There's no question this year that Barack Obama and Ron Paul are the kings of US politics on the Internet. They both command the lion's share of their party's attention online and seem to dominate social networking and social media sites. So why is only one of those campaigns actually working? How come only Obama has been able to translate his online success to success at the polls? We thought we'd take a brief look today at the Obama campaign and why it has been successful, while citizens in 24 US states head to the polls as part of "Super Tuesday."
UPDATE: Also check out Keeping Tabs on Super Tuesday, our guide to following Super Tuesday via the Internet.
Last week Obama's campaign announced that it had raised $32 million in January alone, a record $28 million online -- more than Howard Dean raised in his entire 2004 campaign. Twice this campaign cycle, Ron Paul has set single day fundraising records. If anything, the power of online fundraising has been proved many times over during this election.
Looking over Obama's numbers, we see that an overwhelming amount of that $28 million was via small donations -- 90% under $100 each. 10,000 people gave between $5 and $10. That's a whole new paradigm for fundraising. Rather than chase $2,300 checks from a few hundred rich people at lavish fundraisers (okay, they still do that), campaigns can more easily focus on collecting thousands of smaller donations from regular people that add up to the same amount (or more).
Further, 10,000 donations under $10 means the email addresses of 10,000 people who can still give more money later. About half of Hilary Clinton's money came from "maxed out" voters compared to just about one third for Obama. That gives Obama a much larger pool of donors to hit up for more cash and to put on notice for get out the vote campaigns.
Though I am loathe to agree with Karl Rove, he's right about how the Internet is affecting campaign fundraising. "The Internet dramatically shortens the gap between political success and raising money," he wrote. "Today, if you do well in a debate on Tuesday night you can begin raising large sums of money Wednesday morning. Effective fundraising can be a mouse-click away."
That's something that nearly all of the campaigns are doing. Within hours after Obama's win in South Carolina, his campaign had dispatched emails to supporters pitching for donations. However, raising money doesn't win elections. "Raising the most amount of money by no means assures you of winning the presidential primary," says former chairman of the Federal Election Commission Michael Toner. And for Paul, money and online popularity hasn't translated into votes. For Obama, though, arguably his online success has had an impact at the polls.
The reason may be in get out the vote efforts of each party. Both Paul and Obama, with their anti-war stances and Internet savvy, are attractive to young voters. But only the Democrats are succeeding in getting young people to the voting booths. In Iowa, exit polls showed 40% of voters under the age of 44, and Obama killed in those demographics. On the Republican side, just 26% of voters were under 44. That picture was repeated in other early primary states.
Incidentally, this is also potentially the reason that Mike Huckabee has faded as well -- he appeals to young people with, as one South Carolina paper writes, "his celebrity supporters, preacher’s gift for humor and skill with an electric guitar."
The Democrats are succeeding with young people because they are targeting young people and they are using the Internet to successfully microtarget and rally their base. The Obama campaign, for example, uses sophisticated targeting tools that let them send specially tailored campaign materials to each voter. Firm supporters get a different email than those on the fence.
Other progressive organizations are using similar tools. One is called Catalist. It is used by large progressive organizations like MoveOn and the AFL-CIO to microtarget their campaigns. According to Tony DeYoung of Catalyst Resources (unrelated to Catalist -- Catalyst is a design firm that was contracted by Catalist to redesign the UI of their "Q-Tool" software), Catalist utilizes "on-demand data analysis services to help Democratics microtarget in their voter outreach efforts. Microtargeting uses sophisticated computer models regularly used in commercial marketing, which helps campaigns to locate sympathetic voters and target them with individually tailored messages on issues that are predicted to be most important to them."
This is the same technique the Republicans employed to great effect in 2004 to get out messages to conservative evangelical Christian voters -- who this election cycle don't have a clear cut favorite among the front runners. Which may explain why their get out the vote efforts aren't working as well this time around.
So while both Obama and Paul are running effective online campaigns, albeit in different ways, the get out the vote efforts of the Democrats, which target young people, play to Obama's strength. While strong turnout by voters over the age of 45 have played to John McCain on the Republican side.
Related: Keeping Tabs on Super Tuesday
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Yesm it's true, Obama is a sign of the transformation of politics by the web. Obama is doing something very new and soomething very old at the same time. To see why, see my Blog:
HISTORY IN THE NEWS
http://blackdog2.blogspot.com
Did you know that forebears of the Taliban, the Pashtun kings of Afghanistan twice formed an Afghan empire in the 18th century?
