News: The UK based Economist magazine has an article today about the increasing power of YouTube on the presidential election. Here’s one passage:
“Campaigns are also more interesting these days. The droning, top-down television ads touting a candidate’s virtues and his rival’s vices are now supplemented by far more creative message-making….This year Mr Obama seems to have more internet buzz, for example claiming more (possibly, these things are hard to compare) “friends” on MySpace than does Mrs Clinton. But MySpace friends do not equal votes. Young users of new technology are not as important as the dedicated and capable “ground troops” in a campaign. The latter come from unions, religious groups and other traditionally organised blocks. Once again, Mr Dean’s story is illustrative—thousands of his enthusiastic workers descended upon Iowa for that state’s early Democratic caucus. But this much-touted “perfect storm” of volunteers, mostly non-Iowan, failed him. Name recognition, money and old-fashioned organisation are virtues that no amount of net savvy can replace. Mr Dean finished a distant third in Iowa, and never recovered.”
Analysis: Ron Paul probably deserved some mention, particularly because he seems to fit the prototype that the Economist continually referred to — the Internet popular candidate who may have a hard time translating that into votes. If Ron Paul is the No.1 most viewed candidate on YouTube (here), then how can you write a story on YouTube’s role on the presidential election without even mentioning the guy?
August 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
I don’t think that politicians should put too much effort into youtube if they are campaigning in Britain. Most young British people do not vote. Those that do use Facebook. I would concentrate on Facebook campaigns as a UK politician. It is different in America as there are so many more young people who are politically active and using the internet. Having said that, the British Conservative party are planning more youtube campaigns for 2009.