Huntsman joins the race.

As the latest Republican to jump into the presidential race, Jon Huntsman is working to make a name for himself.  And who is Jon Huntsman?  Well apparently he is different.  When logging on to his website, after watching a clip from his announcement speech in Liberty Park (a view similar to that of Ronald Reagan’s announcement speech in 1980), you are taken to the “HTV” (after looking at it, I think this means Huntsman TV) section of his website and shown the first of a series of clips on this page.

            This first clip shows a person riding through fields on a dirt bike.  This is Jon Huntsman.  We learn he is a family man, a rock-and-roller, and a lover of food-trucks.  This five minute video is set to slow-paced music with a slow-paced narrator sticking to a four-count throughout this video (and the next two).  He goes on and on about how Huntsman and his wife talk everyday, detailing how they use Skype, and re-emphasizing that yes, everyday they talk.  The video shows Huntsman being active and explains his passion for different things, but the video itself, with the music and the slow narrator, exuded anything but excitement.  In fact, I found it quite boring.  I appreciate that he wants to prove himself as a “different” type of Republican, one without the drama.  But a lack of drama does not need to mean a lack of energy. 

            The rest of his site is sleek looking, with a timeline of his life, his daily blog, a press section and opportunities to volunteer and donate.  Though it is sleek, I feel it lacks the same key ingredient that the video lacks- excitement.  It is very mellow seeming.  There is no section for his stances on the issues.  Again, it is one thing to want to avoid drama, but to be a presidential candidate, you need to be able to talk about the controversial topics and this means the issues.

            Now as I said, I appreciate Huntsman’s wanting to play a different type of politics.  I agree that the rhetoric in many these campaigns, and in other aspects of politics, has gotten out of control and off topic.  But there is a middle ground, where the rhetoric is not based on hate to bring people together, but on hope- and not a boring hope that Huntsman shows, but an inspirational hope- and the man who did this, was non-other than the President, and I have a feeling he will do it again.

Millennial Makeover

Morley Winograd and Michael Hais discuss the cyclical pattern of generations and their affects on the political system in their compelling, insightful, and thought-provoking book, Millenial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube & the Future of American Politics.  The book begins by discussing the historical basis for this cyclical theory, breaking American history into five sections, each about 30-40 years long.  These sections, or eras, represent time-frames where one political party dominated the presidential elections (from 1828-1956 the Democrats won 75 percent of the elections; from 1860-1892, Republicans won 78 percent of the elections, and so forth).

Not only do the authors break up history in this way, but also by generation.  Winograd and Hais identify four ‘types’ of generations, which also seem to have cyclical roots.  The first of these is the “idealist,” who represent generations like the Baby Boomers.  The second is the “reactive” generation, such as Generation X, and tend to be entrepreneurial.  The third is the “civic” generation, which had been the GI Generation, but is now the millennial generation and are “oriented to societal challenges, problem solving, and institution building marks their adult lives”.  The final generation noted is the “adaptive” generation, who had been the Silent Generation from the mid-1920s to mid-1940s, and today represents those born after 2003.

Other elements tend to correlate with these cycles as well, which also have an effect on the political climate.  These elements include population size and growth, and the technologies, specifically innovative communications technology which emerges.

According to the book, we are on a cusp of one of these cyclical changes.  The cycle which (may have) just ended, ran from 1968- 2004.  During this time, Republicans won 70 percent of the presidential elections.  As we all know, in 2008, Dems took the White House back.  A major player in doing this, was the millennial generation and the online technology used and the ballots.  The authors note the important role the growing Hispanic and Asian populations will have on the elections.

If this theory is correct, and Democrats continue to highlight and maximize the use of technology, millennials continue to support democrats, and Hispanics, who have already shown to vote mostly Democratic, continue to do so, this cycle might switch from red to blue, but as always, anything can happen in politics.

