Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ask an Expert About Online Political Campaigning

Posted by Roblimo on Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:48 AM
from the Riding-the-Internet-into-the-White-House dept.
Government Politics
Garrett M. Graff is an editor at Washingtonian Magazine, was the first blogger to get into a White House press briefing, and recently wrote a book called The First Campaign, in which he talks about how "...the emergence of the Web as a political tool has shaken up the campaign process, leaving front-runners vulnerable right up until Election Day." Besides all that, Garrett was Howard Dean's first webmaster and is a regular Slashdot reader. Here's a recent Washington Post article by Garrett about how shudderingly little our current elected officials know about the Internet, along with the transcript of a Post Chat on the same topic (noted here so that you don't ask the same questions by mistake). Usual Slashdot interview rules apply, of course. Ask away!
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Political Expert Garrett M. Graff Answers Your Questions 123 comments
Garrett M. Graff agreed to be a Slashdot interview victim... err... guest not just because he's promoting his book, The First Campaign, but because he's a long-time Slashdot reader. In fact, an inside source tells us he called his girlfriend to boast about this soon after we set up the interview -- and that she was no more impressed than most wives or girlfriends would be. But he gave us some fine answers to your questions anyway, and we hope he can grab a little time to jump into the discussion about his answers (hint, hint) with a follow-up or two.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Ask an Expert About Online Political Campaigning 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • I'ma blogger! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShakaUVM (157947) on Monday December 10 2007, @11:51AM (#21643611) Homepage Journal
    How hard is it to get a press pass?

    I mean, you call someone up and say you have this Livejournal which somewhere between 1 and a million people read, and cross your fingers?
  • While the Dean campaign showed how grassroots support for a candidate can really bring a lot to the table, the Ron Paul's campaign seems to be floundering, despite the best efforts of his supporters. Considering the secondary role that internet campaigning seems to take as compared to the standard phone trees and door to door baby kissing, what part of the entire campaign has the most impact? If we were to become interested in supporting a candidate, what roles should we seek in his organization?

    • Re:How important is the Internet in all this? (Score:5, Informative)

      by baffled (1034554) on Monday December 10 2007, @12:24PM (#21644133)
      Interesting that you say Paul's campaign is floundering, considering he has won more Republican straw polls than any other candidate, has more volunteers by far, and had a record-setting $4.2 million day of fund-raising last month (and it appears in a few days, will even shatter that record.)

      The only failure of his campaign is the negative reporting done by mainstream news agencies - depicting him as a fringe candidate, associating him with morally-questionable supporters, treating him as though he's not a Congressman elected for ten! terms as a Republican, but rather some whacky Libertarian who holds no Republican views.

      His campaign is doing exceptionally well, considering the bias these news organizations seem to have against him. And his support base is continuing to grow exponentially.

      • The only failure of his campaign is the negative reporting done by mainstream news agencies - depicting him as a fringe candidate,

        That and his poll numbers of likely primary voters are really low, perhaps it's gaining some, but he's still far from being competitive [pollingreport.com].

        is campaign is doing exceptionally well, considering the bias these news organizations seem to have against him

        If you consider that the hate of the televised media arm for the Republican party (Fox "News" Channel), not as a media problem, but as a Republican leadership issue, it's likely you would understand the issue a little better. Yes, I know that many Republicans have been trained from birth to blame the media for problems, but one should understand that media only regurgit

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by east coast (590680)
          one cannot gain power in the RNC or the DNC by bucking the leadership, ever.

          Fixed that for you.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ericspinder (146776)

            one cannot gain power in the RNC or the DNC by bucking the leadership, ever....Fixed that for you.

            No, you didn't. For example, Howard Dean might not have won the party nomination, and was regarded as a maverick during his campaign, but he did gain a lot of power and is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

            Ronald Reagan once said [ronaldreagan.com]:

            The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.

            Of course he was talking of personal attacks, such as those mounted by Rove and company against John McCain in the 2000 campaign, not the 'pretend we are perfect and punish those who disagree' mantra which has destroyed the Republican party these last doze

          • Howard Dean is a classic example of how, in the Democratic Party, one can gain power by bucking the leadership. The issue is, that once you gain power, you are, by definition, "the leadership".

