Election 2012: What We Will See

Boiled down to key words and concepts, there are a handful that should figure prominently as we head into 2012. The first, oft-mentioned word is data. We have already examined the ways in which information—the gathering and utilization of it—is the lifeblood of any contemporary campaign. In terms of practical impact, we can expect that data analysts and engineers will be important, coveted jobs during the next presidential election. Indeed, it is quite likely that recruitment has already begun in order to fill these roles.

Besides data, the other key word (and concept) going forward is mobile. Murshed Zaheed predicts that mobile apps are set to explode, and campaigns will have to focus attention on how to properly calibrate this eventuality. For instance, an ad will appear very differently on a tablet vs. a PC or especially a smartphone. Creating content and communications appropriate and accessible for mobile devices is going to be a primary directive for the immediate and foreseeable future. Ad campaigns in general will only increase in sophistication and intensity. It was ingenious, for instance, when the Obama organization found ways to purchase ads for video games during the 2008 election. In addition to hyperlocalized messaging, campaigns are likely to integrate video clips into their online ads. It won’t be long until we see more specialized advertising opportunities, including sponsored tweets, which will add another layer of exposure for politicians to take advantage of.

Perhaps most important, as always, will be the ways citizens respond to and engage with the process. According to CEA’s study, 21 percent of U.S. adults are likely to participate in a “Tele-town hall” meeting, where supporters of candidates can attend a town hall meeting via the Internet. Obviously this speaks to the convenience as well as the interactive possibilities inherent in this forum. That one in five U.S. adults are willing to get involved reveals a growing comfort with electronic interaction as well as social media sites. Political strategists will be wise to continue reaching out to the younger demographic: 33 percent of young adults (ages 25-34) indicate willingness to participate in a “Tele-town hall” meeting, while 22 percent of the same group are likely to follow campaigns for national elections on social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter.

It is too early to predict how the 2012 election will play out, but we already have a reasonable idea of the ways technology will impact the process. It may not, in fact, be premature to imagine a viable path toward celebrity in the years ahead. Imagine a “citizen journalist”, properly informed and motivated, recording or creating content and putting it on YouTube. With compelling material and a bit of luck, a news channel may pick it up or even better, it goes viral. And just like that, fifteen minutes of fame, or even responsibility for helping change the outcome of an election. Or perhaps it could lead to something potentially more gratifying and lucrative, such as a job working on a political campaign!

Facebook and Twitter: The Once and Future Kingmakers

The younger generation, in addition to literally growing up alongside all these recent technological advances, understands that our world is increasingly a connected one. Between reality TV and the “voyeur videos” prevalent on YouTube, the distinction between the personal vs. the public is ever blurred. As such, they have understandably utilized social media for its social aspects (hence its name). Students and younger professionals initially embraced location-based networking sites like foursquare with the assumption that there are—or should be—no particular secrets or boundaries. Shrewdly, these sites have incentivized participation, partnering with businesses for discounts and special deals. As a result, we see more people willing to offer their privacy as a sort of postmodern form of currency. We can expect to see a widespread deployment of these various platforms by a variety of demographics for a variety of purposes.

Think of the time and money (and paperwork) saved once the world effectively turned digital during the last decade and a half. Consider how miraculous it must have seemed for political operatives to have email and Internet searching, both of which eliminated expensive, time-consuming research and outreach efforts. The simple act of creating a website was a space age advancement for an industry where communication is crucial. Now think about what Facebook and Twitter do to this equation.

Initially, an individual’s presence on the Internet was anonymous; now one’s persona is their web presence. If Facebook enables us to communicate with a network of friends, Twitter makes it possible to broadcast to virtually the entire connected universe. Facebook is by nature personality-based (who and what you “like”), and broadcasts these preferences to a controlled circle of acquaintances. Twitter breaks beyond social circles and is capable of disseminating messages via an echo chamber effect that places a premium on information, not personality. Put another way, Facebook allows you to see what people you know are saying; Twitter is universally searchable and therefore more optimized for viral distribution. On Facebook you can only see what people you know are saying about an event; on Twitter you can see what the entire world is saying.