Did you know that Burmese monks held massive protests against the British in 1906?
That Venezuelan dictators Guzman Blanco and Marco Perez both anticipated Hugo Chavez in attempting to extend presidential term limits?
For the history behind the headlines, I invite you to have a look at
HISTORY IN THE NEWS at:
http://blackdog2.blogspot.com
AND PLEASE SPREAD THE NEWS
hugh.graham@rogers.com
Many thanks,
HG Graham.
Posted by: Hugh Graham | February 5, 2008 8:34 AM
see video: FRAUD on Voters by The Nation and Chris Hayes, Part 1 (Obama violates international law)
Posted by: Tom | February 5, 2008 9:38 AM
I've just become aware of another possible factor in Ron Paul's lack of showing - when I went to cast my ballot, I found that the Republicans in my state won't allow people without party affiliations to vote in the Republican Primary. (I had my choice of Democrat or Independent ballots).
Since RP is such a departure from standard Republican Party politics, I imagine that a lot of people who would vote for him are registered as non-partisan/independent. It would be interesting to plot the states where Ron Paul took a larger percentage against the states whose Republican parties allow independents to vote in their primary.
Might not be much...but tough to say for sure. People who give money are likely to go vote, I'd imagine. RP's supporters might be trying to vote for him, and finding out they can't, simply because they're not ideological enough to belong to the Republican Party.
Posted by: KC | February 5, 2008 10:22 AM
Yeah, if you do well on TV on a Wed, you can get donations on a Wed... BUt for that you still need to get through the TV censorship... A candidate like Mike Gravel who actually speaks the truth instead of vague promises of "change" got banned from major TV station and is therefor virtually unknown.
At the gym this morning, I could see CNN in the background on the TVs and all you could see was Obama... They even had a short piece on his life's story... DIdn't see even a single picture of Ron Paul.
You don't even mention Gravel in your article... maybe you don't even know about him? I wouldn't blame you, the only place you can find him is youtube... The guy's brilliant though and has a track record of integrity in his political life.
The internet has a long way to go before it can truly influence the outcome of today's elections which are pretty much rigged by Mass media owned by corporations that get to shape politics to there advantages...
I pray for this distant future though.
Posted by: wack | February 5, 2008 3:27 PM
It also might have something to do with the fact that since the beginning of campaign season-- the media has conducted a virtual blackout of RON PAUL. He is anti-establishment, so they don't give him any coverage, unless its negative in nature.
Posted by: Nikhil | February 5, 2008 5:34 PM
This just seemed more like a post about Obama. That is fine, but we all forget a basic underlying characteristic of Democracy.
Plato thought that the inherent flaw of democracy was that it would devolve into a system where the candidates that promised the most stuff would always win and you'd end up with a society that would fall far short of its potential. Granted, he said so in support of an authoritarian state run by a caste of elites who decided what your job should be for you. The critique remains though that a democracy is vulnerable to a public who is more interested in what they can get than what would be most effective.
The reason why Obama is doing better is because he is promising all these reforms that "help people" where as Ron Paul doesnt do that because he knows he cant do everything.
Posted by: Dick | February 5, 2008 5:35 PM
There is one reason Obama's campaign is delivering votes...he is the MSM's wunderkin. Every Republican debate sees Dr. Paul getting 33% fewer questions than candidates polling worse than him. When Dr. Paul provides real answers to tough questions, the cameras often cut to McCain or Romney snickering like school kids. Dr. Paul routinely has to answer questions like,"Do you really think you're electable?" In short, the media treats Obama like the second coming and Dr.Paul like some lunatic. No candidate from either party is offering this country anything but more of the same with a new face. That is, of course, except RON PAUL. It's a shame the American people won't think for themselves and actually learn what the candidates are about. Instead, most voters blindly parrot what the news media feeds them or jump on the bandwagon of the candidate with the best chance of winning. I'm afraid the American people are going to wake up one day with the government they deserve...NOT the one they want!
Posted by: Joseph Kelley | February 5, 2008 5:53 PM
Ron Paul will be the start of a long journey to a third party made up of those who are not Religious (even though Ron Paul is a Christian), believe in limited government, and personal liberty. Most will say that religion has nothing to do with it, except now days you get grouped into the religious category if you are a republican.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-Seneca
http://www.atheistrevolution.com
Posted by: Atheist | February 5, 2008 5:57 PM
Obama is faring better because the mainstream media has ignored him since he announced he would run. You're clearly an apologist for the virtual blackout of Ron Paul since the beginning. How does it feel to be a lackey?
