How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics

Obama FacebookThe Obama campaign’s use of the Internet has been cited as playing a large role in upending how presidential races are fought. (Credit: Peter Wynn Thompson for The New York Times)

One of the many ways that the election of Barack Obama as president has echoed that of John F. Kennedy is his use of a new medium that will forever change politics. For Mr. Kennedy, it was television. For Mr. Obama, it is the Internet.

“Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee,” said Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of The Huffington Post.

She spoke Friday about how politics and Web 2.0 intersect on a panel with Joe Trippi, a political consultant, and Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco. (Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich had been invited to balance out the left-leaning panel, but declined, according to John Battelle, a chair of the conference.)

Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign -– which was run by Mr. Trippi –- was groundbreaking in its use of the Internet to raise small amounts of money from hundreds of thousands of people. But by using interactive Web 2.0 tools, Mr. Obama’s campaign changed the way politicians organize supporters, advertise to voters, defend against attacks and communicate with constituents.

Mr. Obama used the Internet to organize his supporters in a way that would have in the past required an army of volunteers and paid organizers on the ground, Mr. Trippi said.

“The tools changed between 2004 and 2008. Barack Obama won every single caucus state that matters, and he did it because of those tools, because he was able to move thousands of people to organize.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign took advantage of YouTube for free advertising. Mr. Trippi argued that those videos were more effective than television ads because viewers chose to watch them or received them from a friend instead of having their television shows interrupted.

“The campaign’s official stuff they created for YouTube was watched for 14.5 million hours,” Mr. Trippi said. “To buy 14.5 million hours on broadcast TV is $47 million.”

There has also been a sea change in fact-checking, with citizens using the Internet to find past speeches that prove a politician wrong and then using the Web to alert their fellow citizens.

The John McCain campaign, for example, originally said that Governor Sarah Palin opposed the so-called bridge to nowhere in Alaska, Ms. Huffington said. “Online there was an absolutely obsessive campaign to prove that wrong,” she said, and eventually the campaign stopped repeating it.

“In 2004, trust me, they would have gone on repeating it, because the echo chamber would not have been as facile,” Ms. Huffington said.

The Internet also let people repeatedly listen to the candidates’ own words in the face of attacks, Mr. Huffington said. As Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary words kept surfacing, people could re-watch Mr. Obama’s speech on race. To date, 6.7 million people have watched the 37-minute speech on YouTube.

The Internet also changes the way politicians govern. Mr. Newsom learned that last year when he ran for re-election. He showed up at a rally and didn’t see the usual crowd. His aides told him the audience was made up of his Facebook friends. “I said, ‘What’s Facebook?’” Mr. Newsom recalled.

These days, Mr. Newsom is “obsessed with Facebook.” It strengthens his connection with his constituents and their connection with the causes they care about, he said.

The constant exposure can, of course, turn against politicians.

Ms. Huffington’s “off the bus” team of 10,000 citizen journalists caught candidates saying things that embarrassed them later, like Mr. Obama’s “guns and religion” remark. Now, she said, “there is no off-the-record fund-raiser.”

Mr. Newsom says he is fearful of the constant need to watch his tongue. “I have to watch myself singing, ‘I left my heart in San Francisco’ on YouTube and it can’t go away. I am desperate to get it to go away,” he said dryly.

“There will be a lot of collateral damage coming to grips with the fact that we’re in a reality TV series, ‘Politics 24/7,’” Mr. Newsom said.

That’s a good thing, Mr. Trippi said. “This medium demands authenticity, and television for the most part demanded fake. Authenticity is something politicians haven’t been used to.”

He predicted that this real-time Internet contact with constituents will also change the way the president of the United States governs. He recently proposed that Mr. Obama start a Web site called MyWhiteHouse.gov to talk with citizens. (Mr. Obama just started a different site, Change.gov, on Thursday to keep in touch with people during the transition.)

“When Congress refuses to go with his agenda, it’s not going to be just the president” they oppose, Mr. Trippi said. It will be the president and his huge virtual network of citizens.

“Just like Kennedy brought in the television presidency, I think we’re about to see the first wired, connected, networked presidency,” Mr. Trippi said.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Finally government of the people not just the political people.

