Making an Impression: New Media in the 2008 Presidential Nomination Campaigns

Making an Impression: New Media in the 2008 Presidential Nomination CampaignsAuthor(s): Audrey A. Haynes and Brian PittsSource: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan., 2009), pp. 53-58Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452373 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toPS: Political Science and Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:02:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452373?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


............................................................................ ................................................................................ -.*... - -*-... ----....... ?--*..... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

Making an Impression: New Media

in the 2008 Presidential Nomination

C amp aigns Audrey A. Haynes, University of Georgia

Brian Pitts, University of Georgia

........................................................................................................................

J ust as radio and television revolutionized the presiden tial election process in earlier decades, today the "new

media" are making a significant imprint on how cam paigns are conducted by candidates, covered by jour nalists, and evaluated by the voters. While the same basic goals for campaigns apply, the tools to accom

plish these goals have expanded.

THE NEW MEDIA, THE PUBLIC, AND CAMPAIGN 2.0

New media is a general term covering nontraditional ways of delivering information. Traditional media would encompass broadcast and cable television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. New media refers specifically to things such as streaming video and audio, weblogs (hereby referred to as blogs), social networking sites, and user-generated content.

Hyperlinks and search engines link everything together and provide many choices to explore and share. Because most of the new media are utilized primarily through the Internet, it is here that we go next. The potential for new media to have an impact on the campaign rests on the premise that the con tent can reach the publics that the campaigns are attempting to capture. Indications are that new media have become highly accessible to the general public, but that there are still some who are less likely to access political information through this medium.

A recent Harris Poll survey, which polled 2,062 adults in July and October of 2007, found that 79% of adults-about 178 million-go online, spending an average 11 hours a week on the Internet. Internet users are seeking more than just bar gains on eBay: 73% of the general public went online to access general news; 55% went online to get political news or infor mation about candidates or upcoming campaigns (from the May 2008 Pew Internet & American Life Project Tracking sur veys).- The profile of the news/information consumer on the Internet is now roughly even between male and female. How ever, it is still more Caucasian, relatively young, and highly educated (from the May 2008, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Tracking Survey).2 There has been movement in terms of the racial makeup of Internet-news information seekers. The latest data from Pew suggests a significant increase in the number of African Americans and Hispanics utilizing the Inter net for news.3

While television still dominates, the number of individu als who use the Internet as the primary source for news infor

mation has been increasing steadily. According to Pew's survey, a majority of those who went online for political news used this information to help them decide how to vote. Indeed, about one-third of them suggested that information they received online was the determining factor in voting for or against an individual. The typical individual who uses the Internet for campaign information is generally using this plat form to find out where candidates stand on issues and to research their voting records.

THAT WAS THE GOOD ONLINE NEWS; THIS IS THE BAD ONLINE NEWS...

One of the more interesting findings in recent studies of Inter net use is also one that has implications for the population's exposure to political news and information The Project for Excellence in Journalism study, The Latest News Headlines Your Vote Counts (September 12, 2007),4 suggests that citizen generated news is more diverse and more transitory in nature. Unlike the relative homogeneity of news found in the main stream media, they found that Internet users were more likely to view and e-mail each other a very eclectic batch of news, very often more practical in nature or entertaining. This fits in with established uses and gratification theory with regard to information consumption.

Markus Prior's work (2005) and those of others suggests that such an outcome might occur. Prior argues that greater

media choice allows people to find their preferred content. Those who like political information will have greater ease in finding it, while those who prefer entertainment and the like will as well. And thus, according to Prior, the increased media choice actually widens the gap in political knowledge and polit ical action rather than as others have suggested, getting many

more involved in politics. However, this research may not have factored in the ability of savvy candidates to utilize the Inter net and its many tools to attract potential voters through vehi cles that are more entertainment oriented.

SOURCES OF INTERNET NEWS: NOT WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT

According to Johnson et al. (2007) politically interested Inter net users relied more on blogs than any other news source for news and information. Moreover, these blogs were judged as more credible than online newspaper sites, online cable tele vision sites, and online broadcast news sites. If one utilized

doi:1 lo0o10S7oS049096509090P2 PS * January 2009 53



...............................................................................................................................................................................................

