American presidential candidates have traditionally had an unpredictable relationship with technology. Richard Nixon's hopes of winning the 1960 election against John F. Kennedy were dashed after he appeared pale and sweaty on a televised debate, and he took his hatred of the television media to his grave. Ronald Reagan used his acting experience to carefully control his televised appearances, and his popularity soared. What these candidates did not realize was that television would increasingly be supplemented and even overtaken by the Internet as the most uncontrollable, unpredictable campaign medium. However, its flexibility provides unlimited opportunities for communicating and organizing. The trend toward online mobilization began in 2004 and is stronger than ever in 2008.
A 2004 Pew Internet and American Life Project survey of Internet users found that 40 percent went online to find political material related to that year's presidential election. An increase of 50 percent since 2000, it signals the need to pay closer attention to the ways the Internet and online interactivity affect elections. Internet users who seek political material are more aware of arguments both in support and against their preferred candidates.
Studies have found some evidence that viewing a candidate's Web site can increase liking for that candidate. In 2000, those who visited a campaign Web site exhibited lower levels of political cynicism. Participants of focus groups have indicated an appreciation for interactivity on campaign Web sites [6]. However, campaign Web sites that year were mostly used to relay messages from the top down to users who had requested information. Visitors were not asked to participate offline. That changed in 2004, and voter turnout, particularly among young people, improved by nine percentage points [2].
Interactivity is encouraged through strategic use of hyperlinks, blog posts, calls for action, and databases of user information that provide volunteers with the contact information of potential supporters. Sally McMillan identified three forms of online interactivity: user-to-system, where one interacts with a computer, such as clicking on a hyperlink to visit another page; user-to-user, where one interacts with another person through conversations on a forum or chatroom; and user-to-document, where one has the ability to create or modify a document, such as a Web site or an encyclopedia entry [5].
The most basic user-to-system technique used by campaigns to provide interactions on their Web sites is hyperlinking to other pages within the site or to an external site. Most candidates provide links to issue sections, contact information, volunteer and mobilization options, and donation or fundraising pages.
In 2004, 96.5 percent of all hyperlinks on the candidates' Web sites pointed to contribution/donation and volunteer pages [5]. Even though he lost the general election, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, won the online fundraising battle by raising $82 million via the Internet — Republican President George W. Bush raised only $14 million that way [2].
Only an average of 5.74 of hyperlinks on candidate Web sites in 2004 pointed to external sites [5]. This lack may exist because it causes the campaign to lose control over what the user views [6]. Campaign blogs in 2004 were more likely to link to external Web sites, but they were 12 times less likely than campaign Web sites to link to sites belonging to supporting groups, four times less likely to link to special-interest group sites, and about half as likely to link to national political party sites. Campaign Web sites were also more likely to link to campaign merchandise sales, political advertiesments, and donation requests [6]. Bush's re-election Web site frequently linked to a hurricane relief site for Floridians and an online store selling "W Stuff," such as bumper stickers, buttons, and yard signs [6].
Politician-run blogs are more popular and have been in use longer in England, but they began to gain ground in the United States in the 2004 election after Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a Democrat primary candidate for president, started one with success. Bloggers write posts in a personal voice, update several times a day, encourage comments by visitors, moderate comments, hyperlink to internal and external sources, and call the readers into action [5]. Visitors are directly addressed, and candidates are called by their first names. Research has shown that this type of interactivity is "more conversational" and promotes "immediacy, personal presence, and multivocality" [5].
In 2004, only four candidates incorporated their blogs into their main Web site navigation. Every candidate blog could be subscribed to through RSS or XML syndication, allowing users to view blog posts in a news collector program either inside their browers or in an external program. The most popular subjects of blog posts were examples of the ways supporters were helping the campaign (36 percent) and the thanking of visitors for support (30.9 percent). A third of all posts contained political statements. Kerry (57.5 percent) and his Democratic primary competitor, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (54.2 percent), posted the most political material [5].
Candidate blogs contained more personal attacks than did Web sites. Some blog posts (9.8 percent) contained rants. Most often, candidates differentiated themselves [5]. In a sample of daily blog posts, Kucinich wrote one post, and Dean wrote four posts. Other blog posts were authored by campaign staff [5]. Dean's blog had the most features, allowing for more user interactivity. Retired General Wesley Clark, another Democratic primary candidate, hired a well-known blogger, Cameron Barrett, to run his blog, demonstrating that the campaign understood the impact such interaction could have on voters [6].