Way back in 1973 when the Internet was invented by by American computer scientist Vinton Cerf as part of a project sponsored by the United States Defense Department (ARPA) he would have never imagined that it would become a tool for ‘soci-political’ revolution in the country.

One may even call the new administration of Obama,as a Government of the internet(netdriven polling),by the internet and for the internet(e-governance)

The ability of Obama to raise massive amounts of cash without having to spend wasteful time fundraising was key to his 50 state strategy. The next revolution is the ability of local politicians to get nationwide support from members of their own party – just as Tinklenberg got when he almost defeated Michelle Bachman in Minn. A lot of people with $20 to $50 to give can be a very powerful thing.

that cool.
keep it up obama.

Just read where David Axelrod will be a senior advisor to Obama in the White House, with access to Obama at any time. It was on the BBC news website.

And so the Wizard of Oz story continues, with Axelrod the man behind the Obama curtain, who should NOT be ignored.

Don’t mistakenly assume the Internet will be ‘interactive’ with allthingsbarack dot com. The ‘communication’ will continue to be one-way, Obama to America, as in adaptive propaganda. The social impact will be like untreated creeping ick on tropical fish.

The only saving grace will be that those convinced by Dr. Frankenstein (Axelrod) that their self-image, -esteem, and -worth are barack-enhanced will be the first to turn on Obama, when post-election governing reality sets in, and the real Obama cannot fulfull all the hopes, dreams, and ambitions invited onto him via the nebulous ‘Yes We Can’.

The way Obama and his team used the Internet is unprecedented in the presidential elections. Internet was sure more than a marketing tool for them. David Talbot of Technology Review wrote an article a couple of months ago and it is a good read.

What is Obama’s team going to do with all that data is a good question. As a president the way that you would collect and use the data will be different. Change.gov is put together really well.

Collagist.com

This article is a concise and clear summation of the brilliant use of the Internet and technology strategies by the Obama campaign.

I have been studying Presidential election campaigns since Nixon v. Humphrey in 1968…

And THIS Obama campaign is, by at least a factor of two, the single most modern, most disciplined, and most organized campaign I have ever studied.

Extraordinary – and it bodes well for his coming Presidency!

I have been studying Presidential election campaigns since Nixon v. Humphrey in 1968…

And THIS Obama campaign is, by at least a factor of TWO, the single most modern, most disciplined, and most organized campaign I have ever studied.

Extraordinary – and it bodes well for his coming Presidency!

I think that Barack Obama used what was available to him and didn’t harm anyone by advertising through You Tube. I believe he set a great example on how to save money and keep a tight budget since the unemployment rate is getting lower in the U.S. He is also keeping up to date since almost everything everyone does is through the internet. The Internet does not affect how a politician governs. I think this is just an excuse to explain other peoples ways of governing. I think people should just accept the fact that Barack Obama won his presidency fair and square, and it was because his supporters believed in him and he did a better job in persuading he can do a lot more for his country than any of the other candidates.

What Gov’t agency is in charge of the .gov web address? My assumption is that this site could be nixed by the president if he wanted. He must really want to get out of Washington!

At the beginning of this week, the Columbia Journalism Review published a very interesting story examining differences between Obama’s and McCain’s Internet strategies.
//www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/blogged_down_in_the_past.php

One of the things I noticed early on in the Democratic race was that Obama had an evident stronger support than Mrs. Clinton on the Internet. It was farily common that positive Obama stories as well as negative Clinton stories were thrust to the front page of Digg.com, and not the other way around. This headstart was very important because it offered social proof to the uninformed.

Obama’s Internet campaign is worthy of being documented, analyzed and commented.

So I would like to ask the editors and readers of this fine news service that if they know of any book in print, or report that shows a view from the inside of the campaign, to let us know about it. I bet there are many thirsty people out there.

My email is david.taboada at katalink.com and @DavidTaboada on twitter.

The use of the internet as a force for both social and political change can not be udnerestimated. As we forward over the next few years we may pause and wonder where ideas originate and howthe propagate. An overlooked, so far, pehomenaof this last campaign was the Ron Paul revolution. I have never seen anything like it. A coalition that spanned the entire spectrum of political thought. Stitched together via the internet and centered on the ideas of Dr.Paul. Remarkable! Will those idas move forward? I think so!

