Saturday, 17 March 2007

Howard Dean

There's an article at http://www.campaignsonline.org/reports/blog.pdf which reviews the use of blogs by the contenders for the 2004 Democractic nomination. Obviously this is a bit out of sequence with posts of the last few day.

However, I thought it was worth mentioning because it focuses on the impact of Howard Dean's online campaign and how effective it was. Of course, Dean lost out to Kerry and, as was noted in the article I posted on 13 March, even in the analysis of the use of online communications in the Bush v Kerry contest, it seems that the internet did not detemine the outcome.

However, both these articles as well as the current developments in the race for the Democractic nomination which have been disucssed over the past few days, online politcial communcations is here to stay.

I also need to mention a point from the 'Presidential Elections' book referred to yesterday. It takes us back to the issue of why people don't vote. It seems that many of the reasons behind low turnout in the UK (discussed earlier this month)also apply in the USA.

The one interesting difference is the processs of registering to vote which in the US seems to be a lot more complicated than in most European countries. Once again we come back to the point that low turnout does not necessarily mean lack of interest or lack of support for the system in general.
Posted by at

3 comments:

Ida B.Toender said...

I think it is a positive development that politicians are blogging. It is important that politicians engage with all kinds of people as well as all age groups. Although it might be too early to tell how effective it is, blogging may be a good way to reach a younger audience. Having said that, I don’t think that blogging is the solution to a low voter turnout. I think the government has to restore trust and confidence in order to get people engaged and interested in politics. As I said when we discussed this issue in class, in Norway everybody votes. Norwegians trust the government which is why they also bother to vote. I think the British government with the help of spin doctors have made it difficult for the British public to trust politicians. Maybe that is why so many do not bother to vote…

18 March 2007 at 20:41
Viktoriya T. said...

I would agree that Dean's internet campaign was very successful. And although he lost to Kerry, his public persona benefitted a lot. His relationship with the American public changed, he came to be seen as one of the more down to earth politicians that most people had seen in a long time.

18 March 2007 at 21:51
Krystin Washington said...

Politicians blogging...honestly, I don't know that I could care less if they did. The only two times that I've been allowed to vote (I was finally old enough) in the US have been during two of the most polarizing presidential campaigns in our lifetime.

I did care what each candidate stood for, but I could have read Bush's blog until I was blind and I would still have voted for Gore and Kerry. I didn't trust Bush and a blog wouldn't have helped.

Too much money is spent on campaigns in the US and they are just smear attacks, nothing helpful to the voter who wants to see change. Until the things that a candidate blogs about actually come true, then it's the same as a poster on the street, or the baseless words during a debate or the lies in a campaign commercial. It's just another tactic to make us all more cynical...don't be fooled though, I'll vote every time, even if I'm out of the country!!!

19 March 2007 at 00:46

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)