Posted by: Sara | February 5, 2008 6:03 PM
Well, one big factor the author failed to mention was the fact that the media has blacked-out Ron Paul, giving him little to no media attention. Obama, on the other hand, makes headlines almost daily. Of course he's going to be more well known.
Posted by: Yishi Garrard | February 5, 2008 6:06 PM
I wouldn't write Ron Paul off just yet. Sure, he will lose the Republican nomination without a doubt, but he will end up running as the Libertarian candidate.
Will he win the election, probably not. He will however and already has to a large extent, bring needed attention to the Libertarian party. Who knows, maybe in 2012 a libertarian will be a serious candidate due to Ron Paul.
I do know that from looking in places like digg, myspace, and chat rooms that Ron Paul seems to dominate them. This leads me to believe that it's the younger crowd that is supporting him. The good thing is that the young crowd today will be more in control as it gets older so I look for the Libertarian party to move more mid-stream over the next 20 years.
Posted by: Free Chat Rooms | February 5, 2008 6:41 PM
Dude, you left out the real reason Obama's campaign is getting him poll numbers...Oprah Winfrey.
Posted by: Joey | February 5, 2008 7:44 PM
You've forgot to mention one little detail, which happens to have the highest impact. The media!
If the media outlets would allow for a "fair election" and mention candidate names equally, then the public knows about everyone running for president, rather than who the media decides to portray, or "let you see".
There are still people who are not Internet savvy who aren't aware of the existance of Ron Paul. If only his message wasn't smuthered, but rather given equal time to the others that are running, then you can make simple comparisons like the one you tried to here.
Posted by: Chris S - Philly | February 5, 2008 8:49 PM
Go Obama!!
Posted by: free iPhone 16 GB | February 5, 2008 8:55 PM
Many comments left so far have mentioned the media black-out against congressman Paul, but none have gone on to detail the specific reasons. Ron Paul is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, aka the CFR. Barack Obama, his lovely wife before him, and every other candidate in this election cycle with the exceptions of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are active members of this massive, secretive group which includes as its members the owners/controllers of all the Main Stream Media corporations. That is why Obama is touted and Paul is ignored. Vast Corruption.
look it up yourself.
Posted by: nate | February 5, 2008 9:49 PM
The #1 reason Obama's campaign works and Paul's doesn't is that Paul is an insane, racist, fundamentalist nut whose politics would drive America into a crippling recession (via the Gold standard), isolate the US internationally and turn southern states into segregated, abortion-banning Christianocracies (states rights!).
In a hilarious twist, Paul's vote against "regulation of the Internet", frequently cited by his most vocal supporters, is actually a vote against net neutrality. The regulation Paul opposes is the one that would establish net neutrality.
"Look it up yourself", "do your research", as Paulistas like to say.
Posted by: KenLenny | February 6, 2008 1:17 AM
Some of the comments above offer good reasons for the differences. One thing I haven't seen mentioned, however, is Obama's ability to bring a crowd together. No one can deliver a speech like Obama and this remains a mark of a great leader. Ron Paul, on the other hand, does not have the same ability to do so.
While I thought Ron Paul was honest and forthright on the debates he was *allowed* to participate in - he oftened seemed defensive.
Someone mentioned the candidate's tech stances. Here it is:
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9864581-38.html
Notice how Obama and Paul (of the remaining candidates) were the only ones that tried to answer every question honestly while the rest of the pack remain worthless excuses for leaders - often ducking questions (like they do on all other issues).
Obama is the friendliest of the Tech Candidates - the people's choice. Ron Paul's isolationist stance and pro-business views plays a negative role here.
Posted by: Nieves | February 6, 2008 4:06 AM
The similarities end at the online success.
-Obama is loved by mass media
-Ron Paul is despised
-Obama was given overwhelming debate time
-Ron Paul was not
-Obama can run on the current Democratic platform
-Ron Paul cannot
-MSM praises Obama's version of change.
-MSM ridicules and mocks Ron's version.
-Obama promises many things that cost money
-Ron promises many things that save money
etc......
