Are Republicans internet Luddites?

As we gird ourselves up for tonight's CNN/YouTube Republican debate, it's worth pointing out again that the candidates on show (yes, I know, with the exception of Ron Paul) have proved slow to exploit this medium.

A brief glance at the figures for Facebook and MySpace friends, helpfully listed on the excellent techPresident.com shows the gulf: Obama gets a total of around 360,000 on these two sites and Clinton about 200,000. How about the two leading Republicans? Romney struggles to get past the 50,000 mark and Giuliani barely makes 20,000.

It was Romney who initially balked at appearing in a YouTube debate, saying the “presidency ought to be held at a higher level” than answering a question from an animated snowman - as the Democrats had just done - while Giuliani hesitated because of "scheduling conflicts".

They have, nonetheless, been dragged reluctantly to Florida tonight where among the 50,000 videos submitted, there is inevitably this one from a rather hurt sounding snowman.

Chris Dodd has also tried to get in on the act, with the Democratic candidate asking this question about the US constitution.

Clever though Dodd is, viewers are more likely to recognise the snowman

There has been an awful lot of talk about why the Republicans have proven so inept on the internet. Some suggest it is because they are a "top-down" party, well-versed in delivering a carefuly honed message through attack ads and Talk Radio, but wary of the wilder, uncontrollable territory of online direct democracy. This might explain why McCain's insurgent campaign against the party's establishment in 2000 had some success in raising money on the web  - and the current phenomenon of Ron Paul/ Guy Fawkes movement.

But the Democratic candidates are also too scared to allow their online supporters a stake in the campaign - witness Obama's treatment of the young activist in California who was forced to relinquish control of a MySpace group set up in the candidate's honour.

For Obama and others, the internet is a useful piece of branding, making them look tech-savvy, hip and modern, while also helping him raise mounds of cash and armies of supporters.

For Republicans, the opposite is true. Although this is a terrible generalisation, their activists are more likely to regard the web as a purveyor of porn and terror or, at best, a business tool. And some, I suspect, still yearn for the gentler contours of a pre-internet age. 

Comments

[Brett]

The Republicans are that weak on the internet front? It's a little shocking, but only a little. I think the success of Bush II's funding for the 2004 gave them overconfidence as to how easy it would be.

Moreover, the Democrats had a direct lesson in how effective on-line funding can be, in the form of Howard Dean's fundraising through his on-line network. Here's hoping that they can use their edge in the internet to actually win this campaign.

the most successfull candidate of all parties on the internet is Ron Paul so not all republicans have a hard time with the internet

[Jack Caffey]

The *Republicans* deliver a 'carefully honed message through attack ads and Talk Radio'? That's amusing.

The Democrats are the Queens and Kings of Mean when it comes to attack ads ... both the candidates and Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Nasty and snarling.

We Americans are not as stupid as you like to think...

[Keith]

I think the internet is overrated as a way to boost one's campaign. Many people are still used to non-online ways of keeping up with campaigns (TV, debates, newspaper). The internet hasn't given many people a good enough reason to abandon those old methods. Also, as far as sites like myspace are concerned, those mostly attract traffic from the younger crowd who by default vote Democratic anyway.

I think last night's CNN/YouTube joke of a debate is only going to further scare Repubs from using the internet as a base for their operations.

[Mr Tim]

Republicans would rather see the eye of the donor.....

[Chad]

The stats that the author gives do NOT in any sense reflect the use of the Internet by Republicans. Rather, it reflects (perhaps) the amount they use MySpace and FaceBook for carrying on discussions of politics.

But since the overwhelming majority of people (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) routinely use the Internet, it is simply silly to suggest that one party or the other is weak on the Internet.

[mr scruff]

there is a valid explanation of this - from my understanding of American politics, it appears to me that the Republicans are more grassroots and more face-to-face. They appear to be more interested in pounding the streets, meeting people face to face, and doing face-to-face fundraisers.

As the Howard Dean episode has proven, the internet can only go so far. Nothing beats personal, face-to-face politicing.

[mr scruff]

"There has been an awful lot of talk about why the Republicans have proven so inept on the internet. "

are you even aware of townhall.com? and all the podcasted talk radio shows associated with it?

thanks to that site, even though i'm in the uk , i can regularly listen to the likes of Hewitt, Praeger and Medved - all Republicans.

[Kevin]

Tom,

Perhaps you have over-analyzed the distinction here. It's can probably be explained by demographic differences: democrats are young, republicans are old.