  

The non-partisan internet

In The Argument: Inside the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics, Matt Bai begins by describing the bleak situation which was the 2004 presidential election.  Bai explains how this was the year for Democrats to take back the White House, how everyone had done everything right (except for the Kerry campaign) and how disheartening it was to liberals across the country when Ohio turned red.  As a Democrat reading this, I got a little depressed- yes the writing was fun, interesting and engaging, but the content, at least in the beginning made it seem like my party was on downward spiral which started years ago. 

So, what could we Dems do?

Well, Bai starts to explain how the Democratic Party was able to reunite.  Bai gives credit to the internet, noting sites such as MoveOn.org, and blogs such as the Daily Kos as tools which were able to bring Democrats of the baby-boom generation together in order to organize and fight for progressive positions.

The book, however, was published prior to the 2008 election, and therefore, obviously, prior to the 2010 mid-term elections.  As we know from looking back over these elections, in 2008, it is true, the Democrats won with a leg up from the use of the internet (and with a major leg-up from a very unpopular Republican President, and arguably an even less popular, or at least, less qualified vice presidential nominee).  But now that 2008 is over, Republicans are at least starting to catch on to all of this online business.

I think Bai made a good point when explaining the phenomenon which was Mark Warner, in stating that “Warner had miscalculated in seeing the Internet as merely another technology in which to invest… the Web wasn’t simply a new tool for old politics; the blogs represented their own distinct political culture.  They were, in fact, the voices of the new public square….not a place where townspeople came to carefully consider what their leaders had to say, but where the mob gathered to make its demands and mete out its own kind of justice.”

For both parties, it is not enough to simply use the internet in a campaign as Bai notes.  It is a tool with people behind it, and therefore it is ever evolving.  The political discussions, as Bai points out, are not thoughtful reflections about policy.  Now, with the ability to make a response or post things without much though, people do just that.  The consequence for politicians is that they need to keep up, but they need to keep up in a smart fashion.  Obama was able to do that 2008, but the internet is not a purely progressive tool- conservatives can, will, and are using it too, and are figuring out how to use it well.  The internet is sure to play a major role in the elections coming up, but only time will tell if the Democratic Party will be able to hold on to the online grassroots movement to help keep the White House blue.

Mobilizing Generation 2.0

As anyone even remotely in touch with current technology knows, the internet is a dominant tool which, if used effectively, can reach millions of individuals with the click of a button. Again, as most know, young people in particular, who have largely grown up with this technology, rely on the internet's services for a good portion of what they do from staying in touch with friends, to watching TV shows, to doing homework, to so much more. Though the youth use the internet a lot, it does not mean that a campaign targeting youth will automatically reach their targeted audience, and even if they do, without the right message, that outreach would be virtually useless. In his book Mobilising Generation 2.0 A Practical Guide to using Web 2.0: Technologies to Recruit, Organize, and Engage Youth, author Ben Rigby along with the authors of essays throughout this book, offer advice as to the means and the modes to best reach these audiences and to have an effective online presence.

In the book, Rigby makes several interesting points, while giving lots of useful information. The book describes a number of different tools which can be helpful in campaigns targeting audiences online, such as websites, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Wikis, and more. Each chapter not only details what the tool is, but also gives examples of how to effectively use the tools. For example, with blogs, the author details a number of different tones a blog can have, such as an issues blog, or a blog to engage and recruit volunteers, or on Facebook, you can make up a 'persona' for the organization, similar to a mascot who is closely wound into the theme of the cause you are working for. Also detailed is how these tools work, and the features which are distinct to each. For example, messaging and profiles for different outlets.

One overarching point that the author made was how many of the social aspect of these platforms. Many of these platforms have the ability to allow users to hold a two-way dialogue with Friends, followers, members and so-forth. In many instances it can be very beneficial to keep these lines of communication open, even with the risk of not having full control of the content and dialogue. The benefits will often outweigh the costs in these situations because you not only engage the followers, but if there is criticism, you can address it head on, and where necessary make changes or alterations. Also connected to the social aspect of the internet is the fact that there are not only two way channels between you and your followers, but also between you and the rest of the online world, and it will (usually) benefit your cause to engage others in the online community. Essentially, to get traffic to your site, pages, or blogs, it is useful to give traffic to others' sites, pages, or blogs and show this traffic through commenting, "liking", retweeting, and so forth.

