Slashdot Log In
Political Expert Garrett M. Graff Answers Your Questions
Posted by
Roblimo
on Mon Dec 17, 2007 02:24 PM
from the how-to-win-friends-on-the-internet-and-get-elected-to-high-office dept.
from the how-to-win-friends-on-the-internet-and-get-elected-to-high-office dept.
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.
1) I'm a blogger! (Score:5, Interesting)
by ShakaUVM (157947)
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?
Garrett:
Although there was initial reluctance to let me into the White House press briefings in March 2005, ever since the precedent was established the White House has actually been pretty open about letting bloggers in. The White House Correspondents Association, the group that represents the press corps (and throws the huge party each spring that last year got Stephen Colbert in so much trouble), argued successfully in my case that there shouldn't be an arbiter who decides who is a "legitimate" blogger and who isn't. They didn't want to take on that responsibility and neither did the White House press operation, then run by Scott McClellan.
Bloggers can apply for what is known as a "day pass" that lets you enter the White House press room for a single day by supplying your birthday and Social Security Number so they can run a brief criminal background check. The rules basically stand today that they'll let anyone in once -- and as long as you're respectful and not disruptive, you can continue to be let in on a day-by-day basis. The challenge, of course, is getting in the second time. Overall, it's actually a relatively liberal policy -- it's harder to get into places like Congress or the State Department as a blogger.
2) How important is the Internet in all this? (Score:5, Interesting)
by BadAnalogyGuy (945258)
While the Dean campaign showed how grassroots support for a candidate can really bring a lot to the table, 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?
Garrett:
What's incredible about the Ron Paul campaign is just how much energy and enthusiasm is being generated by his supporters absent any real support from the campaign. The campaign has itself very little in the way of infrastructure -- I was reading an article last week about how the Paul campaign office in New Hampshire was just getting phones installed. I think it's a good lesson that there's only so much you can do on the grassroots-level if there's not a robust campaign organization to help push the message along. You need to have both halves to make a successful campaign -- the best-run campaign infrastructure and the sexiest suite of web tools won't do much good without passionate support from engaged voters and likewise the most passionate and engaged supporters can't save a campaign without a well-run infrastructure.
If you're going to get involved in a campaign, go where you personally do the most good -- whether that's press, field (knocking on doors), or the internet team. There's always a shortage of talented techies on campaigns, especially people who know how to run good databases.
3) Difficulties of Info Control (Score:5, Interesting)
by explosivejared (1186049)
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.
Garrett:
This is probably the biggest single sea change underway in politics today. It used to be very difficult for a single individual to influence the campaign beyond his or her own neighborhood. Now, though, anyone anywhere can create content (videos/emails/blogs/etc.) and post it online for the world to see. We saw this most effectively in 2004 with the Swift Boating of John Kerry.
Mitt Romney's been pretty good about insta-response: His campaign will post a video of Romney himself responding to an attack or misinformation with six to eight hours of an attack going up. That shows it's the candidate himself involved and rebutting something, not just some random flack, and it's quick enough that it can arrest the spread of the attack.
The other way is to just get better at telling your own story: The ParkRidge47 Apple 1984 parody ad attacking Hillary Clinton early this year was an important wake-up call to the Clinton campaign that they needed to step up their efforts on the web. Since then, the Clinton campaign has been putting out better and better "viral" videos to help drive the discussion online.
4) Avoiding the FEC and long-term implications (Score:5, Interesting)
by dada21 (163177)
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?
Garrett:
Great question! I actually talk about the FEC and the web in my book, "The First Campaign," because I think that the FEC's approach to politics today is fundamental broken and ineffective. Most of the policies are in place to prevent single rich individuals or massive corporations from unduly influencing the election, because there's never been a way for regular individuals/voters to get involved on their own. So much of what we see today is grassroots-driven, just like the blimp, and just the type of activity that should be supported and encouraged by the FEC -- these are regular people getting involved and trying to move the political conversation. The FEC sort of doesn't know how to handle that or how the government should limit and prosecute infractions at that level.
