May 16, 2008
The internet and the presidential election
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.
GR, I dont have time to view the debate this moment but it’s made a great deal of difference! The fundraising for sure …Obama was NEVER supposed to be competitive with Clinton fundrasing machine…but he was because it is so easy for hundreds of thousands of people, who normally do not donate, to go on line and give $25 every week… every month… anytime they want!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pm | Report this commentIt use to be that only the grunt working activists, usually driven by ideology or fat cat donors giving thousands of dollars participated in the campaign process..the internet allows everyone the opportinity to participate…providing immediate funds when the candidate makes an appeal that hits your e-mail in- box, to watching speeches in their entirety that you would normally never be able to view because you did not attend event and both netweok and cable ususally only run soundbites…to leaving comments/feedback at a candidate’s website or the many political websites that are now around…I do not think a candidate now can run without an attractive, interactive website…
I agree with Lisa-Helene Lawson’s last sentence. In fact, I am planning to visit one or two of the candidates’ websites myself when I have the time, one of these days, just out of curiosity.
However, substance still counts for something, regardless of how it is presented. Unfortunately, as I have maintained in other posts, a good deal of the “substance” in this election has consisted and will in all likelihood continue to consist of the most vile attacks imaginable on Barack Obama’s patriotism (see today’s FT article by Edward Luce) as well as his race.
The success that these attacks have already had, and have had in past elections, as in, for example, the Willie Horton campaign against Michael Dukakis and the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, raises a larger question about the extent to which democracy can function at all in a country where so much of the public is uninformed, if not seriously misinformed, and, therefore, easily manipulated.
Perhaps raising this question at all makes me an “elitist”, and it is certainly possible that I might be one, having graduated from the same law school as Barack Obama, as well as the undergraduate college of the same university and the same prep school as the two Presidents Bush. But all of us posting on this blog could well deserve to be called “elitists” because we care the actual facts and the real issues in this election.
Perhaps GR might one day one day wish to share his own opinion on the above question, as it concerns not only the continued viability of democracy in the US, but the extent to which democracy can thrive in other parts of the world where the conditions for its success may be even less favorable.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | May 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this commentSorry, I meant “care about the actual facts”.
Posted by: algasema | May 16th, 2008 at 4:17 pm | Report this commentGideon: How can you see the debate? It seems doesn’t work on my computer. At the same time I can watch any other FT video shows except for the debate at the US embassy in London. Is there a problem at FT server? Please let me know.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | May 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm | Report this commentCertainly, micro-financing would be interesting if the the micro-financiers were as focused and as well informed as the macro-financiers.
The “macros” know what they are going to get for their money, but doubt if Obama’s “micros” have much an idea at all of what their money is buying.
The marvelous thing about Obama is that he has constructed a “movement”, complete with adoring, slogan shouting crowds and masses of money out of literally no substance at all.
Barack Obama’s success at turning hot air into cold cash might be just the solution for the energy crisis that everyone is looking for.
Posted by: David Seaton | May 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pm | Report this comment“INTERNET OUGHT TO BE USED TO POLL US PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES RE THE ‘BURMA SITUATION’!!”
The Internet ought to be used- maybe even by the FT- to poll the US’s presidential candidates… as well as US voters… regarding the present unconcionable ‘Burma situation’ and whether developed world/NATO nations taking unilateral actions- including military ones- for the purposes of disaster relief would be something that the US ought to participate in/support…
Q’s below:
1) If you were president (today), what would you have the US do about Burma?
2) Would you support making the US a participant in a military disaster-relief invasion of Burma or at least its Rangoon/Irrawaddy delta region- by a coalition of NATO/developed world (and if possible-ASEAN)nations?
3) When or what conditions within Burma- or a similar country such as North Korea- would warrant military intervention by Nato/the developed world into these countries?
(Many millions of North Korea’s 20 million populace are said by the UN Food Programme to be at dire risk of dieing of starvation and/or malnutrition- even with the recently committed 500,000 tonnes of US food aid for 2008-2009).
Mr. Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | May 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Report this commentnear Vancouver, BC, Canada,
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com