website statistics

Archive for the 'Mitt Romney' Category

YouChoose… To Watch Hillary?

This past weekend, Jeff Jarvis pointed out that Hillary Clinton’s entry for the YouTube YouChoose Spotlight — help choose the campaign theme song! — has been, by no small margin, the most successful entrant. Here’s a chart generated by techPresident/TubeMogul:

techPresident, TubeMogul and PrezVid bring you this chart

[Remember: These are cumulative figures; people are not still watching past Spotlights in great numbers.]

My guess in April was that Romney was lucky to go first, but looking at the whole picture (on techPresident you can drag the scroll bar) it seems that yes, Romney did very well, but Edwards did slightly better (saying something about both their online support). Meanwhile, McCain and Kucinich got some lift but not much (saying something about both their lack thereof).

How many videos is that specifically, and how many views for each? Here’s a handy guide, presented in order of candidate particpation (numbers were accurate as of Tuesday morning):

Romney 441,504 35,594 2,615 11,754 Edwards 371,970 6,412 McCain 301,113 10,871 1,137 1,179 Kucinich 294,352 1,541 511 831 Hunter 292,253 Hillary 546,691 128,632 Huckabee 92,505

It’s no surprise that the candidate’s follow-up videos were much less-viewed than the originial, but Hillary’s sequel did much better than any of her rivals. And yet her first YouChoose video received just 18 responses, far behind the 71 responses to Romney.

Meanwhile, her actual YouTube account is entirely locked down. Where most other candidates list friends, subscribers and some even their own subscriptions, Hillary’s YouTube account has none of these: the communication is strictly one-way.

Yet her subscribers number about 3,470, second only to Obama’s approximate 5,940 (and he hasn’t participated in the YouChoose Spotlight yet). This is interesting — because it challenges the arguments made by Dana Boyd at this year’s Personal Democracy Forum that the “digital handshake” — candidate interactivity and reciprocity — is necessary for an effective online campaign.

These big numbers probably represent curiosity more than anything; and assuming that YouTube’s viewership is less politically charged than the political blogosphere, it helps to have an early presence with casual voters. She needs to keep them. After all, the other big online news for Hillary in this month’s Daily Kos straw poll was that her netroots support doubled: from 3% to 6%.

Note to Paulites: Your man trails Giuliani by ~1400 to ~1100 subscribers. Better get on that!

Update: Blog P.I. gets results! As of Thursday night, Ron has 1334 while Rudy is mired at 1452.

Inside the Ron Paul Machine II: On the Assembly Line

In yesterday’s installment, I demonstrated how it took Ron Paul’s supporters a few hours to start making an impact on the May GOP Bloggers straw poll — fair evidence, I think, that his supporters are not quite as legion, or representative, as they’d have everyone (not least themselves) believe.

So where are they meeting to plan their onslaught? A few days back, one frustrated Digg user identified ten such sites, noting that Paul’s Diggers were organizing in such a way that violates Digg’s Terms of Service (thereby qualifying Paul’s support as “manufactured,” not that I expect it to forestall complaints in the comment section).

One site he didn’t count was the Congressman Ron Paul for President 2008 group at Facebook, but it too qualifies as the planning site for yet another [potenti] TOS violation. Specifically, the Wall — a constantly updated comment stream — for this group is a veritable assembly line of votes for online polls testing the Republican field.

And of course their latest obsession is the aforementioned GOP Bloggers poll. I would say don’t miss this comment, but alas, it’s since been deleted:

Ron Paul Facebook user requests script to game GOP Bloggers poll

To be fair, two subsequent Facebookers recoiled in horror, (correctly) concerned that someone such as yours truly would find it, and the commenter agreed to remove it (note: this is from the archive, hence the wideness):

Ron Paul Facebook users fear bad press

Telling that this Paul supporter’s first instinct was to suspect that the poll was rigged, isn’t it?

In any case, I’m sure this won’t result in too much bad press. Not this instance, at any rate. But this is just one Ron Paul forum, and one that merely requires Facebook membership to view. And even here, Paul’s supporters are well aware that poll hosts will view their organized effort as illegitimate:

Ron Paul Facebook user warns against being identified by referring IP

What’s sad about this is a) Paul’s supporters are not going out and trying to convert more supporters through reason and debate, and b) they have no sense of humor. First they try to overwhelm others’ communities, and retaliate with subsequent e-mail swarms when their man gets knocked.

