Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

PDF 2009: Chasing the Internet Leader

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:34
in

The annual Personal Democracy Forum was Monday and Tuesday in New York, and it was very good.  As always. You can read more about it at TechPresident.

Naturally, there was a great deal of conversation about the imbalance between the Left and Right online.  The general consensus is that Republicans are behind on the internet, though there is a great deal of debate over how and why.  The least convincing answer was offered by a PDF audience member, and it basically boiled down to "Republicans suck. Democrats are cool.  So we're better at the internet."

Yeah, well, those who forget history...

Democrats race to catch up to GOP online

The Democratic National Committee relaunched its Web site Friday and appointed its first technology adviser in an effort to match the Republican party's success in using the Internet to build its constituency. [...] "We realized that the Republicans were ironically peddling their Stone Age ideas with modern-day technology tools, and we were just not at their level in our dedication to technology," Buck said.Insiders say it's widely acknowledged that the Republican committee has done a better job than the Democrats' committee in creating an online strategy.  The Republican committee "is far and away ahead in securing a large constituent of online activists and does a better job of using the medium to move their message," said Pam Fielding of E-advocates, an Internet advocacy consulting firm based in Washington, D.C.

That was 2002.

What changed?  Again, that's the subject of a great deal of debate, but I would argue that it was two things:

  1. Republicans got comfortable.
  2. Democrats got entrepreneurial.

In 2016, there's no doubt that the online landscape will be very different.  The Right will be much more effective.  The only question is how they will do it.  The balance of power on the Right will depend, in large part, on who the new entrepreneurs are and how they build the infrastructure.

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

What Changed?

Submitted by caringwhiteguy on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:48.

Americans of all shapes, sizes, colors and POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES were exposed to six more years of George W. Bush.  The left and their pals in MSM succeeded in tarring Bush as bumbling, detached and inadequate.  This energized their base.  Bush himself succeed in demonstrating to his base that he WAS bumbling, detached and inadequate.  This demoralized his own base. 

It wasn't a question of comfort or entrepreneurship.  It was a question of a vaccuum at the top. 

And there remains a vacuum at the top...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 14:17.

...and in the middle, sides, everywhere.  We have folks who think that all that is needed for a Republican victory is to learn how to set up a Facebook page and do their little twitter function.   They forget that the internet/blogesphere is nothing more than a tool in the toolbox.  A very important tool, certainly, but still just a tool.  Other important tools are collecting dust.  And we have Limbaugh and Hannity totally obsessed rambling on about the wicked, Constitution-Hating democrats.  Choosing to totally ignore the massive problems and hostilities that remain between the GOP Hierarchy and the "former" GOP voting Base.  Darvin Dowdy

What changed?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:01.

2002 is, of course, the year that Bush/Cheney overreach kicked into high gear. With the result that the creative classes, who had until then been willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, turned away. (You can see the national approve/disapprove trend lines on Wikipedia.) 2002 was also the year Daily Kos was founded.

Did the GOP ever really have an on-line advantage? I don't know - I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Can they ever regain an on-line advantage? Not so long as they are the party of no-nothingness, where stupidity is a virtue and Governors don't have to resign after international booty calls on the taxpayer's dime because King David didn't resign over Bathsheba.

You find it unconvincing to say "Republicans suck. Democrats are cool.  So we're better at the internet." Well, newsflash - if you go around parading your contempt for modernity, you are going to have trouble deploying some of the primary tools of modernity.

It's all about who wants it more

Submitted by Chris Palko on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:21.

It seems that there is a cycle that occurs in politics and technology.  One side is in power, starts with a tech edge, but then gets complacent and doesn't take things to the next level.  The side that is out of power first feels demoralized, but then gets angry at what the side in power has accomplished.  They are willing to take risks and latch on to the newest technologies available.  The side in power loses the ability to push its agenda and the other side takes over, with help from the new technologies they developed while out of power.

Ahh, the conventional wisdom, conventionally displayed

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 13:41.

Let's see, the key difference between the GOP's internet dominance in 2002 and the Democrats' in 2008 was because the GOP got comfortable (or complacent) and the Dems got entrepreneurial --and that, by implication, is why the GOP "lost everything" --including it's soul, if you believe some here-- and the Dems became "RulersOmnipresent".

Guess what?  It's bunk. 

According to PewResearch, the majority of people still think the internet has causes more harm than good in elections, spreads more disinformation and lies than even the MSM, has given voice to and elevated extreme/radical voices, debased the public square and marketplace of ideas, led to a coarsening and shrill tone in politics and turned elections into prissy contests to see which side can leverage the other side's gaffs to the greatest effect in the shortest timespan.  Oh, and they don't trust it, either --as their money proves.

