How Obama's Internet Campaign Changed Politics

How Obama's Internet Campaign Changed Politics By Claire Cain Miller November 7, 2008, 7:49 pm

One of the many ways that the election of Barack Obama as president has echoed that of John F. Kennedy is his use of a new medium that will forever change politics. For Mr. Kennedy, it was television. For Mr. Obama, it is the Internet.

"Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee," said Arianna Huffington, editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post.

She spoke Friday about how politics and Web 2.0 intersect on a panel with Joe Trippi, a political consultant, and Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco. (Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich had been invited to balance out the left-leaning panel, but declined, according to John Battelle, a chair of the conference.)

Howard Dean's 2004 campaign -- which was run by Mr. Trippi -- was groundbreaking in its use of the Internet to raise small amounts of money from hundreds of thousands of people. But by using interactive Web 2.0 tools, Mr. Obama's campaign changed the way politicians organize supporters, advertise to voters, defend against attacks and communicate with constituents.

Mr. Obama used the Internet to organize his supporters in a way that would have in the past required an army of volunteers and paid organizers on the ground, Mr. Trippi said.

"The tools changed between 2004 and 2008. Barack Obama won every single caucus state that matters, and he did it because of those tools, because he was able to move thousands of people to organize."

Mr. Obama's campaign took advantage of YouTube for free advertising. Mr. Trippi argued that those videos were more effective than television ads because viewers chose to watch them or received them from a friend instead of having their television shows interrupted.

"The campaign's official stuff they created for YouTube was watched for 14.5 million hours," Mr. Trippi said. "To buy 14.5 million hours on broadcast TV is $47 million."

...

formatting link

Reply to
Monty Solomon
Loading thread data ...

Actually, it was Nixon's use of TV for his Checker's speech that got him the VP in 1952.

Kennedy got the upper edge on _image_ in the debate (To radio listeners, Nixon won). It is important to note that Nixon had a combiantion of bad luck that hurt, being injured and uncomfortable, and his five o'clock shadow. Sometimes these flukes are more important than the medium itself.

There are many significant reasons to question that. Obama is president for a variety of reasons, including:

1) Many Republicans stayed home because they didn't like McCain. That big "youth" vote apparently was not a deciding factor, according to news reports. 2) The McCain/Palin ticket was seen by the public as inferior in qualifications and platform to Obama/Biden. 3) The economy tanked, making Republicans look bad. 4) The current incumbent had a low approval rating, and that made the GOP canddiate look bad. 5) The Obama campaign was better organized, controlled, and executed than the McCain campaign--this had nothing to do with the media.

I am not a political scientist, but I would suggest that the above five reasons, widely reported, were far more significant than the blogs and crap on the Internet.

I suspect the main use of the Internet was for most people to read conventional newspaper/TV news sources. Sure, emails served as a substitute for conventional mail and mimeograph machine, and fax replaced the old telegram. But the _tools_ are just that tools. The key thing was the message of each campaign. Whether it's delivered by mimeograph and newsprint or by email and YouTube, the message itself is what counts.

In other words, Obama/Biden got their message out because they simply had a better organization. If it were 1960 or 1860 all else being equal, they still would've won.

Reply to
hancock4

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.