New Media, the 2008 Campaign, and the Future
Hello readers, and thanks to all for participating in this weeklong discussion on the 2008 race for the White House - and what it means for the future of politics and political campaigns in America.
My new book, Why Obama Won, is my third on historic campaigns. A few years ago I wrote books for Random House on Upton Sinclair's "EPIC" campaign for governor of California in 1934 (most of the modern political media/ad techniques were born during that race) and the Nixon-Douglas 1950 U.S. Senate contest. The new book chronicles the entire 2008 campaign, with all of the controversies and key characters, from Jeremiah the Preacher to Joe the Plumber.
So let's talk about why Obama won - particularly new media vs. old media -- and the lessons for the future.
Just a few notes for now:
In the book I show that a key turning point in the primaries was Bill Clinton hitting the road to help Hillary. Remember when the "twofer" was supposed to be a giant plus? Of course, it turned out to be a minus, as many decided they liked Hill but didn't want four or eight more years of Bill. He also managed to swing millions of African-American voters behind Obama in one two-week period.
The book also probes how the key turning point in the fall campaign was John McCain picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. Contrary to myth, polls showed almost immediately that she was, in fact, a drag on the ticket for female voters, and ultimately a disaster almost across the board. It's far too easy to simply say that Obama won became of "hope" and "change" and the economic collapse.
But more than anything the book explores the profound influence of what we'll call, in shorthand, "new media" in propelling Obama to victory. Obama, with the help of an unprecedented grassroots funding and organizing effort, battled the Clinton machine to a standstill, then knocked out McCain a few months later. This was the first national campaign profoundly shaped -- even, at times, dominated -- by the new media, from viral videos and blog rumors that went "mainstream" to startling online fundraising techniques.
You might call it Campaign 2.008.
James Poniewozik, the Time magazine columnist, observed at mid-year that the old media are rapidly losing their "authority," and influence, with the mass market. "It's too simple to say that the new media are killing off the old media....What's happening instead is a kind of melding of roles. Old and new media are still symbiotic, but it's getting hard to tell who's the rhino and who's the tickbird."
Simply put: The rules of the game have been changed forever -- by technology. It was more than the "YouTube Election," as some dubbed it, or "The Facebook Election," or "hyper-politics." How did sites with names like TPM and FiveThirtyEight and DailyKos collectively come to rival the three television networks in influence, even if partly by influencing the networks themselves? You can weigh in here this week.
Another very important but largely overlooked factor: After the TV pundits scored each of the four big debates about even, instant polling and Web commentary, nearly all giving the Democrat the win, carried the day.
McCain's gamble, picking Palin, was undermined by the CBS interview with her by Katie Couric and the Saturday Night Live parodies starring Tina Fey. Yes, they were generated in the mainstream -- but they gained tens of millions of additional viewers online in the days that followed.
And yes, the networks and cable news outlets hosted almost all of the candidate debates, but this year they were joined by partners such as Facebook and YouTube. One of the lowlights of the primary season for the networks was ABC anchor Charles Gibson's inane questioning during one debate. Tom Brokaw didn't do much better in October.
As the final week of the campaign, Howard Kurtz ventured out on the campaign trail for a few days for The Washington Post and then asked: Have the Web and the digital age doomed the "boys on the bus"? Kurtz asked: "Does the campaign trail still matter much in an age of digital warfare? Or is it now a mere sideshow, meant to provide the media with pretty pictures of colorful crowds while the guts of the contest unfold elsewhere? And if so, are the boys (and girls) on the bus spinning their wheels?"
Then, on the morning of Election Day, the New York Times presented, as its banner headline on the front page, "The '08 Campaign: A Sea Change for Politics As We Know It." Adam Nagourney opened it with, "The 2008 race for the White House that comes to an end on Tuesday fundamentally upended the way presidential campaigns are fought in this country, a legacy that has almost been lost with all the attention being paid to the battle between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.
"It has rewritten the rules on how to reach voters, raise money, organize supporters, manage the news media, track and mold public opinion, and wage -- and withstand -- political attacks, including many carried by blogs that did not exist four years ago."