So far at least, it’s a hollow movement. The Paul Machine certainly compares unfavorably with, say, the Deaniacs of 2003. They got organized to blog and MeetUp and demonstrate, rather than merely agitate. Ron Paul does have honest supporters at Reason’s Hit and Run and a few other libertarian blogs, but his movement fares badly in comparison with Mitt Romney’s online volunteers as well. Sure, the so-called Romneybots can be annoying at times, but at least they’re reaching out to other conservative constituencies and trying to engage the uncommitted. Not to mention, I’m sure their ranks are filled out by, you know, actual Republicans.

Meanwhile, the assembly line rolls on, only slightly less amusing than Lucy and Ethel’s:

Ron Paul Facebook users keep up the swarm

A lot has changed, indeed. For instance, he has now sailed past Romney and is within 900 votes of Fred Thompson. Truly, it will be a stunning victory. But history will probably mark this as the biggest contest Ron Paul won in the 2008 race.

P.S. This poll, however, will likely go down as Paul’s most unanimous victory.

Romney’s Little Dividend

Mitt Romney’s YouTube adventure has been an unqualified success — so says TubeMogul, a startup premised on online video analytics. Their post on Romney’s participation in the 2008-based YouChoose channel includes a couple charts, including this one I’ve intentionally deprived of context:

Romney on YouTube (chart)

What does that represent? That red line actually isn’t Romney, although it’s nearly identical to Romney’s line (not pictured). No, it’s the number of YouTube videos viewed over the past month — all Republicans compared to all Democrats. As TubeMogul points out, this upends the conventional wisdom that Democrats have unrivaled dominance in all things Web 2.0.

But will this only be a blip? Will Romney’s viewership return to previous levels? What happens when Barack Obama takes his turn? Romney doesn’t have the wide appeal (let alone name ID) of Obama, but he does have the most committed online activists of any declared candidate. On the other hand, most of the YouChoose respondents appear to be YouTube regulars, not political junkies. I suppose there is a fairly good chance the novelty will wear off after a few rounds — especially for politech reporters and bloggers like yours truly — so the Romney camp was lucky/wise to get/seize this opportunity.

It’s also worth pointing out that this is the second time YouTube has played a (not always) supporting role in the Romney campaign. Earlier this year, his rapid response to YouTubing (TubeMogul would say politubing) opponents helped turn an unmitigated disaster into a mere experience they’d probably like not to repeat. No other candidate this cycle has been so closely associated with online video — and that’s couning Hillary’s online conversations.

P.S. The previous installment’s title was based on a Frank Capra film, this one, Vincente Minelli, for no particular reason I can think of, but next time I’ll look for something directed by Elia Kazan.

Mr. Romney Goes To GooTube

YouTube's YouChoose '08 Spotlight on Mitt Romney

GoogleTube really appears to be making a go of its YouChoose ‘08 political channel, and this week Mitt Romney became the first participant in the YouTube Spotlight. This basically means the former Massachusetts governor and (depending on the measure) second, third or fourth place candidate for the Republican nomination recorded a short video (at right) asking the YouTube community “What Do You Believe Is America’s Single Greatest Challenge?” and what would you do about it?

This survey of people with webcams was posted Wednesday, April 11, and as of Sunday, April 15, it has been viewed about 285,000 times and picked up 54 video responses. More replies are doubtless on the way [update: yep], and I’d be surprised if anybody watched them all. That job would probably fall to Stephen Smith, and in case he hasn’t sat down and picked through them all yet, I’d like to save him the at least some of the trouble. I spent a rainy Saturday watching all the videos and took notes about each contribution. Surprisingly, all or nearly all are earnest replies, suggesting the possibility (even probability) that YouTube has removed attempted griefers. Even the Lonelygirl15 wannabe who said “preventing death” was our greatest challenge seems to believe what she’s saying. But they are not all quality, and where appropriate, I have noted the fact. And to those of you who have disabled embedding, come on. Here’s what I found:

Takes over a minute to actually string together a complete sentence, observes there are “so many challenges”

Jeff Jarvis asks what Romney thinks is the greatest challenge, also asks “which Mitt Romney” he’s asking people to vote for — the “reasonable fellow” from 1994 or the “Mitt Romney we see today”

Checks and balances, reforming education and health care, repairing US image in the world, end Iraq war

Small business owner David All worries about Democrats’ economic policies and Republicans losing support of twentysomething voters

(inaudible)

Coming to an agreement with the religious radicals in Iraq

Protecting our Constitutional rights — free speech, privacy, right to bear arms

America’s reputation abroad

Too many challenges (Iraq, education, health care, energy)

Iraq, Social Security, Medicare, gas prices

Listening to other people, listening to each other

Disappointed two-time Bush voter Bob Hanson: Red vs. blue divide, racial animosity

