BOOK REVIEW: Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

To the majority of uninterested Americans, the name Howard Dean probably continues to conjure images of that red-faced night in January when the former Vermont governor’s dreams of victory in the 2004 presidential race evaporated in the wake of one ill-timed scream. However, ignoble ending aside, Howard Dean’s campaign for the presidency in 2004 was the backdrop for numerous lessons about the highs and lows of netroots campaigning. In their book “Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope: Lessons from the Howard Dean Campaign for the Future of Internet Politics”, former Dean ringleaders Zephyr Teachout and Thomas Streeter lead a gaggle of their fellow Dean staffers in a semi-narrative, semi-analytical examination of why the Dean campaign mattered both then and now.

If you had to take just one idea away from the Dean experience, it might be the notion that the primary force that drives any authentic political movement is a sense of purposeful action. The authors spend a substantial amount of time reminding the readers that, for all of the “Internet candidate” labels that were bandied about in the press throughout Dean’s campaign, the message only really found footing because it was tied to fundamental citizen involvement. The Dean campaign didn’t simply use the Internet as a cash register or a bulletin board; they identified the desire for community-based action and set about using the tools at their disposal to create such a system in a digital environment.

I was refreshed by the lack of irrational, starry-eyed optimism exhibited by the book’s contributors (not that I was expecting any, really). No one confuses the Internet with a strategy in and of itself; rather, they regard it as a powerful tool that, under the right set of circumstances, can circumvent traditional media roadblocks (name recognition, the “money primaries” of the early fundraising months), establish digital word of mouth buzz, and give voice and purpose to a large community of potential supporters. At every turn, however, the authors stress the importance of the circumstances rather than simply the tools themselves.

If Howard Dean’s message had been different, or come in 2007 instead of 2003, or if the United States hadn’t been gripped in the fog of post-9/11 hysteria that didn’t seem to dissipate until after the 2004 election, the campaign could’ve taken a very different turn in regards to both strategy and respectability. In the end, you get the sense that the relative successes of the Dean campaign were as much a product of the moment in history as it was of the new netroots revolution. Today, many of the Dean campaign’s risky innovations have become required, if overlooked, campaign tools. However, most candidates in the current field continue to exhibit an unhealthy lack of understanding when it comes to Internet campaigns. Ultimately, it seems that the Dean campaign’s legacy will be respected only when these tools receive the same consideration.

Political Video Tuesday: A Beer with Steve

Just thought I'd pass along a great new ad for a great candidate. As Liz from the Progressive Exchange listserv puts it:

[Steve Novick] is a progressive Democrat running for US Senate in Oregon with a very grassroots campaign. This generated 28,000 hits in 24 hours, all from blog posts and people sending it virally. Now it's at the top of YouTube's political page for the day.

I think this is a great model for grassroots campaigns, activists, etc. to get the news out there. Because of this video post and its views, many mainstream media outlets have taken notice and written articles about this. People are buzzing about it around the country. It's amazing how a little Internet coordination in Portland, Oregon can make ripples around the country. Ah...my geekish heart just skipped a beat.

Well said. Also, here's the ad itself:

Social Network Update II - Surveying The Scene

As I mentioned last week, I decided to take my support of Barack Obama online, joining the movements on Facebook and Care2 in hopes of finding out what all the fuss was about. In this, my first update as a user-activist, I thought I might offer some initial impressions on the culture and atmosphere of these two vastly different social networks.

Facebook

For the Facebook portion of my research, I decided to sign up for multiple Obama-related items to see how they did, or didn’t, interact with and influence one another. My list included the groups “Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)” and “I endorse Barack Obama -- and I'm telling my friends!”, as well as applications like “Obama” (run by the campaign itself) and “Barack Obama Supporters” (built by an independent application developer). I also used Facebook’s relatively new “Fan” system to become a supporter of Barack Obama. After that, I let the lurking begin. Before I start participating in the conversation, I’d like to get a feel for exactly what the culture is like on both sites.

The first thing that you notice when you join Obama's groups and applications on Facebook is the sheer number of members that each one boasts. "One Million Strong" has over 400,000 members alone, while the more activist-oriented "Endorsement" group pulls over 40,000 of their own member. I'm sure these numbers overlap quite a bit, but they're still impressive.

Content-wise, each separate group appears to fulfill a separate function. "One Million Strong" is set up as a link clearinghouse; if you're looking for ways to donate, places to find news, or just a little more info about the candidate himself, this group is only too happy to send you on your merry way. This group also has the most active discussion forums of all the groups; there are currently over 15,000 Obama-related threads.