[Mike]

As posted above with the snowman tube, Why should they take it as serious? The simple act of asking a question that concerns one should not be in jest or other! Be real about it, because if the wrong candidates are chosen, our pocket books will wish we had been!

[Erik]

Wow! So the Republicans deliver messages only through attack ads and are apparently scared of the Internet because it's a purveyor of porn and terror. Seriously, what world do you live in? Have you ever met a Republican? Your "attacks" could have come straight from the Clinton handbook.

Your contention that Facebook and Myspace hits is barometer of Internet savvy is baffling. If you've ever visited those sites, then you know its not the most serious marketplace of political ideas. Quite the opposite I would say. Maybe Republican supporters frequent other Internet sites. Did you ever consider that? Anyway, you found something that you thought showed the Democrats in a enlightened way and got a chance to perpetuate some negative stereotypes of Republicans so why not run it, no?

[Kevin Haynes]

CNN/YouTube political debase! God help us all, if this is a sign of the brave new world.

[Jive Dadson - Silicon Valley, California]

Ron Paul's campaign has done little to exploit the internet, other than to voice a message of freedom, prosperity, and peace that the nation is starved to hear. He now has 71,000 volunteers in almost 1000 cities who have organized themselves through meetup.com. (I am one of them.) The meetup groups were started and are organized by independent supporters, not by the campaign committee. A couple of weeks ago, he raised $4.3 million (2.1 million pounds) in one day. The promotion was organized by a supporter, not by the campaign.

When Ron Paul speaks to the ever larger rallies, he often begins with, "Thank you for inviting me to your revolution."

Aside to whoever wrote, "We Americans are not as stupid as you like think." -- It is on us to show some evidence of that. Who re-elected George Bush? Eh?

[richard M]

The Republicans and the Democrats have been slow to exploit the internet because they have complete disdain and contempt for the average voter. Without generalizing, the majority of the candidates are flush with special interest money. Why try to please the populace when you can suck up to a financial fat cat or lobbyist. The people expect loyalty and results, while the financial interests only expect subservience. In Washington, for long term political security, it is wiser to be subservient. Of course, this option probably leads to a future in Hell.

[Warwick Varley]

Unfortunately the Americans are as stupid as we think. If you look at the candidates from both sides, they are all socially inept as well, and none of them are very good liars either, which is imperitive as a politician.

[Phil]

I think the author of this article has no idea of what Ron Paul and his millions of supporters are truly doing.

[Modern pietist]

Ron Paul's success with this newfangled internet thang is no accident.

He's the only GOP candidate who galvanises the young, the mentally adventurous, those who bust loose from the straitjacket of the corporate media and their dreary shibboleths and self-censorship after 9/11.

They've been imbibing real news and out-of-the-box libertarian and conservative opinion for the 21st century on the web for quite a while. Paul is that spirit made flesh-- as much a revival of 1776 as a new millennium's outlook, and despite his own innocence of matters cybernetic.

His campaign is part of the new eclecticism in politics. It rejects the phoney old left/right bipolar disorder- foisted on America while a single warfare/welfare party jerks strings.

[wt katz]

there was an internet debate?

would you buy a used car from Mitt Romney?

to respond to mr caffey, any country that votes in george bush not once but twice is as stupid as you think.

[Ron]

>>We Americans are not as stupid as you like to think...

Posted by: Jack Caffey | 29 November 2007 at 07:44 PM<<

. . . Well, some of us are -- those who believe the premises of the comment I quote from, for example.

For those of you not "lucky" enough to experience the glories of American news media, Olbermann is a target of the right because he is essentially the only one on U.S. television who calls out the Bush administration for its corruption and incompetence. The right-wing attack on Matthews, Rudy Giuliani's lapdog and misogynist Clinton-hater, is incomprehensible.

"The Democrats are the Queens and Kings of Mean when it comes to attack ads ... "
Yes -- the Swift Boat ads, the race-baiting ads against McCain and Dukakis, all produced by Democrats. Oh wait, they were produced by Republicans!? Never mind. But Rush Limbaugh is a Democrat! Well...

Let's find a psychology dictionary, and look up the definition of "Projection."

[steve]

|Ron Paul/ Guy Fawkes"???

Whatever, buddy.

Good god....

[Don Jensen]

Its not the format its allowing the media to decide what is posted.

The whole debate format is bad 30 sec sound bites are useless. I would think the debates should center around a few key subjects and then have candidates flush out their positions with monitors to keep them on subject.