Sym pos i um: Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process

Technorati (a Web site that tracks who says what on the Web: www.technorati.com) to assess blog ranks, you would find that the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos are the most highly ranked political blogs. Most of the others with the highest authority rankings are more technology oriented. There is not a conservative blog that rates in the top 20. However, blogs played a role in the 2008 presidential nomination campaign. They were the first to break a number of stories about the candidates.5

So did the candidates in 2008 utilize these new tools? It is clear that the electorate was online, getting information and in some cases producing that information, so how did the can didates respond? Did they harness the power of the Web effectively?

NEW MEDIA AND THE CANDIDATES: WHO WON THE INTERNET PRIMARY? THE HIRED GUNS

In 2004, online political operatives (or OPOs) were just begin ning to create non-static, interactive Web sites (Williams and Tedesco 2006). In fact, e-campaigning got its name when Joe Trippi, campaign manager for Howard Dean, was the first to integrate an Internet team with the more traditional cam paign structure. Dean's team is credited with starting the first presidential campaign weblog, pioneering Internet-organized meet-ups of supporters, and utilizing the Web to raise almost $8 million dollars in the second quarter of 2003. Some cam paigns looked askew at these changes as nothing more than bells and whistles, not effective tools for generating and orga nizing support, but campaigns quickly moved to replicate and enhance the innovations that existed when they saw that they could and did have an impact.

In 2008, every candidate had at least one online strategist or Web consultant. The Democratic candidates had more and bet ter support in the e-campaign area (both of the frontrunners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had teams that included many of Dean's original Internet operatives) and that is pri marily due to the source pool for such talent. At this juncture, the political geek squad tends to be more left-leaning than right leaning. Young Republican OPOs are working to change that and during the next national campaign cycle we will probably see more talent emerging for the Republicans.

CANDIDATE WEB SITES: THE FRONTLINES OF CAMPAIGN 2.0

Given the resources spent on developing an e-campaign, do we see individuals, particularly in the states that candidates care about, utilizing the Web as part of their information gathering, decision-making routines? Research suggests that

Web sites matter, particularly as a means to learn about the candidate (Trammell et al. 2006).

A survey conducted by Pew on December 7, 2007, exam ined the use of new media techniques in Iowa and New Hamp shire, looking at whether or not the Web sites of the candidates were being utilized by potential voters in these states. They found that 30% of likely voters in Iowa and 29% in New Hamp shire said they have visited candidate Web sites. Roughly the same percentages have viewed candidate videos online as well. In states that are inundated with candidates, their need for

alternative contact may be lessened. However, we do not know whether or not the level of campaign activity in a state is related to the level of political Internet use by the voting public in a state.

All of the candidates competing for their party's nomina tion had a Web site. Yet how does one assess whether or not the candidates utilized their Web pages well? What type of traffic were they generating? Who visited, and who did so reg ularly? Since so much of the Internet is business oriented, the tools to evaluate the effectiveness of Web sites are quite accessible.

One such tool is Alexa (www.alexa.com), which measures the approximate traffic for millions of Web sites on the Inter net. Alexa analyzes global Web traffic and currently has over 16 million users. Another site that provides this information is Compete (www.compete.com). Compete utilizes multiple data sources, including ISP, Panel, and Toolbar to estimate U.S. traffic. It currently has over two million toolbar users.6 Another interesting source of Web site information is found at Quantcast's Web site (www.quantcast.com). Not only does its profile provide data on a Web site's reach and rank, it breaks down the site visitors by demographic and usage data.

In Figure 1, we utilize Alexa's ability to generate graphic representations of a Web site's rank over time. Rank is the combination of reach, the percent of global Internet users who visit this site, and page views-the number of unique pages viewed per user per day for the site. During the course of the primary nomination campaign, Obama's Web site was domi nant, although Clinton's was not far behind particularly at a number of points during the campaign. Other than John Edwards, most of the other Democratic candidates had very little traffic on their Web sites-so little, in fact, that they do not even show up on the graph as other than a flat line at the bottom. The Republican candidates, however, who were get ting much less traffic generally, did have more parity in terms of their Web site traffic. They, too, evince a number of simul taneous spikes, and some that were unique to particular can didates. One thing to note is that similarities exist in terms of peaks and valleys in rank across the Democratic and the Repub lican candidates. This may suggest that visitors are respond ing to similar external catalysts that may direct them to candidate Web sites. This is a question for future analysis.

What motivates the public to go to particular candidates' Web sites? Will the same types of theories that explain general infor

mation seeking also explain purposeful politically oriented web surfing? Do the traditional media, particularly television and radio create the "push" to go to candidate Web sites, or do candidates themselves and the process create a "pull" to their

Web sites? Some work has been done that compares the rela tive impact of traditional media versus the Internet (Kaid 2003), but there is a great deal we do not know as of yet.