Candidates tended to not use their blogs to fundraise. Only 6 percent of blog posts explicitly asked readers for money, and .5 percent asked them to host fundraisers or ask others to donate. Dean had the most blog posts related to fundraising (26 percent). Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, now an independent but then a Democrat, and Bush did not fundraise on their blogs. Bush instead made political statements (44 percent of posts), posted his calendar (30 percent), promoted positive media coverage (30 percent), and thanked supporters (16 percent). His political statements were dominated by the economy (21 percent) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (14 percent). Kerry mentioned the war in only 8 percent of his blog posts [6].
The ultimate goal of candidate Web sites and blogs is to inspire and enable supporters to mobilize offline. Before the 2004 general election, Bush and Kerry provided tools on their Web sites to allow supporters to arrange house parties and invite friends with online invitations. Volunteers downloaded "walk lists" of neighbors. Bush's staff created "Virtual Precincts" that created a sense of empowerment for supporters living in non-swing states unlikely to be frequented in person by the candidate. In the past, supporters had to call local campaign headquarters to find information about set days for canvassing (usually Saturdays), but the Internet enabled them to contact others directly and immediately and host events at times convenient to them [2].
Fast-forward to 2008, and the Internet is playing an even more dominant role in the presidential election. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, leads in Web presence, using a video posted online in February 2007 (before he announced his candidacy) to launch My.BarackObama.com, which gives campaign volunteers unrestricted access to the names and phone numbers of potential supporters nationwide. Volunteers can call any state and can call from anywhere they want. The campaign provides a script for each state. For example, the Texas script explained the state's dual primary-caucus system. Obama's Web site even arranges phone campaigns that target specific states on certain days. Spanish speakers are asked to call Latinos, women are asked to call other women, and students are asked to call their classmates [1].
Supporters on Obama's Web site are provided incentives for participation. Those who make the most calls accrue the most points, and these volunteers are congratulated on the Web site [1]. The most involved become online precinct captains and are trained by a Web application that tracks their efforts. When supporters return from "block walks," they enter their results into a database that logs which houses had Obama supporters, primary and/or caucus-goers, and people willing to volunteer [4]. Luke Peterson, who oversees the phone bank project from Chicago, said the system was responsible for 250,000 calls in a single day to California voters. Chris Hughes, another proect supervisor, said allowing nationwide access is "a really good way to keep people involved in the campaign after the election is over in their state" [1].
Since the launch of My.BarackObama.com, more than 500,000 accounts have been created, and more than 30,000 supporter-organized events have been listed on the site. Online traffic-monitoring service Compete found 1.7 million people visited BarackObama.com in January 2008, twice as many as visited New York Senator Hillary Clinton's Web site [4]. Days after that month's Iowa caucus, Obama had almost 50,000 requests for in-personal appearances at Eventful.com [3].
"This technology encourages offline organizing, and it's a means for community members to network, and to do all of the old-fashioned organizing that we would never otherwise have had the time or resources to manage," said Ian Davis, an Austin-based Obama supporter [4].
Most young voters, women under 30, and first-time voters supported Obama in the Iowa caucus. Clinton's campaign took notice.
"Our people look like caucus-goers, and (Obama's) people look like they are 18," said Mandy Grunwald, one of Clinton's campaign strategists. Another of Clinton's strategists said Obama supporters looked like Facebook users. Shortly after, Clinton's campaign announced it would allow Facebook users to ask questions, and Clinton responded in videos [3]. In January 2008, Clinton even proposed creating a team of government bloggers who would inform citizens of what is going on inside the government. Obama made the same proposal months earlier [3].
Blogs not run by the candidates that were monitored by the search engine Technorati increased their number of mentions about Obama the day of the Iowa caucus and until the New Hampshire vote. That was when Clinton jumped ahead in mentions in the blogosphere. Among Republican candidates, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee received about 5,000 blog mentions the day Iowa voted, and Texas Representative Ron Paul dominated the day New Hampshire voted [3].
Obama, Clinton, and Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, all have links to blogs on the main pages of their Web sites. McCain's, written by eCampaign Director Michael Palmer, provides a schedule of the candidate's speaking events both in-person and on television. Clinton's blog was updated by campaign staffers and covered a variety of issues, including official statements by Clinton and round-ups of favorable press coverage. Obama's blog is similar but more frequently stresses the need to donate and get involved.
