Obama Takes Grassroots Campaigning to the Internet

The Obama team took note of the mistakes made in previous Internet campaigns and used this knowledge to leverage support in a way that would result in victory.  Although Dean was the first to truly embrace this style of campaigning, he did not do enough to sustain it.  He neglected to “convert online donors into votes and channel the online fervor into effective ground support” and for this reason, was unable to translate his virtual popularity into reality (Lutz).  Although Dean’s campaign ultimately failed, his use of the Internet did not go unnoticed.  In fact his “rapid rise and fall resulted in candidates growing wary of using the Internet to bolster their campaigns” (Slotnick).  When the 2008 election rolled around, Obama and his team effectively “combined the embrace of online enthusiasm of Dean ’04 with the discipline, organization and hyper-targeting of the Bush ’04 re-election campaign” (Lutz).  This strategy was clearly a success: It resulted in far more than just media hype but in tangible, meaningful votes and ultimately, a Presidential win.

Obama’s 2008 social media campaign embodies the definition of a grassroots movement.  He made sure to “give ordinary Americans access to resources usually reserved for professional campaign operatives” (Lutz).  By relying on existing communities of people to engage with his message and by utilizing basic, day-to-day forms of communication to do so, Obama made his campaign for change incredibly accessible and easy to join.  I think his success is largely due to the “crawl, walk, run approach” of his campaign’s social media integration and to the strategic hyper-targeting of pre-disposed, knowledgeable individuals to mobilize larger groups of people.  Obama and his team understood the campaign as a progression (or ladder) and that “as a supporter moves up the ladder, each rung requires more commitment, creates more value, and will tend to hold fewer people” (Lutz).  For this reason, resources were made available for larger, less informed people (who perhaps had not made up their mind yet) such as an email subscriptions, mobile subscriptions, weekly YouTube radio addresses, and informational websites (change.com).  As potential voters became more informed, they were given the opportunity to join social networking groups, blogs, and MyBarackObama.com where they could make an account and engage with other like-minded supporters.

Organizing the campaign’s communication efforts in a way that allowed people with varying levels of interest/support to engage in the election efforts was key to Obama’s success.  As Lutz points out “while previous campaigns had treated online advocacy as an add-on, the Obama campaign integrated social media into all elements of the organization.”  They relied heavily on two major things: their strong supporters and social media groups.  Rather than try to persuade each individual to vote Obama, they “provided users with everything they would need to create an authentic and mobilized force (…) originat[ing] from the general pubic, rather than the elite” (Slotnick).  Do you think this method of campaigning allows potential voters to be informed to their full potential? Is it better that they hear the specifics of a candidate’s politics from he, himself or is it equally beneficial to have them told to you by a friend or fellow supporter online?

This entry was posted in Winter 2012. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Obama Takes Grassroots Campaigning to the Internet

  1. marinanazario says:

    I think Obama’s method of campaigning was a good strategy to provide voters with the resources needed to go out and participate in the election process. Especially toward young voters, he made them excited to go out and vote, no matter who it was for, but the fact that he encouraged it gave him more of an advantage. Our generation, characterized by being lazy, doesn’t want to go out of their way to find out how to go out and participate, so by giving voters the resources needed to vote or participate, Obama already became that much more appealing.
    I think a combination of our friends’ opinions and hearing specifics from the candidate himself is most beneficial. You first want to hear what the candidate plans to do and what his views are, then compare them to your own, assess how you feel about it, and then discuss it with a friend. It’s always good to have multiple points of views in order to keep an open mind and formulate your own opinion. Being open to hearing all sides, not just from a supporter or the candidate himself, proves maturity and your dedication as a citizen to the well-being of the country as a whole.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s