambers of Congress. However, as I’ve previously cautioned, I don’t believe that a blowout this year will mean things are better for the Republican Party. Winning back seats is great, but as Mindy Finn writes, those on the right must — and start thinking about building a sustainable majority. A major victory this year will not be the product of a new-found love for the Republican Party; instead, it will be the product of voter disgust and discontent with the status quo, namely with President Obama and Democrats in Congress. The Republican Party is still enormously unpopular itself, and a midterm election blowout due to the aforementioned reasons is not exactly how a sustainable majority is built.
On the other hand, converting what are traditionally considered to be safe blue seats in places like Massachusetts and California (I’m looking at you, Barbara Boxer) to red ones — and finding ways to hold onto those seats — is certainly a step toward a sustainable majority. The same is true of fielding candidates in all 435 Congressional districts every cycle. Embracing transparency and continuing to authentically fight to limit government is another building block in a sustainable majority. Effectively using technology while embracing today’s Age of Participation through peer production is another step. Offering substantial and real policy options that differ from those of the White House and the Democrats is similarly critical.
To the contrary, getting sucked back into the ways of Washington by growing government and increasing spending is a sure way to cede momentum right back to the Democrats. Failing to broaden the base with different demographics, like young voters, Hispanics, or African Americans is another way to likely guarantee that 2010 will be a one-and-done year for Republicans. And of course, growing content with success at any point will inevitably lead right back to defeat.
Like your favorite sports game, momentum is critical in politics. Republicans clearly have the momentum, and barring a dramatic change in the political wind, this momentum will significantly change the composition of the Congress this November. When that happens, the ball will be in the GOP’s court. The crucial question will then be: What will they do with it?
]]>You may have noticed I’ve been a little absent lately, but rest assured- I’ve been hard at work, helping put together a fantastic resource which could very well revolutionize how conservative college students interact and organize online. is a comprehensive social networking site for conservative students, with elaborate subsites for every 4-year college in America.
Full disclosure- I in the ‘s , which runs . We have been operating in beta form for the last 2 weeks, and finally have the official for anyone to join. We are looking for college students actively involved in conservative groups on their campuses, connecting them with resources and advocating for a variety of issues ranging from to .
We also provide a number of different for all students, as well as a site for or even . If you are on a college campus and want to start a new conservative group on your campus, simply head to the page and contact the Campus Services Coordinator in your area, and he or she will be glad to help you start a group on your campus. (If you’re in the DC, Maryland, Virginia or West Virginia area, that’s me!)
In short, we connect active students on college campuses to resources for activism to promote conservative ideals. This is where the future of online organizing is, and we’re finally here. For more information, check out the Campus Reform after the break.
Q. What is CampusReform.org?
A. CampusReform.org is a one-stop resource, networking, and instruction center for conservative activists to take back their campuses from leftist domination.
Created to give conservatives a powerful new weapon in their fight for the hearts and minds of the next generation of citizens, politicians, and members of government and media, CampusReform.org facilitates the establishment of conservative student groups and supports their development as a powerful voice to fight against leftist abuse and bias on their campuses.
It makes available new opportunities for student groups to interact with alumni, parents, faculty, and other members of the broader community interested in taking a stand for conservatism.
Q. How is CampusReform.org organized?
A. From the main page of our site, visitors can search and find a subsite dedicated to each of the in America. There, you can check out conservative groups on campus, or form your own!
Each campus group has its own page, blog, event listing, membership roster of site users, and access to a variety of powerful weapons to identify, expose, and combat leftist abuses on campus. The main page also features a number of tools for effective conservative activism and a and to keep you updated on the activities at the front line of the conservative movement.
…
Q. How can CampusReform.org help me?
A. CampusReform.org is the best resource for you if you are interested in founding, maintaining, or assisting a conservative student group on your campus.
Your independent group will receive its within your college or university’s subsite on CampusReform.org. There, student group members will be able to post event listings, blog about matters of interest to you, request assistance from the CampusReform community, and network with other groups and members of the conservative community on your campus and around the country.
CampusReform.org also makes it easy for your group to borrow and share , on your campus, or and for left-wing bias.
Our cutting edge social networking capabilities connect student groups directly to donors and other conservative members of their communities who want to help students take back their campuses.
So that’s it! Meghann Parlett over at TechRepublican has a new interviewing Adrienne Royer who works directly with the website, and she discusses many of the different features there if you have more questions.