The 2008 candidates are using multimedia to persuade supporters to donate to their campaigns. Obama provides an encrypted page with buttons to select a donation amount. A video of one of his recent speeches plays above. McCain's donation page is a simpler form, but it gives supporters more options. Obama's maximum suggested donation is $1,000 (another more must be manually entered), but McCain's form provides an option to donate up to $9,200. He provides an option to make montly donations to the campaign by direct withdrawal from the supporter's bank account or credit card. Clinton also provided this option, and her maximum suggested one-time donation was $4,600. To donate monthly to the Obama campaign requires the visitor to navigate to a separate Web page.
The amount of interactivity in online presidential campaigning has grown exponentially since its basic introduction in 2000. The 2008 campaign has largely been fought on the Internet, with candidate Web sites and blogs enabling and motivating supporters. Candidates can post videos of speeches online and communicate with volunteers in a way not restricted by time or place. Attack advertisements and controversial statements spread online like wildfire. When Clinton accused Obama of being disrespectful to Pennsylvania voters when he said people are "bitter" and "cling" to guns and religion, the conservative blogosphere erupted with outrage. Liberal blogs such as Daily Kos tended to support Obama. This was not reflected in the television media, where commentators asked if Obama was "elitist" and wondered if the uproar would be the beginning of the end for his campaign.
Politics' short history online has demonstrated that future campaigns will increase their Web presence and thus will increase the number of volunteers using the Internet to organize offline events. While the national mainstream news media are controlled by a relatively small number of wealthy elite, the Internet provides an open forum for people of average income to express themselves. If the online reaction to Obama's "bitter" remarks is any indication, then the mainstream media are the ones out of touch with the mainstream. Younger voters have recognized this and have used their advantage of growing up with Internet technology to assist campaigns in revolutionary ways, such as training supporters effortlessly with a Web application on Obama's site. When this generation of young adults is old enough to run for the highest office, their experience will no doubt change the nature of campaigns in ways that cannot be predicted. As technology's capabilities multiply, so will the ways that people utilize it to win elections.
A 2004 Pew Internet and American Life Project survey of Internet users found that 40 percent went online to find political material related to that year's presidential election. An increase of 50 percent since 2000, it signals the need to pay closer attention to the ways the Internet and online interactivity affect elections. Internet users who seek political material are more aware of arguments both in support and against their preferred candidates.
Studies have found some evidence that viewing a candidate's Web site can increase liking for that candidate. In 2000, those who visited a campaign Web site exhibited lower levels of political cynicism. Participants of focus groups have indicated an appreciation for interactivity on campaign Web sites [6]. However, campaign Web sites that year were mostly used to relay messages from the top down to users who had requested information. Visitors were not asked to participate offline. That changed in 2004, and voter turnout, particularly among young people, improved by nine percentage points [2].
Interactivity is encouraged through strategic use of hyperlinks, blog posts, calls for action, and databases of user information that provide volunteers with the contact information of potential supporters. Sally McMillan identified three forms of online interactivity: user-to-system, where one interacts with a computer, such as clicking on a hyperlink to visit another page; user-to-user, where one interacts with another person through conversations on a forum or chatroom; and user-to-document, where one has the ability to create or modify a document, such as a Web site or an encyclopedia entry [5].
The most basic user-to-system technique used by campaigns to provide interactions on their Web sites is hyperlinking to other pages within the site or to an external site. Most candidates provide links to issue sections, contact information, volunteer and mobilization options, and donation or fundraising pages.
In 2004, 96.5 percent of all hyperlinks on the candidates' Web sites pointed to contribution/donation and volunteer pages [5]. Even though he lost the general election, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, won the online fundraising battle by raising $82 million via the Internet — Republican President George W. Bush raised only $14 million that way [2].
Only an average of 5.74 of hyperlinks on candidate Web sites in 2004 pointed to external sites [5]. This lack may exist because it causes the campaign to lose control over what the user views [6]. Campaign blogs in 2004 were more likely to link to external Web sites, but they were 12 times less likely than campaign Web sites to link to sites belonging to supporting groups, four times less likely to link to special-interest group sites, and about half as likely to link to national political party sites. Campaign Web sites were also more likely to link to campaign merchandise sales, political advertiesments, and donation requests [6]. Bush's re-election Web site frequently linked to a hurricane relief site for Floridians and an online store selling "W Stuff," such as bumper stickers, buttons, and yard signs [6].
Politician-run blogs are more popular and have been in use longer in England, but they began to gain ground in the United States in the 2004 election after Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a Democrat primary candidate for president, started one with success. Bloggers write posts in a personal voice, update several times a day, encourage comments by visitors, moderate comments, hyperlink to internal and external sources, and call the readers into action [5]. Visitors are directly addressed, and candidates are called by their first names. Research has shown that this type of interactivity is "more conversational" and promotes "immediacy, personal presence, and multivocality" [5].