Getting troops out of Iraq, America’s reputation in the world, health care, homelessness, taxes

Alan from Utah: Education

Lack of vision for the future, better leadership, pessimism in Washington

Would-be Lonelygirl “absurdum00″ says “Death is an incredibly tragic occurence that we must work tirelessly to prevent”

Poverty and education

Education and poverty (see Poverty and education)

Southerner Lee Dean: mass media doesn’t represent average Americans (except maybe Fox News), a dozen others, Part 1 of 3 (10:03)

“Greatest challenge: The restoration of America’s image. Proposed solution: Jumpstart Israeli-Arab negotiations beginning with Syria”

illegal immigration — no amnesty, fixing the visa system

“Answer: gaining a better understanding of the impact our lifestyle has on the world around us”

Schoolteacher: Improving public schools

Ending reliance on fossil fuels, plug for TheOilDrum.com (no sound)

Education (9:51)

Illegal immigration — no amnesty, no work program

Protecting and honoring the rights of the individual, reining in big business

Racism (Don Imus and Sparkling Wiggles)

Justin Hart, Mitt Romney supporter: Politicians’ casual disregard for the people they represent, on the threat of JIhadism and spending in Washington

Keeping the big picture in mind when making decisions, reading “The World is Flat”

Imus getting fired

Adopt the Fair Tax

Focus on domestic issues like poverty and hunger

Getting the U.S. out of the United Nations

More sea to shining sea, less bombs bursting in air (Canadian)

The U.S. should be a “beacon of light and hope in the world”

The Corporate Agenda

???

Takes two minutes to not answer, asks Romney what he thinks (British)

“Keep up the good work, you got my vote, godspeed brother”

Alternative energy, banning lobbying, health care, racial equality, genetically modified foods

Abolishing Corporate Personhood (doesn’t mention Romney by name)

To sum up:

The single greatest challenge facing America today is Iraq, health care, education, fossil fuels, illegal immigration, corporations and Don Imus.

The Google Primary II: Buy Your Rivals

Yesterday I managed to get a whole post out of the observation that most, but not all, of the top tier candidates are buying up their own names on Google AdWords. In this post, I’ll try to get some mileage out of reporting something more interesting:

The candidates who are bidding for their own names on Google’s advertising program are also bidding on their opponents’ names.

To take one example, when you search for Mitt Romney on Google, one of the ads you’ll see in the AdWords column along the right-hand side will be for John McCain. So I ran searches for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, and then I compared the results. If the image below hurts your eyes to read, right-click on the image and open a larger version into another browser tab. Here’s what I found, in the order listed:

2008 presidential candidates on Google AdWords

When you run these searches, slightly different ads come up each time. It’s probably in Google’s interest to mix it up some, not to mention a number of advertisers may be bidding the same amount on some of these phrases. Therefore, the image above is only meant to give a general idea of what ads will appear. For example, since I Photoshopped that together last night, I’ve now seen a Giuliani ad appear in a Romney search. It isn’t reflected above, but it has been factored into this post.

Okay, but who all bought who? Here’s whose name/keyword was bought by whom — keyword, then campaigns:

Clinton
Obama
Giuliani
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Giuliani
McCain
McCain
Romney
Giuliani

If you’d rather see who bought whose name as a keyword, try this on for size — campaign, then keywords:

Obama
Clinton
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Giuliani
Hillary
McCain
Romney
McCain
Giuliani

You can probably do all the same armchair analysis here that I can. Obama’s camp believes he can win over Hillary Clinton people (supporters, or those interested enough to Google her name), Romney’s team hopes to win over McCain people, McCain aims to pull support from both his GOP rivals, and the Giuliani squad is on a comparative buying spree, to the point of wooing some Hillary supporters. For some reason, nobody is bidding on either Edwards or Obama.

Meanwhile, in a post seemingly anticipating this one, Oregon Dem consultant Kari Chisholm observed:

The point of a Google ad isn’t to find people who know they’re looking for you — they should be able to find you just fine. It’s to find people who are looking for something else; and your candidate is the answer to their question. This will work even better for the second-tier candidates who aren’t getting much media attention.

I didn’t find any second-tier candidates bidding on the top-tier names, but he’s right: They should be. I also didn’t venture any further than the top six candidates as generally agreed upon by looking at polls, fundraising and what how the Washington Post/New York Times axis treats the various contenders. Another mini-study such as this might turn up some interesting results for other candidates, and other phrases that on which campaigns have bid.

