If a Democrat Wants to Win the White House it is Time They Make a Smart Investment...
The first paragraph of Technology, the Internet and Progressives puts a great deal of insight into one of the reasons why a Democrat is not in the White House today. Democrats have a tendency to refuse to put an adequate amount of campaign money into their Web components and do not accept technology as willingly as the Republicans. "Conservatives know that modern technology is the most efficient and effective way of 'getting to people' and 'getting their message out.'"
To me it seems ridiculous in the year 2005, some Democrats are still unwilling to put enough campaign resources into their Internet strategies. The Internet is a critical component to any campaign and a poorly designed site might make the difference between a winning and losing campaign.
The way I see it why wouldn't a candidate want to create best Web site they possibly could? I see a site not only as the perfect location to store a clearinghouse of positive news reports about a candidate but also help the candidate to make a personal connection with the voter. They can tell their life story, show pictures taken throughout their lifetime, highlight their accomplishments and explain their policy stances. As Emi showed in class Tuesday, candidates can take quizzes to see how their views correspond the candidate's. That is a great tool. Web sites also serve as a direct avenue to garner campaign support - both economically through donations but also through volunteer sign ups.
If I was to lead a campaign today, once I developed a message and a strategy I would start from the web up. All of my traditional campaign collateral like banners, bumper stickers and yard signs would point voters in my candidate's site direction where they would have an amazing tool at their disposal.
I am all about online newsletters, banner ads and volunteer connection emails. I think that the Web is the best place to get both like minded and undecided minds together to support a candidate or a product. It all seems so simple and a non-issue to me, but perhaps that is because I am of the Web nativist generation. When I want to know something about a person or a thing the first place I go to is the Internet.
If a candidate does not see the Web as being important in an election today or worthy of a large amount of funding I would say that they are making a critical mistake. I believe if you ignore the Web in politics today, you will most certainly get ignored at the polls.
To me it seems ridiculous in the year 2005, some Democrats are still unwilling to put enough campaign resources into their Internet strategies. The Internet is a critical component to any campaign and a poorly designed site might make the difference between a winning and losing campaign.
The way I see it why wouldn't a candidate want to create best Web site they possibly could? I see a site not only as the perfect location to store a clearinghouse of positive news reports about a candidate but also help the candidate to make a personal connection with the voter. They can tell their life story, show pictures taken throughout their lifetime, highlight their accomplishments and explain their policy stances. As Emi showed in class Tuesday, candidates can take quizzes to see how their views correspond the candidate's. That is a great tool. Web sites also serve as a direct avenue to garner campaign support - both economically through donations but also through volunteer sign ups.
If I was to lead a campaign today, once I developed a message and a strategy I would start from the web up. All of my traditional campaign collateral like banners, bumper stickers and yard signs would point voters in my candidate's site direction where they would have an amazing tool at their disposal.
I am all about online newsletters, banner ads and volunteer connection emails. I think that the Web is the best place to get both like minded and undecided minds together to support a candidate or a product. It all seems so simple and a non-issue to me, but perhaps that is because I am of the Web nativist generation. When I want to know something about a person or a thing the first place I go to is the Internet.
If a candidate does not see the Web as being important in an election today or worthy of a large amount of funding I would say that they are making a critical mistake. I believe if you ignore the Web in politics today, you will most certainly get ignored at the polls.
3 Comments:
I too am shocked when the technology side of a campaign is relegated to the scraps left over after the TV ads are bought. To me, it's similar to what often happens with research in a campaign; campaign managers don't see the direct difference it makes, so they slash funding for it. But that totally overlooks how much more effective the TV ads will be if they are based on solid research.
Similarly, the website can be a very persuasive tool, but only if it is well developed and, as you mention, the other advertising mediums direct voters to the site. Compared to some of the other components in a campaign, the internet presence is so unbelievably cost efficient for the impact that it makes, that it is truly unbelievable when a campaign doesn't give it the investment it deserves.
I agree that candidates and causes should use the Internet and emerging technologies to their advantage. You have a built-in audience who's eager to respond.
Meanwhile, I don't believe that a website will make/break a campaign. It will certainly enhance it, however.
A word on the "make-or-break" disclaimer: Who's to say whether a candidate's use of the Internet has the potential to make or break a candidate? To me, that's like saying that phone banks or bumper stickers or editorial board meetings can't make or break a candidate. Depending on the circumstances, there's the possibility for both:
1) Making a candidate: See Dean, Howard. Sure, he had a niche that was ready for someone from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," but what "made" him a viable candidate? His website and use of Meetup technology propelled him into the frontrunner role from polling below 2 percent in the matter of months.
2) Breaking a candidate: Without a good website or fully investing into an online campaign, a candidate may never know if he or she could have made up the difference with online tactics.
Most of the time, the Internet -- just like phone banks, bumper stickers or editorial board meetings -- won't make or break your candidate. But the campaign should treat it like it can and will.
Post a Comment
<< Home