Jacobs 1 Evan Jacobs Dr. D. Atwater CAS 478 27 April 2005 The Internet and Presidential Campaigns One of the fastest growing forms of media in the United States today is the internet. According to the Nielsen net ratings internet usage has grown 110.7% from 2000 to 2005. Currently, there are 200,933,147 internet users in America. These are astounding statistics that have not been ignored by many different sectors of the population. Academic institutions are offering more online programs, clothing manufacturers are concentrating on online sales, advertising firms are focusing online campaigns and political strategists are taking their candidates’ campaigns onto the web. As the internet continues to grow in popularity use of online tools will become an integral part of presidential campaigns. Candidates started seriously using the internet in the 2000 elections; however, 2004 demonstrated the potential for online campaigning. By analyzing how candidates used the internet in past elections we can better understand the benefits this new medium brings to political campaigns and hypothesize its role in elections to come. I believe this topic is important because understanding how candidates attempt to reach voters plays an integral role in becoming an educated voter. Clearly candidates are doing their best to portray themselves in a positive light while discrediting their opponents. Many potential voters understand this point when watching a campaign speech or advertisement; however, because the internet is so new it might lead to different interpretations from potential voters. In addition, the internet is an interactive

Jacobs 2 medium which allows candidates to connect with voters more than ever before. The internet is also multi-faceted. Unlike television, radio, or print the internet does more than just convey information; it can also collect information. This means candidates can use the internet to organize campaign volunteers and other events throughout campaign. For all of these reasons, I believe the internet is essential to any political campaign and its role will continue to increase in future elections. Since this medium is relatively new I want to study it to analyze its use in the past and its potential for the future. Because of the sheer size of the internet and its use in presidential campaigns it would be impossible for me to cover all of its implications in a ten page paper. As a result, I decided to narrow my focus to the use of the internet by the candidates’ official campaign staff; therefore, my research excludes independent blogs, 527’s, online news forums, interest groups/ PAC websites and personal websites all of which played a role in the elections. I chose to focus on official campaign sites because I feel these were the most organized and the most noticeable to the public. By looking at the differences in these sites we can determine where and how candidates focused their energies. The use of the internet by political candidates really goes as far back as the 1996 elections. For the first time national media developed election websites and political parties developed their sites offering users “dynamic graphics, clips of speeches, advertisements, press releases, convention speeches and other party news,” but most importantly “candidate sites offered the direct, unfiltered communication to voters for which candidates had been searching” (Bimber 2003). However, by no means had the internet come to the prominence it has today. Internet usage continued to grow during the midterm elections of 1998. A large majority of candidates had websites that they

Jacobs 3 used during their campaigns. However, “some features of the internet, such as interactivity or specialized information were still underutilized in campaigns. Websites still looked like electronic brochures” (Bimber 27). It was not until the 2000 campaigns that candidates began to actively use the tools available through the internet. This emphasis was clear from the start of the primaries. Steve Forbes was the first candidate to announce his candidacy on the internet. His site proclaimed, “You and I are entering the information age—and Washington politicians are stuck in the Stone Age” (Bimber 38). Although Forbes did not win the nomination his statement could not be more valid. America was certainly entering a new information age in which the internet would play an extremely important role. The 2000 elections saw candidates using the internet not only as a way to share their platforms, but also as a fundraising tool. In addition, candidates began to focus on the interactive features this new medium could provide. Campaign staff would post pictures and users could post questions for the candidates. Also, online volunteer solicitation was taking place. A member of the Bradley campaign stated, In the summer, we decided to canvass in New Hampshire. So we emailed about 5,000 people who were within driving distance. . . . About 300 replied, and of those, about two-thirds showed up. We could have never afforded to make the phone calls with that rate of return. But this didn’t cost us anything. (Bimber 40) Campaign staff and political strategists were beginning to see the benefits of the web. This medium served many different functions for the campaign at very minimal costs. As Bimber states 2000 was the year of the internet and its importance would only become more significant in the years to come.

