| Main |

Dot-com Democrats

Presidential wannabes from Alaska to Connecticut are testing a new campaign theorem: All politics is social.

Following the trail blazed by Howard Dean in 2003, at least five of the nine would-be Democratic nominees are incorporating MySpace, Facebook (registration required) and other social networks into their campaigns. In fact, many are taking a shotgun approach to the Internet, posting links to an array of sites in the hope of spreading buzz about their candidate to the far corners of the World Wide Web, if not the world itself.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's site, for instance, directs visitors to the candidate's pages on four social networks, including MySpace, where they can find snapshots of more than 480 of his "friends," and Zanby, where there can join any of 58 support groups scattered around the country. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, in addition to lining up friends on MySpace and Facebook, is trying to create a conversation of sorts through videos posted on YouTube (no takers so far). And former North Carolina senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who has racked up a party-leading 10,000 MySpace "friends," is deploying a customized social network, dubbed OneCorps, to mobilize supporters behind a series of projects in their communities.

The nine Republicans in the race are taking a more buttoned-down approach. Their sites include no links to social networks, viral video outlets or other sites outside the candidate's control. Instead, they focus on the meat and potatoes of campaigning - raising money and manpower - while posting little beyond a biography, some position statements, snippets of news coverage and maybe a video of their candidate in action.  (Other sites include Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's -- not to be confused with the tomtancredo.com site controlled by some anti-Tancredo types -- and Texas Rep. Ron Paul's, which is still under construction. Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore doesn't appear to have an official site yet, just an unofficial one.)

That's not surprising, given the GOP's knack for campaign discipline. When candidates embrace sites such as MySpace and YouTube, they sacrifice some discipline and control in exchange for energy, creativity and a powerful network to distribute their message for free. The obvious risk is that someone in the loose-knit confederation will do something intemperate or offensive that embarrasses the candidate. That's what happened to Democrat John Kerry in 2004 when one of the interest groups supporting him, MoveOn.org, briefly showcased a volunteer's ad that likened President Bush to Hitler.

Perhaps that's why the Democrats' best-known candidates - Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois and Joe Biden of Delaware, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - are avoiding social networks and using more conventional online tools to recruit supporters and dollars. Clinton, for instance, has invited the public to post blog entries on her site, and she's done three short question-and-answer sessions online. But these interactions, like everything else on the site, are carefully managed by the campaign.

Still, in the era of YouTube and cellphone video, candidates have less control over their image and message than ever before. And for underdog candidates, every bit of help counts - especially when it's free. By setting up shop on MySpace, YouTube and other popular Web outlets, candidates may extend their reach beyond political junkies into, well, Internet junkies. And as Arizona Sen. John McCain and Dean showed in 2000 and 2004, when networks of supporters spread online, millions of dollars follow.

Of course, neither man won his party's nomination, let alone the presidency. Meanwhile, other candidates - most notably former Virginia Sen. George Allen - have demonstrated the ability of user-generated, viral video to undermine their campaigns. Over the next year and a half, we'll see whether the Internet's social tools can make a candidate as well as it can break one.

Below is a sample of the Democrats' activity on YouTube. Like Clinton and Obama, the Republican candidates host their own videos; click here to check out former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's collection, which is powered by PermissionTV.

Comments

the best use of social networking in politics so far was former VA Governor Mark Warner's use of the "map changer" contest to decide where his aborted campaign should spend time helping Congressional candidates in 2006 election. Social networkers were allowed to cut and paste the information into their own spaces, alter and basically do whatever they wanted to in order to encourage participation in the "voting contest." Warner dropping out not only cost us a great candidate but a leading if not bleading edge user of the Net in American politics.

Thanks for giving us this space to comment.

As a GOP communicator who has actually worked on a few campaigns - and one of the few that proactively used tools like myspace, facebook, YouTube, etc. to amplify our message - I would argue that a campaign can much better control their campaign message if they are participating actively in the community discussion.

At the very least, you’ll be adding your voice to the wilderness. At most, you’ll hit the right message and be able to turn that creativity and enthusiasm in to a wave of support.

After all, only a silly ostrich thinks that you can avoid something by sticking your head in the sand and pretend it’s not out there. Republicans are simply modern ostriches.

The Republicans in the Presidential game need to get their act together — fast. They can start by junking their circa 2001 websites with the top-down messaging approach, start anew and steal Hillary’s “conversation” strategy - but really mean it, and hope to tap some real grassroots energy back in to their movements.

Otherwise, I think there’s more than enough room for a Howard Dean-type candidate. I’m just sayin’.

p.s. I wrote about this editorial at my blog: http://www.davidallgroup.com/?p=125

Re: David's post -- I heard a similar complaint from other Republicans active on the Net. Nevertheless, I think the command-and-control approach taken the current crop of GOP candidates and the Democratic front-runners will remain in vogue as long as it keeps winning big races. Howard Dean mapped out a way for lesser-known candidates to raise a meaningful amount of money, but he didn't chart the path to victory. And that's what counts in a winner-takes-all game.

fter the past 6 years of the presidency, ANY candidate that runs for
the Republican nomination will have a very tough road ahead indeed.
That being said, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the oval office when Bush offers to campaign for any republican candidate....
After the obligatory greetings, GW would proclaim that he's,"Gettin' tarred of Presidentin'", and, "I gotta hankerin' to get on mah 'big jet'"...thus offering his services on the campaign trail....
Then would come the long, uncomfortable silence....And the reply, "Um, We'll get back to you..."
That is if Bush doesn't destroy the earth in a 'nukular' war before 2008....

Jon - Interesting comments. Thanks for sharing.

Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





ADVERTISEMENT


What is Opinion L.A.?

  • This blog is the work of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, the cadre of opinionated reporters and editors responsible for the paper's daily stack of unsigned editorials. Also contributing is Times columnist Patt Morrison, well-known lover of millinery. Please note -- the posts you see here reflect the views of the author, not of the editorial board as a whole.
Los Angeles Times - Opinion