I loved participating on the internet by donating money to Barack Obama everytime the right wing nuts said some horrible terrible untrue thing about him. My friends and I e-mailed each other,and it gave us a sense of power and fun to donate every week 10.00,or 20.00, and one time 50.00.
By the way I’m a 66 yr old democrat and this is the first time i have donated money and volunteered in a political campaign. I haven’t been this excited and proud since John Kennedy.

the main reason obama’s campaign (and dean’s in 2004) were so successful in using the internet to accomplish so much was not b/c of anything their particular campaigns did. it was b/c of the nature of their supporters- white, young, educated, progressive, in cities across the country, like austin, san fransicko, boston, etc. you could’ve taken obama’s internet strategy and staffers and replaced them with hillary clinton’s and it wouldn’t have made her internet efforts any better. the republicans can’t successfully adopt the approach/tactics of obama’s internet campaign b/c their demographics are different- old, white, rural. This is the same reason why liberals can’t do talk radio – and don’t tell me air America, b/c it has been a big no ratings failure that declared bankruptcy and is backed by big money which keeps it afloat. Who listens to talk radio, where do they listen? People in cities who ride mass transit to work don’t listen to it- who lives in cities? Liberals. Who lives in suburbs/exurbs/rural areas? More conservative types who generally commute to work by car, allowing them the chance to listen to rush Limbaugh or sean hannity. So I’m tired of hearing about obama’s “revolutionary” internet strategy. There is/was no such strategy, other than a base of supporters who are more tech-savy than avg joe white guy.

Mybarackobama was a great breakthrough in its interactivity, but there are still software bugs that need to be worked out. For example, it was easy to report the results of phone calling, but almost impossible to report the results of canvassing. More needs to be done to eliminate some of the frustrations.

Breakthrough Internet campaign? That’s all fine and dandy, but Obama promised to not use public funding to get elected. And then…he did.

Again, like them all, anything to get elected.

Our country should make it illegal to use public funds to get elected. it’s bad news for America when you can get a whole mess of cash together and buy up air waves, webspace, banners, T-shirts, weblinks, popups, SNL shows, radio spots, photoshoots with Rolling Stone with public citizen money.

Candidates should be set to a cap on the top number they can get in cash.

When did we become a nation where image was everything? A long time ago…but now you can buy a whole lot more power it seems. “The man” is still green -always was.

“The campaign’s official stuff they created for YouTube was watched for 14.5 million hours,” Mr. Trippi said. “To buy 14.5 million hours on broadcast TV is $47 million.”

this is nonsense, because for those 14,5 million on broadcast tv you would reach more viewers, than just 1 per computer, and on the other hand it suggest 3$ an hour. maybe the nmber is good if you insert an average audience numbe,r but then the senstence is weird.

Great, now all those people who have nothing better to do then click on a digg button all day will be driving our political agenda.

“Breakthrough Internet campaign? That’s all fine and dandy, but Obama promised to not use public funding to get elected. And then…he did.”

Actually Obama promised to use public funding, and then he did not… might want to do a little fact check on that one.

“Candidates should be set to a cap on the top number they can get in cash.”

So suppose that rule is adopted, and there is a cap. Suppose the cap is reached, and I want to support a candidate. So it would be illegal for me to give money to the already maxed-out candidate? That idea sniffs of being patently unconstitutional and unfair to me — it inhibits and closes off the open democratic process which we have.

Not to mention that it gives unequal preference to some voters over the others — i.e. those who donate money to the hypothetical candidate before the hypothetical fundraising cap is reached, as opposed to those not allowed to donate, just because of an arbitrary “cap.”

Unequal preferences = No good

Obama has shown that internet is really powerful!. The older people now have respect for the internet. OBSNetwork.com

Dario Montes de Oca December 2, 2008 · 6:51 am

It’s a brave new technological world…

If you’re not using the internet, you’re missing out on the evolution of mankind where millionaires are being made at the fastest pace than ever before in history.

Actually it was Eisenhower who brought in the Television presidency.

Most of intersting subject.The truth,after conecrn in that subject,I took it as final research in my final class of mass communication in universtity of baghdad.
Still trying to collect the raw materials to enter new level of writing the draft,than the final.
Hope who is intersed nd i would be apprecated to send any clue related to my e mail:hammadieci@yahoo.com
regards