On the other end of the spectrum, the "Endorsement" group urges informed action instead of simply information by itself. From offering direct links to sponsored fundraising efforts, to providing template for creating your own door hangers and stickers, this group seems to be more grassroots-oriented than its other, bigger counterpart.

In terms of usefulness, the applications are a mixed bag. The "Obama" app is set up as an Obama news aggregator, updating continually with all of the Obama news that's fit to print. The others, however, seem fairly redundant. The "Supporters" group, built using the same template found on many second-rate TV show fan apps, is shoddy and unnecessary, and the Obama fan page rehashes much of the information found on all of the other sites. In the end, I think my focus will probably shift away from these last two pretty quickly, unless I'm given a compelling reason to pay attention.

Care2

It's safe to say that Care2 is an entirely different animal when it comes to social networking. While Facebook's activism and political opportunities are just a small part of the overall Facebook experience, Care2 operates under exactly the opposite ratios. If you're not politically (or rather, progressively) active on Care2, what's the point of joining?

Surprisingly, there are relatively few Obama groups to be found on Care2. When I did my initial search, the first result that came up was a group dedicated to advocating a Kucinich-Obama ticket in 2008. Clearly, this ain't your father's social network.

I finally settled on joining the two biggest Care2 Obama groups. In Obama's Care2 world, big is a relative term. The first, "Barack Obama for America in 2008", covers roughly the same territory as its Facebook counterparts, albeit in a smaller, stripped down setup, and has around 600 members. The other "Barack Obama for President", seems a bit more activist-oriented, and boasts a membership of around 100.

How interesting. On both sites, there are specific groups for information and activism. So far, I haven't seen the two go hand-in-hand. I wonder what that says about these communities?

BOOK REVIEW: The Tipping Point

To master the power of fads, trends, and movements, you simply have to think like a virus. That is, according to Malcolm Gladwell, at least. In his book The Tipping Point, Gladwell seeks to explain exactly what makes some ideas take off and causes others to languish in obscurity. While the book tends to be written with marketing in mind, the implications that it has for the world of online politics are still numerous.

One of Gladwell’s chief observations is that, regardless of the marketing technique or tipping points surrounding a given trend, content is still king, especially in the early going. People might catch on to a clothing trend once the audience of connectors, mavens, and salesmen are on board, but there has to be something that draws in those groups to begin with. Without the initial interest, whether it’s generated by quality or quirk, the idea has no chance of taking off. This is especially important in the political world, where the field of both online and offline messages gets more crowded every day.

Gladwell’s examples run the gamut, from expected (the resurgence of Hush Puppies in the 90s fashion world) to surprising (the sudden decline of New York’s staggering crime rates). However, they each have one thing in common: the all tipped because of subtle nuanced factors far outside most observers’ fields of vision. For Gladwell, the devil is in the details, and having the ability to recognize and monkey with these particulars is generally the difference between a successful campaign and a fair to middling one. For online organizers, this means that things like button placement on a website, or the delivery style of actors in a campaign ad might be all it takes to make or break an otherwise politically sound message. While scary to some, this concept also insures that those who’ve trained themselves to spot such problems are guaranteed a spot in the process.

Speaking as a keen-eyed, would-be political consultant, I find that heartening, at least.

Social Network Update I - Introduction.

As part of my current course in Internet politics, I've been given the task of evaluating the use of social network sites by campaigns through firsthand experience. Over the next few weeks, I plan to track my involvement in a political campaign using social networks as the main means of communication and organization. Below are my choices for social networks.

Facebook

My first love in online social networks, Facebook really has all that people in my age range can ask for in terms of establishing an online presence. Though the addition of innumerable (and often shoddy) user-made applications has cluttered Facebook's once-sleek appearance, this social network still hasn't lost the reputation that it gained in the heady days of .edu-only admission standards.

Care2

I just finished signing up for Care2, and my first impressions are fairly positive. The profile options are comprehensive and accessible at the same time. I particularly enjoyed the "see choices" option for categories like issues and interests. The tag clouds that pop up are solid ways to gauge the popularity of issues on Care2, and also serve to jog the memory when it comes to thinking of personal preferences. I know that I always go blank when presented with so many blank boxes; Care2 presents a nice cure for that particular syndrome.

Since I don't have a very large network of friends who are currently members of Care2, I'll be casting my net wide in terms of the groups I join. For the purpose of this project, however, I will be primarily focusing my efforts on observing the level of activity and discourse surrounding Barack Obama's campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. While I am confident that Obama's campaign will continue throughout the spring semester, I will also pay close attention to the Clinton campaign and, in the event of Obama's defeat, will shift my focus accordingly.

Now that introductions are out of the way, all that's left to do is join some groups, make some friends, and get active. Let's see what happens.

And now, this.

The Wizard of Glover Park will return after these messages.