I had a really interesting conversation last night with Jeff Smith, a really sharp Evanston lawyer, activist and candidate for state representative in the 18th District. Smith is running in a field of other great candidates, including Patrick Keenan-Devlin and Eamon Kelly. Jeff and I were discussing the value of Facebook in building a support network and reaching voters during an election.
I took the position that Facebook offered an incredibly efficient medium to communicate and organize voters. Jeff countered that though that is true, most probable voters in his Evanston district probably won’t go on Facebook and would need to be reached the old fashioned way – knocking on doors and shaking hands. 
The truth is, I think, is that we’re both right and we’re both wrong. From Barack Obama’s campaign down to Daniel Biss’ campaign for state rep in 2008, we learned that a good online strategy was made possible by the hard work candidates and staffs put in on the ground to introduce themselves to voters. Facebook was just the next logical place to go to continue the conversation and stay engaged in the campaign. In short, there are synergies between online and offline that are complimentary, rather than mutually exclusive.
Of course, the largest group of Facebook users are in the 18-25 range, but we also know the fastest growing segment of Facebook users is the 45-54 age group. Ask any teenage kid if their parents are friending them on Facebook and the likely answer is ‘yes.’ I believe that in the Evanston district, Facebook and other new media tools will be crucial to winning the campaign for state representative.
Jeff is right too – nothing replaces shaking hands and talking to voters. People want to feel listened to and putting a name with a face is crucial.
All three candidates have a solid presence on Facebook and all have comparable-sized networks. It seems as though all candidates believe it’s necessary to have a Facebook page. But how many will make it a priority? Who will use it as a strategic tool? Who will accidentally find it invaluable because of the reach and ease of use?
These are all questions I’ll watching out for in this race!
7 responses so far ↓
Jassen Strokosch // July 15, 2009 at 7:04 pm |
Another synergy between online and offline, one I think that Obama did well but doesn’t get enough mention, is how effective the online social space was at informing those who would eventually be knocking door-to-door.
The armies of volunteers who were willing to go knock on doors knew the key talking points and were on message and ready to answer tough questions better than ever before because of the time spent interacting online. Finding armies of people who can rattle off a half dozen campaign positions is invaluable.
At the local level, this might be the only way to do it as they aren’t going to learn it from hearing the endless droning of 30 second commercial spots.
Jesse Greenberg // July 15, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
J, that is a GREAT point! Volunteers from BO were able to articulate the message because online is a “pull” medium rather than TV, a “push” medium. Online is opt-in and participatory and TV is opt-out and easy to tune out.
Great lesson for future campaigns.
From the campaign world though, I see the argument being made for TV in order to establish a brand with voters, reach large amounts of people efficiently and overcome the hurdle of those who don’t use the internet (do they still exist?). Those may all be true, but if campaigns are all cash-strapped as 99% are, then it seems a better ROI to put their spend in online rather than buying a couple of TV spots (plus producing it) which is what you would get with the equivalent of developing online applications/content or a TV buy.
Greg // July 24, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
Jeff Smith understands the power and potential of the Internet in politics–likely more than the other candidates. For starters, he’s been using computers for a long time and helps others understand their power; check out his non-political website (http://www.jefflaw.com/computer.htm). Of the three candidates, he is the only one who is a legitimate blogger, making serious, thoughtful and sometimes humorous contributions to the online conversation. Check out his diaries at Prairie State Blue, http://www.prairiestateblue.com/user/Jeff%20Smith, or the community website he helps run at http://www.centralstreetneighbors.com. There is a big difference between Facebook and the netroots. Jeff Smith, certainly more experienced than his competition in ground-level, person-to-person campaigning, is also the netroots candidate in the 18th District race. An unusual and powerful toolkit.
Jesse Greenberg // July 24, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
Greg, thanks for your comment.
No doubt Jeff has been contributing to the online political community for a long time – before many others got started. He’ll have a leg up on his competition. His been great at it too.
I would submit there is a difference between the blogging and social networking community. You and Jeff know that. I think the campaign will have to be really good at moving both to support him.
Rocco Rotunno // July 24, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
Jeff Smith has a large Facebook network and a smaller but high-quality Facebook group, Elect Jeff Smith, http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=93449356957. Interestingly he has not yet chosen to create a “politician” page where people become “fans” or “supporters.” But his group page was where I first saw the impressive video of his appearance at Northside DFA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz1N5QV1O0c
So it looks like he is making some strategic decisions on how to use social media.
pau1ke11y // September 3, 2009 at 2:06 am |
Daniel Biss knocked on doors seven days a week for a year, meeting 20,000 voters in the 17th in his race. And he did the social networking work. But there are many ways to engage voters and supporters. What is your opinion of Twitter?
Jesse Greenberg // September 4, 2009 at 12:22 am |
Thanks for your comment, Paul.
Twitter can be effective if the campaign is big enough and is used properly. In other words, there has to be enough people who care and are following a candidate to make Twitter worthwhile. In addition, whoever is managing the Twitter account has to be able to talk like a human being, respond to comments, ask questions….form a real community. Campaigns can’t just broadcast messages ONLY and think that’s a good use of Twitter.