For obvious and understandable reasons, political operations have been quick to incorporate these advancements into their arsenals. With Facebook and Twitter, the very notion of what a “friend” signifies is less literal. Twitter can create an intimacy that is not contingent upon personal contact. A voter can claim they “know” or have “met” their congressperson via a webcasted Town Hall, or by following their Twitter feed. The advantage for politicians is the crafty ways they can at once reach a mass audience while imparting what are often received as personalized messages. If this sounds inconsequential, consider how many millions of dollars and hours have been spent over the centuries involving candidates traveling the country for carefully-staged photo-ops wherein they “meet” their constituents. With one tweet this can be accomplished in seconds, at no expense.

“Strategery”

Mike Shields, a political strategist with almost two decades of experience inside (and outside) the nation’s capital, has a sign on his office wall that reads “It’s not the strongest of the species that survives nor the most intelligent but the one most responsive to change.” Darwin’s quote certainly applies to so many areas of existence, but it has special relevance in the world of campaigns and elections.

“There is a constant arms race in politics,” he says. “Both parties want to adapt and implement the latest tools and technology to their advantage.” Once again, the notion of data and its import is reiterated by an insider with myriad battle scars. “It boils down to the simplest scenario: you have to figure out who is most likely to show up and vote and then, how do you get them to vote for you?” To achieve success, the candidate with the most (or best) data has a distinct advantage.

The data, Shields confirms, is not necessarily new, but the ways it is gathered are, and technology has dramatically improved the process. For instance, in 2008 Obama’s website requested visitors to sign in first, before entering—as opposed to giving them the option to do so at the end of their visit when they might forget. This way, in a rather unobtrusive but remarkably effective fashion, the campaign captured crucial information. That Obama used Facebook effectively (creating groups, encouraging specific communities to interact and operate independently, etc.) is uncontested, but Shields is already anticipating the next wave of innovation. “Web ads will be the future of political advertising,” he predicts. “Where broadcast TV (ads) are inevitably reaching everyone, including non-voters, a specific website enables you to target a niche audience and ensure that a specific message is received.”

That said, Shields also suggests that good old fashioned email is still the most effective method of communication. “Having a strong online presence can help you overcome other deficiencies,” he says. “It is imperative to have an effective e-campaign; this is still as important as any other factor, particularly as it relates to fundraising and candidate messaging.”

Kombiz Lavasany, who worked at the DNC during the 2008 elections and is now at {new} partners, has been at the vanguard of much of this activity. As such, he is in as secure a position as anyone to discuss the past and predict the future. In fact, he suggests that we are only beginning to see the real impact and implications of social media. “Twitter was not mainstream until after the ’08 election,” he says. “Reporters who have been using it did not get on the bandwagon until late ’08 and early ’09.” 2012, he suggests, will be the first campaign that fully integrates Twitter and Facebook.

Peter Pasi, an Executive VP at emotive, llc, has seen the battlefield from the Republican side of the fence. In his opinion, after 2008 the GOP finally understood that an appropriately robust web presence was necessary in order to organize and facilitate online contributions. In less than two years there was an increased Republican presence on Facebook, and there is no question that social media had a dramatic impact on the 2010 elections. “Facebook was initially fun; now it’s a business,” Pasi says. “Today we see people paying specialized companies to manage their Facebook feeds and tweet for them.”

Another potential game changer, also mentioned earlier, is the evolution of mobile content and delivery. People can now watch high resolution videos on their phones, as well as make donations. Pasi references the concept of conversion rates and how it applies to people who browse vs. those who buy. “The conversion rates via a smartphone are essentially 100%,” he says. “If you see an ad, you don’t even need to wait to get to a PC; you can email a donation right on the spot.”

Murshed Zaheed, also from {new} partners, traces his unique understanding of community outreach and attitudes to sports message boards from the late ‘90s. His expertise and political leanings led him to work with a then largely-unknown candidate named Howard Dean. Zaheed has since been a witness to (and player in) the ways Democrats have incorporated each new iteration of technology into their strategic goals. Where Democrats once enjoyed a distinct advantage, it was in 2010 that Zaheed saw Republicans make tangible strides. With a more level playing field, and abundant evidence that politicians on local and national levels fully appreciate the import of technology (in general) and social media (in particular) we should expect the intersection of innovation and elections to reach a crescendo next year.

