Web Politics

I think I get an email a day from Barack Obama, or his people, or his e-mail minion David Plouffe (when you Google search Mr. Plouffe you get the phrase "one of the most experienced and successful strategists in the Democratic party." Apparently, his strategy now is to e-mail me all the time and blog. Mr. Plouffe's blog is just one of the many ways politicians are trying to use the web to attract young, democratic voters. Good luck to them, because it didn't really work last time. I just re-read Stephen Elliott's book "Looking Forward To It," a Hunter-S.-Thompson-esque romp through the 2004 democratic primaries. It includes such salacious tales as being on a bus with Howard Dean and eating buffets with second-rate media correspondents. Its point, however, is that no matter what weird, wacky things you do, you will not win an election on new voters. Period.

It isn't stopping the candidates from trying though. Yesterday, the kind-of-political (and well-named) site BarelyPolitical.com (possibly not safe to open at work) crashed due to traffic for the "Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl" video. Their clothes stay on, and they sing-debate. Of course, it's also on YouTube.

Since I started typing this entry (a whole six minutes ago) I've been trying to think of a word to describe YouTube. It's weird. Where else can you go to watch :30 second clips of dogs on skateboards and teenage girls talking? (Well, I guess you could go to Google Videos.) But, right now on YouTube, you can watch a lot of videos about politics. You can watch more than 26,700 by searching for "Obama." And next Monday, you can watch a debate. Specifically, the CNN-YouTube debate coming to you live from Charleston, S.C. And there's CitizenTube, the YouTube political vlog.

Here's the issue Elliott proved in his book. Yes, you can draw potential voters in with your snazzy bells and whistles aimed at them. You can get them to donate money. You can get them to buy a t-shirt with your candidate's face on it. But in this bells-and-whistles society, that doesn't always translate into getting them to actually drive to some weird municipal building with total strangers and actually vote for you. Maybe this election will be different. Maybe this will be the turning point. The presidential elections are only 219 years old, which is practical infantcy as far as governments go, so maybe we can enter our rebellious teenage years and people 18-24 will actually vote.

The "Obama Girl" video has more than 2 million views on YouTube. In South Carolina, where this CNN-YouTube debate will be held, there are about 2.5 million registered voters, and only 45% of them voted in the last election. Does this mean viewership of the "Obama Girl" video could sway the electoral votes of a whole state? By the numbers, sure, but in practice, probably not. Definitely not. No way. In the 2004 election, 64% of eligible voters nationwide voted (way to bring down the average, S.C.). While I'm sure getting the other 36% to vote for you in the next election would definitely sway things your way, getting the 64% of people that actually have a proven track record of voting might be a better gamble.

So who has a proven track record of voting? Old people. Citizens age 65 and up have a 79% turnout rate! People 45 and up have a 70% turnout rate. Your voter turnout rate also increases the more education you have. Of course, you also have to consider who old, overeducated people vote for: republicans.

While I guess bombarding YouTube and e-mail boxes and other hip new media with your candidate can't hurt you, time will tell if it can actually help you.