New York Magazine’s John Heilemann is leading a panel at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco this morning on “The Web and Politics.” Joining him is San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Arianna Huffington and Joe Trippi.
The session jumped right off with Heilemann saying the Internet played a disruptive role in the 2008 election in the same way television played a disruptive role in the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy to president. Neither medium was new in the respective elections, but both “came of age” and swung the election towards the winning candidate. Kennedy, in particular, used television ads extensively in his campaign to reach the American voters directly, and embraced simple things like makeup:
The televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon was probably the most decisive event for the election of 1960. The growth of TV as a new medium, and declined use of radio marked a significant change in how campaigns are ran today. For the TV appearence, Nixon refused to wear make-up and therefore appeared unshaven, tired and sweaty under the lights. Kennedy, however, did wear the make-up and so appeared cooler and more composed than Nixon. Kennedy, before the debate, returned tan and attractive from vacation. Not only did Kennedy appear to be better groomed, and handsome, his suit was navy popping off the grey back drop. Nixon’s suit was grey, blending in to the curtain behind him. With these factors combined, Among TV viewers agreed, Kennedy won the debate. Richard Nixon’s deep, strong, radio appealing voice won over all radio listeners, they agreed Nixon won the debate. Nixon entered the race ahead of Kennedy. Television as a new medium changed presidential elections from this point on, marking the election of 1960 significant. Radio voice failed to prevail over now “candidate centered” television campaigns.
Huffington says flat out that if it wasn’t for the Internet, Obama would not be president. Trippi notes that Obama’s YouTube spots gathered an aggregate of 14.5 million viewing hours. The Internet was used by candidate previously, he said, noting the Howard Dean campaign, but Obama really leveraged it fully with online video, blogging, social networking and fundraising.
The panelists also note how mainstream media tends to fail in politics, simply reporting on what each candidate says without saying who’s right or wrong. The blogosphere, they say (particularly Trippi and Huffington), tends to call out factual inaccuracies better than mainstream media.
Howard Dean showed that the Internet could be used to raise lots of money online, say the panelists. But Newsom says social networking is significantly more powerful and allows for the creation of much more meaningful connections between the candidate and voters. “I’m addicted to Facebook,” he said.
Newsom also notes that “every single thing a candidate says, and how he says it,” is available online for people to review and judge. And he questions whether candidates today are more authentic or less authentic now that they have to be “on” all the time.
Yeah using Scribd to display all of his campaign documents was a brilliant move.
Internet definitely changed the way candidates campaigned and the traditional way of campaigning it dead from now on. I actually wrote about that myself a couple of days ago: http://milostop.../i-voted-today/
You’re lucky out there on the West Coast. Our Mayor Bill Campbell was addicted mostly to cold hard cash.
Obama would not have one if the proce of a gallon of gas would not have exceeded $3! The use of the internet just happened to be his tool of networking.
there is so much hate on tc today. All of the bitter conservatives need to shut up and accept President Obama and support him. And please, learn how to spell basic words as ‘WON” not ‘ONE’
Well said grod.
though i do think the president looks a bit out of shape,,healthy mind is a great mind,we need the preident to be in top shape,i might call ;wonder if i can get in contact,,lol;well done Obama,
mr president i should say,
Radio – TV – Internet … what’s next? Interactive Hologram?
Kevin Warwick (the cyborg extraordinaire) says its going to be The Matrix!
this is one of the dumbest thing i have heard in awhile. george bush and the piss poor economy even a blind man could have won this election. huffington needs to stick to her little blog and stop making dumb statements like this.
the number of voters is the important thing and the demographic – see the percentages for blue upto 30/35/40 years – i think its at wikinomics.com
They wanted change and Barack communicated his ability really well. He pretty much “stole” the election very intelligently. But I think he is going to stick to some of the promises too, unlike the rest of them.
I agree that Bush lost at least as much as Obama won. now about the internet. 14.5 million hours, a million of facebook fans… this is just coincidental. It just so happens that ppl who voted for obama are connected to the internet. is anyone surprised?
I’m not saying that this is wrong to use the internet as a media. It made fundraising so much easier, for instance. But it didn’t influence opinions much. Not as much, as, say, Obama’s speech on race or the democratic convention.
From other posts:
“Obama’s first nomination: Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago political thug and Washington insider as the White House Chief of Staff…. Where is the “change we need”?