In 2004, only four candidates incorporated their blogs into their main Web site navigation. Every candidate blog could be subscribed to through RSS or XML syndication, allowing users to view blog posts in a news collector program either inside their browers or in an external program. The most popular subjects of blog posts were examples of the ways supporters were helping the campaign (36 percent) and the thanking of visitors for support (30.9 percent). A third of all posts contained political statements. Kerry (57.5 percent) and his Democratic primary competitor, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (54.2 percent), posted the most political material [5].
Candidate blogs contained more personal attacks than did Web sites. Some blog posts (9.8 percent) contained rants. Most often, candidates differentiated themselves [5]. In a sample of daily blog posts, Kucinich wrote one post, and Dean wrote four posts. Other blog posts were authored by campaign staff [5]. Dean's blog had the most features, allowing for more user interactivity. Retired General Wesley Clark, another Democratic primary candidate, hired a well-known blogger, Cameron Barrett, to run his blog, demonstrating that the campaign understood the impact such interaction could have on voters [6].
Candidates tended to not use their blogs to fundraise. Only 6 percent of blog posts explicitly asked readers for money, and .5 percent asked them to host fundraisers or ask others to donate. Dean had the most blog posts related to fundraising (26 percent). Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, now an independent but then a Democrat, and Bush did not fundraise on their blogs. Bush instead made political statements (44 percent of posts), posted his calendar (30 percent), promoted positive media coverage (30 percent), and thanked supporters (16 percent). His political statements were dominated by the economy (21 percent) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (14 percent). Kerry mentioned the war in only 8 percent of his blog posts [6].
The ultimate goal of candidate Web sites and blogs is to inspire and enable supporters to mobilize offline. Before the 2004 general election, Bush and Kerry provided tools on their Web sites to allow supporters to arrange house parties and invite friends with online invitations. Volunteers downloaded "walk lists" of neighbors. Bush's staff created "Virtual Precincts" that created a sense of empowerment for supporters living in non-swing states unlikely to be frequented in person by the candidate. In the past, supporters had to call local campaign headquarters to find information about set days for canvassing (usually Saturdays), but the Internet enabled them to contact others directly and immediately and host events at times convenient to them [2].
Fast-forward to 2008, and the Internet is playing an even more dominant role in the presidential election. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, leads in Web presence, using a video posted online in February 2007 (before he announced his candidacy) to launch My.BarackObama.com, which gives campaign volunteers unrestricted access to the names and phone numbers of potential supporters nationwide. Volunteers can call any state and can call from anywhere they want. The campaign provides a script for each state. For example, the Texas script explained the state's dual primary-caucus system. Obama's Web site even arranges phone campaigns that target specific states on certain days. Spanish speakers are asked to call Latinos, women are asked to call other women, and students are asked to call their classmates [1].
Supporters on Obama's Web site are provided incentives for participation. Those who make the most calls accrue the most points, and these volunteers are congratulated on the Web site [1]. The most involved become online precinct captains and are trained by a Web application that tracks their efforts. When supporters return from "block walks," they enter their results into a database that logs which houses had Obama supporters, primary and/or caucus-goers, and people willing to volunteer [4]. Luke Peterson, who oversees the phone bank project from Chicago, said the system was responsible for 250,000 calls in a single day to California voters. Chris Hughes, another proect supervisor, said allowing nationwide access is "a really good way to keep people involved in the campaign after the election is over in their state" [1].
Since the launch of My.BarackObama.com, more than 500,000 accounts have been created, and more than 30,000 supporter-organized events have been listed on the site. Online traffic-monitoring service Compete found 1.7 million people visited BarackObama.com in January 2008, twice as many as visited New York Senator Hillary Clinton's Web site [4]. Days after that month's Iowa caucus, Obama had almost 50,000 requests for in-personal appearances at Eventful.com [3].
"This technology encourages offline organizing, and it's a means for community members to network, and to do all of the old-fashioned organizing that we would never otherwise have had the time or resources to manage," said Ian Davis, an Austin-based Obama supporter [4].
Most young voters, women under 30, and first-time voters supported Obama in the Iowa caucus. Clinton's campaign took notice.