When we examined the rankings for the candidates' Web sites overall as generated by Hubspot's Website Grader (www. websitegrader.com) for the nomination period of the cam paign, the candidates who led in the polls and/or led in terms of their campaign resources were able to generate fairly strong Web sites. The winners on the Web site report card for the nomination phase were Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Hillary

54 PS * January 2009



.............................................................................................................................................................................. .........................................................

Figure 1

Com parison of Rank for the Leading Democratic and Repuulican Candidates

Daily Traffic Rank Trend barackobama.com hillaryclinton.com johnedwards.com

arackoa ma

1,000

I!hilli rycino

UN~~~~~~a

10 000 l| mkh

02008 Alexa 2008 Sep 21

johnedwaohnmcai

a V~~iehikae

Oct 2008 Jan Apr Jul 02008 Alexa 2008 Sep 21

Clinton, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani came in second place. One note on the nature of candidate Web sites: Paul's was different from most of the other candidates' sites. His approach was novel. Instead of building an infrastructure on his own campaign Web site like most candidates have done, Paul had created a portal to his presences on various third party Web sites. According to BBC journalist Todd Zeigler (2007), Paul's Web site was a very limited enterprise, but it did encourage visitors to discuss and interact with the blog con tent on social sites like Digg, Del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, and Facebook.

RAISING MONEY

The Internet allows individuals to quickly and easily go to a candidate's Web site and con tribute electronically. This has put credit card use in play, some thing that traditional campaigns of the past rarely accepted. Once the contribution is made, that candidate gains substantial data for subsequent solicitations. According to the New York Times, within the first six months of 2007, the top-three Democratic presidential candi dates, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, raised more than $28 million dollars in online dona tions (Luo 2007). Republicans

were behind somewhat with their top-three candidates at that time, Giuliani, McCain, and Mitt Romney, raising more than $14 million. These donations have all the appearances ofgrassroots activity for many of the candi dates, not only for Obama. The Internet allows candidates to reach the usually hard to reach small givers, and it allows inter est groups to bundle in new ways. In fact, go% of Obama's millions came in contributions of $1oo or less. These donations were responsible for the contin ued existence ofsome candidates who were generally outside of the traditional party/campaign organizations. Ron Paul's cam paign had sustained his candi dacy and grew his organization with his Internet donations. During the fourth quarter of 2007 alone, Ron Paul raised over $18 million dollars. Money can not substitute for message, but it is a critical component of a

campaign. The Internet's use as a tool to raise "fast" and "big" money may have implications for the process, particularly in areas of momentum and viability.7

WHAT'S THE BUZZ? WEREN'T BLOGS

SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT?

Blogs have been the story of the new millennium. They are probably the most researched area of new media (Drezner and Farrell 2004; McKenna and Pole 2004; Bloom 2003). Candi dates have utilized blogs on their own pages, and most will link any blog that talks about their campaigns positively to

PS * January 2009 55



................................................................................................................................................................................................

Symposium: Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process

Table 1

Candidates and Blog Buzz versus Traditional News Media Buzz*

NOV. 26-DEC. 26,2007 JANUARY 1-5 (IOWA CAUCUSES)

Blog Buzz Traditional Media Buzz Blog Buzz Traditional Media Buzz Democrats (blog entries) (stories) (blog entries) (stories)

Clinton 1,197 38.5% 1,093 35.0% 472 28.0% 310 25.7%

Obama 777 25.0% 1,029 33.0% 456 273% 363 30.0%

Edwards 569 18.3% 529 18.0% 331 19.8% 270 22.4%

Richardson 116 3.7% 101 3.0% 113 7.0% 70 5.8%

Kucinich 157 5.0% 88 2.8% 92 5.5% 31 2.6%

Dodd 132 4.2% 101 3.0% 96 5.7% 70 5.8%

Biden 156 5.0% 148 5.0% 110 6.5% 90 7.5%

Republicans

Paul 618 13.4% 224 6.6% 220 13.7% 69 5.7%

Huckabee 1,398 30.0% 822 24.0% 422 26.2% 337 28.0%

Romney 1,065 23.0% 829 24.5% 358 22.3% 294 24.4%

McCain 434 9.0% 525 15.5% 228 14.2% 245 20.3%

Giuliani 588 12.8% 660 19.5% 172 11.0% 141 11.7%

F. Thompson 495 10.7% 320 9.5% 205 12.7% 117 9.7%

Traditional News media includes CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NPR, NEWSHOUR, and NBC: all blogs accessible through Lexis Nexis were utilized for this data collection.