Just a small sample of what you stupid liberals voted for… There much more to come.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president sent a congratulatory letter to Obama… asking him to easy-off on Al Qaeda and to forget about Israel…
From Obama’s web site: amnesty to illegal aliens in the US….
Yes, there is much more to come!”
Definitely, Obama was elected because of the Internet — But still, we do not know who he is. And this is really dangerous, for all American citizens.
It will take a few weeks, but Obama might be recalled or impeached before January…
“Huffington says flat out that if it wasn’t for the Internet, Obama would not be president” — I despise this woman, but it was bound to happen — for her to make a correct statement
Just spotted a typo, feel free to delete this comment when it’s updated. Believe it’s Gavin Newsom (not “Newsome”)
Gavin should know something about replayability, since his mug was the blistering centerpiece of the successful Yes On 8 campaign.
As predicted, even by many democrats, Obama is way over his head and it seems that those who said that he had no clue were correct, even this early!
To a point, he is being strongly influenced by his “advisers” who, of course, are working for their own benefit and shady agendas.
He has been President Elect for 2 days and you are already condemning him? Give me a break!!!!!! Let the man take office, actually do something, and then wither criticize or praise him! The country isn’t magically going to fix itself after 8 years of bush now that Obama has been elected.
@grod — A president has to hit the ground running, particularly in these difficult times with so much going on. Obama promised a million times “We Need Change” and the first thing he does is hire a Washington insider as his Chief of Staff!!!
Doesn’t that tell you something? Two days after being elected president he breaks his promise to millions of Americans!!!
Also, please open your ears: he stated on his acceptance speech that “it will not take a year to fix things, not even four years”
Sorry to frustrate you but we all might as well come back to this reality: the race is over, and Obama won. Now it is time to deliver without braking promises… Wouldn’t you agree?
@Fred
Actually in his acceptance speech he said the it WILL take years, maybe longer then his first term to change things. And who did you want him to name his Chief of Staff? Some hobo in Nebraska?
@Fred – Really, don’t you see the irony here? “Change We Need” then, turn around and hired a professional politician from the Clinton administration, a well-known Washington insider?
Where is the “Change” here, please tell us!
Of do you really believe that there are no capable Americans outside Washington? White or black?
While being obstinate you are placing yourself in the “stupid/retard” area!
BTW, I also voted for Obama, and I already feel disappointed.
Please do not call me a “Republican”
I have to agree with Matthew. I don’t see where the difference is between him and McCain. They agree pretty much on everything. Especially on the banker bailout bill. Has everyone forgotten that Obama was the strongest backer of that and none of it has reached main street. 70 Billion in banker bonuses has happened though. Unbelievable!
This article seems to be causing a stir on http://hookk.com
Yeah there’s no way an anti-democracy crud like a newt gingrich can survive in this democratically conducive environment.
@Latest news: Louis Farrakan [Obama is the Messiah!] and Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s friend and pastor for over twenty years, are guest of honor at Obama’s inauguration…
It is probably a good thing that McCain-Palin lost and that George W. will be gone soon, but what now? I voted for “Change” but somehow I feel that myself and millions of American citizens are being pushed to a cliff’s edge…
“Obama’s strength was using new technology to connect with potential voters. Everything from cell phones to viral videos to advertisements on sites like Trend Hunter.com,” said Frank Sesno, a former bureau chief for CNN and professor of media and public affairs. “Traditional broadcastingnetworks are becoming things of the past.”
Sure, but only for the twenty-something crowd, which is very poorly educated and prepared to contribute *real* progress in the US for both, near and long term future.
Being a “communications expert” with iPhones, social networks, etc., would allow for meaningful employment (and ability to support a family) for only a very, *VERY* few….
It is like a nightmare becoming a cruel reality: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright statement “God f***k America” is starting to happen. Bummer!
It was “god damn America”
You sir, are an ass.
I’m not directly interested on US elections, as I’m italian. And I think that saying “if it wasn’t for the Internet, Obama would not be president.” is absolutely misleading. Obama won thanks to his ideas: people vote ideas (better: hopes), not advertisements. He was able to spread abroad his ideas in a better way than McCain did, exactly like in a debate the winner is the one who is more persuasive. I invite you to discover the story of elections in Italy of last 15 years: actual PM has 3 TV networks and some newspapers. Opposition always says he wins because his TVs, deprecating his supporters (and voters), scorning and playing down his ideas and forgetting that people voted twice against him, TVs or not TVs.