Citizen Journalism

The previously mentioned “macaca” episode has historic import above and beyond the already noteworthy role it played in George Allen’s defeat. The simple act of videotaping a candidate in a public setting would henceforth be fair game for a new era of citizen journalists. Until the middle of last decade, our established or mainstream media (MSM) was the official and sanctioned arbiter of how news got reported and defined. There was an undeniable elitism inherent in the old model, as a handful of powerful institutions not only could determine what constituted “news”, but (perhaps more importantly) what did not.

The proliferation of smartphones and all manner of digital cameras signifies that anyone is now capable of recording and “reporting” daily events. Platforms like YouTube and Facebook, as well as websites and blogs, have made it feasible for any single recording to reach a massive audience. Blogs have even evolved the concept of what we can (or should) call reporters: today anyone with a camera or a smartphone and any kind of Internet presence can theoretically become an instantaneous part of the political dialogue. Anyone with some degree of technical prowess is capable of becoming a media expert: clips from debates and speeches can be juxtaposed with previous statements and in a so-called amateur’s hands, a compelling political commentary is crafted.

Naturally campaign operatives are all too happy to have savvy and highly motivated partisans helping create talking points, content and the ever-important energy or “buzz” that any successful staff requires. In 2004 and even 2008 this was still widely regarded as a young person’s game. No longer: with Facebook and YouTube more user-friendly and customizable than ever, it is possible that previously untapped demographic groups will become active in this process. Today, everyone with a smartphone has a high quality video camera in their front pocket, meaning potential news stories really can be broken 24/7. The traditional gatekeeping mechanisms are being steadily democratized—a trend that shows no sign of slackening.

Or consider how the politicians are using this technology to their advantage. In some regards, it remains inconceivable that Sarah Palin was (and still is) able to shun the MSM. She has thus far avoided having a single formal press conference, once the minimum requirement to be taken seriously on the national stage. Of course the fact that political candidates can conceivably circumvent these increasingly “old-fashioned” formalities is at once a revealing commentary on our new paradigm as well as a distressing harbinger of the ways style over substance—always an issue in politics—may gain easier traction going forward.

For anyone who would (still) dismiss Palin, think about how much of a factor the “death panels” meme became during the health care debates. This quote started as a Facebook post and quickly went viral; as we know it wound up being one of the buzz-words (and talking points) for the Republicans. Or consider the ways the script has been flipped in terms of legitimizing social media from the inside: now we will often see the news ticker at the bottom of the screen actually a series of Twitter feeds. More, both candidates and news organizations can (and do) plant seeds via tweets to see what kind of reaction follows: sometimes the angle of a breaking story can be crafted well in advance, thanks in large part to social media.

Going Mobile

Every election since 2000 has had insiders suggesting this is the year of mobile. To the extent that the use and functionality of mobile devices has increased each cycle, the predictions have not been incorrect. But we are, arguably, only now seeing the ubiquity of ownership rates coupled with the augmented capabilities of these products. For the first time, we are seeing mobile communication utilized as a first, not a second or third option.

To recap: going back to 2000 mobile was a legitimate platform, but the PC experience was many degrees better. By 2004 we saw the employment of text messaging (which initially gained widespread acceptance on a grander scale in Europe and Asia), although this was—and to an extent, remains—a generational phenomenon. By 2008 we had the game-changing release of the iPhone, but with clunky web browsing and without an Apps store (or an Android alternative) we still did not possess anything close to an optimal confluence of platform and performance. Looking toward 2012 the form factor and functionality issues have largely been eliminated, and we now commonly see people using their phones for purposes other than making calls. Visualize the lines at a grocery store these days: the first thing you notice are people pulling out their phones, even for a few seconds, to send a text or check email or visit a website.

Finally, the explosion of apps has bridged the generational gap: cultural acceptance coupled with individual habit has made the smartphone, at least some of the time, an entertainment device first and a phone second. Naturally this renders everyday activities part of the mobile experience. In a single decade we’ve watched computing go from desktop PCs in a home office move to other rooms via notebooks; now tablets and smartphones have made practically every activity possible in any location.