So blogs, which were derided by some as a silly, passing fancy, now earned a place in the second paragraph of the top Times story on Election Day 2008. "I think we'll be analyzing this election for years as a seminal, transformative race," said Mark McKinnon, a senior adviser to President Bush's campaigns in 2000 and 2004. "The year campaigns leveraged the Internet in ways never imagined. The year we went to warp speed. The year the paradigm got turned upside down and truly became bottom up instead of top down."
Terry Nelson, who was the political director of the Bush campaign in 2004, said that the evolution would continue in 2012 and beyond. "We are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of how campaigns are run," Nelson said. "And it's not over yet."
As Sarah Palin might say: You betcha.
Corporate media has lost it's influence because you don't get news from them as opposed to sources on the web where you can actually find news and information about the issues that isn't written for elementary school children. The corporate "journalists" offer the most trite gossip/innuendo and endless information on the horse race and personalities. Rarely do they shed any real light about the important issues facing the nation or the government. The love to provide the "inside story" so much that they no longer bother much at all with providing the information that makes how things are handled on "the inside" relevant!
In other words, despite their millions of dollars worth of resources, despite their icredible access, and despite their vast influence the product of the corporate media just sucks. It's second rate and childish at best. And the millionaire journalists/celebrities who have become the face of the corporate media are just staggeringly out of touch with the common citizenry, what concerns them, why and how mucy. They have completely squandered their unique platform that could actually inform millions if they would just take their corporate ADHD medicine and focus on matters of importance instead of matters of personality, gossip, innuendo and "who's winning" right now.
Seems to me that laying the shift of black voters to Obama at the feet of Bill Clinton is a bit much. Yes, he made several overblown gaffes, but I think some credit needs to go to the Obama campaign here. They proved that he was a viable candidate who could win white votes. That was the key. Bill's inflammatory remarks served as a lightning rod, but the African American population was headed in Obama's direction without Bill's help.
And regardless of all the other stuff, the key event in the general election, in my opinion, had nothing to do with Palin, McCain or Obama. The pivotal and deciding event in the general was the conomic collapse. If that had occured I don't think one can say with 100% confidence that Obama would actually have won the race. Until the economic crisis was declared a McCain victory was still in the realm of possibility. Afterwards, a McCain win was out of reach.
March 2, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well stated. Black voters (and although I am one, I certainly do not speak for all) fall largely in three camps:
+ Republicans: (there are about 7 altogether: Alan Keyes, Michael Steele, Shelby Steele, Ward Connerly, Ken Blackwell, JC Watts, Lynn Swann, Condi Rice and Colin Powell. Condi and Colin voted for Obama.)
+ Democrats and early Obama supporters: This group includes me, DeVal Patrick and a few others. We figured out early that Obama's pedigree and appeal exceeded what the MSM shorthanded as "kids and elites."
+ Everybody else: This group includes those skeptical of casting a vote that others (like Bill and Hillary) were suggesting would be a "wasted" vote. As Obama gained more exposure, these voters grew more comfortable with him, but the big wave came after Iowa. The problem for the Clintons was always a question they could never fully answer: why would a black person vote for the "faux-black President's" wife (who always portrayed herself as nothing more than a "sympathetic" white politician, and vigorously embraced her inner whiteness as the campaigned rolled on from NH) when they could legitimately voted for a real black President? It's like settling for a hot dog when you really want steak.
But most pundits are reluctant to admit two things:
1. Obama (with Axelrod and Plouffe and Gibbs) just ran a superior campaign, hands-down on everyone, and
2. he got more votes.
Why he won? Superior campaign. More votes. (Tastes great, less filling. That simple.)
March 3, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your response. I agree with most of it and I did not mean to suggest that the campaign pivoted on Bill Clinton and his offensive statements. However, you note that "the wave" for Obama came after Iowa. This is not quite true. He was upset in New Hampshire a few days laterand all national polls showed Hillary still gaining the vast majority of African-American votes at that point. Then her husband went on the trail. The South Carolina upset for Obama came almost four weeks after Iowa and it was only then that "the wave" crested. Yes, Obama became more viable during that period and this attracted many skeptics to his side, but Bill Clinton really helped push the crowd in his direction....
March 3, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you, and most observers, misread the record which is, after all, a matter of interpretation and I would submit your perspective is shaped by your race.