The larger challenge, of course, is that it takes so long to act. You can spend millions to illegally influence ithe vote and then a couple of years later, after a thorough and lengthy investigation, the FEC slaps you with a fine -- but of course the damage is already done.
We need to reinvent the FEC for the internet age, top to bottom.
5) Politics and First Amendment Issues Online (Score:3, Interesting)
by FBodyJim (1136589)
Mr. Graff - what do you make of stories such as NJ Blogger Fights for Anonymous Free Speech? 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?
Garrett:
There's a proud legacy of anonymous writing in U.S. politics dating all the way back to the Federalist Papers. Much of Ben Franklin's writing was actually done anonymously in pamphlets and newspaper columns. It wasn't much easier for them then. I think there's just a general uncomfortableness with anonymity. I'm a firm believer that people should be able to stay anonymous if they so desire but that our society will always view it with some suspicion -- the challenge is that the internet makes it soooo much easier to be anonymous if you want to be. That's a boon for people overseas in oppressed regimes or here at home facing possible persecution, but they should be prepared to be treated a little differently. Of course, what's amusing is that you now have bloggers who are so well known by their pseudonyms (Atrios) that people barely recognize them by their real names (Duncan Black).
6) The Effect on the Party System (Score:5, Interesting)
by explosivejared (1186049)
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?
Garrett:
Just like in publishing, the web hugely lowers the barriers of entry to the political system. I definitely think that the web will help power third party candidacies in the future. The established parties will always have an advantage because they get to build their fundraising lists and email databases cycle upon cycle, adding to them for years. As people in business know too, owning the data is half the battle.
See my next question/answer below for some more.
7) Unity08 (Score:3, Interesting)
by Cerberus7 (66071)
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?
Garrett:
As in my answer above, I think that the web will be a huge leap forward for third-party candidacies, but I'm not sure Unity08 is that movement yet -- it certainly could be if a candidate like Michael Bloomberg picks up the Unity08 ticket and has the money to spend himself on the campaign. There are two major advantages the two major parties have over third parties: One is ballot access and the other is a fundraising network. The web makes both of those easier to access for individuals, but it will still require a broad national grassroots network to accomplish anything on the national level.
I imagine we'll start to see candidates win on the local level using a third party and the internet first, and then over a couple of election cycles that'll get higher and higher up the ballot until there's a viable third party candidate for president.
8) Campaign Fundraising (Score:3, Interesting)
by RobBebop (947356)
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?
Garrett:
You're absolutely right that the web will make campaigning cheaper in the long run, but I don't think we're there yet. Candidates haven't yet been won over to web advertising and YouTube as a cheap(er) campaign toolbox, but I think that we'll begin to see that among lower races first. Some candidates on the local level are finding that organizing social networking sites and building strong email lists can be as effective as running expensive direct mail campaigns.
The challenge is that much of electioneering is a name recognition battle -- television ads, standing on street corners, bumper stickers -- and that the web hasn't yet proven to be a solid way of building broad name recognition. There's also the important category of "earned media," which are the staged events you get the media to cover to give you free advertising, and that a ton of people still watch their local news shows.
9) Only reaching the converted? (Score:3, Insightful)
by micheas (231635)
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?
Garrett:
I would have agreed with you in past cycles but there's just too much of life moving online right now for web politics to escape that many people. I do think, as you point out, that we're in the early stages of understanding this transformation to "micro-targeting," which the Bush campaign used so well in 2004 to get individually-tailored messages to specific groups of people, and so a good database and thoughtful collection of personal data will allow a huge amount of new breakthroughs in campaigning.
10) How can we help? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Daniel_Staal (609844)
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?
Garrett:
In my book, I focus in a couple of sections on Andrew Rasiej, who is, I think, one of the real thought-leaders on getting the internet into government. He ran for office in New York in 2004 on a platform of citywide wireless and he's pushing for the establishment of a national Tech Corps that would operate like the National Guard -- go in to disaster regions and help rebuild the IT infrastructure, from wireless networks to information recovery. He makes the point that we have plenty of people to fill sandbags or evacuate people in the event of a disaster like Hurricane Katrina, but we don't have anyone who can go in the day after and make sure that the communications system works.