Another interesting point, which I myself am guilty of doing, and which the author again points out several times throughout the book, is the fact that when it comes down to it, we are people. In campaigns, and when we're stuck with a screen between us, we often forget that on the other end of that check, or the other end of that blog, there is a human being, that it is not just some electrical entity, but that there are people with relationships, interests, feelings, and thoughts and that it is important to not just think of them as a donor or follower, but to think strategically about them as a person with all of these characteristics and rather than thinking how to best get $50, think of it as how best to engage that person through this outlet. As the internet makes things much faster and arguably less personal (in the sense that many things take place on the computer rather than in person) we forget that behind all of this work there are people like you and me, and they want to be treated as such.

Between the tactful insights given in this book, along with the reality checks it also gives, I think that this book was very helpful in articulating how to effectively use the internet and technology to reach the public.

The take aways from Weiner's mistakes

Last semester I wrote a paper on John Edwards and his affair. My advice to politicians in this paper, and based off of the crisis situation which is John Edwards, was do not cheat. If you cheat, you will get caught. If you are dumb enough to cheat, and it comes out, do not be so dumb as to lie about it. You will not get away with it and you will simply dig yourself a bigger hole. We’ve seen it with Edwards, we’ve seen it with Clinton and we’ve seen it with many others. It’s just not a smart thing to do.

Ah, if only Congressman Anthony Weiner had taken this advice. Late in May, a photo emerged of a man in his underwear, which was sent on Twitter to a young Seattle woman. Weiner took down the post and claimed he had fell victim to a hacker attack. For days the Congressman stuck to this story. And many of us believed him. I mean, why would someone with any knowledge of social media or of Twitter post a picture like that of them? It just doesn’t make any sense. After seeing it day after day on the front of the Washington Post, and reading his answers to some questions (he didn’t know if the picture was of him, calling a reporter a jack ass…) it did make you think about his innocence. And then he came clean. In a nearly 30 minute press conference, Weiner explained that, unfortunately, he had posted those pictures, and there are others, but that he was going to stay in office regardless.

So what is the moral of the story other than “don’t cheat on your wife”? The answer- “Be careful what you put on the internet.” Although most of us are not putting lewd photos of ourselves online, we are putting a lot of other information. It is important an important lesson that even when you are trying to do something secretly (Weiner meant to send his photo through a personal message) mistakes happen and it can still get out. Even if he had successfully sent the image through a personal message, once it’s sent, it would be in this other person’s procession, and they too, could have released it. As we’ve heard in the past “don’t say anything you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the New York Times,” don’t do things online you don’t want to see on the front page of the New York Times, or spread all over the internet for that matter.

And to the politicians out there- people are waiting for you to fall, they will take any opportunity to help nudge you down that slippery slope. Not to sound overly paranoid, but people are watching you. Be careful what you do. Be careful what you put online. It has happened over and over again, but these things do surface, and once they do it’s hard to go back.

Huh, there's more to this than I thought...

Until taking I began taking a course on Internet Advocacy, I like many people, only knew minimal amounts about how to use social media. Yes, I had a Facebook, but I only vaguely knew how to use it effectively (unless, of course, I used it to find a friend, write on their wall, or make a status, I have been quite effective at these rudimentary tasks). Yes, I had a Twitter, but I had only Tweeted a handful of times. If asked the question, do you know how to measure the impact of these tools for an advocacy campaign, I would have laughed and simply said “no.” I just read Alan Rosenblatt’s articles Measuring the Impact of Your Social Media Program and Rules of Social Engagement which briefly describe some online tools which can help calculate the Return on Investment (ROI) for social advocacy campaigns. Rosenblatt identifies three ways in which you can measure the ROI: reach, engagement, and driving web traffic home.