Those Who Do Not Repeat History Are Doomed To Learn From It

Naturally, technology and innovation are always, by definition, novel and therefore intimidating for some and enthralling for others. The key to utilizing technology in politics involves embracing, and then utilizing it in an effective fashion. Perhaps the most notable example of our last half-century involved the debates between Nixon and Kennedy. Televised for the first time to a national audience via a new-fangled medium, it could be suggested that technology helped determine the election. The fact that Kennedy looked better on TV led to a revolution in the calculus of campaigning. No longer was it sufficient to merely sound good, all candidates going forward needed to look good as well. During the subsequent decades we can isolate different advances made possible by direct mail initiatives and targeted television ads. Then, seemingly overnight, old tactics became antiquated—or at least quaint—once another revolution arrived, courtesy of the Internet.

The single most crucial concept, reduced to one word which will be repeated throughout this study, is data. We saw in 2008 how technology indelibly changed the nature of campaigns: it is now a common, uncritically received talking point that Obama’s team embraced, and exploited, social media to help secure victory. The reality is at once simpler and far more complex than this. True enough, the Obama operation shrewdly incorporated many nascent possibilities of social media to its pronounced advantage. On the other hand, this maneuver was initially less a reaction than a necessity, and what is now celebrated as prescient strategy was, at least partially, summoned out of desperation.

As difficult as it may be to recall, there was an extended period of time where Obama’s eventual nomination was anything but secure. Indeed, for months (if not years) the presumption, certainly amongst the chattering classes, was that the nomination was Hillary Clinton’s to lose. In retrospect, being a front-runner proved to be problematic for Clinton, both in terms of fundraising and primary votes. Obama’s team, to their credit, had learned a great deal from Howard Dean’s remarkable run in 2004, which was greatly enhanced by a combination of grassroots enthusiasm and technological savvy. Of course, his campaign-killing “scream” was also instructive, and Obama understood that as a left-of-center candidate he needed to project a calm, unflappable demeanor if he had any chance to win. It would be much too simple to suggest Dean’s experience typified the bountiful blessings and curses inherent in this century’s new paradigm, but by following what worked and avoiding what didn’t (not to mention hiring some of the brightest minds from Dean’s former staff), Obama went from outside shot to commander-in-chief.

There is a great deal to analyze and absorb from the most recent election cycles, but similar themes emerge and they predict the future as much as clarify the past. Obama’s canny utilization of social media may have seemed audacious four years ago, but it will be obligatory going forward. What happened in 2006 and 2008 that is already considered passé, and what advancements have been made just since the 2010 elections? What is happening right now that might impact the upcoming primaries? What should we expect to see during the 2012 campaign, and beyond?

Social Media: On the Hill and In Our Homes

History will note that Joe Biden’s selection to be Obama’s running mate was the first such announcement ever conducted via text. At the time this might have seemed trendy or even trivial. Certainly McCain’s reluctance to incorporate technology (even a token gesture of “geek cred”) did him few favors with the electorate. Beyond the strategic advantages Obama/Biden enjoyed, McCain’s tone-deaf technological recalcitrance undoubtedly brought the two campaigns into stark relief. McCain’s admission that he’d “never felt the particular need to email” led to him being spoofed and even dubbed “technologically illiterate” by The Telegraph (7/13/2008). This did not help the older candidate, and quite likely helped Obama capture the younger demographic, making his novel use of texting to announce his choice of running mate a shrewd tactical move.

CEA recently undertook a study to gain a better understanding of consumer attitudes toward issues involving technology and politics. Well over half (65 percent) of U.S. adults follow politics on television, and just under half (47 percent) are more aware of what’s going on in politics because of the Internet. Not surprisingly, the younger adults are more cognizant of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Revealingly, less than half (46 percent) of young adults (ages 18-24) follow politics on television. Regarding awareness of politics because of social media, 42 percent of younger adults claim to be better informed compared with only 22 percent of total U.S. adults. This tends to confirm a perception that the demographic adoption of social media has trended younger, but also illustrates significant potential for all age groups. It is difficult to imagine that these percentages, across the board, will not increase leading up to the 2012 election.

For further evidence of these trends, the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), “an organization founded to aid in management-related issues in congress” commenced a project in 2003 entitled “Communicating with Congress”. In an effort to “improve citizen engagement and to help Congress use continuously-changing technologies to facilitate and enhance interactions with citizens” CMF has written several reports based on surveys of congressional staffers. The second report, #Social Congress: Perceptions and Use of Social Media on Capitol Hill focuses specifically on attitudes and applications concerning social media. Not surprisingly, social media is widely viewed as an imperative component of effective operation.