Additionally, election campaigns are not the only customers bidding for higher-placed ads on Google AdWords — they are joined by various for- and not for-profit enterprises, who seek to associate their products and programs with the candidates listed. Here’s what I found, based on the screen caps taken on Saturday night:

  • YouTube — that is, Google — bought everybody. They also bid the most. Hmmm.
  • The Pew Forum, not (yet) owned by Google, was the only other website/organization to bid, and bid high on the words.
  • The Center for American Progress’ Campus Progress bought Obama, and Obama only.
  • Something called Ascend Alliance — which appears to be a student exchange program without the students — has bought Romney, but no one else.
  • The do-gooders do seem to like Romney: the One campaign claims “Romney wears ONE band.” The ONE blog provides evidence, although it could simply be that he held one in his hand.
  • Human Events bought Giuliani and more curiously, Obama as well.
  • Cringe-inducing pro-voting groups have attached themselves to Edwards (generationengage.org), Rudy (declareyourself.org) and Romney (megadittoes).
  • Moviefone and Tickets-for-Events.com are both betting that people mistake John Edwards for John Edward of “Crossing Over” fame (or “fame”).
  • Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Romney all have obviously for-profit concerns bidding on their words — selling buttons and T-shirts, mostly — perhaps saying less about how well they think those candidates will sell than about how the others will not. The market has spoken — and Republicans aren’t moving units so well these days.
  • Hillary, Obama and Romney are all popular enough as keywords that a link at the bottom of their columns will take you to more ads, if you wish.
  • Trouble for Romney: one of the websites bidding on his name is ConservativesAgainstRomney.com. Lucky for Giuliani, sister site ConservativesAgainstRudy.com does not appear to be bidding on his name.
  • On the other hand, the Conservative Book Club appears to have bid on Romney and Romney only, so he should be reassured that not all conservatives are against him.

Anything I missed? Let me know in the comments.

Update: Credit where it’s due: Jeff Jarvis had this idea last week, although we went about it in different ways. Meanwhile, Kate Kaye at the ClickZ News Blog decided to see which candidates had bid on certain issue-related keywords:

iraq war, troop surge, social security, poverty, global warming, climate change, new hampshire, homeland security, terrorism, immigration, us attorneys, alberto gonzales, iran, iran nuclear, nuclear weapons, china trade, trade deficit, wmd, afghanistan, pelosi syria, british sailors, retirement, gay rights, women rights, feminism, labor rights, minimum wage, living wage, abortion, pro life, roe v wade, draft, military draft

So who bought those key words? Apparently none of them.

The Google Primary I: Paying, Or Not Playing

Considering that Google controls just about half of the market for search in the U.S., that Google estimates its advertising network reaches 80% of U.S. Internet users, and that their program is extremely flexible, any political campaign should think strongly about using them. And even though pay-per-click ads are not without risk, this should be all the more true for a presidential campaign.

I’m working on a longer post looking at the 2008 candidates’ use of Google AdWords, but in the meantime, let’s first see who is playing and how they’re playing. Counting only the top six contenders from both parties, here’s what each campaign wants you to see at the top of a Google search results when you search for their name:

Giuliani's Google Sponsored Link

John McCain's Google Sponsored Link

Mitt Romney's Google Sponsored Link

Hillary Clinton's Google Sponsored Link

Barack Obama's Google Sponsored Link

John Edwards' Google Sponsored Link

Hillary has incorporated Blogads into her online strategy and Edwards has been running an online campaign since early 2005, yet neither have bothered to make sure their campaign sites are the top result on Google. (Of course, Google News results do appear beneath the Sponsored Links for the others, but I have cropped them out.) Although Democrats have rushed into Second Life and other brave new worlds, apparently two of their top contenders are ignoring plain old Google.

A few other findings, based on tedious reloading of the same searches, over and over:

  • Obama is indeed playing, but he’s not all in. His ad displays less than half the time — so if you don’t see it, hit reload.
  • For all three Republicans, their Sponsored Link appears almost every time, but not quite.
  • McCain has three different versions of his ad in rotation. Key phrases: “Learn More” and “Sign Up.”
  • Romney also has three versions rotating. Key phrases: “Build a New American Dream” and “Strong. New. Leadership.”
  • Giuliani has just the one pictured above.

More later. Stay tuned.

Honorable Mentions II: Where the 2008 Candidates Stand Today

Two months ago, Blog P.I. ran searches on the names of the top-contending 2008 presidential candidates through the Trend Tool at blog search engine Icerocket to see how often a candidate’s name appeared in blog posts over the previous month. We weren’t counting the positive or negative mentions, so this didn’t tell us how popular or unpopular a particular candidate was — but it did give a pretty good idea how intense was the interest in one candidate relative to the others.