The shift to Obama occured after Iowa where he proved he could win white votes. Nobody says it happened the very next day, but it did, in fact, happen after he proved himself in Iowa. Yeah, Hillary won NH but it became quite clear that was a bit o luck for her and in large part a reaction on the part of white female voters particularly to circle the wagons for the female candidate who was, clearly, getting the hell beat out of her in the media and often very unfairly. The media's vendetta against Hillary was very often pointlessly personal, rude and mean-spirited. I was never a Hillary supporter, but it was clear the media did everything they could both from a legitimate point of view to tear her down and also to attack her illegitimately on personal grounds. The pettiness of the media toward Hillary was just over the top in my opinion and unnecessary and I felt that way at the time.
Since there are almost no black voters in New Hampshire using that state as evidence of anything regarding black voters is pretty useless. In fact, if anything, NH demonstrated Obama's strength since there is no black presence in the state's elections. One could easily argue that Hillary only won NH because of the huge number of white women.
Bill Clinton and at least a couple of Hillary supporters made some ill-advised comments but again I'd say you give Bill and the media's obsession (shared by the pundit class) with his comments too much credit and the black voter very little credit here. During that period between Iowa and both South and North Carolina, except for a very brief moment in NH the field belonged to Obama, the momentum was with Obama, the media was with Obama and it was becoming very clear that Obama was more than just viable, he was a very strong candidate who was not being shut out by white racism in the Democratic Party. It was Obama's viability as a candidate that galvanized black support far more than what Bill Clinton said or did.
The reluctance of black voters prior to Iowa was pretty well founded and a healthy skepticism of black voters about the racism of white voters held many of them back from supporting Obama for fear he might be nothing but a flash in the pan. If, instead of assuming that the primary cause of the shift of black voters was their circling the wagons on ethnic grounds around a black candidate because of offensive remarks by Bill Clinton, you assumed that black voters are smart enough to figure out this guy Obama has a realistic chance, then you come to a different conclusion. Headlines, tv and radio chatter don't tell the whole story.
I think it's a mistake for observers to assume that the petty foolish remarks of Hillary's husband motivated the otherwise ignorant black voter to support Obama. I come from a different premise which is the black voter is nothing if not realistic and their early hesitance about Obama demonstrated that. Much historical evidence abounded that as a black candidate Obama would get the short end of the stick with white voters---even Democrats. Black voters, I woudl wager, were far more keenly aware of this than the many white liberals who found themselves attracted to Obama. The shift of the vast majority of black voters was happening anyway and would have happened just as it did even if it may or may not have been slightly accelerated due to Bill's ill-advised statements that the media obsessed about for what seemed like forever.
If you recall, his statements were less aimed at black people than they were in galvanizing traditionally racist southern whites. Unlike blacks, whites in general, but southern whites particularly have a long track record of demonsrating they are not very pragmatic voters as they have for years voted against their own economic interests in large part as a result of their short-sighted racist views. I think that is changing now or beginning to, but there's a damn good case to be made for that argument and I think only a surface argument to be made about black voters supporting Obama because of what Bill Clinton did as opposed to what Obama did and what black voters figured out for themselves which was: "Hey, Obama's got a real chance here! I'm gonna vote for him."
You can cite Clinton's statement's and poll numbers all you want, but you can't prove that Clinton's statements were a greater motivation for black voters than their own reasoned assessment of how the game was shaking out and their ability to discern that what they wanted to do all along was justified by a very clear view of the situation. You can say there is a correlation in the timing, but you cannot prove that Clinton's statements was what "caused" black support for Obama to grow as it did. There was growing black support of Obama which was happening anyway.
Also, one of Clinton's incendiary remarks was an acknowledgment that black voters were going to support the black candidate in 08 just as they had for Jesse Jackson in the past suggersting that black support was there prior to Bill's dumb remarks. I'd strongly suggest and with genuine respect a rethinking of your position which clearly implies Clinton's statements were the key factor in moving black voters toward Obama and in that rethinking giving the black voter and the black candidate more credit than the knee jerk analysis most whites ascribe to. I think there's more there and that the Bill Clinton explanation just does not accurately tell the story of what really happened.
March 3, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you oleeb. very well said.