The reach refers to the size of the audience. Essentially, this means how many followers or fans you have (depending on the platform- Twitter or Facebook). On Twitter, I learned, you can increase your followers by using hashtags (anything connected to a #.) Websites such as Hashtags.org can measure the amount of times your hashtag is used. MyTweeple.com allows you to download your followers in order to analyze them.

Engagement refers to the interactions with the audience and the by the audience when they work to spread the word on your behalf. On Twitter this can include retweeting (which can be tracked on Backtype.com, ReTweetRank.com, and SocialMention.com), recommending people to follow you, and more. On Facebook if they ‘like’ your page or share it on their wall, etc.    

Driving web traffic home has to do with page views and visitors to the website. Bit.ly and HootSuite.com are tools which can enable you to shorten links so you can use them in Twitter posts without taking up as many characters. These tools can also allow you to measure how many clicks you from that URL.

In just a short amount of time, through reading these two articles, I was able to learn a great deal about how to measure the effectiveness of an online campaign. This is very important information especially in this time when online campaigns are becoming commonplace. These articles were brief but informative and I recommend them, and the sites mentioned above, to anyone interested in the field.

 

Obama online in '08, and how it's shaping 2012

Barack Obama was certainly not the first politician to use the internet as a part of his campaign strategy, but in 2008, he sure did set the bar higher for politicians in the future. Moving forward from Obama’s 2008 campaign, politicians and communications specialists have the opportunity to learn some valuable lessons and tips for using electronics to help win an election. Colin Delany discusses some of the take-aways from Obama ‘08’s strategy in his articles, Learning from Obama: Lessons for Online Communicators in 2009 and Beyond and Using the Internet to Win in 2010.

There were a few major themes discussed in both articles which I found to be interesting. Two of the broad ideas agree are important to keep in mind in using the internet for a campaign includes: 1. The online portion of the campaign must be a part of, and not separate from the whole campaign, and 2. It is not enough to just have an online aspect of the campaign, it needs to be maintained and managed regularly and effectively.

I think these two points are especially important. In 2008, the Obama campaign integrated his online presence into the rest of the campaign- it was not a separate entity. The website, emails, Facebook page, Twitter- everything that was online was on message and consistent with the rest of the campaign. This set the stage for the next point which I thought was important- being able to not only have these tools, but to use them successfully.

The Obama campaign did not just create a website and Facebook and Twitter accounts in order to leave them, idle. The campaign set “focused and measurable goals” as Delany points out, and stuck to those goals. This campaign used these tools to interact with the public in order to gain funds and support as well as to inform supporters and let supporters and organizers inform the campaign with what was working and what wasn’t.

In addition to these two broad concepts that Delany discussed, he also wrote about more specific details that the Obama team utilized and will notably be important for campaigners in the future to employ if they want to keep up. This ranged from which online tools to use, such as a website, Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter accounts, and blogging, as well as how to use these, what their purposes are, and what to keep in mind throughout the campaign in regards to the online presence.

As the 2012 presidential election begins to heat up, it is likely that many of these campaigns will utilize (and many have already begun to use) these tools and tips to help their campaigns. It is still too soon to tell, but it will be interesting to observe as technology and peoples’ online creativity continue to evolve how the campaigns will move forward from 2008, and set the bar higher, once again.    

Three GOP Hopefuls, Three Facebook Strategies

I was fishing around on Facebook, looking different politicians’ pages to see what they were up to when I noticed some differences in the strategies used on these pages.

The top of Newt Gingrich’s page shows his logo, “NEWT2012” an unsurprising blue and read, with a swish below and a star. The whole page, in fact is in red, white and blue. Very American. Below the logo is “a special announcement from Newt” with the video of Newt announcing that he will run for president. Below the video is a link to get involved, followed by a link to donate, followed by a link to “follow Newt on Twitter.” And that’s it. No announcements or updates from the campaign on the main page. If you happen to notice the small icon on the side that says “wall,” then yes, those things appear, but it is not out in the open, and people just passing through the site might miss this. His “Likes” are a mix, mostly politically or news oriented from Fox News, to other pro-Gingrich pages, but with a few wild-cards thrown in such as “Geno’s Chowder and Sandwich Shop”.