            I know it's fashionable to pretend that all politicians and parties are the same. It is, among other things, a convenient way to shift blame for one's own discontent onto nameless others, who you can then blame for everything you haven't done yourself to make things better. But the truth is that liberals and con
      • The funny thing is this. Republicans don't understand that if Ron Paul loses the primaries, the Republicans are guaranteed to lose the general. Guaranteed.

        This could be a long period of Democrat rule. Oh well, at least they balance the budget better than most Republicans.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by sreams (1201171)
          On the contrary, "scientific" polls are meaningless. "Likely" primary voters include only those registered Republicans who participated in the 2004 primary. Said primary had an anemic 6.6% turnout, with people voting for an incumbent Bush, who was already knee deep in not one, but two wars. Paul's support will come primarily from outside this tiny group of war supporters.
        • Are you a Loyalist or a Patriot?
        • Ron Paul has a lot of enthusiastic supporters and it shows in the fundraising numbers. He's also able to do something that the higher polling Republican candidates seem unable to do, which is draw crowds. You are right that the straw poll numbers themselves are meaningless, but what they do reflect is tangible support. You think that Romney isn't trying to win straw polls? He is, and spending good money to do so. But his support, like those of the other candidates, is weak. This weak support can easil

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by taxman_10m (41083)
              Where are you getting your information about his campaign appearances? He seems to be making no more or less appearances than any of the top tier candidates.

              Crowds aren't votes. Neither are poll numbers. And signs don't vote either. Of course he will need to GOTV when the time comes. If you look at the Meetup groups and how they are being used, that's what their primary function is - to GOTV. I'm from MA, and the group here sends people up to NH ever weekend to canvass.

              He's ahead of Fred Thompson in N
    • Actually, Dean's campaign wound up being not a whole lot, in the end. He didn't get the votes and lost early. As much money as he brought in, it wound up being more hype than anything substantial. I think that Paul's campaign will end up the same way - supporters grasping at straws to show that he is more popular than he really is.
    • How is a grassroots-organized blimp "floundering"? http://ronpaulblimp.com/ [ronpaulblimp.com]
      How is having more cash than most of the other Republican candidates "floundering"?

        • Re:How important is the Internet in all this? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Xtravar (725372) on Monday December 10 2007, @12:49PM (#21644575) Homepage Journal
          Phone polling typically does not include cell phones (younger, newer voters) and non-Republicans. Not to mention, his supporters are the type who would go to the polls if there were a nuclear holocaust going on.

          The pro-war Republicans keep rising to the top only to cut each other down. If they end up dividing the pro-war vote equally, Paul has an enormous chance of winning.

          Analysts believe he could come in at least 3rd in Iowa and NH.

          It's going to be exciting. We'll see. It's easy to be skeptical, but he definitely has enough money to stay in the game all the way to the convention (which is more than the other candidates can say).

          • Phone polling typically does not include cell phones (younger, newer voters) and non-Republicans.
            An accurate primary poll for a Republican candidate wouldn't include non-Republicans, if they can't vote, they shouldn't be polled. I like Ron Paul, but he just doesn't have the numbers.
            • In many primary states, non-Republicans can vote in the Republican primary. Independents can vote in New Hampshire, and Ron Paul's coming in 4th with 9% according to this poll: http://news.finditt.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=29678&cat=5 [finditt.com]

              I personally believe that he'll get over 9% of the vote in NH, precisely because of new voters, independents, and the fact that RP supporters will have a higher turnout than other candidates' supporters.
            • Barack Obama had the most number of donors up to 4th Quarter [opensecrets.org] (65916).

              Ron Paul has an estimated number of unique donors [ronpaulgraphs.com] clocking at 94,359 JUST for 4th quarter.

              Whatever metric you want to use to equate donations = votes then so be it.

              Now, whatever number you come up with and you base that on 2000 primary voting numbers [fec.gov], that number should equal an average of 200,000 per state for a #1 spot or 50,000 to place by 3rd.
              If he gets first in NH or Iowa, it will be hard to keep his message quiet.