[Zack]

Ron Paul, Republican presidential candidate from Texas, is dominating the internet these days. What is interesting is that unlike Obama, who seeks to tightly control his online presence, Paul encourages his followers to independently support his campaign by whatever means suits them. This resulted in the record-breaking $4.3M Guy Fawkes day haul, organized completely without the involvement of the Paul campaign.

There are dozens (or perhaps hundreds) or spontaneously organized Meetup groups, discussion forums, and blogs, dedicated to supporting Ron Paul. Most of these sites are a benefit to the campaign, such as www.dailypaul.com, www.ronpaulnation.com, and www.ronpaulforums.com. This decentralized approach has also resulted in some less desirable elements publicly organizing support for Paul. What is important though is that even though Paul does not ascribe to some of the beliefs of some of these groups, such a wide variety of people with differing perspectives are rallying behind this candidate and his message of freedom, reform, and hope.

As you might have guessed, I too am a Ron Paul supporter. I made my first political donation ever (to any political candidate) on Guy Fawkes day.

www.ronpaul2008.com

[Scott Frost]

Uh...... The report in this article is not very accurate. Amongst the various U.S. presidential candidates, Ron Paul rules the internet. There is not any doubt about that.

The article states that the campaigns are afraid to let the supporters have too much control. Not so with Ron Paul. In fact, it is the supporters who are leading the campaign in many ways. The campaign does not coordinate very much with supporters. The supporters do things for the campaign -- without even asking first.

Fundraising is the prime example. Ron Paul raised his record $4.3 million in one day online without his campaign being involved at all. It cost him nothing to raise that money.

But there are also many other activities not affiliated or coordinated with the campaign, such as the full page ad taken out in USA Today by a single supporter at a cost of $85,000, the Ron Paul Blimp project, rallies all over the country at football games complete with airplanes pulling Ron Paul banners behind them, people painting their cars with Ron Paul's name, Ron Paul Christmas signs with blinking Christmas lights, "Google Ron Paul" painted on a building's rooftop, the Ron Paul Riders and on and on...

What other campaign has that kind of enthusiasm? None of them do! And THAT is where the real story is!

By the way, the Paul campaign is NOT affiliated with Guy Fawkes in any way. The November 5th fundraising event was tied to Guy Fawkes Day by, literally, a handful of supporters who enjoyed the movie "V for Vendetta." It took off from there because it was a very clever and audacious marketing idea, the likes of which most campaigns would never have dared attempt. The proper interpretation of the Guy Fawkes Day connection is that Paul's supporters are analogous to the citizens of England who march in peaceful civil disobedience at the end of the film "V for Vendetta" to tell their tyrannical government they have had enough.

Remember, the Ron Paul supporters want an END to war and violence. They are the ones calling for U.S. troops to come home. They are libertarians who oppose the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. They emphasize the word "love" spelled backwards in the word "rEVOLution," as in "Ron Paul Revolution." Hardly Guy Fawkes.

Ron Paul has far more activist, grassroots supporters than Barack Obama does. Check the numbers for MeetUp groups. It isn't even close. Ron Paul has more MeetUp groups and members than any other candidate in any party and far more than all of the other Republicans COMBINED.

Ron Paul wins every online poll (except that ones that don't include him, so that the other candidates have a chance to pretend that they won something.)

Ron Paul has the most (and best) YouTube videos and is making the best use of the internet by far.

The Paul campaign realized, early on, that they needed to run a decentralized, grassroots campaign and they have done so by encouraging social networking online. The other campaigns are starting to attempt to copy the Paul campaign's successful model, but it isn't working very well for them because there just is not very much grassroots support for the other candidates' messages.

Ron Paul's message of peace, prosperity and freedom resonates. End the wars, restore value to our currency, restore our lost liberties, cut government spending, eliminate the income tax...

And Ron Paul's supporters are the most fun, too. :D

Your reporter should cover them more and he would find this out for himself!

[Tom Dixon]

But isn't it also the case that the most web-savvy Democratic "allies", that huge number of surfin'-geeks surrounding Kostas Moulitsas and his "Daily Kos" site are actually doing more harm to the respectability of the party than any good that they may confer in sheer attention.

[Jasmer]

The GOP has simply absorbed the lesson taught by Dean's last campaign too deeply. They'll learn, despite defeat or success, since many people who would support them already prefer the Internet to traditional media. Eventually they'll get their "Vast right-wing conspiracy" automated...

After all, there's just as many right-leaning netziens ("Freepers") as there are left-leaning ("Kossacks"), mythology about lefties being smarter notwithstanding.