He's also a big driving force behind the Sunlight Foundation, which is using the web to boost transparency throughout government. They're doing fun stuff with mash-ups and with their Punch Card campaign, which is getting members of Congress to post their daily schedules online -- their philosophy: If we're paying the salaries, we have a right to know how our congressmen and women are using their time. There's so much more that could be done to make policy and government more open and accessible to the public.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: NJ Blogger Fights for Anonymous Free Speech 406 comments
Ponca City, We Love You writes "A New Jersey blogger is fighting for his right to blog anonymously and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has asked a Superior Court judge in New Jersey to preserve the blogger's free speech rights as he faces legal threats from local government officials. On June 13, 2007, the New Jersey Township of Manalapan filed a malpractice suit against its former attorney Stuart Moskovitz, alleging misconduct regarding the Township's purchase of polluted land in 2005. The decision to file suit was met by a lively debate in the regional press and among local bloggers. One blogger who was particularly critical of the Township was datruthsquad. Attorneys for the Township issued a subpoena to Google demanding that the identity of this anonymous critic be turned over, along with datruthsquad's contact information, blog drafts, e-mails, and 'any and all information related to the blog.' Despite repeated requests from EFF to explain how this could be anything other than an attempt to out a vocal critic, attorneys for the Township have refused to withdraw the subpoena and informed EFF that it can go to court to object to the subpoena. In a motion to quash the subpoena, EFF has asked the court to block the township [PDF] in its attempt to uncover the identity of 'daTruthSquad' and allow the blogger to continue to write about this or any other issue without being forced to identity him or herself."
[+]
Ask an Expert About Online Political Campaigning 152 comments
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!
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The inside source (Score:2)
Would an anlysis over US history (Score:4, Interesting)
Or does it just seem that the Big Two are increasingly spending more time on emotional, rather than intellectual appeals?
If I recall my US history correctly... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In recent US history, I'd attribute a great deal of it, to the general 'dumbing down' of America. Our schools are an abject failure, and we are now teaching to the lowest common denominator.
We have now, at least a couple of g
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My question for Garrett... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My question for Garrett... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Slashdot has been pretty much ignoring *all* the candidates. Neither RuPaul nor Ron Paul are getting treated differently by Slashdot than Barack Huckabee, Hillary McCain, Mitt Edwards or any of the others.
Why does Slashdot have a Politics section if it's not going to cover newsworthy political events? I'm not looking for Slashdot to cover everything about every candidate, but a candidate breaking a fundraising record by using the internet SHOULD be pretty big news for nerds, and given that it's for a presidential campaign, it is stuff that matters. I think it would be equally as newsworthy if any other candidate had done it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't think the main political issues currently in play are relevant to the tech world?
I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul's and I don't blame Slashdot for wanting to avoid pushing one candidate over another at this time, but please don't make the huge mistake of thinking that the issues that you would put in the category of "politics" do not directly affect the readers of Slashdot.
It's long p
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait - that blog is targeting socialists and communists who want more of the same shit in the US government. I get it now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I believe in a socialized health care system, why? Because it is cheaper, more effective, and more accessible then a privatized corporate health care system. But that doesn't mean I want the government to control every aspect of my health.
And many of his other issues I feel similarly on.
ha right (Score:2, Funny)
Well if he has a girlfriend he can't be a long-time Slashdot reader. You have been caught in your web of lies.
Most Insightful Thing He Said (Score:4, Insightful)
This was the highlight of his responses my opinion. We've had to work so long at keeping organization to a minimum to stave off political machines that we've put a load of barriers in front of campaign independent supporters. The inevitable new changes in regulation relating to web based campaigning that come about are gonna make or break the web as a campaign platform. It opens up all sorts of new avenues for activists to work independently of big campaigns, but it also opens up all new sorts of vectors for disinformation and other underhanded tricks from centralized campaigns. We have to strike a balance, we have to defend grass-roots, but at the same time do our best to prevent astro-turfing. It's going to be tricky, because there is so much potential for political change.
