Back to Gideon Rachman
I chaired a debate at the US embassy in London last night on the impact of the internet on the presidential election. It was surprisingly interesting. If you have a lot of time on your hands, you can watch it here.
One of the reasons I found the discussion interesting is that it convinced me that there is more to the subject than I had realised. I started fairly sceptical. I don’t think it’s very obvious that the internet has made this election qualitatively different from all other campaigns.
But here are two interesting facts that I gleaned that have made me re-consider - a bit. First, 5.5 million people have watched all 35 minutes of Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race on YouTube. In an age when the average TV news sound-bite is down to 12 seconds, this is extraordinary and heartening.
Second, the internet has transformed American campaign finance - and may have solved one of the biggest problems with American democracy. The problem - as we all know - is that elections are so expensive that candidates have to spend huge amounts of time raising funds; and have to warp their positions to suit the prejudices of wealthy donors. But Obama has already raised around $300m in small donations via the internet; vastly more than Hillary who has - by and large - raised money in the traditional way. One of last night’s panellists reckons that by the end of the election, Obama might have raised up to $1 billion on the net.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I travel a lot and often post blogs from around the world. Many of my posts are intended to spark discussion or to solicit readers' views. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays.