Some interesting findings from the study follow: “nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the senior managers and social media managers think Facebook is a somewhat or very important tool for understanding constituents’ views and opinions.” Perhaps more significant, nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of these same individuals believe “Facebook is somewhat or very important for communicating their Members’ views (and) YouTube is viewed by 72 percent as somewhat or very important for communicating their Members’ views.”

The rest of the report decisively finds that social media has arrived and is regarded as an indispensable tool. Naturally, the younger staffers, most of whom have been utilizing social media in their personal and professional lives for several years, feel messaging can—and should—be controlled using platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Perhaps the single key takeaway involves attitudes and perceptions: staffers recognize that embracing social media is not only necessary, but provides better opportunities to interact with the public. Inevitably, jobs that did not exist a few years ago, such as social media managers, are now an essential component of any functioning office. A remarkable statistic surfaces toward the end of the study: “more than one-third (40 percent) of staffers surveyed feel their offices spend too little time on online communications.” (Emphasis added.)

Social Media and The New Political Paradigm

Technology is like time: whether or not we are paying attention it is constantly happening. Even when we are paying close attention, it is difficult to fully register—and appreciate—the ways our world is ceaselessly being upgraded, improved and changed. When understood and embraced, technology invariably is an empowering agent, capable of making complicated or expensive endeavors easier, quicker and cheaper.

Looking back at the last five years, two specific events illustrate the emerging influence of technology in general and social media in particular. In August, 2006, at an otherwise unremarkable campaign event, George Allen uttered the single ill-advised word that wound up changing the complexion of his Senate race. His use of the derogatory term macaca was caught on tape by the slur’s recipient, who had come to record the event. The footage ended up on a relatively new service called YouTube and immediately—and in very 21^st Century fashion—went “viral”. All of a sudden, and much to Allen’s chagrin, this became an unavoidable topic of discussion. In a contest where Allen had enjoyed what many considered an insurmountable lead, this controversy dogged him for the final months of the campaign and he ended up losing by less than one percentage point.

In the summer of 2009, the protests in Iran became a leading news story across the globe. To recap: as conditions within the country deteriorated in the wake of a disputed election, the flow of reliable information was hampered once the government effectively shut down the Internet (disabling access to the servers). At the same time, most “major” news networks were unable, for a variety of logistical reasons, to penetrate the officially constructed wall of secrecy. Protesters inside Iran used Twitter to update and organize, while people outside the country shared and promoted these messages, spreading awareness in an unprecedented fashion. Notice was served that the dissemination (and control) of information will be increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to regulate. If the Internet succeeded in making the concept of news a 24/7 proposition, Twitter has created a 10,080 second-per-week reality: there is now a virtually uninterrupted influx of updates available for anyone with broadband access.

Flash forward to 2011: unfortunately, it appears as though the most noteworthy political story of the year will be the self-inflicted turmoil wrought by U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner. While this tale has less to do with politics and more to do with personality, it still illustrates the ways our new methods of communication can hurt as well as help us. Hopefully there will be other events that will ultimately define 2011 politically, but if nothing else Weiner has provided us with a clichéd “teaching moment”: in regards to technology and the ways it impacts all of our lives, Weiner’s story epitomizes the often uneasy intersection between politics and personal privacy.

It seems safe to suggest that Anthony Weiner’s experience will endure, not unlike Gary Hart’s implosion in 1988, as a paradigm shift with cultural and sociopolitical implications. Yet, unlike Hart’s embarrassing downfall (wherein he essentially dared reporters to uncover any inappropriate behavior, which they promptly did), Weiner’s disintegration, albeit similarly self-imposed, involved a controversy where no “action” (unavoidable pun not necessarily intended) occurred. In other words, an elected official felt obliged to resign in disgrace, for consensual activities that transpired electronically.

Obviously the concept of technology and privacy potentially impacts everyone, and last year’s piece “Selling The Stories Of Our Lives: Technology and Privacy” takes an in-depth look at the very complicated dynamic of innovation, convenience and notions of security and personal space. That report concludes with the following observation: How we process and eventually regulate the exchange and deployment of this information will be a commentary on how we are able to exist as employers, employees, parents, children, friends, acquaintances and enemies all with the data to contradict or redefine any of those public (and private) personas.