]]>Since that time, however, things have changed. The Washington Post, instead of standing by a product which also demonized the 2008 GOP Vice Presidential nominee, to the pressure of left-wing groups. Milbank and heeded to the call of their bosses with respect to the series; Mouthpiece Theatre is . Unfortunately, a paper already hit with a lobbying scandal would rather diminish its credibility further than stand up to people whose of the U.S. Constitution rivals Barack Obama’s understanding of .
A good journalist can and should admit when he is wrong. However, a credible paper should not back down when bullied by special interests to not ridicule the preferred political figures of said interests. Instead of using this controversy as an opportunity to explore further the links between “independent”, organizations and the White House, or as an exploration of the double standards in organizations claiming respect for certain beliefs and the problems of such conduct, the Washington Post has hindered free speech rather than strengthened it. If one day the once credible older media enterprises are no more, then their demise will have been self-inflicted.
]]>The series, as the name suggests, is a spoof of . Theme music is used suggestive of such. Milbank and Cillizza go a step further by wearing nice robes in each segment as well, over a shirt and tie, of course. The opening images include patriotic themes and a caricature figurine of President Obama. This week, like many others, had a political story worthy of lampooning. The video below puts a humorous spin on the idea of “sud summits”.
(The Media Matters recording of this video is displayed above due to the removal of the original from the Washington Post and channel.)
But instead of appreciating Milbank and Cillizza for their take on the tomfoolery of the administration and the conduct of figures nationally and internationally, left wingers pushed for the removal of the latest eposode of Mouthpiece Theatre over what it implied about Secretary of State Clinton. If course, these supposedly “fair” inividuals and groups apparently had no objection to the similarly amusing beer suggestions proposed for , and various GOP leaders in Congress. In this phony outrage, the pseudointellectuals of the Leftosphere instead missed what was the one error of this short film; the mistaking of the Cross of St. George for the British union jack. Thus, the feigned anger expressed in the and elsewhere is unwarranted and suggestive of ulterior motives.
Perhaps the real objection of these “progressive” organizations is to criticism of their preferred politicians. Indeed, one should ask why these groups objected to the suggested characterization presented of Hillary Clinton, but not the associations with evil and darkness Cillizza and Milbank suggested with respect to Republicans generally and Sarah Palin particularly in this production. That the Washington Post caved to the pressures of left-wing groups which don’t generally trust much of the older media infrastructure anyway further discredits a paper already weakened by a lobbying scandal.
There was a time when newspapers would have stood by the efforts of their reporters’ efforts at lampooning public officials and their publicity stunts. Sadly, that time has now passed. Instead, those who often claim that their free speech rights are often the target of conservatives and Republicans have sought to suppress criticisms of the public officials they support. If leftists don’t tolerate the lampooning of their leaders, their hold on the political leadership in this country . That, perhaps, would be the only positive result of this manufactured controversy.
]]>Rarely do I agree with Susan Collins, but the Senator is one of the few in Congress raising an appropriate about the plan. The position takes the work of a clandestine service that still maintains a chain of command (NSA) and that of a Department designed specifically to do this sort of work (DHS) and puts them together right underneath the President’s thumb, and his alone.
It would be one thing if the position was under the authority of the President, but still had to answer to Congress like any other Department, Agency or other bureaucratic apparatus. The tipping point here is the insistence that the czar be a cabinet-level official, protecting him from almost all Congressional inquiries and oversight. Obama has taken the freedom of an advisor’s role and abused it by putting unprecedented power over national security into that one person’s hands.
Analysts aren’t even if the plan is going to work, due to the time lost in reshuffling the organization and allowing DHS and NSA to get used to the new authority. Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary at DHS, calls the plan a “.” One must question the rationale for creating such a dubious post with outlandish power and autonomy on such shaky premises. However, Senator Collins seems to be one of the only members being circumvented, besides the hospitalized Robert Byrd, to stick up for themselves and for checks and balances.
This isn’t the first time, either. The new czar for climate change is already in a territorial dispute with the EPA. This is due, of course, to their having the same mandates, though the czar can do it with no questions asked. The newly announced Great Lakes can not have much difference in job description from a section of the EPA. But, because of their ability to offer the President direct power and authority, the czars will take over for the original agencies.