All in all I was satisfied with the interview. I was hoping for a little more in depth response to my questions, but hopefully he can add some things in this discusson.
Colbert in trouble? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stephen Colbert got in trouble for that? Have I been mistakenly thinking that it was a big PR win for him? His name suddenly started popping up all over, in places he'd never been mentioned before. I can't count how many times I've heard echoes of is "You know; fiction" quip since then.
So what sort of trouble did this cause for him? He's not going to be invited back to the White House? Yeah, I bet he'd be really sorry if that happened.
And it might be just coincidence, but it seemed that the next day, the MSM (MainStream Media) was suddenly not acting so cowed as they've been the last few years. Within weeks, they got the idea that he'd gotten away with it, and maybe they could, too.
It's really hard to get a professional comedian in serious trouble for doing a stand-up routine. It's especially hard to attack a professional satirist for doing stand-up satire in front of the crowd that's the subject of the satire. They knew who he was when they invited him, after all, and they invited him so he would do his comedic job on the White House press.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's especially hard to attack a professional satirist for doing stand-up satire in front of the crowd that's the subject of the satire. They knew who he was when they invited him, after all, and they invited him so he would do his comedic job on the White House press.
Except he didn't just go after the press...
It took a real pair of brass balls to go after the President. Even people who think Colbert is teh bestest evar felt that he was pushing the limit if not crossing the line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't a big fan before, but I admire the hell out of him for what he said.
Costs and Budgets. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd love to see that question asked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ender? Ender? (Score:2, Funny)
Punch cards? I want version control! (Score:3, Interesting)
I have this fantasy where the text of all the bills is in CVS,
with anonymous access for everyone,
and commit access for elected legislators only.
Something like
http://cvs.house.gov/ [house.gov]
http://cvs.senate.gov/ [senate.gov]
and only a checked-in version of a bill can be voted on.
Like I said, a fantasy...
Don't Push Poll Me Asshole. (Score:5, Interesting)
You want to be like the talking heads on the Mainstream Media Cartel and tell me how well my campaign for Freedom and Liberty is going?
Dr. Paul's campaign is not his movement, it is the people's.
People who are pushing the message that Ron Paul for president is floundering is the Mainstream Media Cartel who has been carrying on a virtual blackout of Dr. Paul and his supporters. Go on youtube there are several pieces of video evidence of the way that CNN/FOX cut out his supporters from shots and have been saying for a year that he is a fringe wacko with no chance of winning.
Blackout in the MMC (Mainstream Media Cartel)
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1216 [truthnews.us]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZNlXSn_vC8 [youtube.com]
Censorship in the phone polls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk84LTF10OY&NR=1 [youtube.com]
Interview that are not going to be aired:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz80H5Su8AA [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSCinLRyiXU [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHTR-ESznhE [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc2zHUEvWWY [youtube.com]
Thousands come out to hear the message of Freedom:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oCma8WJJjOo [youtube.com]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yxGq1mXByJs [youtube.com]
He is the current straw poll leader:
http://www.usastrawpolls.com/articles/2008/ron-paul-straw-poll-leader-121107001.html [usastrawpolls.com]
His supporters broke the record [thisnovember5th.com] for most money raised in one day for a primary campaign last month (except for Kerry who raised 5.7mil the day he won the primary so in effect had backing of the whole party.) Then they broke it again [teaparty07.com] this month even surpassing Kerry.
There is a reason he is being blacked out by the Media Cartel. Ever wonder why you flip channels from Fox to CNN and you hear different people spewing the same shit down to the details of the talking points?
Ever wonder why there are so many shows dedicated to telling you what to think instead of presenting you the options? Just watch what they say and really pay attention. Ever wonder why they love the new response graphs that Fox has been putting up taking up half the screen on recent debates? Ask yourself these questions and then ask your own.
Then maybe someday people will be ready to wake themselves up [zeitgeistmovie.com] from the coma they've been subverted into and readily accepted. The day of reckoning is coming [youtube.com]. Freedom is not a passive exercise you can delegate to others. The founding fathers [wikipedia.org] knew this.
FreeMe.tv [freeme.tv] to get to know Dr. Paul.