Trackbacks/Pings

1. the david all group | Blog Archive » I back Jack! Do you?:: websites, online marketing, political strategy, republican
   

   March 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am

Comments

1. Alex Hammer
   

   March 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

   The first law of marketing (in my book) is that it helps your success (in the long run anyway) if the product that you are selling has a good value proposition. That is, is something that people want and meets their needs. Applied to political campaigns, yes too much attention, in an absolute sense, is paid to bells and whistles, and not enough to how winning candidates pick and choose and utilize strategies of all types as well as technologies for winning campaigns. The key is integration, and there is only one campaign, with online and offline elements.

   That having been said, you simply can’t compete at the upper echelons without mastering if not innovating the latest productive technology tools. We’re in a tranformative age across fields. That doesn’t mean the old rules don’t apply. Many of them do (e.g. TV and powerful friends remain important factors). But not all the old rules apply, while some of the new ones do. Sorting out that mix, and keeping it sorted out as things evolve, is one fundamental key to success.

   That is what we attempt to do on our site, Politics 2.0. No one has all the answers, and it will be fun and interesting to see which candidates are most successful going forward, and what degree online and web 2.0 political factors played in that success. One other note: You can’t only look at whether web savvy candidates won or lost. You have to look at the relative effect of the Internet strategies on their campaign. Maybe a candidate lost by ten points but they would have lost by fifty points otherwise (unknown coming into the race, underfunded, etc.). Although often difficult to quantify more than educated guesswork or a range, when you hold this variable constant you can see how effective online strategies were to a candidate, or across campaigns.

2. Todd Zeigler
   

   March 8th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

   Alex - you make solid points. Based on what you write I would agree that Lamont deserves to be on the list - his Net campaign made a difference.

   But I think the inclusion of DeVos and Warner is due solely to their experimentation with new technologies.

3. David All
   

   March 8th, 2007 at 10:49 pm

   DeVos, Lamont, Warner, oh my!

   What those guys did is either, a. Spend a ton of money with a well that never went dry, b. Right place at the right time and were able to tap in to the netroots surge, or c. surround themselves with a good staff that got it (Warner would have been very formidable).

   What Jack Kingston did was help change the entire philosophy of how the Internet is being used on Capitol Hill. He blazed the trail where others now stride. And we did it all using the free tools and practices that every blogger uses to better connect with their readers.

   In my book (see disclaimer), the clear favorite is the Georgia Congressman who aggressively fought the fight for technology when all others wouldn’t. And then told all of his friends about it time and time again.

   And let’s not forget that Nancy Pelosi’s own office created a “Blogging 101” document which pointed to Kingston’s blog.

   (Disclaimer: I’m the guy that worked for Kingston.)

4. Expo
   

   March 9th, 2007 at 1:25 am

   Would concur with the Webb sentiment. Of the four listed, I would vote for Lamont. Their early online activism fundamentally changed the media environment and perception of Lieberman — that gave them a chance to out-organize Lieberman on the ground.

5. Bill Helms
   

   March 9th, 2007 at 9:12 am

   Warner and DeVos don’t belong on the list. Of those on the list, you’ve got to go with Lamont. You are underestimating the significance of the primary.

6. online buy prior xanax
   

   August 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm

   xanax no buy online rx xanax online buy