@S.Meinardi — Sorry, but as an European, you will never have a realistic view of what is going on in the US.
Your statement “Obama won thanks to his ideas” is, sorry, a monumental stupid one. Maybe valid for Europe, which is totally, totally irrelevant.
Again, in the US, no one really knows about Obama’s true intentions other than increase taxes [which is OK in most European countries], “spread the wealth” which means confiscate money from hard-working successful Americans… We don;t even know is he is an American citizen, which is a legal *requirement* to be a president, although not to *run* for the presidency…
But I am really wasting my time with this comment: you Europeans have absolutely no clue and should not be making stupid and irrelevant acomments about what is happening in the US!
Peace
Jeanne, your attitude, like that of many (but thankfully not all) Americans, is foolish. Just because someone doesn’t live in a country doesn’t mean they can’t have an excellent grasp of what’s going on there. Would you accuse the journalists at major newspapers worldwide of the same thing? I think not. “You Europeans” … that lumping together of hundreds of millions of people is the kind of mindless arrogance that has earned the U.S. such a poor reputation abroad. Be thankful you will soon have a president who might just reverse that opinion of your country. Though I suspect, as you read this, you’re probably thinking that would be a bad thing. I guess “I am really wasting my time with this comment”.
@Jeanne
Actually the requirement to be President of the United States is to be born in the U.S. meaning that you are born a citizen. And about “spreading the wealth” – we just witnessed the past 8 years the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of our nation, from the poor, to the rich. It’s about time they give a tax break to the middle class.
@Simon — Still, it does not matter what you say. Repeating your comment just shows how stupid you are: “the opinions from anyone outside of the US amounts to irrelevant nothing, other than worthless stupidity” –Truly.
Peace.
@grod – I stand corrected: you are right. You have to be born in the US to be president.
As to your statement “the past 8 years the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of our nation, from the poor, to the rich” — What is your evidence? I would really like to know…
@Simon — Like most stinky Europeans, you have no damn clue. You better shut up, and go take a shower! And another thing: use some deodorant too… you guys stink!!
@Jeanne
The proof that the wealth went all to the rich is easy to see. Wages has been stagnant over the past decade while prices on most things has risen, now you don’t have to be a genius to figure out where all the money is going. Rich, greedy execs who take accounts offshore to avoid paying taxes while asking for more tax cuts for big business so they can create more jobs.
“John [American] – November 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm PST
@Simon — Like most stinky Europeans, you have no damn clue. You better shut up, and go take a shower! And another thing: use some deodorant too… you guys stink!!”
Have you even ever been to Europe? Most of Europe is actually a lot more civilized then rural America. I can understand people having a different opinion especially when it comes to politics, but now you are just being ignorant.
@grod. You must be ‘one of ‘them’ Europeans. Actually, I lived in Europe for 8 years, and I know what I’m talking about. Did not mean to offend you, but, geez! Those German women with their long armpit hairs coming out of their shirts and dresses! and stinking to high heaven because is “natural” –Please give me a break!
I see those women all over NY City now… still with the long hair coming out… from, well, you know.
I agree to a point: I met [and lived] with many fine civilized people, although they have no clue when it comes to life in the US. Case in point: I was *constantly* told that [you] Americans have not right to treat “negroes and gays” the way we do, with “slavery” and discrimination, etc.
I don’t know, maybe showering and using deodorant everyday is something that we all should stop doing, now that stinly foreigners are telling US citizens what to do, even who to choose as our president…
@S.Meinardi — Sorry, but as an European, you will never have a realistic view of what is going on in the US.
Your statement “Obama won thanks to his ideas” is, sorry, a monumental stupid one. Maybe valid for Europe, which is totally, totally irrelevant.
Again, in the US, no one really knows about Obama’s true intentions other than increase taxes [which is OK in most European countries], “spread the wealth” which means confiscate money from hard-working successful Americans… We don;t even know is he is an American citizen, which is a legal *requirement* to be a president, although not to *run* for the presidency…
But I am really wasting my time with this comment: you Europeans have absolutely no clue and should not be making stupid and irrelevant comments about what is happening in the US!
Peace
@jeanne
Learn English please if you plan to remain in this great grammatically correct country of ours:
It’s *a* European, NOT “an European.”
WOW!! This anonymous “gg” must be a new member of the Obama’s grammar police! You must be 12 years old or so, always being corrected on your grammar!