          • Analysts believe he could come in at least 3rd in Iowa and NH.


            "Well, yeah, he'll lose badly, but it won't be *that* awful."

            Chris Mattern

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Xtravar (725372)

              If he makes a strong showing, it would signal to the Republicans that a change in national strategy is necessary to prevent further fracture.

              Republicans are already stealing some of his rhetoric. Example: Giuliani's talk on abortion, Huckabee's talk on eliminating the IRS, etc.

              But from where I sit, Ron Paul and his supporters look more like Ross Perot and his supporters. A large enough bloc to throw the election away from the main alternative candidate (Romney) and toss the balance to a sure National loser (Guiliani).

              Republicans like to complain about Ross Perot, but he stole just as much from the Democrats as he did the Republicans. It's these "fringe" candidates that get the apathetic and disaffected voters out. And you know what? If Republicans feel like this is a real threat, they should vote for Ron Paul since he actually has a chance of beating Democrats. All of the other

              • "Exactly, the Republicans lose no matter who they pick. Their only chance of winning is by picking Ron Paul. Not only will he take away Democratic voters, but he'll force the Democrats to go insanely liberal."

                I dunno...I think Hillary still has such a negative factor about her, that if the Dem's pick her, they very well may lose. If they pick Obama, I think it will be an interesting fight that they just may win!

                I wish the opening primaries would move randomly around the country rather than starting in Io

        • The Zogby poll has him at 7% in NH but John Zogby himself has said that Ron Paul may get 15-17% [zogby.com]. The polls seem to be off, way off. People have said in past elections that the polls would be off (citing cell phones among other reasons), and it never panned out. In my opinion, this is the year it becomes plainly obvious that the poll numbers don't reflect reality.

          It's unfortunate that a candidate's chances can be discounted based on bad polls. One wonders how much better Ron Paul would be doing if the po

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Ucklak (755284)
          It's kind of hard to place in a poll if the candidate isn't on the list to place. 5% for not even existing is pretty damn cool.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPpCvF7N3Vg [youtube.com]

          Straw polls also tell a different story
          http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/ [ronpaul2008.com]

          And then you might want ask yourself it the officials (as well as the Main Stream Media/Corporate Controlled Media) have ulterior motives to censor Ron Paul:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiM10StfyBA [youtube.com]

          And what about CNN on the NAFTA / NAU superhighway that se
    • I do both for Ron Paul. I participate in the MeetUp events in my area which range from hanging signs to passing out materials at targeted events. I also contribute by canvassing on the weekend door to door. I do not think it is the most effective method of winning primary voters, but that is not really the only point of canvassing. Canvassing may not help in votes as much as a personal conversation at an event might, but it helps increase name recognition which is just as important to the campaign at this t

    • While the Dean campaign showed how grassroots support for a candidate can really bring a lot to the table
      It mostly showed that a candidate can be made unelectable by simply airing over and over, on all major media outlets, footage of him being enthusiastic about the voting process.
  • I know in a campaign one would like to have strict control of the narrative for ones candidate. How have you coped with the ability of the web to completely take that control out of your hands? When information, and misinformation, spreads like wildfire almost instantly, how is a political campaign to respond? Could you give any insights on specific examples, what worked and didn't work? I figure the Howard Dean "scream" incident must have been quite an experience.
  • Since the web makes organization and dissemination easier and less costly, do you think that online campaining could break the hold on political power of the two party system? Or, do you think it becomes just another mode of control for the big two (R) and (D)? What are your thoughts on how online campaining affects the party system?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The ballot is where the rubber meets the road of the 2-party duopoly. The 2 parties write the rules in the states that act to preserve the status quo and create barriers to entry for any 3rd-parties. I doubt the changes that the internet may bring will change this.

  • Learning and using (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Monday December 10 2007, @12:27PM (#21644171) Journal
    They say that continued exposure to a subject will eventually cause a person to understand it. Several tightly related questions (IMO) regarding politicians, campaigns, and the Internet:

    1 - From your vantage point, do you believe that more use of the Internet in political campaigns will slowly cause the skill and knowledge about using the Internet to be more widespread in legislative circles? Will politicians knowledge of the Internet be more skilled than their knowledge of mainstream media: something to be used and abused for political ends?

