Augmented reality is a pretty neat trick, using markers picked up by webcams (or cameras on mobile devices) to display images that others can’t see. This has been around for a while, but it usually required some type of narcotic substance; now it can be harnessed through technology without ingesting hallucinogens.
With smartphones becoming a hub of political activist activity, the next question is: how does the next “revolutionary” campaign use this technology?
The easiest way will be to turn lawn signs and other advertisements into instant sources of new information. The typical lawn sign is pretty simple: it has a name and, maybe, a slogan but little else. Augmented reality would allow passers by to point their iPhone or other mobile device and instantly have access to a much broader range of text and information.
But for many campaign operatives, the more fun part might be finding a way to piggyback messages about an opponent onto his or her own signs – the messaging equivalent of Bugs Bunny drawing a mustache on a wanted poster of Yosemite Sam.
So distasteful is the idea of somebody mistaking my military service with war-fighting service that, until a fellow Marine jokingly wondered if I were embarrassed of my eight years in the Marine Reserves, I kept my Marine service out of my official bio. Since the bio is generally used for introductory purposes at campus speeches, I worried that a student MC might jump to the conclusion that my service in the Marines necessarily meant service in Iraq and Afghanistan–or Montezuma and Tripoli for that matter. If such people are capable of occasionally prefixing the word “author” with “bestselling” without any real justification, then certainly the idea of dressing up my service with undeserved honors isn’t beyond them… I’m so proud of my service that I finally included it in my bio. And Richard Blumenthal, who, like me, served as a Marine Reservist, should be proud too. But obviously, he’s not proud enough of his service, which helps explain why he weaved a weird tale about fighting in Vietnam.
This, apparently, is what passes for a sex tape for Republicans – and that’s just fine. Souder kind of looks like an early 90’s character actor – the type of person who’d play the neighbor in a short-lived sitcom.
Web comic XKCD – which chronicles stick figures discussing physics, science fiction, and computer programming – has unwittingly (or possibly wittingly) touched off a mini-controversy on Wikipedia.
The original comic featured a made-up word made up of words that dealt with making up words (with the original words, ostensibly, disproportionately popular on Wikipedia). Don’t be ashamed if that seems tough to follow – any web comic that has an explanatory blog is pretty high-end stuff to begin with. What isn’t tough to follow is that some enterprising fans created a Wikipedia entry for the made up word.
The ensuing debate among Wikipedia users and site editors took 19,000 words and resulted in searches for the word (“malamanteau”) redirecting to XKCD’s own Wikipedia entry. But it illustrates a good cautionary tale for user-generated content: it’s best to have good site rules up in advance in case you want to maintain any semblance of message control down the line.
And it’s also good to keep an eye on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, including people who might not have good things to say about you.
Arkansas and Pennsylvania are the twin epicenters of the political universe today. For what it’s worth, here are my predictions – although, to members of the gambling community, I have to say that these are intended for entertainment purposes only:
Pennsylvania Senate: Arlen Specter wins the Democratic nomination.
Arlen Specter’s support from what’s left of organized labor’s infrastructure and African American voters will determine his fortunes today. Remember that there were an awful lot of moderate and independent registered Republicans who switched parties in 2008 to participate in the Democratic presidential primary, which is why Specter has a shot.
Arkansas Senate: Bill Halter forces a runoff, which he will win.
Arkansas has two moderate Senators, but Blanche Lincoln gets the label of being squishy while everyone loves Mark Pryor. Whether it’s the good-old-boys’-club stereotype I unfairly have of Southern politics (it actually applies to all politics) or the fact that she isn’t the scion of a former Governor like her colleague, Lincoln seems to get the short end of this stick.
This race is more interesting because Lincoln is nearly always a swing vote on legislation – the Democrats’ equivalent of Olympia Snowe. How a runoff or a lame duck session will affect her voting record will make for interesting political theater.
Pennsylvania-12: Pro-life, pro-gun Democrat Mark Critz takes the seat held by his late boss, John Murtha.
Democrats will mistakenly see this as validation of the ruling regime and the quieting of the anti-incumbent trend. To a small degree, it will be – but only so far as they work across the aisle.
The real question will be if Critz is able to survive multiple terms, given that he won’t have the seniority his late boss used to siphon federal budget dollars back to the district.
YouTube is celebrating not only turning five, but reaching 2 billion views per day. In the decade before YouTube, internet publishing and blogging had become commonplace. But though the internet had long been a place where anyone could put their work out there (as long as they didn’t mind not getting paid for it), YouTube’s video sharing platform – along with technology that made quality video devices cheaper – turned everyone into a video producer. Anyone could be Cecil B. DeMille.
That said, not everyone can effectively communicate on YouTube.
1. Video is now essential to message delivery.
Political communication has always been a matter of telling stories, and no medium can tell a story like video. In 1960, the story of the cool, collected, and telegenic JFK as the harbinger of a new political generation was cemented by his now-famous debate performance; in 2008, the story of Barack Obama as the idealistic, optimistic harbinger of a new political generation was cemented by a music video adapted from one of his speeches that seized upon the phrase, “Yes We Can.”