Today we’ll update that, covering the time elapsed. We’ll start as we did before by comparing the top three contenders for both party. Although there has been relative movement among them, nobody new has clearly broken through or fallen out of each trio. Then we’ll get to the dark horses and mix things up a little.

Last time we started with the Dems, so let’s switch it up and begin with the GOPers:

Giuliani vs. McCain vs. Romney

Giuliani vs. McCain vs. Romney

McCain may not be the frontrunner any longer, but he apparently remains the most talked-about candidate. For the life of me I couldn’t remember what was happening with McCain during the spikes recorded here, so I went to Google BlogSearch, which lets you isolate search terms by date. The first spike was certainly nothing good — mostly posts about about his slipping support. The second spike coincided with his semi-unofficial announcement on the Letterman show, where comments ran a little better — but it also occasioned his slip of the tongue about lives “wasted” fighting in Iraq.

Being the new frontrunner, Giuliani only had two short-lived leads in early February and March. The first peak coincided with his statement of candidacy, and pales compared to McCain’s; the second appears to match up with the New York firefighters union — the Swiftboaters to Rudy’s Kerry? — releasing a letter opposing his bid. Otherwise, he seems to run consistently behind McCain and about even with Romney.

Romney’s first spike? His announcement at the Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. His second spike was the CPAC conference — which explains why Giuliani actually saw his highest absolute mark for the period here as well, and perhaps why McCain experienced another short peak — much of which was probably about his decision not to attend. Actually, that may have been for the better — because as we all remember, the whole event was overshadowed by Ann Coulter. So let’s make a brief detour and look at how Coulter stacks up for the period against the candidates she appeared with:

Ann Coulter vs. Mitt Romney vs. Rudy Giuliani

Coulter vs. Romney vs. Giuliani

Yeah, that looks about right. How about the Dems?

Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards

Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards

When we last measured, all three candidates were just beginning to pick up serious attention, Hillary for her campaign launch and Obama for his exploratory announcement. But where Hillary was the slight leader last time, now she is clearly underperforming relative to her name ID. The huge spike for Obama centered around the weekend of Feb. 10 and 11 represents his more-official kickoff and the launch of his newfangled campaign site, which drew a good deal of positive notice. He commanded plenty of attention in the weeks after, but lately appears to be no more or less interesting to bloggers than Hillary. This could be a sign that the initial rush of attention has subsided, and he’s just another candidate in contention.

Oh, and that peak they share a week and a half after Obama’s announcement? That’s the argle-bargle started by David Geffen’s anti-Hillary comments to Maureen Dowd.

The Edwards spikes require no Googling: The first was Ann Coulter’s aformentioned braindead attack, and the second was the announcement that Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer had returned. Both have clearly earned him a good deal of attention, making him arguably the most interesting candidate of the Democratic field right now. On the other hand, while that attention has been positive, both instances are predicated on bad news — not exactly sustainable, or something you would want to sustain, anyway.

Now, onto more arbitrary comparisons:

Thompson vs. Gore vs. Bloomberg

Thompson vs. Gore vs. Bloomberg

As long as reputable pollsters are putting Al Gore into the mix, who am I to say they’re wrong? Likewise with Bloomberg — as long as respectable newspapers are writing stories about the possibility of a self-funded bid, who am I to leave him out?

Now, Gore just picked up an Academy Award for “An Inconvenient Truth” (as if you didn’t know what that huge spike in late February was about). And Fred Thompson, well, perhaps he’s just entertaining himself right now (but at least he did appear on a Sunday show recently). For these reasons, and because Bloomberg has a mighty populous city to run, I decided to append the word “president” to each search, just to keep things on topic. It didn’t change much.

That appearance was March 11, but interest has sustained relatively well until surging last week for no reason I can divine from patterns at the Blogsearch — but I’m guessing it has something to do with the first round of polls showing him with some credible support.

Bloomberg is still waiting for his surge. He may be waiting awhile — that near-flatline does accurately represent the (lack of) interest in such a campaign. For mirror-opposite reasons the same is true of Gore: he is larger than life, and if he did run, it’s not implausible that he could — as his former boss was always said to do — suck all the oxygen out of the room.

Edwards vs. McCain vs. Gore

Edwards vs. McCain vs. Gore

So here we compare the relative leaders in online mentions among the Democrats, Republicans and dark horses. (Yes, overall Obama has run stronger than Edwards this period, but let’s go with Edwards, who is closer-watched/has had bigger spikes lately — even if he has fallen into third in just the past few days.)

