Was they high level of participation in the 2008 presidential election orchestrated by the Obama campaign, or was it just good fortune that went their way? There are many claims on both sides, but one fact is undeniable: Younger voters turned out in record numbers. The most important questions that stem from that should not be about that came about, but how to continue their engagement. Are they a giant that has been awoken, that every future campaign must reach out to the way Obama reached out via the web? The Guardian believes that future elections will turn on use of the virtual world, a candidates must be technologically adroit. They stop short of saying that his online campaign won the election, but it certainly help
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/07/barackobama-uselections2008
Not everyone agrees. Various bloggers around the web are saying that Obama went out and won, social networks did not win for him. Here is an example of one dissenting voice:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/feeds/?p=305&tag=rbxccnbzd1
I personally believe that Obama deftly used tools that we readily available to both camps, and engaged more people. Through his campaigns use of social media, he empowered people. People felt that they were making a difference beyond the voting booth. Through Facebook, the encouraged others to become involved, to vote, and effect change. It does not matter if it was perception or reality, they engaged, and stayed engaged throughout. My central question for my coming paper will deals with the staying power of networks. Will the online communities stay engaged, and shape future race? Will future campaigns generate enough interest online to harness the powers of those networks?
3 comments:
The Pew Internet and American Life Project might have relevant articles for your project. If you haven't checked it out yet, here is the link: www.pewinternet.org/index.asp
I agree the campaign used the tools well. One way to identify a grass roots process is too see if it empowers people and they get trained and then they are turned loose to go do their organizing. I think the Obama effort "got it" about this and in doing so they recognized not only the power that could be gained using social networking, but they also they were taking a huge risk. Its the 'turn them loose' part that's really not controllable anymore. Its not top down anymore.
I found this article at Web2.0h…Really? that turns the question around a bit in exploring what you're talking about. Check out the last few paragraphs. It ends with:
From now on, the question isn’t how an administration can leverage social tools. It’s about how the self-organizing, unruly, passionate people in constant communication with each other use social tools among themselves in relation to the emerging government.
As the action shifts from political campaign to government administration, it’s less about what Obama does with social media than it is what you do with it.
Which is to say: It’s not about 2.Obama. It’s time for You.0.
Hi again. Found a couple more. Everything's connected in this arena more and more.
Net2 Think Tank: Lessons From The Campaigns http://tinyurl.com/5bwtxe (Got this off of Twitter)
For Obama, Governing in the Age of YouTube http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/11/25/for-obama-governing-in-the-age-of-youtube.html
Post a Comment