Political Video Tu- Thursday?: The Race So Far

I couldn't help but post this, since it basically recaps everything I've done on this blog for the past nine months. Thanks, Slate!

Book Review: Interface

Whenever it comes to mixing technology, message crafting, and the presidency, people tend to get a little... hyperbolic. From The Manchurian Candidate to The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror, it seems that the entertainment industry is particularly keen on telling stories about how our leaders are probably out to kill us. However, when treated with a deft hand, this kind of storytelling can offer revealing look into the ways in which electoral politics can both free and enslave, depending on perspective.

Neal Stephenson and George Jewesbury's Interface presents a world in which mass media conglomerates plan to seize full control of the United States through a chip-augmented Illinois governor blessed with the power to perceive and adapt to any and all changes in public opinion. For political consultants, this sort of prediction would probably be met with either snorts of derision or shrugs of it-could-happen. With some of the sci-fi gee-whiz peeled away, Interface becomes an interesting examination of the reliance on a fetishization of political statistical analysis.

Interface highlights the worst habits of political strategists and marketers, like the temptation to view the public at-large as little more than poll numbers and demographics. It also serves as an reminder about the power and importance of grassroots involvement in politics. By breaking out of the typical, passive roles that they are often assigned, voters have the opportunity to affect real political change on their terms instead of being lead by the nose by powerful outside forces.

MAINTENANCE!

With the end of the semester fast approaching, I've taken down quite a few entries for tune-up purposes. I know leaving them up would make more sense, but it's easier to keep track of which ones I've gone over if I send them all back to drafts. So, eager fans, bear with me for the next week. After that, everything should be back to normal.

Political Video Tuesday - There are cameras in Florida, you know.

We all know of famous cases of Internet-fueled flaps that brought down both candidates and Congressmen alike. There was Trent Lott's race-tinged speech at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, or George Allen's unfortunate "Macaca moment" during the leadup to the 2006 midterms. During this primary cycle, videos of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright stirred up a controversy that resulted in what some call the most important speech on race in America in over half a century.

Now, we may have another smoking gun clip on our hands. This time, the issue at hand is the seating of Florida's delegates at the Democratic National Convention. Supporters of plans to rescind threats to not seat the state's delegation claim that, among other things, the Florida Democrats were essential bystanders, wringing their hands on the sidelines as their Republican counterparts hatched a dastardly scheme to push up the primary (comment 219 on the New York Times link sums up their case pretty well).

Then, this happened:



DailyKos has all the discussion you need, but I gotta ask: where's the anger towards the state party (the rightful target, if there is such a thing), and how long before this gets picked up outside the blogosphere?

Obama's blue plate special.

Guess who’s coming to dinner? If you said Barack Obama, you’d be on to something.

When the money’s tight and every race counts, campaigns need to pull out all of the fundraising stops in order to insure that interest remains high and money remains forthcoming. With his latest online initiative freshly in my mailbox, Barack Obama is once again taking this advice to heart. Between now and March 31st, donors to Obama’s campaign will be entered into a pool of potential dinner guests who get to share a meal with the candidate himself.

There are multiple reasons to like this approach. For one, it seems to adhere to the idea that the most effective use of the internet as a political tool revolves around digitally organizing people for real-world events. The whole appeal of this fundraising push centers on the fact that donors can share dinner with the candidate and fellow supporters. If the campaign had touted this as a virtual dinner, staged remotely with more winners, the buzz wouldn’t be nearly the same.

Second, the campaign’s tactics reaffirm the idea that people will always be up for a game. Like the office workers who enter March Madness pools despite not following college basketball, potential donors this week will likely be spurred on by the promise of a potential “win”. Though the odds may be long for the donors, the results are the same for the campaign: increased cash flow at a time when opportunities for positive campaign news are at a premium.

Finally, this homespun approach to campaigning reflects the fact that the Obama campaign understands of the power of grassroots and netroots organizing, and provides another opportunity for Obama to appear “of the people, by the people”. In the campaign email that I received was quick to point out Obama’s populist appeal:


While Senator Clinton and Senator McCain have accepted millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, this campaign has relied on more than a million individual donors giving only what they can afford. Just last month, more than 90% of the donations to Obama for America were for $100 or less.

Whether or not this gimmick translates into increased fundraising (something that Obama’s campaign has had little trouble with, anyway) remains to be seen. However, as a fan of both political strategy and Barack Obama, I support the fact that the campaign is countering the kitchen sink with the kitchen table.

And yes, I donated today. Fingers crossed!

BOOK REVIEW: Poli-fluentials: The New Political Kingmakers

You know, all good streaks have to end sometime. Over the past few weeks, I've had the opportunity to read some of the reports from George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet, and I've been more impressed by each successive document. That is, until this week. This week, I found that IPDI can completely whiff once in a while. But, hey. 75%'s not bad, right?

It's not that this report doesn't contain interesting material and draw compelling conclusions. It does. The problems that I had with the document stem from two different oversights: a) though it claims to approach its classification process scientifically, the approach researchers use is flawed, and b) it's not telling our class anything that we didn't know thanks to Malcolm Gladwell.

The classification system that the report uses to categorize individuals as "poli-fluentials" is hampered by its limited criteria and small sample size. Setting aside the structural flaws, the report also does a fairly shoddy job of explaining exactly how to take advantage of such individuals, or even how to identify them in the first place. It's like they had a really interesting idea for a report, but then simply lost steam when it came time to flesh it out.

Problematic for our class is also the fact that this report is redundant. Much of the territory covered in this report was covered more engagingly by Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point. Slapping some specious political statistics on Gladwell basic ideas doesn't make for an enlightening reading experience. Rather, it leaves me scratching my head, wondering what all the fuss is about.

Political Video Tuesday - Raining McCain

Um... what?

I... um... what?

This seems like a mistake. And yet. This might be the most endearing thing to come out of McCain's campaign. If this is actually legit, then kudos. If it's a fake... well, that might be even more impressive.