Clearly Edwards cannot compete with Gore’s Oscar — apparently only Coulter can do that — but aside from that, he doesn’t run too far behind. And McCain is at least competitive. He doesn’t have those huge spikes, but he has led Edwards several times (and upon his Letterman announcement, even Gore, briefly).

Hillary vs. Giuliani vs. Thompson

Hillary vs. Giuliani vs. Thompson

So how about those underperforming frontrunners, and the next-most-popular dark horse? Well, Rudy is no match for Hillary. This does seem to show that while he leads the traditional polls and has appreciable support among bloggers, he is not really the “rightroots” candidate — Thompson has been doing almost as well since his announcement. Their mentions rise and fall together enough to be worth mentioning, suggesting that the two are being compared against each other. Hillary’s mentions, however appear to be completely unrelated, and that makes sense as well. Even at their best, neither Giuliani nor Thompson have bested Hillary in blogger mentions this period.

Once again, we’re just measuring mindshare, and with the exception of Bloomberg, all of the candidates here have demonstrated the ability to capture it. So who knows whether it’s good to be a leader in these charts or not. Maybe that’s another study, for another time. For this time, we’ll leave it right here.

This One Goes Out to the One They’ll Vote For

This year for Valentine’s Day, Facebook introduced “gifts” — a series of icons designed by early Macintosh icon generator Susan Kare which, for one dollar, users could buy and send along with a short message to another user — a social networking Valentine’s Day card. Big deal, maybe.

But starting last cycle Facebook has sought to cooperate with political candidates, and plenty have accepted (Virginia senator Jim Webb, most amusingly). So now some of the 2008 candidates have official pages, none more popular than — drumroll please — Illinois senator Barack Obama.

Not coincidentally, he’s got the fattest “gift box” of all:

Obama's Facebook "gift box"

At first glance, you’d think it stuffed with saccharine sweet time-wasters. And so it was, when you clicked through, but in more of a… MySpace kind of way:

Facebook gift for Barack Obama

Other gifts were just plain goofy:

Facebook gift for Barack Obama

The following gift exemplifies a concept utilized several times, but here most concisely:

Facebook gift for Barack Obama

And at least one took a small dig at the current DNC chair:

Facebook gift for Barack Obama

Still, more than a few were on the racy side:

Facebook gift for Barack Obama

If it does require one, click here.

How about the other candidates on Facebook? John McCain and Mitt Romney either got none or weren’t accepting them, which if so would be just as well — Webb got just two. Hillary got a whole 13, but because it looks as if she’s letting Facebook handle the admin duties on her page, message control… isn’t quite what it could be:

Hillary's Facebook gift box

What the Media Can’t Do for Mitt Romney

The Romney campaign has to be pretty happy with liberal historian Rick Perlstein this week, or about as happy as they could be with anyone accusing them of winking at anti-Semitism. On Wednesday TNR Online published an article in which he argued that media reports highlighting complaints about Mitt Romney’s Henry Ford Museum announcement speech will help him connect with skeptical conservatives.

The thrust of Perlstein’s argument is that identity, or “tribal” issues, matter in partisan politics, and the more critical stories about Romney that appear in the elite media, the better he is likely to do with the Republican base. As he summarizes: “Get branded such a villain by our liberal elites, and you also might win a Republican primary.” The logic is sound enough, but Perlstein ascribes too much power to this phenomenon. Just because the “liberal media” is antagonistic toward a Republican candidate is not enough to change the fundamentals, and Romney’s fundamentals are bad.

Let’s start with this passage from his article, where Perlstein turns to the Internet to substantiate his point:

Consider the sarcastic reflection of this denizen of the right-wing website Free Republic:
    Allright, an AP hit piece! The MSM has more acute RINOdar than we. Real RINO’s don’t get rinky-dink MSM hit pieces such as this. This proves that the MSM believes Romney is a conservative, and therefore must be roughed up.
Translation: I used to suspect that Romney was only a “Republican in Name Only.” But now I realize: He bugs the liberal media. By the tribal logic of right-wing identity politics, that is enough–Mitt Romney now can be called a conservative.

This interpretation is overly reductive — even Newtonian. As Perlstein would have it, for every action on the part of the media, there is an equal and opposite reaction from the conservative base. Leaving aside the fact that the Henry Ford story is less a flap than a blip — only the National Jewish Democratic Council made an issue of it, and Media Matters has pronounced the story “ignored” — it assumes that conservatives are captives of their distrust of the mainstream media.

Perlstein’s suggestion that dubious media attacks on Romney could bolster his support on the right almost certainly gets it backward: politicians who enjoy notable support in this regard have already bonded with their base. Presidents are frequent recipients; as the headlines got worse for Clinton and Bush through their two terms, the base rallied around them (although Bush seems to have exhausted that reserve of goodwill). Galvanizing candidates, such as Howard Dean, also can receive this kind of support. Unfortunately for Romney, he is neither.

