Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 18

Journal by pudge

There's not much interesting going on; it's all mostly about Dean. And he is boring me right now. I could talk about how he says stupid things, but there will be plenty of time for that later. So this week, I'm going to be nonpartisan, I am going to be nonbiased, I am going to be non-opinonated, and I am just going to ask a question:

Is Howard Dean's use of the Internet something significantly new and different, and is it making a difference in his campaign?

I have a natural aversion to people saying someone is doing something "new and different," because I like to find similiarities in things. For example -- please excuse the comparison -- McGovern used direct mail in 1972, in similar ways to how Dean is using email (and in Iowa, actual personal letters). And certainly, coordinating using the Internet is not new: I went to an Alan Keyes event in 1996 in Philadelphia, organized over the Internet. To be sure, Dean's presence is more sophisticated, but online organization, activism, donations, etc. are not new.

So is Dean really doing something new and different? Or is he just doing it more successfully, more significantly? If Bush had similar Internet-based activities, it would be a proportionally smaller part of his support; and he won't get the "grassroots" donations and support because he is the incumbent President. Plus, there's the confluence of events, of anger toward the DC Democrats and the Republicans, plus the jobs loss and the Iraq war, that ignite those grassroots activists.

OK, so I did more than just ask the question. But I don't see much new or different here, it seems to me it's the same thing we've seen before, just -- in terms of the Internet -- at a greater level; that the Internet hasn't created Dean, but for the first time, the activists on the Internet had someone to, en masse, rally behind.

Followup question: would Dean be as successful without the Internet, if he had to rely on direct mail, newspapers, radio, TV? Perhaps he could get the same amount of support, but it would take longer for people to find out about him, such as when the debates rolled around?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • Internet organizing is the distinguishing feature of the Dean campaign. Without it, Dean would be nowhere.
    • Without it, Dean would be nowhere.

      Sorry, I can't agree with that. I fail to see how that could be. I mean, w/ all the coverage in the major papers, along with CNN, political talk shows, etc. I just can't imagine his use of the internet having more of an effect then all of the other above mediums I've mentioned.
      • All the coverage came after he raised millions online and organized the Meetups around the country. Before then he was the quirky underdog from Vermont tilting against the Kerry-Lieberman juggernaut.
      • Yeah, as sulli said, I am unconvinced that it couldn't have worked out that way. Dean got good press in large part because he was increasing in the polls, which happened initially, largely, because of the grassroots support he got, which was largely Internet-based, or Internet-organized.
  • I'm not in the USA so I can't say how true this is, but when I've read writings about Dean's use of the 'net, the supposedly-revolutionary part is that this allows (a greater degree of) two-way communication between the grassroots and the candidate/campaign -- the new thing is not that Dean's using the 'net to communicate to the voters but that the people who frequent his blog, etc. are supposedly shaping his campaign and platform to some extent (that is, that the campaign responds "in real time" to what th
    • As far as two-way, I dunno. That's a good point, perhaps. I know -- using the example I am familiar with -- Keyes had limited involvement with the Internet organization, but there was some. But it was such a small level compared to Dean, it's hard to compare.
    • I don't know how much the campaign is being shaped by the online base, but 1) the online element is central to his campaign and 2) much of the online leadership emerged out of the grassroots supporters. The other campaigns essentially have Internet sides that are driven by, "Look what Dean is doing! We need to copy it!" It comes across as much more contrived and foreign. (Witness the Ask Slashdot a while ago where the Kucinich campaign wanted help in creating an "audio blog" -- yeah, that's someone who gets
  • I believe the numbers would be close, but I agree it would have taken alot longer for people to find out about Dean. I do believe the internet to be exceedingly helpful to the campaign. I really felt like I had a "voice" when Dean allowed his followers to vote for or against the federal campaign matching funds. Is this the first time a candidate has legitimately polled his supporters (and listened) for such a thing?
    • Well, you have no idea how legitimate the poll of the supporters was. :-) For all you knew, it could have been fixed, to take an extreme example. But I don't know the answer.
      • this is totally true, though it looks like they went to some length to prevent such things as dupe voting, it seemed like alot for it to be a fake, but in the end i suppose its only (possibly doctored) results that matter
  • Don't have an opinion on much of it, but Dean certainly would not be the presumed candidate prior to any primaries without the Internet. It has definately resulted in an accelerated campaign startup. Wesley Clark could have been in a similar position if he hadn't sat on his hands for so damned long. As of now, he's an also ran, with little more chance than Al Sharpton.

  • Sorry - just being funny. Honestly, I don't think he has a chance against G.W., so I haven't really been paying much attention to him.
    • Here is a report of Dean's recent polling from the perspective of the G.O.P. [gopusa.com], which indicates he has closed more than half of the gap in the last month and a half:

      In a head-to-head matchup, Bush defeats Dean 51-46, Lieberman loses 52-46, Kerry is crushed 54-43, Gephardt is beaten 53-44, Clark is clobbered 53-43, and Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) is edged 53-43....

      The previous [mid-November] TIME/CNN poll, showed Bush leading by 13 percent over Dean, 13 percent over Lieberman, 8 percent over Kerry, 13 percent

      • The difference is that Daddy Bush has Perot to split the conservative vote with. I still think that if Perot hadn't dropped out, then re-entered the race, he had a damned good chance of winning the election.
      • Sorry, I just don't buy those numbers one bit. I don't think 43 percent of voters know who some of these candidates even ARE.
        • Probably: "the poll also revealed that less than half (47 percent) of likely voters are paying 'very close' or 'fairly close' attention to the 2004 presidential election right now."

          The "likely voters" seem to poll less than a margin of error away [pollingreport.com] from "registered voters," which I guess means name recognition for the major Democrats is fairly saturated.

          • Probably: "the poll also revealed that less than half (47 percent) of likely voters are paying 'very close' or 'fairly close' attention to the 2004 presidential election right now."

            The "likely voters" seem to poll less than a margin of error away from "registered voters," which I guess means name recognition for the major Democrats is fairly saturated.

            And I am just not buying it. It is espcially suspicious to me that the difference of victory between the top and bottom candidates (Dean vs. Edwards) is o

Slashdot Top Deals

The more data I punch in this card, the lighter it becomes, and the lower the mailing cost. -- S. Kelly-Bootle, "The Devil's DP Dictionary"

Close