    2 - Do you see the candidates treatment of the Internet changing? Do you believe that they will continue to create bad laws, and laws that are not aligned with the best interests of the Internet as a whole, and US Internet users in specific.

  • Unity08 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cerberus7 (66071) on Monday December 10 2007, @12:31PM (#21644261)
    What do you think of Unity08? Is this the kind of thing that can really change America, or is it too far removed from typical Americans to be effective? Does it need to cross-over with conventional media?

  • Not so mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Notquitecajun (1073646) on Monday December 10 2007, @12:34PM (#21644295)
    I won't be so mean on this version of the question...

    How do you determine if you have the votes, and your candidate isn't mostly hype without the vote potential (Dean in '04 and Paul in '08)? How do you turn it into real votes?
  • I'll keep it short

    • Botnets - A legitimate campaign service, or political suicide?
    • Spam - The political marketing machine of the future, or illegal?
    • Digg - Legitimate marketing tool, or noise?
    • Online Polls - Rigged, or reflection on reality?
    • The Media (aka "them") - Fair and balanced, or vast conspiracy to terrified to publish minority canidates?
    • Coffee - Do you take cream and sugar with that?
  • Some people are aware of the Ron Paul Blimp [ronpaulblimp.com] campaign, a newsworthy piece that is getting some decent coverage in the Old Media. The reason behind that coverage is due to the fact that it may be one of the first large-scale attempts to get around the ridiculous (and in my opinion, contrary to the First Amendment) regulations and restrictions that the Federal Election Commission puts on organizations that promote a candidate outside of their actual campaign expenditures and advertising.

    I'm a fan of the Ron Paul Blimp beyond my support of that candidate's message, because I hate the FEC with a passion. While I think that this particular organization will skate past the FEC for the current election, I wonder what sort of future regulations and restrictions the FEC will find to cover these outlays of cash by "sponsors/advertisers" who are obviously plugging a campaign through a loophole.

    If you consider one aspect of online advertising and promotion: the fact that websites don't die and tend to stay around as long as the domain name is paid for and the web hosting costs are covered, I wonder if the FEC will pass new regulations to try to cover any sort of advertising for a candidate as a process within the FEC's domain of control.

    If that is the case, it could have very negative consequences. Someone who promotes a candidate today, before any new regulations, may find themselves breaking a future rule because the site they created will still exist. Imagine making a website, or a blimp, or even a banner ad, promoting a candidate in 2007, only to see new FEC regulations pop up in 2008 that make that advertisement regulated and therefor illegal after the regulation. Because the website still exists, and because the candidate may run again in a future election, it will put an undue burden on people who may have to go back, edit a blog, remove a forum post, or find all the places their banner ad or product has been promoted through.

    The gist of my question can be read as follows: Do you feel that it is time for the FEC to expand its reach of regulatory powers to the privately-funded advertising and promotional market?

  • How can we help? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daniel_Staal (609844) <DStaal@usa.net> on Monday December 10 2007, @12:42PM (#21644457)
    Ok, I live in the D.C. area, and am open to changing jobs. I can easily see that politicians know very little about technology, and I have been told I'm good at explaining things. Given all that, how can I help? Who is trying to explain technology to the politicians in a good way so that they will be able to make good laws?
  • From the Washington Post article

    As a nation, we wouldn't tolerate such ignorance about any other area of policymaking. Would we be amused if it came out that Joe Biden, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wasn't clear about the difference between Shiites and Sunnis or couldn't find Sudan on a map? How about if Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate banking committee, wasn't entirely sure what the term "subprime mortgage" meant?

    But they are that ignorant, and we do tolerate it.

    Some journal

    • Some journalist (Michael Moore?)
      This statement along with the title "Ignorance in politics" is irony at its finest.
      • Michael Moore speaks truth to power. He asked politicians in 2002 what was in the Patriot act. Guess what: those who voted for it didn't even know. And guess what, 2nd edition: the newspapers "of record" (NYT, WP ...) didn't even bother asking.
        So it takes a loud, fat guy with a camera crew to ask the real questions, since the "professional" journalists are too busy sucking up on junket trips.
  • After watching the Iraq fiasco, it is fair to say our government is not being governed by anything vaguely resembling knowledge and education.