Jacobs 4 In many ways the internet was able to revitalize grass roots efforts in presidential campaigns. As Ed Grefe, chief political consultant to LDS, states “grass roots communications is designed to create a message, certainly to deliver that message through multiple heads, to a targeted group of people, and especially to those who are now family, to strengthen support and renew a relationship” (2003). He goes on to state how the internet is an excellent medium for this type of communication. The internet allows candidates to link “issues and supporters on a worldwide stage” (Grefe 2003). By linking supporters, candidates are able to create a stronger base throughout different areas of the country. As the internet has become an integral part of presidential campaigns it is important to see how candidates are developing their sites and what they hope to gain from online efforts. The first thing candidates are concerned with, in all forms of media, is their audience. In order to develop a rhetorically sound website campaign members must be well aware of whom they are presenting information to. Research has shown that campaigns are primarily concerned with two different audiences: supporters and undecided voters. The internet provides a unique opportunity for dealing with supporters because campaigns can focus on ways to engage them. When a supporter arrives at the website it is important that he/she can find something to engage himself in the campaign. Bimber and Davis describe four main categories that campaigns use to engage their supporters: opinion reinforcement, activism, donating and voter registration and mobilization. Campaigns want to ensure that their candidate is being portrayed in a positive light. To maintain or reinforce this portrayal campaign staff have used both websites and

Jacobs 5 email lists. The internet provides candidates with a medium in which they can constantly update information and spin events. For example, the Bush website in the 2000 elections had a feature on the home page called “Setting the Record Straight,” this feature was used to continually update responses to criticisms about Bush and his policies. Opinion reinforcement also comes by keeping supporters excited about the campaign. Campaign staff would send out constant news updates and email reports so supporters knew exactly how their candidate was doing. The second category to engage supporters is through activism. The goal of this category is to move “passive but interested spectators of the campaign into activists” (Bimber 2003). There are many ways that campaign staff use the internet to get supporters more involved. Email lists are very popular to invite supporters to rallies and other events in their local areas. Also, candidates had online signs and letters that supporters could print out and distribute in their local communities. In addition to using their internet sites to encourage supporters to engage in offline activities, they also had many suggestions for online involvement. Campaign staff encouraged supporters to participate in online discussions and setup private email lists with their friends. Candidates wanted supporters engaged in any activity that could spread their message to more people and create a buzz for their campaign. Another category of engagement is donating. In 2000 and 2004 all of the major candidates included a fundraising section on their website. In the 2000 elections fundraising online was even more important for the smaller candidates because it was more cost-effective to raise money online. In 2000 online fundraising was actually less successful than expected, especially for the major party candidates.

Jacobs 6 The final category of engagement for supporters is voter registration and mobilization. Reminders to vote became regular announcements on candidates’ home pages. Although campaigns still relied on traditional “get-out-the-vote-drives” in 2000, online methods were incorporated as well. Campaigns sent e-mails daily to subscribers as Election Day drew near. The benefit of email lists is that they could send out daily reminders at very minimal costs which was not possible with traditional mailings. While many features on the website focused on engaging campaign supporters candidates recognized other audiences as well. Another major audience, important for any campaign, is undecided voters. During the 2000 campaign many professionals felt that undecided voters would not rely on the internet for information; however, this group was not totally ignored. All candidates had features on their website detailing issue positions. Both Gore and Bush had over 30 pages of position papers on their websites (Bimber 2003). Most websites also had a background/biography section. This allowed undecided voters a chance to get to know a candidate and his family better. Another audience that was targeted by candidates on their websites was the media. Most sites had a press section dedicated to news releases and other information that was pertinent to the press. Emailing press releases became much more efficient than traditional methods such as faxing. Barb Palser (2004) discusses how the media has been repackaging information coming across the wires and websites to get information out fast. She also mentions how online media have been setting up their own campaign sections. As a result, it is extremely important for candidates to control the information being released to the press in a format that is appreciated by them; otherwise candidates could be presented in a negative light because they failed to engage members of the press.

Jacobs 7 For political strategists the internet is much like any other form of media in that they must develop strategies to best fulfill their goals. The unique aspect of the web is that it provides many more opportunities than traditional forms of media. The 2000 elections began a trend for internet campaigning which was intensified in 2004. Candidates used the internet to target multiple audiences: supporters, undecided voters and the press. Many of the strategies used in 2000 were repeated and improved upon while many new tactics were developed as well. Similar to the 2000 campaigns, much of the information on the websites for 2004 candidates was targeted at supporters. Again activism was one of the major categories where strategists focused. A new phenomenon developed with Howard Dean’s grass roots efforts, the meet-up. Dean used his website to organize supporters by geographical area and then plan get-togethers where supporters could discuss current issues and how they could support their candidate of choice. This idea was then copied by Kerry & Bush in the form of house or dinner parties. Letter writing campaigns were again very popular. Candidates encouraged supporters to write letters to local papers and send emails to friends and family. Another activity new to websites is blogging. Candidates would open discussions with web users about many issues. This would not only keep supporters engaged, but also allow candidates to reach potential voters on a more personal level. Edwards created a blog community on his webpage where he contributes frequently. Candidates also focused more on fundraising than they did in the 2000 elections. Again Dean was the first to focus fundraising efforts online. He was soon followed by his Democratic counterparts. Republicans also raised money over the web; however, it

