Though "officially" it's incredibly early in the 2008 presidential race, it seems like it has been going on long enough to spur an intrepid blogger to put together a list of things he apparently knows so far. Well, that and a contest with an actual cash prize.
So, fully aware that at this early juncture everything can change, we give you our top impressions of the presidential campaign to date, with a slight tilt towards the online universe.
1) Social Network Appeal Overblown? One of the early hot topics this campaign season has been the social networks (MySpace, Facebook, etc.) and their place in politics. The undisputed leader in this area has been Barack Obama (despite his recent MySpace controversy), yet the most recent polls show him fading against Hillary Clinton by double digits.
And on the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani doesn't seem to be hurting in polls despite his official MySpace page still being locked as private.
2) Being Big On The Blogosphere Doesn't Necessarily Mean Big In The Polls. Being a more insular community, sometimes things in the world of political blogs seem bigger and more important than they really are to the general public.
John Edwards has been, perhaps, the most aggressive at courting bloggers, but has consistently ran third or fourth in most polls. Likewise, Mike Gravel gained a big boost in the blogger world following his appearance in a recent Democratic debate. But when the polls came out, Gravel was still mired in the <1% territory.
Republican Ron Paul has also enjoyed some popularity in the blogosphere, fueled in large part by his libertarian views, but again has had trouble converting it to likely voters. In fact, in a USA Today/Gallup poll (taken after the recent GOP debate, where his campaign gained internet interest), Paul dropped from 2% to less than 1%.
3) Being Undeclared Is Popular. Despite a class of heavy hitters, portions of voters in both parties still are looking for someone else to enter the race.
Although 10 candidates are already in for the GOP, voters still apparently pine for more. Most notable is former Tennessee senator, and current Law and Order actor, Fred Thompson. When he is included in polls, he has consistently placed in the top five and in one, the above-mentioned Gallup, was third with 13%. Fellow non-candidate Newt Gingrich has also fared well in some polls, including finishes ahead of Mitt Romney. Earlier in the season, it was Chuck Hagel that garnered voter attention.
As for Democrats, the elephant in the room has always been Al Gore. Despite saying he has no interest in running, the former vice president has scored well in polls, battling Edwards for third.
4) Being A Media "Darling" Isn't Always A Good Thing. Call it the "Howard Dean Syndrome," but whatever it is, it seems to be fatal a good portion of the time. This year's version could be shaping up as Obama.
Relatively new to the political scene, and whose policies are generally unknown to most voters, but possessing an abundance of charisma and an ability to raise money, Obama has been the hands-down favorite of the media (old and new). But, as this week's polls show, the steam may already be leaving his campaign. Though extremely early, the media (like actual voters), can be fickle.
5) It's Going To Take A Lot Of Money. Even one presidential election ago, a candidate raising $4-5 million in the first quarter of the year before the actual vote would be considered a big success. But today that number will barely elevate you to second-tier status. Now the level of success has been raised to $20+ million a quarter.
With estimates of $100+ million needed for a successful campaign and most candidates foregoing federal funds and their accompanying limits, is it any wonder the idea of public financing of campaigns is virtually dead in the water. Taxpayers apparently agree, as only 7.3% checked the box on their 2006 tax return designating $3 to go to the presidential campaign fund. In 1980 it was 28.7%.
6
I agree strongly with points 1 & 2., but that seems to be a minority view in the blogoshpere these days. I think people participating in these social networking sites tend to be young and do not have a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteThe translation is that their enthusiasm may not translate into a lot of votes.
Harry,
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Of course the blogosphere isn't going to admit that the blogosphere's power still hasn't quite translated into real numbers and votes. We all still just want to talk about how cool and influential we are in the world of politics and how politicians are now meeting with us to discuss matters. The problem I've seen firsthand with that is that the politicians see bloggers as a marketing tool - nothing more. Bloggers are getting used in varying degrees. It doesn't hurt the politicians, and bloggers tend to beg them for attention, so it costs them little as well. But in the end, so many more people pay attention to cable and network news that blogs barely make a splash in the political realm - despite what we bloggers think.
Social networks are just that - social. Politicians attempting to gain entry into social aspects of our lives come off as so transparently uncool. I've recently become enamored with Twitter. If John McCain or any other politician got n Twitter and started adding friends, I'd run. I don't care that your campaign intern is updating that you'll be speaking somewhere after lunch. I use Twitter to connect with real people - just as all the MySpace users do with MySpace. Translating Myspace friends into significant contributions would assume a very low level of intelligence among the average member of the public. We could argue about public intelligence all day, but the bottom line is that people contributing real money to candidates actually care about what they say and do. MySpace just isn't at the point yet that it can both connect a candidate with a contributor and accurately portray that candidates contributables.
It does seem to be the minority opinion in the blogosphere, but you're dead on Ryan. I do think most politicians, if they even interact with bloggers, is to use them for mouthpieces. I know that when I asked for an interview with candidates (which was a longshot to begin with) I rarely got even a reply. But they did make sure I was put on their mailing lists which bring press releases on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at some of the "friends" on candidates' MySpace sites, sometimes I think it's maybe not such a good idea for a campaign. Throw in the average age and true political interest of the average MySpacer and I think Giuliani may have the right idea. That said, it has become sort of a measuring stick so it will be here to stay.
As for Twitter, I've got some bad news for you Ryan.
http://twitter.com/barackobama
http://twitter.com/johnedwards
And Edwards is winning the "friends" war, 2520 to 1087.
I have been a very active in politics in the past in hope great leadership could rise up and make a difference. Then I began to think that maybe we citizens have to become the deciders or we are at the mercy of special interests, those that have financial influence and the sad but true psychological dysfuction of all politicians - their unhealthy seeking of approval.
ReplyDeleteAre we the leaders we have been waiting for?
Joseph at www.explorelifeblog.com
Great insight here! I too remain unconvinced about the blogosphere and social networking's impact, but I'm not ready to write it off yet. One place I do see a real difference being made is in the fringe candidates. I think you can attribute a large part of the press coverage and the fact that people like Gravel and Ron Paul even got invited to debates and are being taken semi-seriously to the stir they have created on the Internet.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't trust the polls that come out ranking candidates. I have never been asked to participate and neither has anyone I know. I'm not sure how well the younger generation is represented, and if there is anything the blogs and networks can do in this race, it is bring out the young vote.
j-ro,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, the internet did play a big part (probably 95%) in getting Gravel a spot in the upcoming New Hampshire debate. But for all the online and blog hype he is still polling less than 1%. I don't think debates in the latter part of 2007 are going to be as generous. Though a big problem could be that a lot of other candidates considered serious (Biden, Dodd, etc.) are barely above 1%. Are you going to boot Gravel because he is at 0.5%, but keep in Kucinich who may be at 1.1%?
The same can go for Paul. He has been quite popular on blogs for awhile but it just hasn't translated to the general voting population. It's going to take money, and a lot, to do that.
I think I've been polled a couple times in my life, and most were push polls so they don't really count. But the science nowadays is pretty strong. There will always be a margin of error (which can be tricky in a close race), but when is the last time you saw a candidate polling at 25% the weekend before an election suddenly win with 53%?
Gravel, Paul, Dodd, Huckabee, Biden, Tommy Thompson, Richardson, etc. are all in danger of being swept away.