  • Politics and First Amendment Issues Online (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FBodyJim (1136589) on Monday December 10 2007, @02:29PM (#21646007) Homepage Journal
    Mr. Graff - what do you make of stories such as NJ Blogger Fights for Anonymous Free Speech [slashdot.org]? As a well-known blogger in the political arena, do you have any opinions on the "rights" of bloggers who wish to remain anonymous, especially when it comes to political knowledge and opinions? What do you think the future holds for bloggers who chose to publish as either anonymous, or with their real name, in terms of any professional, political or personal lashback?
    • As a well-known blogger in the political arena, do you have any opinions on the "rights" of bloggers who wish to remain anonymous, especially when it comes to political knowledge and opinions?

      And would that right of anonymity extend to politicians and their assistants if they just created blogs to promote themselves?

      What if those 'anonymous' blogs spread misinformation, or even outright lied?

      Does a politicians right to free speech give him the right to create an army of sock-puppets to say what he wants whi

  • Campaign Fundraising (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RobBebop (947356) on Monday December 10 2007, @02:38PM (#21646139) Homepage Journal

    I am curious about the economic aspects of conducting a campaign. The conventional wisdom is that you need to raise millions of dollars so you can fly around in jets, stay in hotels, fund TV ads, and generally spread the word about your candidacy so as many people as possible get your message.

    With the internet, there are many free avenues of spreading your message through websites and other services. Is it feasible to use Google services such as YouTube and Blogger to conduct a campaign? It seems that no Presidential candidate could succeed from internet ads alone, but would such a feat be manageable on the congressional level? What are some good and bad examples of candidates who have conducted internet campaigns to reduce costs of campaigning?

  • Only reaching the converted? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by micheas (231635) on Monday December 10 2007, @02:59PM (#21646431) Homepage Journal
    I have been very involved in San Francisco Bay Area politics and watched the Dean campaign with an amount of amazement. The Dean campaign raised an amazing amount of money in very small amounts. They had a huge number of Identified Supporters(ID's in campaign jargon). They failed to get people to the polls in a way that was shocking.

    Would you concur that new media is almost exclusively reaching the converted? Thus the "web 2.0" applications that are going to have the big impact are the web based CRMs rather than blogger and youtube?

  • Thoughts if you are thinking of working for a campaign, web wise.

    You, or the web dev company you work for must lead the campaign online strategy, otherwise you're in a world of pain and Kafka'esqe insanity.

    I used to work with a small political web dev firm located near the Capitol in DC. We did sites for political campaigns and the official sites for members of Congress.

    Make sure you use a reputable firm with a decent account management staff, they help keep the political staffers at bay. While I am a

      • Just look at how well the Dean campaign turned out.

        Before the 2004 election, I hadn't ever heard of Howard Dean, and now he's Chairman of the DNC. His 50-state strategy [wikipedia.org], as opposed to the DNC's previous strategy of only targeting swing states seems like a very well-advised plan for reforming the Democratic party from the ground up and has so far yielded good results for the Democrats (as seen in the 2006 elections). So despite not winning the 2000 election, his campaign undeniably paved the way to his cur

        • Dean's 50-state strategy still has little buy-in from the rest of the party leadership. The 2006 results were a function of Bush's historically abysmal approval generally and the Iraq War specifically. Correlation != causation.

          Also, being chair of the DNC with generally minimal support from the main stream of your party is a "position of power" on the level of deputy national press secretary.
      • While these two idiots are obvious, self-avowed trolls, this Graff guy's credentials as an "expert" are hilariously thin. Washingtonian is a society magazine dedicated to photo spreads from the DC social circuit. It is merely a part of the self-promotional socialite feedback loop and their political "coverage" is a complete joke. And being deputy press secretary for a campaign that doesn't get past the primary stage isn't very impressive either. You can bandy about terms like "web campaigns," "netroots

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.