I'm researching the evolving role of the internet in politics, specifically in the last presidential elections (focusing on moveon.org and Howard Dean's campaign) up to the present efforts of some of the 2008 hopefuls. As I continue to research contemporary online strategies, John Edwards has become a particularly interesting example of the web-saavy candidate. Ultimately, I'm looking at the increasingly complex nature of internet politicking and the growing population of campaign internet users to make some observations about the future role of the internet in (campaign) politics - looking forward to the 2008 election and beyond. Useful websites are: moveon.org and onecorps.com.

In chapter six, Jenkins discusses the role of popular culture in emerging political communities. Jenkins (as is the case throughout Convergence Culture) is focused on how old and new media interact and the dynamics of collaboration and participation. While Jenkins recognizes the scoff-factor when implying the concept of “photoshop for democracy” (user-generated images that often map themes from popular culture onto the political campaign) is any sort of substitute for real political activism, he insists that this kind of user-generated content and mass dispersion is a serious act of citizenry. In fact, using popular culture as a means of engaging voters might just be the most effective way of re-establishing interest in politics as a part of our everyday lives. Jenkins focuses on the 2004 election and recognizes that the next step is to think of “democratic citizenship as a lifestyle.” Furthermore, online political communities seem to be segregating voters, as opposed to encouraging dialogue across ideologies. Although he seems to offer popular culture as a kind of national balm for the ailments of political fragmentation, Jenkins recognizes the inherent limits of its role in (or applicability as a model for) contemporary political communities.

For me, the most useful parts of this argument is the attention he pays to the increasing participation of average Americans (now as monitorial citizens as opposed to informed citizens) in the media landscape and the possibilities for the integration of politics and popular culture. However, he doesn’t seem to offer any real solution for the acutely polarized political landscape.

This Pew Research Center Report states that twice as many Americans cited the internet as their primary source of political news and information for the 2006 midterm elections as opposed to the 2002 midterm election. One of the most useful tables in this report shows the percentages alloted to television, newspapers, radio, internet and magazines from 1992 to 2006, outlining the increasing presence of the internet while noting it still falls behind TV, newspapers and radio as a primary information source in 2006. 31% of Americans (totaling more than 60 million people) say they were online during the campaign season "gathering information and exchanging views via email" and the report calls this group "campaign internet users."

71% of campaign internet users cited convenience as a major reason they get political news online. On one hand, the highest percentage of campaign internet users are younger adults who seem to be the most flexible and eager adopters of new technology and internet activism. On the other hand, I wonder if the fundamental importance of convenience could (does) undermine the ability of cyber-activity to translate into voter turnout?

 

This article discusses Edwards' efforts to use new media to gain an edge in the 2008 elections. Formally announcing his candidacy via youtube, encouraging voters to text message their support, blogging through his own site www.onecorps.com, Edwards is, according to those quoted in the article, ahead of the online campaign curve. The article interestingly compares Edwards' approach to that of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Warner too utilized the online avenues but, according to Nancy Scola (former Hill staffer Howard Dean campaign volunteer) came across stiff and uneasy online. The implication here is that not only a campaign, but a particular type of personality, must be staged online to be effective. This leads me to wonder whether particular personalities translate across media - can Edwards mobilize his supporters outside of cyberspace? Although this report positively announces that twice as many Americans use the web as their primary source of news about the 2006 elections as they did in 2002, it seems to posit that the real political audience is still reached through TV. Concluding with a reference to Howard Dean, the article settles on the view that the Internet is an increasingly important medium, but still only one piece of the campaign puzzle, leaving us a bit unsure of the implications regarding Edwards' mastery of online tools. Ultimately, when it comes to presidential campaigns, does money still rule - or will the internet increasingly become THE most important piece of a candidate's strategy? In the future, could e-campaigns prove a democratizing force in the uneven playing-field of big-money politics?

Tim Wu talks with Neal Conan on NPR's Talk of the Nation about the possible ways presidential candidates might attempt to reach younger voters in the 2008 election. Wu speculates about candidates battling in virtual worlds (which may prove more "exciting" than real-life rallies, since you can actually blow things up). He talks about the increasing participation in virtual worlds like Second Life, but doesn't really contextualize the still relatively small virtual world population. Wu also speculates that it might become more acceptable for serious politicians to make cameo appearances on TV shows as a way of advertising their brand, i.e. themselves. Although he mentions Clinton, it might be useful to think about Gore's career since he left the White House. Appearances on Saturday Night Live and most recently the Oscars with his film An Inconvenient Truth have turned him into Hollywood's golden boy without detracting from (and if anything, increasing) his political clout. Will candidates still in office be able to garner popularity in this way - without worrying about their reputations as "serious" presidential candidates?