Politics & money & the internet --as CrazyUncleRonPaul advocates underscore-- is the real difference between 2002 and 2008.  Bull.  In 2002, 6% of Americans contributing money to campaigns gave by way of AlGore'sInternets... in 2008, 8% contributed. Just like in the real world, most Americans STILL don't trust the internet or web-based commerce to shuttle their political contributions --although, it seems, most politically-centered partisan sites beg for money 24x7.  Like many Americans, I might check in and read something, but do I trust the web enough to send my political contribution that way?  Hell no says 92% of all Americans contributing to political campaigns.

But that's not the spin coming out of the PdF cluck-a-thon.  Oh no, the "creative class" has a much more creative spin.

I once heard KarlRove comment on the PdF cluck-a-thon about how the internet will change everything in politics by asking "what do a group of politically naive geeks know about anything when they still have the social skills of the 6th grade chess club?  I mean the attendees couldn't get laid in NYC if a hooker was brought to their room."

Maybe Rove was being a tad harsh, but to argue that the key difference between 2002 and 2008 influence of the net on politics as "comfortable" vs "entrepreneurial" is to miss more than just the boat by a mile... it's missing the docks, the water and the motor.

Better analysis would include looking closely at the expenditures of the Natl RNC/DNC, the various Congressional GOP/Dem Caucus Committees, the federal PACs operating in state GOP organizations, the independent and not-so-independent PACs plus the role of the 527s in accelerating the use of the net in the 2008 race.  I think that analysis would need to include some insights into staffing those groups, as well?  Hmmm.

Conventional wisdom conventionally displayed isn't very insightful.  I'm sure the NewRight net-nutts can do better, no?

As usual M-Matt loses ALL perspective with his inane remarks

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 15:17.

Politics & money & the internet --as CrazyUncleRonPaul advocates underscore-- is the real difference between 2002 and 2008.  Bull.  In 2002, 6% of Americans contributing money to campaigns gave by way of AlGore'sInternets... in 2008, 8% contributed. Just like in the real world, most Americans STILL don't trust the internet or web-based commerce to shuttle their political contributions --although, it seems, most politically-centered partisan sites beg for money 24x7.  Like many Americans, I might check in and read something, but do I trust the web enough to send my political contribution that way?  Hell no says 92% of all Americans contributing to political campaigns.

You mean, you based your numbers on reading some stament like this:

6% of Americans have made political contributions online, compared with 2% who did during the entire 2004 campaign.

 

My friend, it means that ...lets say if 8% of all Americans(eligible voters) made a political contribution, 6% made them online and 2% made by snail mail or some such. That makes it 75% of all contribtors online in 2008.  Similarily, assuming 6% of all Americans made a political contribution in 2004, 2% made online and 4%made non-online. That makes the online fgure just 33% in 2004 compared to 75% in 2008.

PS. Of course, I understand these little facts and figures won't change anything you say in  the rest of your comment.

Apart from the link I provided above, here's some basic eductation on the topic:

http://www.pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2009/The-Internets-Role-in-Cam...

Maybe Remains, you should learn to spell in your

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 07/06/2009 - 15:48.

here's some basic eductation (sic) on the topic

Gotta love those idiots who can't spell but think they have a monopoly on insight?  It's education, you dolt.

Go get one, Remains.  And take cr, your legendary misspelling peer with you,ok?

Gotta love those idiots who

Submitted by miloor on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 01:30.

Gotta love those idiots who can't spell but think they have a monopoly on insight? It's education, you dolt. Air Jordan Nike Air Max shox shoes Nike Kobe jordans

ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing,

Submitted by tengfei on Thu, 07/16/2009 - 00:01.

ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing, Shoes, Shirts, Swimwear, Belts, Sunglasses, Perfume, Dresses By Christian Audigier. cheap Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Children's T-shirts. Ed Hardy Men's Beach Shorts. Ed Hardy Men's Jeans Ed Hardy Women's Dresses. Ed Hardy Women's Hoodies. Ed Hardy Women's Jeans UK Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Sale links of london Jewellery Sale

tiffany jewellery is the best

Submitted by submit102 on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 03:20.

tiffany jewellery is the best online links of london charms stores where you can buy the cheapest tiffany jewelry and Links of London. Our huge selection of Tiffany Jewelry.

Buy cheap Links of London

Submitted by marry on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 23:07.

Buy cheap Links of London jewelry at online Links of london UK store, including Links of London Necklaces, Links of London Charms, Links of London Earrings.Links of London - This exquisite range is available from our online shop as well as free delivery on all orders– Visit us now! Links of London, Pandora and Links of London is one of the best online jewelry stores. A wide selection of fine quality gold, silver and diamond Links london Choose, buy and shop for on sale tiffany jewelry including Tiffany & Co Silver Necklace, Pendants, Bangles, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings and Accessories. tiffany jewelry tiffany co Tiffany Bracelets Tiffany Rings