Posted by: TLG | February 6, 2008 5:49 AM
It's amazing their success on the web. I was at the Obama rally the other day and people were crazy. Check out the coverage here: www.lunchhournews.com
Posted by: Lunch Hour News | February 6, 2008 6:42 AM
One point you seem to have missed, as Karl Rove said, if you do well in a debate one night the next day... while Ron Paul has done well in the debates during his 5-6 minute rushed time slots, from the beginning with 11 to the present with 4, it looks pretty obvious to me someone wants to try to make sure he doesn't do so well, hu?
Could that be part or why his campaing isn't doing better translating to votes? There's surely no media shut out working against Obama.
Posted by: Ciel | February 6, 2008 7:55 AM
No, the things that win elections are fraudulent vote counts and adherence to Jewish banking directives. It has nothing to do with popular support.
Posted by: Chris | February 6, 2008 8:20 AM
Obama has some personal integrity there that I don't see in Ron Paul. For better or for worse...it's not the promises or the ideals or the arguments or his skin color...so much as it's just that he appears to me a bit more human then the rest of them, and thats why I will vote for Obama.
Posted by: svakanda | February 6, 2008 8:30 AM
Many people only watch T.V.
T.V. Networks are owned by limited liability corporations profiting from war.
Ron Paul will end that profit; hence no T.V. time.
When people are free to vote they do this:
http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10922
Note how Obama started out strong. Now Ron Paul is out ahead.
If the cure to a fatal disease is hidden by people who profit from you sickness, then, you suffer.
Like this:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
Note, however, that votes don't count (accurately):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E
Posted by: Joe Kelley | February 6, 2008 8:36 AM
The corporate media propaganda machine, AKA the major news outlets, are enforcing a near-total media blackout of Ron Paul.
If you didn't know Ron Paul existed, you're not likely to find out about him from watching TV. He isn't owned by the corporate oligarchy, and he represents a major threat to their power.
Not Obama. He's CFR and gets lots of corporate love. Obama is bought and paid for. Don't take my word for it, Google 'Obama CFR' & 'Obama corporate donation'.
Posted by: FreedomJoyAdventure | February 6, 2008 10:10 AM
It'll be another rigged election. They're even rigging the primaries so it won't be so obvious.
Most of the country HATES Bush. And who's winning? His twin McCain??? One of Israel's and AIPAC's biggest supporters?
hmmmm fair?
i don't think so.
Posted by: rigged | February 6, 2008 4:24 PM
Google Controls Everything!
When is information gathering and censorship by one entity too much? MA Bell was broken up when their monopoly controlled price and access. Standard Oil was broken up when they controlled too much. Microsoft was force to open access when they controlled to much.
When trying to market or promote your brand does Google give you a fair shake? If you are placed 10,000 in a search is that a form of censorship? Laws have been passed to protect your personal information, stop marketers from calling and sets standards for gathering information but the Internet has not been regulated. Is it time to make the Internet a mandated required open source service to all? What is the basic level of privacy and access everyone should expect. Today, there is no limit.
It is great Obama and Ron Paul have still made the impact they have.
Posted by: robert guinto | February 6, 2008 6:56 PM
Well i think we should all be aware of Obama's past. He did attend fundamental teachings of the Muslim faith for a number of years. He was a Muslim that did convert to Christianity when entering politics. I know these are issues we are afraid to talk about, or we might be called racists.............but it is the truth.
I do not like the idea of having a Man, that was ones part of fundamental teachings of the Muslim Faith. The schools that he attended are the same schools that teach hatred of Western civilization today.
People before you vote, understand his past.
Now....about Hillary. I do not like her that much either, but she has the knowledge and experience to make a difference.
I was a Obama supporter until i did some research about his past. This has raised some red flags for me.
Martin
Posted by: Martin | February 7, 2008 7:36 AM
ummm... are you seriously asking why obama could translate online support into votes and ron paul couldn't???!? DUH. Media censorship? sound familiar?
If Ron Paul had been endorsed by the media he would have won the GOP nomination by a landslide. hands down.
problem is people need reassurance. they need to be told they "aren't throwing their vote away." sadly they need the media's validation.
Posted by: aj rombie | February 7, 2008 11:21 PM
Any politician that knows how to use the web and driving traffic to their sites, will win over the popularity.
Obama seems to have the money from Oprah to do just that.
Therefore, you can buy yourself into the Presidency, if you know how.
Posted by: Teris | February 9, 2008 8:37 AM