Jacobs 8 was nowhere near the amount raised by democratic candidates. This focus on online fundraising was clearly an advantage for the Democrats. Bush’s direct-mail is ‘a much more expensive operation than what you’ve seen in the Kerry campaign, which has had much more success on the Internet … which has not only allowed them to reduce their fund-raising costs, but has allowed them to in essence free up their money,’ for use on other items, Corrado said. (Website) One explanation as to why Democrats might have been more successful with online donations is that their demographic (metropolitan and younger voters) support might be more up to date with modern technologies. As a result, they were more likely to make donations online where as Bush’s direct mail campaign was most successful for his group of supporters. In addition to fundraising candidates also used their websites to advocate and explain their positions. Again this campaign was focused on undecided voters; however, much more emphasis was placed on this initiative in 2004. One way candidates tried to reach undecided voters on the web was through targeted advertising. They did this by becoming site sponsors for search engines such as Google. For example, if a potential voter searched on Google for “stem cell research” one of the sponsored links would be to John Kerry’s position paper on stem cell research. The logic behind this type of advertising is that candidates can target the issues that each individual voter cares about most. In order to further this goal, many campaigns have even hired data mining firms to modernize their campaigns. Candidates are now using online political databases to target potential voters. Many political databases came from companies that provided free e-mail service and required subscribers to fill out questionnaires. Initial questionnaires collect the demographics of database members, such as

Jacobs 9 age, gender, income, expected major purchases, hobbies, interests, family size, and education. (Howard 2005) These demographics are then used to target voters with specific information much like the Google advertisements. One area that all candidates tried to improve on was the interactive capabilities of the internet. Zack Exley, director of Internet organizing for Kerry, stated “The real [political] debate is among regular people, and the Internet makes it possible for that debate to happen in print from person to person, across states and across communities" (Menn 2004). Whereas before the age of the internet, candidates always struggled to make personal connections and discuss issues with their constituents, they are now able to easily bridge that gap and facilitate online discussions about issues they want to discuss. Blogging, video messages and podcasting are all being used to make voters feel like they are personally involved with the candidates and facilitate discussion. All three techniques focus on interaction between the candidate and potential voters. These tactics allow candidates to answer questions posed by voters and convey themselves in a much more personal manner. For example, podcasting is a new tactic which is much like a radio address but in an MP3 format. John Edwards now has a weekly podcast where he updates listeners on what is going on in his life and answers questions that were submitted online. His tone and demeanor in these addresses is very informal which makes it seem like he is talking to a friend. As a result of all of these new strategies the internet played a larger role than ever before in Presidential campaigns and it is very likely that this trend will continue in 2008. Now that two presidential election cycles have passed it seems as if political strategists have a better understanding of how to utilize this new tool. The internet is multifaceted

Jacobs 10 and can provide candidates with many benefits; however, it seems that the main focus for use will be interaction with constituents and potential voters. Currently all of the major 2004 candidates still have websites setup. Bush’s site now redirects to the GOP national site where the focus is on engaging users in the President’s initiatives for the next four years. On the other hand, both Kerry and Edwards’ sites are focusing on keeping volunteers and their supporters involved in the political realm, possibly gearing up for another run in 2008. Edwards’ site is probably the most interactive and technologically advanced using both podcasts and a blog. Clearly, Edwards is attempting to connect with his supporters to build a strong and active base of volunteers. More than likely, in the upcoming years there will be a refinement of the techniques used in 2004 and new tactics will be added. Every candidate will need a website to be successful in the 2008 campaigns. Websites are a very cheap way to fundraise and engage supporters in campaign activities. They are also used as a resource for undecided voters and the media. It is likely as more time is devoted to online campaigning that candidates will attempt to draw people to their site through advertisements, both on the web and through traditional forms of media. Using modern technology it is likely sites can be personalized for each voter so that individuals feel candidates are responsive to them. All of these factors will make the internet one of the most powerful tools in the 2008 campaigns and will change the face of political campaigns forever.

Jacobs 11

References Bimber, B, & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning online: The internet in U.S. elections. New York: Oxford. Grefe, E. (2003). E-Campaigning what it is and how to do it. Journal of Public Affairs, 3(1), 21-27. Howard, P. (2005). Deep democracy, thin citizenship: The impact of digital media in political campaign strategy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597, 153-170. Menn, J. (2004, May 30). The race to the White House: Internet upstart turns insider. Los Angeles Times, p. A24. Palser, B. (2004). The web’s campaign contributions. American Journalism Review, 26(4), 78. Website spending for presidential campaigns. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from Politics and Technology Website: http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2004/07/website_spendin.html