Ottumwa Courier, IA
09-18-07
Internet playing a bigger role than ever in campaigns
By MATT MILNER Courier staff writer
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Will this be the MySpace election? Or will “Mr.
Microtargeting” rule the day?
There are few better examples than politics of how winners write history.
Candidates copy techniques and strategy from those who win elections, and they
study the losers for what to avoid. The pattern includes online efforts.
The Internet has been in fairly broad use since the mid to late 1990s. That
encompasses the 1996, 2000 and 2004 campaign cycles. The 2004 cycle was
the first time that Web-based campaigning made an obvious difference in the
field. Howard Dean was a little-known candidate until his Web fundraising
grabbed everyone’s attention and catapulted him to a lead in the polls.
What Dean found out was that online dominance doesn’t necessarily translate
into real-life votes. Dean stumbled badly in the Iowa caucuses and never
recovered.
No one knows if the same fate awaits Web-heavy campaigns in 2008. The one
clear thing is that none of the candidates can afford to ignore online
campaigning.
Michael Cornfield says the campaigns have different signatures online. He
teaches at George Washington University and is an expert on the relationship
between media and politics.
For Democratic candidate Barack Obama, that signature means using sites like
Facebook and MySpace to connect lots of people in cyberspace. The
connections allow supporters to make connections and keep their enthusiasm
high.
Republican candidate Mitt Romney hired a man Cornfield calls “Mr.
Microtargeting.” Alex Gage runs Target Point Consulting, which takes information
on voters and refines it for detailed analysis. The results allow campaigns to
target specific voters in specific areas and, in theory, makes the campaign more
likely to get results.
The other candidates use other methods. Cornfield points to candidate John
McCain’s effort to make sure his campaign leads in search engine optimization.
That process puts his campaign near the top for Web searches on a variety of
subjects, thus increasing exposure.
Sen. John Edwards is copying the strategy of MoveOn.org, a strategy Cornfield
says relies on quick shifts. Both the Edwards campaign and MoveOn shift from
one subject to another quickly, making appeals based on stories that are getting
high levels of attention from the media.
Other candidates have used the Web to address perceived weaknesses as well
as Hillary Clinton. Clinton used Web video to reach out to voters when she
announced her candidacy, and she selected a campaign theme song with online
help. The result is a Web presence that personalizes her and helps soften her
image.
There is one major exception. Cornfield said Rudy Giuliani’s campaign made do
with a horrendous, “almost defiantly abysmal,” Web site for months before
updating it late this summer.
What all this means for Iowa voters is up in the air. Political science professor
Steffen Schmidt teaches Iowa State University students about politics,
including a class on technology and democracy. He watches the campaign
Web sites closely, but isn’t sure whether any of them will have the impact the
candidates want.
Schmidt says Web campaigning is a new tool, but the goal is the same as
traditional politics: Get as many of your supporters to the caucus or the polls as
possible.
“If war is politics by other means, then the Internet is campaigning by different
avenues,” Schmidt said. “It’s an opportunity to reach an audience using a new
medium, an audience that isn’t, perhaps, usually interested in politics.”
Schmidt thinks the advantage lies with campaigns that best use analytical tools
to understand the voters that visit their sites. When a person clicks on a link on a
Web site, it creates a record and tracks that user. It’s the same basic technology
used by dozens of major corporations as they try to protect and expand their
markets.
When campaigns understand their Web users, they can target those people with
different techniques. They can tell which supporters might be more likely to
respond to a targeted e-mail vs. those who will respond to Web video.
“We keep forgetting that we’re really selling toothpaste,” Steffen said. “People
who sell toothpaste know an awful lot about people who brush their teeth.”
That said, nothing is guaranteed for the Web campaigning. Steffen said Web
sites are a proven way to raise money for campaigns. Their ability to translate
supporters into voters is less proven.
Web campaigning also generates cautionary tales. McCain’s campaign was
embarrassed when online activists focused on a photo of the senator in
Baghdad. The campaign touted the photo as an example of growing safety in
Iraq. The campaign’s photo was cropped to cut out the troops surrounding
McCain. The full photo appeared on several Web sites, along with heavy
criticism.
The most glaring example of the Web crippling a campaign may come from
Virginia. It’s an example Cornfield points to in his comments on the interplay
between the web and politics. U.S. Sen. George Allen’s campaign for re-election
in 2006 was badly hurt by his reference to a rival campaign’s worker as
“Macaca.” Many saw the butchered name as a racial slur.
The comment didn’t make waves at the time, but a YouTube video of Allen’s
speech transformed it into a major issue. He lost his bid for re-election.
That impact helps illustrate the raw power of the Web. It’s a power even those
who live and breathe politics are struggling to understand.
“I think they’re experimenting with this,” Steffen said. The real question at the end
of the day is whether these tools are what is going to get a person the
nomination.”
Matt Milner can be reached at (641) 683-5359 or via e-mail at
mwmilner@mchsi.com