their Web sites. One of the new ways to see which candidates are generating attention from cyberspace is through tools such as Technorati, which tracks the blog buzz. Even traditional search engines such as LexisNexis now search within blogs in addition to all of the other sources they utilize. Much has been made of the differences in how blogs cover events and cam paigns compared to the traditional media. Do blogs diverge in the manner in which they cover the campaign? Are they less likely to fall prey to the traditional media's bias toward top tier candidates?

In Table 1 we present the distribution of candidate cover age via the traditional and nontraditional mediums as repre sented by network news stories versus blog entries generated from LexisNexis searches for the time periods November 26 and ending December 26, 2007 (a period prior to the first con test), and from January 1 to 5, 2008 (the time period surround ing the Iowa caucuses). This is only a snapshot of the news coverage and blog conversations generated, but it.does allow for some comparisons. First, with only two exceptions, the new media and the old media dedicated the most attention to the same candidates. The one exception was Rudy Giuliani during the pre-primary period. The traditional media gave him more coverage, including him in the top-three candidates cov ered. The new media had their own exception, and that was coverage of Ron Paul during this pre-primary period as well. The dominant candidates during this time point were Clin ton, Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, and Romney. Clinton's cov erage dominated the Democratic candidates, while Huckabee and Romney led for the Republicans. During the week sur

56 PS -January 2009

rounding the Iowa Caucuses, we see a shift. Clinton's coverage decreases and Obama and Edwards (who came in first and second, respectively, in Iowa) saw their share of coverage reach more parity with Clinton. For the Republicans, Iowa moved McCain to the top tier in both new and traditional

media coverage. Thus, we do not see stark differences in terms of who is getting coverage. The new media, represented by blogs, seem to focus their atten tion very much like the tradi tional media, belying the notion that lower-tier candidates may do better at generating buzz on the Web.

VIRTUAL FRIENDSHIPS

AND VIRAL VIDEOS

Finally, we turn to the buzz trendsetters-YouTube and My Space. These are probably the most discussed new media features of the 2008 elections. YouTube has been used by can

didates for hosting campaign videos. Indeed, in 2008 Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Sam Brownback all used Web videos to announce their candidacies, but it has also been used by indi viduals to post commentary about candidates, original sup portive and opposition videos, questions to candidates, music videos about candidates, or make their own ads in addition to those of the campaign. In general, Web video ads are very cheap to create, take little production time, and allow the can didate to respond quickly to issues, events, and opponent speeches or attacks. These types of ads can be longer than the typical 30 seconds for television, giving candidates more time to make their points. Often they are humorous and entertain ing. Mike Huckabee's ad that utilized the talents of Chuck Norris has had over two million views. Millions of people have participated in the nomination campaign process through You Tube. Given these high levels of activity, YouTube created its own Election 'o8 hub.

Which candidate saw more YouTube activity during the time period prior to the first primary event? Table 2 breaks reports the number of views of videos related to the candidate and the candidate's overall rank within the field prior to the start of the primaries.

Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the clear winners in the YouTube viewing category, followed far behind by the other candidates. Other than Paul, this activity prior to the first cau cuses or primaries was a decent predictor of the eventual top tier. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards emerged after Iowa as the top three. YouTube did less well on the Republican side given Ron Paul's activity, but they did generate strong numbers for



Table 2

Rank by Total Number of Individual Views of Candidate Video on YouTube and Friends on MySpace Prior to First Nomination Event

CANDIDATE RANK & TOTAL

Democrats YouTube Views MySpace Friends

Joe Biden 5 1,098,317 6 151,118

Hillary Clinton 3 3,498,771 2 152,433

Chris Dodd 7 796,394 7 9,156

John Edwards 2 3,935,754* 3 49,531

Dennis Kucinich 4 1,351,036 4 35,717

Barack Obama 1 6,230,691 1 202,832

Bill Richardson 6 999,679 5 20,614

Republicans

Rudy Giuliani 4 1,280,977 6 9,834

Mike Huckabee 2 3,691,538 4 19,033

John McCain 5 940,150 2 40,101

Ron Paul 1 8,517,624 1 101,759

Mitt Romney 3 3,203,538 3 32,133

Fred Thompson 6 318,133 5 13,201

* Edwards's YouTube numbers were likely inflated due to the fact that he ran his videos housed on his Web site through YouTube, thus generating more hits. Obama and Clinton used their own video streaming software rather than YouTube.