This clip is also useful because it imagines the possibilities for increased voter participation throughout the political process.

 

 

This chapter analyzes five cases of online politics, including the use of the internet by Bush and McCain in 2000, the phenomenon moveon.org, Web White and Blue and the “instant response meter” developed by Speakout.com. The moveon.org case study discusses the evolution of the wildly successful organization which proved to have a mobilizing capacity beyond all expectation. It summarizes its strategy of providing a voice for those unheard during the Clinton scandal as well as using the Internet to broaden the early donor pool. The article mentions in the last few sentences that there is no conservative counterpart to the MoveOn model, perhaps because “grassroots action works better in opposition – and the conservatives are in power.” I think this is a valid point and worth examining in relation to the Democratic takeover in the midterm elections although at the moment it seems too early for a conservative backlash.

As the chapter points out, Joan Blades and Wes Boyd (the founders of MoveOn) are not political candidates. They (in the vein of many environmentalists or human rights organizations responding to a specific problem) started their site/online petition as a reaction to the Clinton impeachment issue and grew to become a kind of brand of endorsement for selected democratic candidates. Also, they bundle donor choices to make sizable contributions to a slate of candidates. Would any one candidate be able to mobilize the kind of broad support this portal of the people harnessed?

Ch. 1: “Electronic Political Discussion”

This chapter offers an overview of various online communications, including electronic email lists, Usenet and blogs. Davis addresses the question of whether or not online discussions make any difference in political processes, institutions or societal behavior and ultimately decides that the prophesized utopia of direct democracy has not yet been achieved. The obstacles facing such restructuring include: inequality in the levels of accessibility and the fragmented nature of electronic political discussion. Even the more tempered notion of deliberative democracy faces hurdles - most notably human reliance on technological solutions.

This chapter is a helpful summary of current online discussion forums and briefly pulls apart the kind of Trippi-esque claims of revolution. I'm going to utilize the rest of this book in order to examine the broad claims of internet revolution which, in the case of much writing about the internet, seem devoid of factors like accessibility.

Michael Cornfield's Commentary summarizes the ways in which the internet has become an essential medium of American politics. Cornfield outlines five major innovations of the Howard Dean (Joe Trippi, manager) 2004 campaign: news-pegged fundraising appeals, net-organized local gatherings, blogging, online referenda, decentralized decision-making. Cornfield examines the different Deanian techniques that Kerry and Bush utilized in their campaigns - Kerry focused more on fund-raising while Bush concentrated on grass-roots mobilization. Cornfield ultimately concludes that the Democrats started too late and were not effectively organized.

In an effort to analyze the techniques utilized by the emerging 2008 candidates, this article is useful for historicizing Internet politicking. One of the most interesting comments is Cornfield's re-imagining the concept of an "activist" - who might soon include "people who do little more than what ten minutes a month at their computers enable them to do." Although Moveon.org got 500,000 people to sign the petition against impeaching President Clinton, the House ultimately voted for impeachment. The organization's real power seems to have come from fund-raising for candidates. Is online activism now (say online petitions or virtual marches) as effective (in terms of real-world effects in policy, etc.) as live-action grassroots efforts - or could it be in the future?

This article (as its title indicates) is focused on the internet aspect of the 2004 campaign and does not offer a well-rounded examination of other campaign factors.

 

This blog covers "how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the web, and vice versa," as well as looking at the effects of voter-generated content, social networking sites etc. For example, the attention paid to the number of friends a particular candidate has on a site like myspace is particularly interesting when thinking about the Howard Dean campaign and its inability to translate as an e-candidate to a real-time political contender. The contributers seem to represent a fairly broad political spectrum, and are ostensibly against "partisan" arguments. The bloggers include the Internet director of Dean's 2004 campaign and the e-campaign director for Bush-Cheney 2004.

This is my primary source of information for researching the ongoing efforts of the hopeful presidential nominees for the 2008 election.  In particular, I'm curious to compare John Edwards' efforts to those of Howard Dean and speculate a bit on whether or not popular e-candidates have a shot at competing against campaign giants (with massive campaign contributions) like Obama, Clinton, Guiliani and McCain.