Politicians can try to position themselves with stump speeches and media appearances, and their surrogates can attempt to provide “objective” support. People believe what they see. That makes effective online video a must-have.
The reality of modern politics is that if you can’t make your case in a YouTube video, you have no chance of winning the hearts and minds of the public.
2. Brevity is art.
Part of the “effectiveness” factor is being able to boil an argument down to the point where it fits in a two-to-five-minute video clip. Case in point: one citizen activist was able, in 1:38, to sum up just how insignificant a 2009 federal budget cut proposal was:
3. The best ideas come from others.
The best part about YouTube is the opportunity for participation from the initiated, regardless of their “official” role. Obama’s nascent 2008 campaign had a lot of energy, yet it was tough for people to discern exactly what kind of change he offered. All Democrats were, in fact, plugging away at that theme after eight years of a Republican administration. But one Obama supporter – whose involvement in the campaign was tangential, though his enthusiasm wasn’t – summed it up by repurposing a famous 1984 Macintosh commercial:
The Obama campaign could not have cut this ad – it’s too direct, and it uses images and clips which are most likely protected by copyright. By supporting user generated content like this, YouTube invited a new level of citizen participation.
4. Compelling content is the most important factor in attracting an audience.
Never has publishing content been easier. Yet because of this, never has it been more important to create quality content: media consumers have plenty of choices.
It’s counter-intuitive: We think of the internet as this highly personalized frontier, where each user has the utmost control over the news he or she reads or the entertainment he or she consumes. Humans are social beings, and the internet augments that.
YouTube’s comments, video responses, subscriptions, and other site tools make it more than a place to post and share media; YouTube is a social network built on user connections.
But more that, YouTube success is based on the ability of an idea to pass from one person to another. High-ranked YouTube videos don’t amass viewers from independent searches, they come from recommendations. It’s the most obvious viral medium.
Rep. Eric Cantor and House Republicans have drawn criticism from both left and right for their YouCut program, which lets citizens vote to eliminate wasteful government programs. The word “gimmick” is tossed around by both sides – as if bumper stickers, lawn signs, and other efforts to earn political support aren’t gimmicks – while making the point that the cuts proposed wouldn’t trim federal spending by all that much.
But in the GOP’s defense, this is about continuing the message that the Republicans are the party of smaller government. There’s no better case against the concept of government spending than to point out the most egregious and unnecessary examples.
Sen. Dick Durbin’s amendment limiting credit card fees is a good example of the difficulties Republicans are still facing. With ten moderate Democrats lined up to oppose the amendment, this is one of several amendments that could have been scuttled – if the GOP understood its own stance on financial reform.
In the wake of the health care battle, Republicans claimed victory in the message war. There’s no such victory in the current financial reform debate. There are answers to the Democrats’ strategy of punishing a Wall Street bogeyman for the current economic doldrums. Republicans are running the equivalent of a prevent defense – assuming that big electoral gains are in the bag, they remain fearful of becoming the party of big business – so despite some lip service about offering alternatives, everyone is calling for more regulation in varying degrees. And when an amendment like Durbin’s pops up, it passes 64-33 – with no one asking in any formidable way, why it is that the US Senate is deciding what the First Bank and Trust of Podunk gets to charge businesses for credit card transactions.
Bill Parcells liked to say that the only thing the prevent defense prevents is victories. That’s especially true when you’re already behind on the scoreboard.
In January, Scott Brown’s campaign successfully used an internet-based phone bank from anywhere function to rally supporters from across the country; a Senate seat in California would be an equally significant pickup for Republicans. If Fiorina goes on to win the Republican Primary and takes out Sen. Boxer, this tactic will be held up as one of the big Republican success stories of 2010.
Sen. Arlen Specter finds himself in the same spot he was six years ago. He’s a long-term incumbent Senator, locked in a tight primary with a candidate favored by his party’s grassroots, and he’s hoping that support from a President whose approval ratings have dropped precipitously will give him enough credibility with the base to drag him over the finish line.
In 2004, when Specter squeaked past Pat Toomey in the Republican primary, there were many Republicans who held their noses and voted for him anyway in the general election. There were also many grassroots activists who deliberately voted against Specter or stayed home. That was in a year with a Presidential election race, when the GOTV machine that was the Bush-Cheney was dragging every last vote possible to the polls, and when independents tended to break Republican.
“Why would you want to trade 30 years of experience and seniority…for somebody who’s a back-bencher?” is how Specter himself put it in his remarks to the Pittsburgh-area Democrats after he rattled off all the funding he’s directed to the region thanks to his perch on the Appropriations Committee.
Here’s a fearless prediction: Supporters of Rep. Joe Sestak will not be good little soldiers if Specter beats him in the primary next week. They may vote for him, but they won’t make phone calls, knock on doors, or do any of the other things that have to be done for an election victory.
This isn’t a contested primary along the lines of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008, where the eventual winner could make a credible case for support to the supporters of the eventual loser. Whether or not Specter pulls out the victory on Tuesday, he may already be a lame duck. A Sestak/Toomey race would be a battle of ideas; a Specter/Toomey race would really just be about Arlen Specter in a year where incumbents are contributing to the unemployment figures in more ways than one.
Jim Eltringham 