Huckabee and Romney, both competitive candidates. McCain was ranked fifth in terms of views. Generally, McCain did not utilize a great deal of new media in his campaign. While his

Web page was quite strong, it was not as innovative and used less streaming video or social networking tools as some of the others. Moreover, the typical McCain supporter may have been less likely to visit YouTube and generate those views. But most likely of all was that McCain was also not being covered by the traditional news media or generating much conversation on the Web in general. As he became a more viable candidate, he also generated more buzz and more "friends." Who had the most friends on MySpace prior to the nomination contests' start? Again, there are no surprises in Table 2. Obama and Paul dominated their competition. Both of them had created very strong networks of supporters on MySpace, and both had used this community in their fundraising efforts. What stands out here is that McCain actually had more MySpace friends than his peers (other than Paul), however, as of this summer, he had only generated about ioo,ooo friends total, whereas Obama had generated over half a million.8

One thing we have noticed in our brief examination of new media and the campaign in 2008 iS that the Internet cam paign is just as dynamic as the traditional campaign, if not more so. We know immediately if a candidate's blog buzz drops. We can analyze these within moments with very little diffi culty, if we are paying attention and capturing the data. The

blogosphere appears to be very sensitive to changes in the dynamics of the race, just as quick to judge as the traditional media, and just as likely to make mistakes or set expectations and then be critical once they are not met, and so forth. While we may benefit from a more varied chorus of voices, bloggers, particularly those who become notables, are likely to fall into the same types of behaviors as traditional journalists. As adver tisers move onto the Web even more, bloggers may become

more concerned with audience numbers and this may affect the nature of their "reporting." We may see more manipula tion of information-more astro-turfing of the blogosphere

where campaigns and their supporters attempt to create buzz that feels like grassroots support but is in reality simply man ufactured. We have already seen a bit of this on YouTube and MySpace as campaigns planted material that had the appear ance of coming from an individual but was really associated with the campaign. Social networking sites as campaign tools are really only beneficial when there is real support for a can didate. A campaign cannot manufacture friends. These are indi viduals who connect to the candidate in both worlds-the real and virtual.

Thus, in terms of winning the Internet primary, it would appear by all the evidence that both Senators Clinton and Obama did very well utilizing the Internet in ways that were creative and effective. Ron Paul also demonstrated that a band of loyal supporters and a dedicated staff can raise money and attention, but not necessarily the broad support that candi dates need to win primaries. Senator McCain had a very mixed Internet report card, yet he won his party's nomination. In the end, it requires a confluence of factors to win the nomination campaign, but the candidates of the next cycle will likely not ignore the Internet. If there is one lesson to be learned, it is that the Internet can generate a significant amount of money for candidates-very quickly, and very efficiently. It can also be used to organize volunteers and spread information in a very effective manner.

SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

In the early days of our republic, politics was distant, carried out by elites who barely interacted with the masses. They didn't really need to given limited suffrage. As the vote expanded, so did the manner in which campaigns were conducted. William Henry Harrison was the first candidate to give a public cam paign speech. That was the beginning of persuading the elec torate on a more personal basis. Then came television, suburbs, and cars. Politics became more distant in nature and the pub lic harder to reach. Moreover, the country was so large that candidates made television ads that they could cast over the vast landscape of electoral politics, and thus they were often quite generic, for various reasons, including cost and produc tion time. While people still watch television, many spend as much

time watching YouTube. They own PDAs that are connected to the Internet and download their news. But as individuals have personalized their information consumption, so too have they made it possible for candidates to reach them at a more personal level. Just think about that e-mail someone received from a campaign. It is highly likely that it was sent using the

PS * January 2009 57



...........Symposium: ........ Re g t Presidential Nominat

Symposium: Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

receiver's first name. The campaign may have mentioned that the individual hadn't visited the candidate's Web site lately. Perhaps the campaign sent a new video or endorsement that was narrowcast to the receiver's preferences. Candidates may be able to better connect with their supporters and they may allow those supporters to have greater access to them. Per haps once in office the newly elected "tech president" will e-mail his public letting them know what his first official act as president will be. Perhaps he will set up a wiki that allows members of the public to contribute ideas for cutting waste or conserving energy. Social capital may rise as relationships that are built on political campaigns, both for offices and for causes, will grow (Lawson-Borders and Kirk 2005).