Clearly it’s not a problem with the agencies’ abilities themselves, or else the czars would more efficiently be used as administrators cracking down (under Congresses pushy eye) than duplicative one-man superagencies with steep learning curves. The moves taken together can only be explained by a desire to shield the administration’s decisions and mandates from any check on their authority and to enable it to act swiftly to consolidate this power. I absolutely believe that the government’s approach to cyberwarfare, and a whole host of other issues, needs to be addressed comprehensively as soon as possible, but I’m not willing to suffer a quasi-lordship for it. Hopefully other members of Congress begin to feel the same way, and soon.
]]>By now, you should have seen Aaron’s post about the , where we’re asking you to submit your name in a petition for Chairman Steele to expand the role of young voters in the GOP. Now, I’d like you guys to take this one step further, and make this viral. Go to your , or other account and copy/paste the following message (or something similar):
Urge RNC Chairman Steele to Win Young Voters Back- - Please Repost!
Doing this is really going to help make sure we get this message out. The more people we can get on board, the better! I’ll also be collaborating to find more intensive solutions, so keep watching this space for the latest and invite your friends now!
]]>In the aftermath of the 2008 election, a few things were immediately clear: Barack Obama was to be the next president of the United States, and we as a nation had just entered a new era of political communication- the online age. Obama has been praised far and wide for his online campaign, which raised over half a billion dollars through the Internet alone (, November 2008). Yet, beyond being an extremely effective fundraising tool, it was difficult to measure the impacts of Obama’s Internet campaign and its outreach on social networking websites. To examine this, the question arises- what social networking campaigns were employed by Barack Obama’s campaign, and how can they be most effectively measured to determine their impact? To answer this question, we must look at the campaign’s user targeting, branding and message use, and overall penetration in terms of supporter metrics. This allows a complete perspective of the campaign’s intention and planning, adaptation to the nuances of the candidate, and a measure of effectiveness from immediately available numbers.
INTRODUCTION
When viewing social media it is crucial to first understand the importance of the online market for campaigns. The Internet has become an increasingly important resource in recent years, particularly in the 2008 election. Approximately 74 percent of Internet users went online for information about the 2008 election, representing 55 percent of the entire adult population. These percentages mark the first time more than half of voting-age users went online for election information. When identifying “online political users” in a Pew Research poll, researchers found that 60 percent of Internet users received political news from the Internet, 59 percent used specific tools such as email, Twitter, texting or instant messaging to send or receive political messages, and 38 percent directly interacted with other online users about the election and political issues (). In 2008, 88 percent of voters looking to the Internet for information utilized traditional news sources, 42 percent went to “social media” sites, such as Facebook, YouTube and MySpace. the actual campaign websites for the candidates garnered only a paltry 30 percent (). Thus, the Internet provided an excellent starting point for getting interested voters involved in the campaign.
Obama and the internet seemed to be a perfect fit as well, which may explain the degree of innovation we have seen in this campaign. One of the advantages Obama clearly enjoyed was a campaign message which inherently motivated people to interact and was also widely popular at the time of the election- these facts must be considered in the evaluation of the campaign’s effectiveness. Obama was also able to motivate the younger voters in the 18-29 year old group, first due to his positions on the Iraq war and second his own personal background, which motivated the younger voters to energize and organize for his campaign from its onset (). This worked well to Obama’s advantage, because the younger age group also was able to drive support early on, due to their comparatively stronger presence online (Pew Research). This created a solid background of Internet support with little overhead and significant advance direction, factors that served to advance Obama aggressively in the general election.
In fact, Obama had a very personal interest in the online campaign itself, which made a significant difference in how the online section was handled. The designer of the campaign’s social network my.barackobama.com, Chris Hughes, is actually a co-founder of Facebook. He left a lucrative position at Facebook to work on the campaign because of Obama’s active stance. “As great as Barack is, if the campaign hadn’t been constituted in this idea of investing in our everyday supporters and helping them organize among themselves, I wouldn’t have been as excited about the job,” he said (, August 2008). However, what the campaign did with the message outside of these inherent attentions laid the groundwork for a very successful “viral” campaign through use of targeting, branding, message discipline and social media penetration.
TARGETING
Social media targeting was very effectively managed by the Barack Obama campaign during the 2008 campaign. Expansive outreach to different sites also assisted Obama’s team- according to campaign worker Scott Goodstein, “Some people only go to MySpace. It’s where they’re on all day. Some only go to LinkedIn. Our goal is to make sure that each supporter online, regardless of where they are, has a connection with Obama. Then, as much as we can, we try to drive everyone to our site” (Washington Post, August 2008). Obama’s reach would ultimately extend to over 15 different social networking sites, including less-trafficked social networking sites such as BlackPlanet for African Americans and Eons for Baby Boomers. These allowed him to go directly to people where they were, and direct them toward the campaign website (Washington Post, November 2008). This approach means that the BarackObama.com website was the ultimate destination for every ad and social networking campaign, allowing the campaign to have one main area of focus for getting people directly involved- the website.