Go to your room!
@john[american wannabe]
Actually I’m 11, and I’m that sulky kid that gives you the finger when you pass by me.
And my older sister’s the one that won’t give you the time of day.
Here’s hoping you’ll one day realize why.
@gg —Your older sister did not have any complaints last night…
Now, go to your stinky room, you sucker!
“Obama Would Not Have Won Without The Internet”
– This is an incredibly pointless statement. It is like saying “Bush would not have won without the television”.
@Ralfe — Please read my comment below…
Shouldn’t the real social media/online grassroots election innovator be Ron Paul? His failing was that all he had was an internet voice.
I think Obama would have won without the internet. Heck he had more coverage than anyone in the mainstream media. On the other hand though, the internet made candidates like Ron Paul discoverable.
Alex, I admire your loyalty. “he had more coverage than anyone in the mainstream media” This is true, since the media is, across the board, socialist liberal and you should know that millions and millions of Americans distrust the media deeply.
This is the reason that the major newspapers are bleeding big money, losing advertising and laying off hundreds of smployees. It is going to get much worse.
With Obama, as quoted before, it is all downhill from here.
interesting…
i’m inclined to believe that obama one because/due to his ability to organize that was honed when he was in chicago. the internet helped a great deal, but i’m inclined to believe that he would have been able to create the massive groundswell without it as well.
peace..
to you idiots who are hatin’ on obama…
in the words of an old saturday night live skit… “…you ignorant sluts!!!”
the guy’s not even president, and you’re spouting crap about him. i feel for you fox network boys!!! you and billo!!!
but, i’m laughing at you, not with you!!
troll bait…
peace
@sam — Please read my comment above…
sure, among other things, obama has been better in communication
Actually, Obama has SNL and Palin to thank. And yes, the internet helped spread those clips, so it played a role.
It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely crazy those that say the country is ending now that Obama has been elected. Regardless of who you voted for, he will be the next president now. I may disagree with Bush, but I support him as my president.
As for the Internet, I think they hit the nail on the head with how big of an impact it had on the election. Young people made a huge impact in some of the former red states…. those same young people that have grown up with the Internet. If you don’t change with the times, you become irrelevant.
Well, obviously you are for increased taxation, “spreading the wealth”, socialized health care [a la IRS], the loss of millions of jobs [do you have one? and if you do, do you feel safe believing that you will never be fired?]], the creation of a “civilian militia-style force that will operate within our borders”, broad amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens in the US?
BTW regarding amnesty: it is in the Obama web site –read carefully…
Yes, I am for universal health care, and tax cuts for the middle class. Our current health system is BROKEN. They refuse to insure you because you are sick? What kind of sick twisted person agreed to that? I hope you never have to deal with a debilitating illness and have to loose everything you had because of the broken system we have now.
@grod – I am sorry if you personally have health problems.
Now, for the sake of conversation, please tell us all how is the health care system “broken” with details, not what “everybody says.”
It so happens that when Americans repeat what Obama says and when repeating the mantra “the system is broken” what they mean is that they want *FREE* health care, not to pay for anything, which is what slimy politicians promise as “socialized” health care, a la Hillary Clinton.
But we are not in Cuba [yet] where they have “socialized” health care and where thy treat cancer with “shark juice” –Of course, cancer patients die with this treatment. Contrary to what Michael Moore says… BTW, where is that idiot?
@John [American]
The system is broken because health care premiums have been rising out of control for many years now, because they REFUSE health care coverage if you have a preexisting condition, because it cost $3000 a night to stay in a hospital room.
Did you know we are the only industrialized country without socialized health care? I don’t believe that leaving the health care industry to people who want to MAKE A PROFIT off sick people is a very good idea. Health care should be a given. We have to pay for it, through taxation, but if it is handled responsibly we can bring down costs and give coverage to everyone. And yes, Michael Moore is an ass!
@grod — Finally, an interesting and challenging comment! Thank you!
Excellent points and a clear expression of your hopes…
“We have to pay for it, through taxation, but if it is handled responsibly we can bring down costs and give coverage to everyone” Ditto, Ditto!!!
Now, please consider this: in our capitalistic system, this could only happen if the federal government starts offering sensible responses/measures to American citizens. Do you really believe that our dear “elected officials” would ever use the extra billions from new taxes to provide health care to all of us? [I know the answer, from history]
Also, would you really believe that the ‘federal government’ could be a good administrator of our monies when it comes to provide sensible, inexpensive [free, ideally] health care for every one?