Campaigns are using technology to lower the costs and increase the benefits of participating. Campaigns know that indirect mobilization through their supporters' social net works is cheaper and more effective than direct mobilization. Campaigns have responded by creating messages (e.g., e-mails, videos) intended to spread virally and by creating widgets that allow supporters to show their support in blogs and social network sites. Campaigns will, to useJoe Trippi's phrase, "open source" their operations to give supporters a feeling of influ ence, at least over parts of the campaign. This may be the manner in which individuals become more closely attached to candidates.

There is no doubt that viable candidates can effectively use these tools to generate interest, mobilize support, raise money, introduce new issues, and so on. There is no doubt that the Internet will continue to expand its reach and that more and more people will utilize it for learning, entertainment, and politicking. So far the candidates who have the resources and the interest have shown that they can harness the poten tial of the Internet, and the contributions. There are those

who will be slow to adapt, but like everything in politics, there is no doubt that they will once they are convinced that it may

matter to their campaign's success. o

NOTES

i. Available at www.pewinternet.0rg/trends/Daily_Internet_Activities_7. 22.08.htm.

2. Available at www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_Demo_7.22.08.htm.

3. Available at www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2008_election.pdf.

4- Available at www.journalism.org/node/7493.

5. For example, Mayhill Fowler, a blogger for the Huffington Post, revealed Obama's comment on "bitter" small-town Americans who cling to "guns and religion" that provoked much subsequent traditional media coverage.

6. When utilizing these tools to provide site analytics, one must understand that the results are basically the equivalent of utilizing a large sample to estimate where the population of Internet users are going.

7. Moreover, in 2008 fundraising became more imbued with dimensions of

marketing and promotion. Campaigns tried to get supporters involved in "the sport" of fundraising?working collectively to reach a goal and beat the other team. Obama, and other candidates, use their Web sites to high light the names of real people who have given to their campaign. More over, Obama's campaign used promotional activities such as winning a

"backstage pass" to the Democratic National Convention if one donated $50 or more during the July fundraising cycle.

8. Data generated via the Internet is often less than totally reliable. Numbers for MySpace friends, YouTube views, and so on often fluctuate on a daily basis.

REFERENCES

Bloom, Joel D. 2003. "The Blogosphere: How a Once-Humble Medium Came to Drive Elite Media Discourse and Influence Public Policy and Elections."

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, August.

Drezner, Daniel W., and Henry Farrell. 2004. "The Power and Politics of

Blogs." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August.

Johnson, Thomas J., Barbara Kaye, Shannon L. Bichard, and Joann W. Wong. 2007. "Every Blog Has Its Day: Politically Interested Internet Users' Per

ceptions of Blog Credibility." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica tions 13 (1): article 6.

Kaid, Lynda Lee. 2003. "Effects of Political Information in the 2000 Presiden tial Campaign." American Behavioral Scientist 46:677-91.

Lawson-Borders, Gracie, and Rita Kirk. 2005. "Blogs in Campaign Communi cation." American Behavioral Scientist 49 (4): 548-59.

Luo, Michael. 2007. "Democrats Lead in Raising Money Online." New York Times, July 13.

McKenna, Laura, and Antoinette Pole. 2004. "Do Blogs Matter? Weblogs in American Politics." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri can Political Science Association, Chicago, September.

Prior, Markus. 2005. "News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout." American Journal of Political Science 49:577-92.

Trammell, Kaye D., Andrew P. Williams, Ana M. Postelnicu, and Kristen D. Landreville. 2006. "Evolution of Online Campaigning: Increasing Inter

activity in Candidate Web Sites and Blogs through Text and Technical Features." Mass Communication and Society 9 (1): 21-44.

Williams, Paul, and John Tedesco, eds. 2006. The Internet Election: Perspectives on the Web's Role in Campaign 2004. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Zeigler, Todd. 2007. "Ron Paul and Distributed Online Campaigning." Blog post. The Bivings Report, June 21. www.bivingsreport.com/2007/ron-paul and-distributed-online-campaigning/.

58 PS * January 2009



Documents

Making an Impression: New Media in the 2008 Presidential Nomination Campaigns