Perlstein buttresses his case by comparing Romney’s announcement to a controversial 1980 campaign speech by onetime liberal Ronald Reagan. According to Perlstein, Reagan benefited from “all that outrage” over the location: Philadelphia, MS, site of the infamous 1964 Klan murders of civil rights workers. But there are several problems here. As noted above, the outrage about Romney’s speech was very limited and even treated like a joke. As even Perlstein admits of Ford’s Nazi sympathies, “Those memories no longer exist–except to the hair-trigger sensitivities of the likes of the NJDC.” Additionally, those Klan murders are the only reason anyone outside of Mississippi has heard of that particular Philadelphia, whereas the Ford musesum is pure Americana — technological innovation and nostalgia for what technology has made obsolete. And by 1980 Reagan was already a conservative hero, which of course Romney is not.

Perlstein also misses a few things about conservative “tribal” identity. Early in the article he asks:

Some observers wondered if perhaps [spotlighting noted anti-Semite Henry Ford] wasn’t intentional: If you want to prove to conservatives you’re no liberal, what better way than to announce on the former estate of a man who, as the NJDC also pointed out, was “bestowed with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolf Hitler”?

“Nazi” is an epithet hurled at Republicans by liberals; it’s not a badge of honor and not a term that is available to be “reclaimed” like “bitch” or “queer.” Considering evangelical Christians’ close alliance with conservative Jews, their support of Israel above the Palestinians, and the growing perception that the “new anti-Semitism” is a liberal disease, there’s no percentage (in the polls or otherwise) in such a strategy. Bank shots are risky; bank shots that contradict your own beliefs are doubly so. Bank shots opening oneself up to charges of bigotry are dangerously stupid.

Not to mention, I’m not even sure that the Free Republic quote really says what Perlstein thinks it does. The comment at once suggests that the AP can accurately identify fake conservatives, and then implies that the media thinks Romney is a true conservative. Perhaps this commenter agrees with the media, but most Freepers do not. At best, Romney’s conservative credentials are a matter of debate. For example, check out the Free Republic thread responding to this exact same Perlstein article, where one finds a few Romney apologists, but others saying things like:

Strange that he was really pro life after professing to be pro-choice since 1970. And that he thought since Roe V wade was already decided, we should “sustain and support it”. Plus he’s a gun grabber who is now trying to kiss the NRA’s butt. At least with rudy you know you’re getting a liberal. With romney you’re getting a used car salesman who will say whatever it takes to get elected. In 2004 we called that ‘flip flopping’ when a certain democrat did it.

Flip-flopping is a charge Democrats would love to be able to throw back at Republicans in 2008, and Romney is the most susceptible. Romney has made the mistake of trying to persuade social conservatives that he is one of them, despite well-publicized past statements to the contrary. Like John Kerry, he may have flopped in the “correct” direction — but also like John Kerry, he can’t find the words to adequately explain why.

Contrast this with Giuliani’s approach: he too was elected by a left-leaning electorate, is openly pro-choice, and has similar hurdles to overcome. But so far at least, he isn’t trying to sell himself as a Bush-style social conservative. By downplaying his personal beliefs while promising to appoint strict constructionist judges, he’s selling himself as an ally of Bush-style social conservatives.

Even if we do accept Perlstein’s Newtowian politics, there’s so much more dirt out there about Giuliani that all those negative stories would surely generate more reactive reactionary reinforcement for him than Romney. And unlike Romney, Giuliani has never publicly disavowed Ronald Reagan. Among tribal issues, that will matter much more than anything the MSM can say.

Honorable Mentions: Where the 2008 Candidates Stand Today

Technorati is the best-known and likely most-used blog search engine, and while it is arguably the best overall, it isn’t the best for everything. Google BlogSearch lets you isolate searches according to period of time; Technorati does not do this. And IceRocket has a trend tool that lets you compare up to three different search terms; Technorati will chart just one term at a time.

The IceRocket trend tool can be a great deal of fun, and will tell you how certain search terms compare over the last month, two months or three months. And as interest ramps up in the 2008 presidential election, it might be worth seeing how much attention each of the current White House hopefuls have generated in the blogosphere. That’s what we’re doing here today.