If I mention “Medicare” the answer would be no, of course, Please read the next two comments here. Regarding the Medicare general fund, they are only thousands of paper IOUs at present. Do you know why? The answer is simple: our “elected officials” have already spent the money on their “projects” –read “pork” And, by the way, this is the reason that we hear from time to time [about every other week now] that Medicare is going to run out of money soon…
Or, we could use as an example the IRS… Do you think that they are efficient? [I don't know if you are old enough to reflect on this one]
Another example: the “federal government” response to the Katrina disaster a few years ago…
I could go on and on, but I trust that you get the idea by now.
Obama sure has many plans and intentions –the problem is that nobody knows what they are. My guess is that he is going to be a huge disappointment, similar to the transformation politicians go through when they go to Washington: they are immediately sucked by the system and all they do is work to be re-elected, asking everyone for money, cutting shady deals with other politicians, etc. With Obama, the stakes are much, much higher because he will be the “Commander in Chief” –who will certainly fail on some situations…[no experience. no track record, never in charge or anything...]
Most Americans are sadly uninformed about the realities of the health care system in the US, for several reasons. Probably the main one is that politicians love to keep it that way because it always serves their selfish election/re-election purposes.
Trying to simplify= health care delivery is so expensive because of the insurance companies’ greed.
The companies that offer/carry health insurance coverage are private and set up for profit, a fact that will not change unless the US capitalistic system is replaced by another one (you know what).
A clear example: Blue Cross-Blue Shield is *not* a single company, it is a sort of franchise. Private insurance companies license the brand and then sell coverage/policies. At present, there are 30 Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in the US. The requirement for them is to keep a cash reserve (all together) of $20 billion — At present, today, they have about $39.6 billion dollars in cash. Why so much? Simply because they overcharge in premiums,,, Plus, they need cash to buy politicians in order to stall any potential change and to pay their managers millions of dollars in salary and bonuses. Sounds familiar? Well, it is! The “Blues” plans are *NO* different than the large corporations we all know about…
Again, we will all continue to pay even higher premiums for health insurance, because the system “WILL NOT CHANGE” anytime soon…
A final note: most people believe that doctors are responsible for the greed. However, and this is a fact: reimbursement to physicians for treating patients has declined about 50% since 1998, while the expenses for keeping a practice open have increased 78% during the same period… please do the math — and then think of the reasons that many medical practices do not accept Medicare patients.
Wait a minute!! Medicare *IS* the federal government! –mull that one for a while, and remember, Obama wants us all to be covered by a unique “Medicare” system. In fact, this is, honestly, being proposed on Capitol Hill…
@Annie Fulton MD. I do administrative work for an Internal Medicine practice in Maryland, and at present, because of overhead [office insurance, salaries, utilities, supplies, liability insurance, etc.] it costs us $110 to see a Medicare patient.
After the billing is done, Medicare reimburses the practice about $62 in 30-60 days. This means that the practice is *subsidizing* the federal government while treating the elderly…
It is a net loss for the practice, which stays open by covering expenses from reimbursements obtained from treating private/commercial insurance patients…
Please think about this: do we really want a “Medicare-like” system for all of us… I think is coming.
I work for a social media marketing company. In the past few months we have launched a tool to help marketers evaluate their social media efforts. I think there is a great story here as we have used Obama and McCain to illustrate the power of word-of-mouth on line. Our tool was designed to be a directional indicator and feel we have the data to support the correlation of on line conversations and actual popular vote result.
Going into election the social share of voice each candidate had mirrored what the popular vote turned out to be
On 11/2
Obama Vitrue SMI score = 7140 (54.1%)
McCain Vitrue SMI score = 6050 (45.9%)
On 11/3
Obama Vitrue SMI score = 7140 (53.2%)
McCain Vitrue SMI score = 6270 (46.8%)
On 11/4
Popular vote of election
Obama 53%
McCain 46%
We are updating our final numbers by Mon but you can see progress of their scores up to the election at our blog
http://vitrue.com/blog
You have good points. However, the “popular vote” is irrelevant with our election system: it is the “electoral vote” that counts. Look it up.
Or, ask Al Gore, who wanted to change the rules with the help of his lawyers. He still introduces himself saying “I used to be the President of The United States” –what a bloated fool!
He intros himself as “I used to be the *next* President of the United States”. Have you even watched An Inconvenient Truth ?
@Simon — Yes, in the movie, but in real life he actually introduces himself as “I used to be the President of The United States” — You would think that he is joking, but the resentment is still there… I met him at a reception in Washington DC.
Al Gore actually wanted to change the way elections are conducted, considering only the “popular” vote and the Florida Supreme Court [mostly liberal democrat judges] wrongly supported him.
The US Supreme Court overturned the Florida judges, following the electoral law. This is why many uninformed individuals still say that the Supreme Court of the US “gave” the election to George W Bush –
The “Electoral College” vote is what really counts. By law, not by what Al Gore still believes… Many of us know that what he believes is bunk.
It’s so true and it’s not a bad thing by any means.
Obama definitely outperformed McCain in utilizing the internet to support his campaign, but such a statement as quoted in the headline is impossible to confirm or deny, and therefore utterly meaningless. That being said, I am amazed by Obama’s use of the internet and can’t wait to see how his administration uses it to expand transparency and increase communication between the federal government and the populace of the US.
Thought experiment:
Assuming every US citizen is equipped with secure broadband internet connection, will we be in a position to change the way Congress votes? We will still need Reps and Senators to form policy, but without geographical/time barriers, shouldn’t every citizen be given the opportunity to cast their vote? Imagine if each individual could cast their vote, in real-time, on bills as they pass through Congress. Isn’t this what true democracy should strive for?
“Imagine if each individual could cast their vote, in real-time, on bills as they pass through Congress. Isn’t this what true democracy should strive for?”
We already have true democracy in the US: American citizens elect their “representatives” who then work in the Congress. Although far from perfect, this is the best democratic system. What you are suggesting is known as “CHAOS” based on technology. BTW, “technology” is not the answer for everything.
WOW! “can’t wait to see how his administration uses it to expand transparency and increase communication between the federal government and the populace of the US” — First of all, calling US citizens “the populace of the US” is insulting. I will assume that you are not American.
Second, if you believe that *ANY* administration will “increase transparency and communication” Sorry but I have to say that you are *extremely* naive and uninformed – Politics, by their very nature, is far, far away from “transparency and communication” which is to say “truth and honesty”
As a good politician, Obama will *NEVER* use “truth and honesty” –Whatever he is talking about, anytime, anywhere…
We do not have a “true democracy.” The United States is a “constitutional republic.” Of apparently 58 states.
@Scott It is legally correct: The United States is a “constitutional republic”
Now, do you deny that we are “a true democracy” –You should get acquainted with the original meaning of the word…
If we are not a “true democracy” would you please name other/s from anywhere in the world?
Come to think of it, you may still be in high school!
Have you done your homework already?
A true democracy is “majority rules” for everything. We don’t do that. I didn’t get a vote on the Stimulus Package last month, did you? The elected officials from my state however did get to vote on it as happens in a republic.
I know of no “true democracies.” Maybe Somalia, as “true democracy” is close to mob rule.
@Scott –Another 12 years old. You sound like you are reading from a textbook [a Nazi textbook] — Fine, you have no clue, please move to Somalia. Freak.
yea turning off the AVS on his website so millions of contributions could be made with fake information was a great move. Thanks internet!
Right, that’s why he won, obv.
I hope that’s what this goofy bitch is referring to. Without the internet those millions of illegal campaign contributions would not have been possible.
The internet shook things up in two ways: First, Youtube let anyone, Repub or Dem alike, actually go back and look at speeches and see what was actually said and done. (Though most left that to Jon Stewart.)
Second, and more to the point, In many ads McCain attacked Obama (not ready, untested, Ayers, etc.). But nearly every Obama ad told readers to go to his web site and read his plan. Find out the facts for yourself. Something that could never have been made as accessible to so many people beforehand.
Considering just how slender his victory was in many states (IND), I have to believe the article is correct. He needed every advantage he could get.
@Michael Long. You are not telling the truth here:
“But nearly every Obama ad told readers to go to his web site and read his plan. Find out the facts for yourself”
Obama’s ads were all about the “Change We Need” and “not another eight years of the same” [I agree on this point] — NOT “go to my web site”
C’mon! You are insulting the intelligence of many TC readers!
what a nasty comment thread. If those spewing hate all would take your anger and direct it to apolitical public good the world might actually be a better place.
Yes, without reatrded dummies like yourself! Get lost retard!
Yes, without retarded dummies like yourself! Get lost you idiot!
Sure, you can say the internet propelled Obama, but the biggest propellant BY FAR was the mainstream media who covered for him.
See Michael Malone’s piece:
http://abcnews....9188&page=1
By far.
This was without a doubt the best session of the three day Web2Summit conference.
I really appreciated the SF mayor identifying the fact that the tools of democracy in Web 2.0 are beyond the means of many people. Despite the power of the Web bringing Obama to the throne, it will take a broader distribution of Web access and understanding how to use Web 2.0 tools to bring true democracy to everyone via the web.
Trippi’s idea that the distribution of web enabled cell phones may be an inexpensive and almost universally available platform is likely the best way this could happen, but cell phone plans are beyond the reach of many and universal access is still not possible in the cell phone economic world.
“identifying the fact that the tools of democracy in Web 2.0 are beyond the means of many people”
So you are saying that before cell phones there was no *democracy*?
What are talking about? You must live in Sudan! Here in the US we have had *DEMOCRACY* for over 200 years, with more individual freedom than *ANY* other country in the world!
Sir, you are an unbelivable ignorant!
http://newsbust...tor-freddie-mac
Obama bashes Hillary for her pro war vote to win the primary.
Chooses Biden, who voted for the war as well.
The media helped elect Obama, not the Internet.
I think Obama utilised every bit of technology he could, except holograms. I was disappointed of his blatant disregard for Interactive Holograms.
Dwayne.
http://probablysucks.com
How is this remotely related to tech. Start a new blog policrunch for such posts.
http://vidsonly.blogspot.com
The Key to winning is the GROUND GAME. Obama utilized social networking to encourage and obtain volunteers and young college kids to work the street and visit the swing states. Bush Jr won because he had lots of evangelicals working for him. Obama utilized a movement of young and anti-bush democrats to do the same thing. When there is so much momentum and peer pressure building for Obama with the canvassing, it put him over the top in neighboring states like Indiana, Iowa, Ohio and in Biden’s neighboring state of Virginia.
Obama won because he used all the mediums available to us today – including the Internet to get his message across and touch people. Perhaps for techies like us it was majority of the impact – but to those who showed up for him in record numbers at stadiums and arenas around the country – it was more of Obama the man in the flesh than the virtual Obama. Let’s not forget his books (can you say Hardcopy), his travel around the country, the Obama TV channel, the phone calls, the signs in the front lawns across the country, and the message of hope broadcasted primarily through traditional media – all of these were root causes of his success. The Internet was a medium – one part of a larger messaging – but delivered geometric gains. But in the aggregate it is not the main reason he was successful. Somtimes the Huff does stretch the facts a bit too much….
Internet helped partly in obama victory.But the other media also played substantial role.
http://tech-blo...4u.blogspot.com
For those of you who think this is unrelated, why don’t you ask Google’s CEO, Eric Schmit? Jim Cramer did:
http://www.eque...CEO-Eric-Schmit
sorry, this is the link:
http://www.eque...EO-Eric-Schmidt
In 21st century is full of gadget. Online election process is very good. Internet is growing and flow of information is fast due to this fast communication channel. Obama victory is itself a report that most people are using Internet to get the current information.
Mike, get your hand off it. This was no more than a collection of blow-hard blogtards pissing in each other’s pockets and blowing smoke up their arse.
From the surface, both the McCain and Obama campaigns used the Web for fund-raising but no one will question that Obama had monumentally more success, pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars more than McCain online.
What was the difference? Both campaigns had websites, cultivated bloggers and made heavy use of YouTube. But the Obama campaign took its efforts further by creating a massive grass-roots online network of volunteers.
Like me, you may have received emails and text messages about Obama’s campaign. You might have even friended him on Facebook. This was novel. But, it was the sophisticated microtargeting in his campaigns that made it brilliant. The Obama campaign used personalized emails and text messages to communicate with people delivering messages relevant to their districts and the issues that they cared about. Beyond getting them to donate this also got them out to vote.
all yo shhhhh obama won cause he deserve it it is good to have obamba as a president
We are a democratic republic.
Remember that FDR himself would never have been elected (other than 1st term) if tv or internet had been around. But then the depression wold not have lasted as long.
Mu
Obama…. will definately help us become a true socialist state.
We are already part way there with government owning portion of private business.
That plus his recent comments is the proof.