Our Social Media class is in an interesting timeframe right now considering 1) the professor wrote a book about the Web as it relates to the race for the White House, and 2) that race is currently being run. So what does it mean? The notion that campaigns are reliant on the Web is lost on people like my parents who still don’t have a computer (believe it or not). But here’s another realization: campaigns now need the Web to reach their audience, but there are still millions of Americans who have no connection to the Internet. According to InternetWorldStats, 69.7% of Americans (approx. 211 million people) use the Internet, with 19.3% of those being broadband users. Now, that’s a lot of people with Internet access, but the percentage that use broadband is pretty low, considering that much of Web 2.0 and rich media requires broadband. And then there are the people who have no access at all.

So what to make of it. Well, I believe that the candidates are really using the Web to their advantage and running the first campaigns of the new era, as discussed in the book. But as powerful as a Web presence is, there will always be the need to press the flesh and run a traditional campaign. The privileged class (in this case I mean anyone who has Internet access) is able to see and hear all the latest and greatest regarding the campaigns and they are able to be participants. They can blog, create and/or watch videos, participate in MeetUps, and make online donations. The rest of the people then must still pack the auditoriums or town hall meetings, make a donation via face to face stumping opportunities, or worst of all, remain oblivious to what is happening. And that is a scary realization because obliviousness leads to complacency and nonvoting.

What it boils down to is that racing to the White House via the Web is important. There is no doubt to that fact. But, and so far it hasn’t happened, the candidates cannot abandon the non-Internet, non-tech constituents and voters. The next election is in 2012. The Web will have boomed even more by then (think Web 3.0 and IPv6), but there will still be millions of Americans without the means, or perhaps the desire, to be connected. And that is why I think that for all the technology that exists, traditional campaigning will always still be of great importance and relevance. We’re just going to see a lot more online tactics in the future. Perhaps a candidate can try to help the unconnected masses get to a point where they too can get online. Hey, we can dream, right? 

Any proper discussion of the burgeoning Web 2.0 scene has to include a discussion of politics, especially in light of the current election year. We are discussing online politics and the affect of new technology on campaigning in class right now. Our class is taught by Garrett M. Graff, who was a driving factor in creating Howard Dean’s web presence during Dean’s push for the 2004 presidency. Graff wrote a book entitled “The First Campaign” about that race. (Garrett, do I get extra credit for shilling your book??!!) Anyway, the details of the Dean campaign are relevant because it is amazing to see how much of the presidential race is run on the Internet. The 2004 campaign was a great start to what has become one of the most important politicking tools.

One thing that amazes me is that I only vaguely remember the Dean campaign’s online push (sorry, Garrett!). It’s not that I don’t rememember it, I guess it’s that it seemed so logical that it would be online. I guess if I try to think back to 2003, everything seemed to be online already. Napster had come and gone, blogs were getting somewhat popular, and MoveOn.org was a major force and a source of political information. The big factor though was that you could see every move that happened as it happened. And I think that’s where the online political movement really shined. The fact that people could mobilize for a cause was also a huge consideration. The use of MeetUps meant that people could rally together simply by checking out a Website. That kind of speed and organization was never available in previous campaigns.

I remember one of my co-workers showing me Dean’s site at the time. This guy was about 6 or 7 years older than me and was just starting to come into his own technologically speaking. But I remember when he told me how happy he was that he could donate to Dean’s campaign and get his news online. A few weeks later he received his campaign materials in the mail (bumper sticker and whatnot) and he was so pleased! I nodded my head and probably went back to reading up about Phish (who also had a very important Web presence). See, the problem is that I’m one of the most apolitical people I know. I just take so little interest in American poliitics that it kind of boggles even my mind. Hell, I have a B.A. in Political Science for Christ’s sake!! One would think I have more interest, but no. Anyway, the notion of indifference has gotten me thinking as we study online politics. 

So, can all the new technological bells and whistles help people take a more active roll in and care more about politics? I’m not sure. To an extent, yes, but I also think the people who want to be reached will be reached. Those who don’t will still be inactive. Because of a constant barrage of online news about the presidential campaign I do read more about politics, so maybe the bigger picture will help people like me take bigger steps later down the road.

After recently writing about the time suck factor of Web 2.0, Jenny from the Farm brought up my reluctance to sign up for Twitter. She joined recently and just registered her phone and here’s what she had to say about the experience:

Because of my new found love for Twitter, I went ahead and added a 250 message/month plan to my cell phone plan. I thought, 250, yeah that should be enough. Well, I recently checked my usage and I was up to 270, and the billing cycle wasn’t over yet. But, I think I like Twitter so much that I’ll upgrade even further to unlimited messaging. And then there’s the time I spend reading text messages and responding to them. It seems like there are some afternoons when my phone does nothing but alert me to a new message.

Damn! 270 texts for a partial billing cycle!!?? Yowza! I’ll get to the text charges momentarily, but first off, I don’t think I can handle my phone going off nonstop with friends telling me that they just ate a biscuit or used 3 sugars in their coffee instead of 4. Thanks to a post by Saxby’s Fifth Avenue, I read a few tweets that people post on Twitter and discovered that is some of the stuff people post. The other problem is that I’d be the idiot telling everybody else all the minutia of my life. Trust me, I’d tell you if I was just in the hopper. Does anybody want that? No.

Now then, onto the texting charges. Up until 6 months ago I didn’t even pay for text charges and I was quite pleased about that. I was getting free unlimited texting from Verizon as part of a class action lawsuit (I LOOOOOVE class actions!). Once the terms of the agreement expired I noticed a huge jump in my phone bill. I realized, “DAMN! Texting is expensive and suddenly everybody is using it more and more.” So I just kept on with my charges and bitched about it regularly and did nothing else. Finally, it was time for a new phone a couple weeks ago and I asked the lady what they have for text plans. I got some deal that gives 100 texts a month for $5. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay much more than that for texting! So another reason that I would not sign up for Twitter is that it’s not a free service if you factor in the cost of texting. Plus I think the names Twitter and tweet are really stupid. Honestly. Hell, I don’t particularly care for the word “blog.” That’s technology for you.

We had a pop quiz in class this past Wednesday. Garrett announced it in the morning via Twitter. Does that kind of advance knowledge make Twitter worthwhile? Nope. Not even with announced pop quiz capabilities! 

And on a final note, Garrett, what is with the chocolate milkshake addiction? (Click the link to Saxby’s above to see what I’m talking about) As someone who has suffered the indignities of lactose intolerance, I guess I just don’t understand milkshakes. So be it.