Below is a series of charts organizing these candidates into a handful of categories — by party, by legitimacy, and then, we’ll see how the top contenders in each category stack up — measuring some combination of name recognition and intensity of interest, whether positive or negative:

  • First, the top three Democrats — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards:
    Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards on Icerocket Trend Tool
    No great surprises here. Each candidate experienced a spike in blog activity when they announced their campaigns, or in Obama’s case, his exploratory committee. Because these searches only cover the last month, Edwards’ spike is almost but not entirely cut off; to see the full shape of his mention line over the past two months, click here. Obama is the only candidate measured in this post who maintained a plateau for more than one day before interest waned, perhaps indicative of the unusual interest in his potential candidacy. Clinton hit the highest mark of them all, surely a testament to her 100% name recognition. Though interest fell off sharply thereafter, it didn’t fall too far. Nevertheless, Obama is tracking very close with her right now; Edwards less so.
  • Now the top three Republicans — John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani:
    John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani on Icerocket Trend Tool
    None of the major candidates in the Republican field have actually declared their candidacies — all continue to “explore” the prospect of running for their party’s nomination. It would take more work than I am prepared to do just now to determine what each spike represents for each (though Romney’s Jan. 10-11 YouTube kerfuffle resulted in only a slight uptick). This trio generally shares the same peaks and valleys, indicating that they are often mentioned together — much as the Democratic hopefuls were throughout most of January. It will be interesting to see how they do when each actually, you know, decides to seek the nomination after all.
  • Next, the more subjective category of the most-promising from the next tier:
    Sam Brownback, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd on Icerocket Trend Tool
    I admit, it was a difficult choice between Dodd and Huckabee, who apparently will file papers for his exploratory committee on Monday. But among the three included here, we see that Brownback and Richardson each saw big spikes for their near-simultaneous announcements (both of which were vastly overshadowed by Hillary’s), whereas Dodd received almost nothing for his Jan. 11 declaration (and, it seems, nothing the others didn’t get). Not to mention, Richardson-related posts briefly doubled those mentioning Brownback. And yet, by week’s end, all three have fallen back into blogospheric obscurity.
  • Now, if you look along the lefthand side of each chart above, it shows the percentage of all blog posts in which those terms occurred. (For anyone who reads the political blogosphere to exclusion, these numbers should be a reminder of how small it is compared to the overall ’sphere.) Look again, and you’ll notice that the numbers along each side of each chart are not the same — that is, we’re looking at different scales. So let’s compare the top-rated from each of the previous charts:
    Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Bill Richardson on Icerocket Trend Tool
    I realize this arbitrarily removes the oft-mentioned Obama in favor of not-so-oft Richardson, but so be it. And here is where we find another example of what Micah Sifry (brother of Technorati founder David) found by comparing interest in presidential candidates across MySpace, Facebook and Flickr: Republicans lag far behind Democrats in terms of online activity. Even Bill Richardson, nearly an afterthought in the race for the Dem nod, has enjoyed mentions comparable to presumed GOP frontrunner McCain. And this is true even though there is significant anti-McCain sentiment on the right, whereas Richardson excites few on the left, pro or con.
  • But perhaps the top-tier candidates are an exception. Let’s look at Obama again, along with fellow second-place mention-getters Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback:
    Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback on Icerocket Trend Tool
    Nope. In fact, here the difference is even more pronounced. Obama’s mentions do not remotely track with the Republican candidates listed here, at least not since he threw his hat into the ring adjacent to the ring in which he is ultimately expected to throw said metaphorical hat. Brownback surged ahead of Romney for a few days, and could again. Indeed, as the one Republican candidate with an easily definable constituency (religious conservatives) one might expect him to generate disproportionate interest from online evangelicals. But as yet, he has not. Perhaps conservatives are even more interested in “electability” than their ideological counterparts.

Of course, we are only measuring raw mentions with no value judgments attached. The only thing we know for sure is that Democrats are getting more play than Republicans. My assumption from reading blogs on both sides is that Republicans are discussing Democratic candidates more than Democrats are the Republicans. Though the universally-known Hillary Clinton obviously has been the most-mentioned, at least half of those discussions (and probably more) are non-supportive. The same is largely true of McCain, although I’d wager he is mentioned less often by liberals than Hillary is by conservatives.

These are limited findings based on limited tools. Take them all with a healthy dose of skepticism, and remember that this is only a one-month snapshot early in the process. We don’t even know how many of these mentions come from plugged-in, “political” blogs as opposed to online journals at Blogspot, LiveJournal and MySpace. Perhaps the lopsided interest in Democratic candidates comes from casual commentators who know Hillary best and find Obama intriguing. A more in-depth analysis could answer these questions.

But again, it is early. Very early. I will follow up again in coming months, and I invite readers to run their own trend searches. And please add any further insights in the comments.