Once a user arrived at a campaign website, the targeting became even narrower to get the user involved with the campaign. Specifically, through the use of tracking cookies from the Obama websites, the campaign was allowed to see how users travelled around the Internet and which ads were more enticing to users and which were not. This allowed the campaign to segment its ads, focusing the ads towards older or younger voters based on what would be most effective. This kind of data collection permitted the campaign to see exactly who was on their side, who they could persuade, and who they could get more involved.
According to Andrew Rasiej, founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, the approach simplified the process of gaining volunteers and targeting potential contributors- ‘you can see where you get traction, and then reinvest, based on data’ (Hill). There was also attention to having multiple options available on the my.barackobama.com website, which was the social network for the campaign website. There, users had options for blogging, planning events, fundraising, joining groups and volunteering. The user-type groups on the site range from environmentalists to veterans to women-specific, allowing supporters to interact and engage on areas they agree on, and select their focus to recruit more people who already share their policy interests (Washington Post, August 20).
When tracking Internet usage, one significant detail emerges which seems entirely counter-intuitive. McCain could have had the edge on Obama in terms of online support- McCain’s supporters outnumbered Obama’s supporters in online users by 83 percent to 76 percent. However despite this numerical advantage, built somewhat from the fact that Republicans generally have more income and education than Democrats, Obama supporters significantly outperformed their Republican counterparts in terms of interactivity. Obama supporters shared their message with friends at a rate of 22 percent compared to McCain supporters sharing at 14 percent (Pew Research). This online interactivity meant that at every point, Obama’s messages had a higher chance of being read and sent to a friend rather than being merely discarded. It also meant that the messages were more likely to come from people the recipient would know, and thus make the message more easily received.
Thus the question- how did the Obama campaign motivate people to invest to the point of sharing with others?
BRANDING AND MESSAGE DISCIPLINE
Two factors which seem to be integral to most campaigns, but which are rarely put together in the same precise context, are branding and message discipline. One thing the Obama campaign was able to handle productively was the association of the two- without one or the other, the entire package would have fallen apart. If message discipline is sacrificed, it undercuts the power of the symbol of the campaign. And if the symbol of the campaign does not motivate, the discipline of the message is irrelevant. However, the two seem to be intertwined in the Obama campaign in a way that serves as an example for future online campaigns- a successful campaign cannot happen without synthesizing both .
Branding through the Obama logo, the now-ubiquitous O, followed a very interesting history- the logo design specialist who developed the symbol for the campaign had never worked with political logos before, but he immediately recognized some key elements about the design that would be necessary for the campaign to become as enigmatic as it did. He brought the themes of unity together in the color patterns, looking at the way the colors interacted specifically. From there, there was an emphasis on developing a logo that “had an element that stood separate from the typography”- this would allow for the symbolism of the logo to become as adaptable as it later was. According to the logo designer, Sol Sender, once the logo was launched, “it was really everywhere, very quickly”. From there, designers working with the Obama campaign adapted the logo for a variety of different demographics- for kids, women, Latinos, religious voters and others. The campaign extended the logo to their different social media networks, and it became viral from there, spawning everything from “Yes We Carve” Jack-O-Lanterns to “Pirates for Obama” t-shirts, with the logo turned upside down. According to the designer, “it helped to get his message out there as powerfully as it did” ().
Message discipline worked well with the Obama campaign because, as mentioned before, the messages were already suited for an online interactive audience. However, Obama’s overall media strategy allowed the adaptability to be more than just a logo- the message was unified throughout the different networks, but emphasized different points of the overall message on each different specialized group. As reported by the New York Times- “Obama’s New Way organization was grounded largely on Old School codes — notions of loyalty, aggressiveness and discretion.” There was an early tight-knit leadership team Obama had worked with who kept their campaign decisions close to the vest. This ensured that, while the campaign maintained an open front on the websites, their own voice was unified from the campaign ().
This was demonstrated in the way the campaign handled a negative reaction on the website for when Obama compromised on FISA, which granted immunity to telecom industries- a group called “President Obama, Please Get FISA Right” was formed on my.barackobama.com which rapidly became the largest group on the website (Washington Post, August 2008). Ultimately, Obama wrote out a long explanation of his vote on his website, maintaining discipline without compromising. Staffers were assigned to deal with the comments on this section and reply personally to upset supporters. As one observer reported, “[after] a sort of cyber-catharsis of complaints, the controversy died down” (Hill). This example shows how the campaign was able to use the Internet to both reach out to potential supporters as well as take steps to prevent current supporters from using his online presence against him in a negative way.
By way of comparison, there is some evidence that McCain’s campaign was less potent online partly because of its failure to coordinate messages across mediums. The biggest example of this was the McCain Victory 2008 “blogroll”, which was a list of blogs supporting for McCain for President which linked to each other. Essentially, these worked as an “echo chamber”- a top-down system of disseminating talking points about Obama. These sites had no collaboration with the McCain social networking site, which would ultimately mean that there would be less message coordination and create actual message confusion. Ultimately some online sources ended up running messages contrary to the campaign’s message which were interpreted as having come from McCain’s campaign. This eventually led to an overall sense of dissatisfaction with the campaign, as well as confusion. The level of confusion was epitomized when Megan McCain accidentally identified Brad Marston, co-founder of the McCain Victory 2008 blogroll, as the “McCain e-campaign coordinator” on her blog ().
This lack of message discipline proves how crucial these factors can be in an online campaign where resources can be confused so easily. Combine this report with the fact that McCain never created an identifying symbol as powerful as Obama did, and it becomes more apparent that both branding and message discipline work together. Were the McCain campaign sites distinguished through effective branding, there would be less confusion about whether the other Blogrolls were associated with the campaign or not. And as McCain’s campaign lacked the strong unifying symbols Obama had to bring the message of the campaign together and unify his supporters, there was little enough significant interest in the campaign to make as much of the lack of campaign discipline.
SOCIAL NETWORK PENETRATION
Obama’s emphasis on his Internet presence would net him 2.3 million unique visitors in May, right before the end of the Democratic primary- one measure reported that between Obama’s site and McCain’s site, Obama’s site had 72% of the total traffic (Washington Post, August 2008). On the social networking websites, Obama has over 5 million supporters in all his different social networks. The most popular social networks such as Facebook and MySpace are covered, usually with specific groups representing geographic areas or demographics, allowing more people to get involved and get updates specific to their interest or location (Washington Post, November 2008). This was critical as it went back to the original goal of going to the Internet user were they were and the campaign bringing them in however they could. Then actors such as momentum were allowed to come into play, as well as direct association invitations.
However, what is of more interest is the social network the campaign created and how it used these profiles to drive traffic to my.barackobama.com. Ultimately, 2 million profiles were created on Obama’s social networking site. On that site, 400,000 blog posts were written, 200,000 real-world events were planned and 35,000 volunteer groups were formed. The website also featured a virtual phone-bank, which supporters used to make over 3 million calls in the last four days of the campaign alone. Over $30 million dollars was raised just through the links on the profile pages of individual users (Washington Post, November 2008). These numbers represent more than just a mass of unverifiable users on the Internet- much has been made of the fact that users can maintain multiple profiles and therefore inflate the “crowds” of people online supporting any given cause. However, the proof that the networking strategy worked here is in the phone calls and real-world events that came of the online meetings. Looking at these numbers will give a better sense of the actual impact of the campaign rather than just looking at the number of supporters.
Another key area where Obama was able to drive a lot of traffic was the online video section, as well as his YouTube channel, which allowed his campaign to post thousands of videos without having to pay for overhead to TV stations and the like. According to Joe Trippi, campaign manager for Howard Dean, “The campaign’s official stuff they created for YouTube was watched for 14.5 million hours… to buy 14.5 million hours on broadcast TV is $47 million” (). By August, Obama’s team had shot over 2,000 hours of video, uploading over 1,110 videos online. This was able to get people excited and motivated on local levels because they were able to see other people who were excited about the campaign, and the message spread from there. According to the manager of Obama’s video team, “Here, we don’t worry about how many views our videos get. That’s not the priority. One of our goals is to get people talking about what’s going on in their lives and why they’re supporting Barack — and hopefully not only will they watch the videos but also comment on them and forward them to relatives and friends and co-workers” (Washington Post, August 2008). And yet the numbers for the views on these videos continued to grow, showing the continuing importance and power of incorporating video into the social networks- this allows people to interact with the material on a continual basis and to reinforce the messages and the themes of the campaign without having to expend continual effort.
The branding effect was also apparently powerful in real-world social networking. The iconic O from Obama’s logo was prominently displayed on all of the various social networking sites, and pretty soon users would take the logo and integrate it on their own websites and profiles. The symbol became so ubiquitous that it began to drive sales of real-life merchandise- Obama-themed merchandise would out-sell McCain merchandise by a ratio of 5 to 1. Many observers would attribute this to the symbolism used on the websites of Obama- it had become so ubiquitous online that it had created a demand for the real-world t-shirts and bumper stickers ().
CONCLUSION
When looking at Obama’s social networking strategy, there are three key areas crucial to understanding and assessing Obama’s social media campaign- targeting, branding and message discipline, and social network penetration. These factors worked together to create an overall cohesive social networking campaign which reached out to voters in different social networks based on their demographics, geography and interest. From there, the campaign brought them into their own social network where they could be more actively engaged and encourage others to be a part. Here, the branding and message discipline worked together to ensure that people had a clear idea of what the campaign was about, as well as creating a common banner and symbolism that people could identify with and identify the campaign with. From there, the social networks maintained themselves, creating increasing support and outreach as the campaign gained momentum. While certain inherent factors such as early demographics and message appeal pushed Obama’s campaign forward with more vigor, it seems that the personal interest of the candidate in the campaign also played a large part in ensuring the social media campaign got the adequate attention it needed to succeed. Throughout these factors, it becomes clear not just that a successful social networking campaign can happen again, but that it will happen again. After this level of involvement, no candidate will be able to run for any position without having some sort of online component.
Welcome to the online age of politics.
]]>The President has also dealt a to the Yucca Mountain storage facility in the recent budget, acquiescing to Harry Reid’s adamant ‘not in my state’ stance. The problem is that such a repository must be in someone’s state for the country to cheaply and cleanly get the energy it needs, and Congress picked Yucca as the ideal location over twenty years ago – the future of the nuclear industry relies on not having to start over.
The President claimed the same sort of “” for domestic drilling back when gas was at $4/gal, too, so this shouldn’t be surprising. Just like the debate then, Republicans have an opportunity now to own this issue. Americans tentatively nuclear energy, but nothing is ever done to capitalize on it, just like domestic drilling before catching fire as a talking point.
Besides being politically savvy, the move to push harder for nuclear energy would be part of a lasting solution to rising energy costs. The Department of Energy estimates that we will need about more electricity in the nationwide grid over the next two decades, which is about how long it will take all of the roughly 30 planned (and waiting) reactors to be financed, built and brought up to speed.
Domestic drilling is a great thing to get behind and bring to the table, but we need to be concerned with more than just gas prices. Nuclear energy will lower electric costs, keep them low over the long-term and have an effect on oil prices, by substituting for natural gas in heating costs. Also, if you are a member of the global warming panic crowd, nuclear energy currently accounts of the nation’s carbon-free energy production. You can put scrubbers in factories and lower the horsepower in cars all you want, but nuclear energy is the only proven viable solution that could eventually replace coal power plants.
The Senate Energy Committee is currently outlining a renewable energies bill that presents a great opportunity for nuclear energy to make inroads into crucial financing. The bill will define what does and does not count as renewable energy toward federal benchmarks being set for a certain percentage of the nation’s energy coming from renewable sources. Nuclear energy being included on that list would be a huge boon to the industry, as it is the only possibility that represents a net gain to communities financially, both in jobs and in energy prices. There is no reason nuclear energy should not be on that list, but political motivations might take precedence in the debate. Chairman of the Committee, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, is against the expansion of nuclear energy (preferring the much more costly solar option) but for increased funding of nuclear weapons research. On an unrelated note, New Mexico has a lot of sun and hosts both the nation’s foremost nuclear weapons research lab (Los Alamos) and a nuclear waste repository.
However, should Republicans get behind nuclear energy as they did with domestic drilling, the issue will be much less likely to be swept under the rug. Coming out of a winter full of high heating bills and heading into a summer full of high electric costs, the public needs to be made aware of the most cost-efficient solutions in these tough economic times. With Sen. Domenici retired, it seems that the only person who gets enough press to preach this issue is Sen. McCain. If everyone on our side of the aisle picked it up as their own, though, the voices would be too much to ignore, for both Congressional Democrats and the public.
]]>