"Our people look like caucus-goers, and (Obama's) people look like they are 18," said Mandy Grunwald, one of Clinton's campaign strategists. Another of Clinton's strategists said Obama supporters looked like Facebook users. Shortly after, Clinton's campaign announced it would allow Facebook users to ask questions, and Clinton responded in videos [3]. In January 2008, Clinton even proposed creating a team of government bloggers who would inform citizens of what is going on inside the government. Obama made the same proposal months earlier [3].
Blogs not run by the candidates that were monitored by the search engine Technorati increased their number of mentions about Obama the day of the Iowa caucus and until the New Hampshire vote. That was when Clinton jumped ahead in mentions in the blogosphere. Among Republican candidates, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee received about 5,000 blog mentions the day Iowa voted, and Texas Representative Ron Paul dominated the day New Hampshire voted [3].
Obama, Clinton, and Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, all have links to blogs on the main pages of their Web sites. McCain's, written by eCampaign Director Michael Palmer, provides a schedule of the candidate's speaking events both in-person and on television. Clinton's blog was updated by campaign staffers and covered a variety of issues, including official statements by Clinton and round-ups of favorable press coverage. Obama's blog is similar but more frequently stresses the need to donate and get involved.
The 2008 candidates are using multimedia to persuade supporters to donate to their campaigns. Obama provides an encrypted page with buttons to select a donation amount. A video of one of his recent speeches plays above. McCain's donation page is a simpler form, but it gives supporters more options. Obama's maximum suggested donation is $1,000 (another more must be manually entered), but McCain's form provides an option to donate up to $9,200. He provides an option to make montly donations to the campaign by direct withdrawal from the supporter's bank account or credit card. Clinton also provided this option, and her maximum suggested one-time donation was $4,600. To donate monthly to the Obama campaign requires the visitor to navigate to a separate Web page.
The amount of interactivity in online presidential campaigning has grown exponentially since its basic introduction in 2000. The 2008 campaign has largely been fought on the Internet, with candidate Web sites and blogs enabling and motivating supporters. Candidates can post videos of speeches online and communicate with volunteers in a way not restricted by time or place. Attack advertisements and controversial statements spread online like wildfire. When Clinton accused Obama of being disrespectful to Pennsylvania voters when he said people are "bitter" and "cling" to guns and religion, the conservative blogosphere erupted with outrage. Liberal blogs such as Daily Kos tended to support Obama. This was not reflected in the television media, where commentators asked if Obama was "elitist" and wondered if the uproar would be the beginning of the end for his campaign.
Politics' short history online has demonstrated that future campaigns will increase their Web presence and thus will increase the number of volunteers using the Internet to organize offline events. While the national mainstream news media are controlled by a relatively small number of wealthy elite, the Internet provides an open forum for people of average income to express themselves. If the online reaction to Obama's "bitter" remarks is any indication, then the mainstream media are the ones out of touch with the mainstream. Younger voters have recognized this and have used their advantage of growing up with Internet technology to assist campaigns in revolutionary ways, such as training supporters effortlessly with a Web application on Obama's site. When this generation of young adults is old enough to run for the highest office, their experience will no doubt change the nature of campaigns in ways that cannot be predicted. As technology's capabilities multiply, so will the ways that people utilize it to win elections.
References
- Cooper, Christopher. "Obama's Fate in Texas Hinges on Volunteers." The Wall Street Journal. 29 Feb. 2008.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12042406 6310201213.html - Davis, Steve. "Presidential Campaigns Fine-tune Online Strategies." Journalism Studies 6.2 (2005): 241-244. Academic Search Premier.
- Mark, Roy. "Tech's so-so showing in politics." eWeek 25.2 (2008): 18-20. Academic Search Premier.
- Stirland, Sarah Lai. "Inside Obama's Surging Net-Roots Campaign." Wired. 3 March 2008.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2 008/03/obama_tools - Trammell, Kaye D.; Williams, Andrew Paul; Postelnicu, Monica; and Kristen D. Landreville. "Evolution of Online Campaigning: Increasing Interactivity in Candidate Web Sites and Blogs Through Text and Technical Features." Mass Communication & Society 9.1 (2006): 21-44. Academic Search Premier.
- Williams, Andrew Paul; Trammell, Kaye D.; Postelnicu, Monica; Landreville, Kristen D.; and Justin D. Martin. "Blogging and Hyperlinking: use of the Web to enhance viability during the 2004 US campaign." Journalism Studies 6.2 (2005): 177-186. Academic Search Premier.
Comments
Write New Comment ▼
Write New Comment
Sorry! This knol's owner(s) have blocked you from editing, making suggestions, or commenting here.