In America, when reading, most people start at the top left corner of a page work their way across, and move down following the same pattern. If you did this with Mit Romney’s page, the first content you would find is a red button that says “Donate,” then a mobile phone with the Romney logo, then the just the Romney logo, and ‘R’ in, shockingly enough, red, white, and blue, then the Twitter ‘T’, followed by the YouTube logo. Click on these icons and it will lead you to a picture, with a link as a caption taking you to the respective sites. The Romney wall, unlike Gingrich’s is up and running, with posts nearly ever day, the most recent of which inviting followers to watch on Facebook as he announces his candidacy on June 2. Where Gingrich showed that he likes left leaning news shows, chowder, and, well, himself, Romney does not seem to “Like” anything. While Newt had his wall as a small icon off to the side, Romney has a similar small icon titled “Misery Index.” Click on this and you’ll find a petition against Obama regarding the creation of jobs.

Tim Pawlenty took a third route. The top of his page are a serious of amateur pictures. The wall is below, with posts almost every day. Unlike the two above, Pawlenty’s “Contribute” link is not prominent, and off to the side like Gingrich’s wall, and Romney’s “Misery Index”, and his logo is no where to be found. What does he like? The Minnesota Vikings. The color scheme? Black, white, and that Facebook blue.

It’s surprising to me that Pawlenty, who used Facebook as a means of announcing his candidacy as well as his formation of an exploratory committee would seem to have the dullest, and least enticing page of the three. Gingrich’s seems to be the most organized, and Romney is somewhere in the middle. It will be interesting to see if these Facebook strategies evolve as the campaign progresses.   

Aps, Ads, and Texting, Oh My! How Mobile is Going to Change Campaigning in 2012

If Facebook and the internet were the big game changers in the 2008 election, then what will fill those shoes in 2012? Well, word on the streets of DC is that the cell phone is going to do just that. Recently Scott Conroy, White House correspondent for Real Clear Politics spoke in a lecture I attended and voiced his opinion that cellular was going to be the next big thing to hit elections. Katie Harbath reiterated this point in her article The Rise of Mobile, and Michael Stein and Katrin Verclas agreed in their article Using Mobile Phones in Advocacy Campaigns.

So how is the cell phone, a piece of technology that has been popular for about 15 years, going to all of a sudden make a big splash in the campaign world?

Well there are a few ways. The big reason though, is the power of the Smartphone. According to a Pew study, 26 percent of Americans used their mobile devices to “learn about or participate in the 2012 midterm election campaign.” This number is surely to rise in the 2012 election cycle as nearly 50% of the nation uses a Smartphone, and campaigns learns to use these phones as a means of communicating with the public in a more sophisticated manner.

As Harbath notes in her article, Smartphone devises are useful in that now, like never before, campaigns can create mobile ads for fundraising, for online surveys, as a means of gaining email address to send further information. Additionally, the phones can help the public find polling locations and can learn more about the candidates with a swipe of a finger on websites which are optimized for the mobile phones.

Stein and Verclas explain how to maximize the effectiveness of text messaging in a campaign. Texting can be used to alert supporters, supporters can text legislators, texts can be used to arrange meetings, (I know, I sound like Bubba from Forest Gump talking about shrimp, “You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it…”), but really, text messages can be used in an innumerable amount of ways to communicate with, and get information from the public in a very direct and personal manner.

Additionally, websites such as campaignapps.com give clear instructions on how to create and manage apps to support campaign efforts. These apps can help not only with getting information to voters, but also to help organize the campaign workers themselves.  

These articles made convincing cases for how mobile will effect the next election cycle, and it will certainly be interesting to observe what works and what doesn’t in using mobile phones to mobilize voters.