Most of the pundits were not talking to black voters directly. It was all Hillary all the time. When they did bother to speak to black voters, it was the "is he black enough? not black enough?" meme that got the most play. Thus, they did not get the shift. The media continues to believe that black voters are a single monolithic bloc, that the black middle/professional class is a myth (and this proved eerily true as they continued to try to paint Obama as "other" -- not American enough, not "blue collar white" enough). In reality, there was a very ad hoc yet highly effective word of mouth campaign among black supporters of Obama. So ad hoc was the movement, many people didn't realize that by simply talking about why they were supporting Obama and not any other candidate, they did a lot of the heavy lifting. (If my sibling or child believes in Obama, or my friend or fellow congregant believes he can win, then I should give this guy a chance.)
SC was the first "black" state of the early primaries -- as the DNC intended -- and by then, Obama's support among black voters -- regardless of the loss to Hillary in NH and the media's portrayal of a Hillary victory in NV (where Obama "lost" Las Vegas but won more delegates) -- was solidifying.
The other key component of Obama's win -- again despite the media portrayal otherwise -- is that Obama ALWAYS clearly expressed why he wanted to be President. And it was something more than "it's my turn" or "I'm owed because I was a POW". And although people could not always verbalize it, they understood it.
At least Mr. Mitchell waited until after the election, unlike the unfortunate Shelby Steele (not to be confused with Michael), who, before a single vote had been cast, penned the clunker of the political season, "A Bound Man: Why Obama Can't Win."
March 3, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think that a great deal of the white commentary on the black vote for Obama last year is off the mark because those commenting have no real connection with or understnding of what was happening within the black electorate last year. That is not a criticism so much as it is a simple observation. This isn't surprising given how little personal contact most white commentators have with black people which isn't all that different from the limited contact most whites have with black people in general.
It isn't a deliberate thing. It's like a blind spot. They listen to each other and a tiny handful of black commentators who more often than not just add a black face to the same set of opinions, but don't often reflect the reality of what's happening in black America. They don't listen to the community they are talking about and because there's no real connection there it's hard for them to figure out how to do so. It's a genuine dilemma. Their understanding is more theoretical than real and so they continue to operate from a construct that is the best they can do but still isn't really in tune with the ebb and flow of the political and social currents among the black voters of the country.
Imany respects it really is a sad byproduct of our shameful past and the ongoing segregation of black and white Americans professionally, personally, and otherwise. If one were not really in touch with what was happening last year among regular black people up and down the line it would be easy to adopt the position we see being put forward here about Clinton's statements. What was happening last year took place underneath most white radars. But for all those who were there, close to it, linving through it and paying attention to how it developed, it was very clear and noticeable how and why the black community moved to Obama.
March 4, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both Mr. Mitchell's opening commentary and oleeb's comment provide excellent gist for a great discussion this week. As I see it, Mitchell's book (which I inetnd to buy) focuses on the mechanics of the Presidential campaign and how news about it was conveyed in ways that are different from before; wheras oleeb focuses on macro trends, both of which are important.
I have to agree with oleeb more than Mitchell about the African American vote, being married to an African American. She was skeptical of Obama's chances and hestitant to make a commitment, because she thought the "white folks" would never let him win. Once he became a viable candidate, she swung behind him wholeheartedly, although remaining worried right up to the end. I did not perceive that Bill Cinton had much to do with her transformation. By the end of the campaign all her friends in the black community were so invested in Obama, I do not think any of them even thought a minute about Bill Clinton.
I also agree about the mainstream media. I get almost all my real information from the web. I do read the New York Times daily, but even it gets caught up in the horse race style of reporting. And of course there was the Judith Miller episode (and Michael Gordon too) that seriously tarnished the NYT and made us all realize it is not the holy grail of information but can get caught up in "insiderism" just like the rest of the MSM.
I look forward to an interesting week.
March 3, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until early last year, my only sources of information were the MSM and thought NYT was the gold standard. Then I discovered blogworld (not sure if there is an official name) and realized the MSM had been lying, belittling, twisting, distorting and just plain non-informing. IMHO, that's the reason blogworld took over. It's the MSM own damn fault. If they'd offered an honest product, they'd have kept their viewers and readers. I'm sure there are many like me who started reading blogs and said "Who knew?". I'm just really sorry I took so long to stumble across TPM.
March 3, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink