Skip to main content

There have been numerous diaries here on DK about how the hundreds of millions spent by Super PAC's and the campaigns this past election had so little influence on the outcome. It's not that they had no impact. In fact some of the money spent had a big influence on the outcome of individual races and certainly the Obama campaign's efforts to paint Romney as a out-of-touch predatory, venture capitalist worked, but overall the days of simply throwing a bunch of money at a national election and seeing a win seem to be behind us or at least on the wane. While it's fun to simply gloat about the other side wasting so much money for such an impotent result the question (at least for me) is, "Why?" So I got to Googling.

There are actually numerous articles devoted to changing trends in how Americans get their news. Starting in 2011 this topic started to get more coverage and some of the findings (at least on the surface) seem to have a correlation to the question I posed above. One such article from journalism.org states:

Social media, however, and Facebook in particular, are emerging as a powerful news referring source. At five of the top sites, Facebook is the second or third most important driver of traffic. Twitter, on the other hand, barely registers as a referring source. In the same vein, when users leave a site, “share” tools that appear alongside most news stories rank among the most clicked-on links (emphasis mine).
For me this comment hits home because I (along with many others) was a DK sharing fool this election cycle. I mean I shared so many articles from this and other sites with positive messages about Obama and the Dems and so many negaitve ones about Romney and the GOP that I actually lost friends on Facebook. I also linked them on a private political message board I post at for fans of my favorite baseball team. I actually know I influenced some people because I saw their attitudes change and their comments went from "both sides suck" to "WOW does the GOP suck WAY more." Initial questions asking for positive reasons to vote Dem as opposed to just negative ones about the GOP were answered with links to sites that touted Obama's accomplishments or even links to "The People's Budget" (We really need to get back to promoting that idea again). I was also strongly motivated to defeat Mitt Romney - who makes my skin actually crawl -  and wrote several blog posts here chronicling my dislike for the man and shared them all. While I didn't get many recs here on most of them I sent them out into the ether in the hopes they would impact people's votes. Toward the end I was making most of my pleas to third party voters to take one for the team and help hold the line and I know of at least one person who did just that even though they held their nose while doing so. I also worked heavily on younger voters showing them not just the social issues on which the Dems more align with their views, but on issues like Obama's Executive order changing payment options on student loans for those who need it. No, I didn't convince every single person, but that seems an unrealistic goal. Even when I didn't change someone's mind and get them to vote Dem I at least helped open their eyes to the stupidity, racism and misogyny currently dominating the GOP platform and some of the people who's minds I failed to change have been starting to share their own links showing they at least understand that point.

I know I'm not the only one who did this. People complaining about political posts on Facebook became a common thing and like I said, I lost at least a few names off the old friend list and saw several friends (mostly GOP voters) disappear for the last few months of the campaign. Some of them have already returned though my never bloated friend list still remains short a few people.

Okay, I hear you say, "so you recced and shared and linked and blogged and yes more people are reading news and commentary online, but both sides do that." Well, not quite and to find out why continue reading below the (insert cute nickname for the orange dohicky here)...

As you can see from the data table graphic posted at the top of this article the trendlines for age groups receiving news through social media sites heavily favors our side. While the over all use of social networking sites is on the rise, over 40% of people under 40 are currently using sites like Facebook and Google+. That's up 7-13% net since 2010. Meanwhile just 12% of people over 65 are using those sites and that number hasn't budged since the last midterms.

The article I got that image from goes on to talk about trends in twitter and mobile news aps for cellphones:

-17 percent of all Americans got news on a mobile device yesterday.

-Among the people who own smartphones, 31 percent got news on them yesterday.

Over 83% of the people who use twitter saw a news story on it and 59% retweeted one. Those numbers are up 25% since 2010. In addition:
More than a third (36%) of those with Twitter accounts use them to follow news organizations or journalists,... On social networking sites, 19% of users say they got information there from news organizations or journalists.
Then of course there's the Tablet PC revolution which is simply blowing up. Currently 11% of the population owns a Tablet and over half of those that do use it to access new and...
Consuming news (everything from the latest headlines to in-depth articles and commentary) ranks as one of the most popular activities on the tablet...

...three-in-ten tablet news users (defined for this study as the 77% of all tablet users who get news at least weekly) say they now spend more time getting news than they did before they had their tablet (emphasis mine).

and
A third (33%) of tablet news users say they are turning to new sources for news on their tablet, sources they had not turned to on other platforms such as television or their desktop computer. And, more than four in ten (42%) say they regularly read in-depth news articles and analysis on their tablet.
The article goes on to explain:
Fully 85% of those who get news on their tablets said they had talked with someone about a long article they had read there. This is more than twice the percentage who say they had shared articles electronically. Some 41% of tablet news users say they share news through email or social networking at least sometimes. And when a select group was asked specifically about their behavior in the last seven days, again about four in ten say they had shared news content through social networking sites or email.
Not only are people getting more computer interface based news, but the trend is accelerating relative to other news sources.
No matter the device, digital news consumption continued upward in 2011. Monthly unique audience to the top news sites was up 17%, a similar increase from 2009 to 2010, according to Nielsen Online. Seventeen of those 25 continue to be legacy news outlets.

Americans are now fully into the digital era. More than three-quarters of U.S. adults own a laptop or desktop computer. On top of that, 44% now own a smartphone, and tablet ownership is now at 18%, up from just 11% in the summer of 2011. News is a significant part of how people use these devices. Some 51% of smartphone owners use that device to get news, as do 56% of tablet owners. And nearly a quarter of the population, 23%, now gets news on multiple digital devices, according to PEJ research (emphasis mine).

What all of this means is fairly easy to see. People who get their news online aren't subjected to political advertising nearly as much. They will see ads, but the choice to click on the content is theirs. They don't have to sit thorough 5 minutes of negativity, distortion and lies 4 times an hour to get their news. When they see something they agree or disagree with they have the option of pursuing more in-depth information on the topic by simply clicking links or doing a search. That means when they do turn on the TV - for news or entertainment - they are much more likely to have already read something about the ads they see there and able to put the claims in perspective and decide what parts to accept and disregard.

There is a whole generation of young adults who never knew a time without the Internet and that is never going to change. Even people who are 30-35 years old probably used the internet to do research for high school and/or college papers. The simple fact is those people are subjected to a much wider array of information and thus are less likely to accept simple and/or emotional appeals that dominate most political advertising. Websites like DK, TPM, MediaMatters and even CNN are influencing the way politics is discussed and debunking lies as fast as they can be generated. The days were a lie (can) travel half way around the world before the truth can get it's shoes on are coming to an end. The truth and in depth analysis travels just as fast and people today are seeking it out and less likely to simply take what they are spoonfed by the talking heads, pundits and conmen that dominate TV and TV advertising. Younger voters are simply not bothered with having to read an article to learn something. They can pick and choose when and where to do that and not be forced to learn about things on TV's schedule where they would be subjected to political ads.

The simple fact is people want to be more informed and they are. People want to watch less politcal ads and they are. People trust their friends to steer them to good news sources and informative articles and they are. Big money can continue to spend on TV ads, but they cannot force people online who get their news from any of the sources and methods listed above to see and hear their crap. That isn't changing anytime soon and I bet it scares the living piss out of those who want to buy watever's left of this country that they don't already own.

I've seen this quote many times around this site:

Why don't you just quit?
I can't remember who said it to Kos so many years ago. Well maybe it's time to track them down and spit it back in their face. We haven't finished yet, but we are closer than ever to breaking the stranglehold the powers that be have on our political system and for everyone who reads, comments and posts here at DK, I'm sure that's some of the best news you've read on the Internet today, no matter how you read it...

Originally posted to justjim35 on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 02:19 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Excellent Diary. (20+ / 0-)

    The train left the station and only the billionaires remain, clutching their satchels of cash, cursing in its wake.

    •  Agree - excellent diary. (19+ / 0-)

      My daughter and her husband are in early 40's. When I was their age, I got all my political news from tv, magazine subscriptions and newspaper. My daughter and hubby get all their news from internet as they don't subscribe to a newspaper or political magazines and they simply don't have time to watch network news on tv as they're just returning from work when the news is broadcast and they're too busy getting dinner on the table, etc.

      I also get almost 100% of my political info on the internet. I still enjoy watching network news, but catch it only occasionally. I'm much better informed now than I was before the internet (but I'm a big political junkie).

      The times they are a changing and Team Obama took advantage of the shift in ways the Republicans didn't. Our side's smarter and I, for one, love having a president who's the smartest in the room.

      The world is not interested in the storms you encountered, but did you bring in the ship.

      by Hanging Up My Tusks on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 05:35:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm like you. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        liberalconservative, ivote2004, Chi

        I used to get all my news, political and otherwise, off tv and radio.

        That started to change when I started connecting to bulletin boards and the internet in the '80s and '90s. And, it helped me move to being a democrat, from being a pretty hard core republican. They used to say that the kids would normally vote the same party as their parents, and I think that used to be true.

        Its changed now, and the kids actually go out and figure out how they want to be on their own.

        This diary actually gives me hope that the political landscape will become what I think it needs to be. Progressive and inclusive for and of all the people.

        Keep moving. Its harder to hit a moving target.

        by KatGirl on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:34:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  good news, good news, and Good News! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jusjtim35

          This comment thread is good news.

          This diary is good news, and very well presented.

          And the big story here is that the News Media is well on the way from a pathological recent past to a bright new future.

          We are well along in composting the rotting corpse of Mass Media News, and fertilizing a whole New Demassified Media -- of everybody being able to share information with everybody.

          #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

          by ivote2004 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:24:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Another de-tusked Republican here. (0+ / 0-)

          I was a card-carrying member for 40+ years; got rid of my tusks in 2007/8 so I could caucus for Obama in 2008. I am still the socially liberal/fiscally responsible person I was when I voted for the first time in 1968. I got tired of trying to change the Rep party from within, so I left the jungle and I ain't going back. Ever.

          The world is not interested in the storms you encountered, but did you bring in the ship.

          by Hanging Up My Tusks on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 08:39:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  This is what I have been thinking and pushing (5+ / 0-)

      I lost one friend on Facebook, but I was able to start a dialogue with wingnutty friends (we have other common interests) with whom I would otherwise never talk politics.  

      Social media is a rapid response tool to squelch lies, and to heap ridicule on ridiculous notions.  Although a lot of crap gets thrown around, the truth wins out in the end because it conforms to reality.  Properly used, social media are an inexpensive and powerful tool to combat the sea  of commercial advertising.

      The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

      by MadScientist on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 06:29:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Everything is changing as to how we watch, read (32+ / 0-)

    and carry on conversations. I am 60 and my spouse is 64 ... we have been on the computer when it was bulleting boards with 9600 and you called a number for the board. Then the internet came into existence and the world is changing. We can ask about things we are unsure of or never heard of and get a freaking answer. It is amazing and exciting. I don't use social media because I am a paranoid obsessive who is not very trusting of how it could be used. I am working on overcoming that or developing rules of interaction to protect myself.We already stream TV and movies, download music, books & mags to devices, use cell phonme only and I have been reading about how to tie stuff together as well as tying into security devices. We are building our next house to be super energy efficient as well as wired for electronics with the ability to easily pull new cabling. Who knows whats coming.

    That is why I thought the killer approach of the OFA was...Active smart internet. Many here just dismissed thier ads but I think they were inexpensive and reached people who do not lock into the old media. Newspapers and magazines may be dying but after seeing diaries here from Taibbi from Rolling Stone, articles from the New York Times and the New Yorker as well as the Nation I am taking a net subscription to get quality news. Though some recommend the London paper. I ma looking into that since I consider BBC news far superior to our network news.

    I love the way the world is discovering each other. We have a DVD player for the US region but we also have a DVD for the European region. We watch movies from  England, Scandanvian countries, Japan and China on Netflix. I especially loved the one we got that was in English but subtitled in Dutch.

    I may be getting old but I am dropping the old stuff as fast as I can.

    Fear is the Mind Killer...

    by boophus on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 03:15:47 PM PST

    •  I'm 66 but work mostly with younger adults... (24+ / 0-)

      most of whom get all their news on their phones with a computer being their number 2 source.  Like you, I have been on the net for a while - back to the 110 baud phone cradle modem days.

      I would often learn from diaries here, but knowing many people think dKOS is too flamingly liberal, I would check the diarist's source link and post my comments with the primary source link on facebook.

      I have a regular crew who were liking my political posts, re-posting and commenting.  Two of them are my age and social network savvy.  The rest were all younger.  When they got discouraged I sent them each personal mail telling them the good work they were doing.

      What I learned in October (sometimes through wingnut response comments) was that over a dozen members of my high school graduating class were reading my posts.  I took the time to respond to every wingnut crazy post, countering it with factual links to primary source material.  In each discussion (argument) I confronted their myths until they gave up.  Lo and behold, a week or so later they would post another birther or Obamacare myth.

      The point is, they weren't always posting, but they were still reading.

      You hit the nail on the head for OFA... Active SMART internet.  They understand the game and play it well.

      We need to keep working the social networks.  I post a couple times a week, always using the words LANDSLIDE and MANDATE.  Have had a bit of hate mail, but as the numbers keep growing, that diminishes.

      Congrats on your energy-efficient and pre-wired new home.  I've been remodeling the house I grew up in and updating as I go.  Best energy investment was a total re-insulation and a 96% efficiency boiler.  Cut heating bill to about 30% of what it used to be.

      Keep dropping the old stuff.  Once you hit 60 you are in the best half of life :)

      "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Mittens, Paul Ryan, Scotty Walker, Limbaugh, pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

      by Eman on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 04:02:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  boophus, great comments! I visit Manchester (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      golem

      Guardian online--imo best English-language newspaper.

      Save the Home Planet

      by Mayfly on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:38:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm going to have to keep reading, but I keep (14+ / 0-)

    seeing you talk about 'where you get your news' so far, several times.

    The big money wasn't thrown at 'news', it was thrown at TV and radio and direct mailings.  I live in one of the states (OH) in which some of the most money was spent, and for months, the vast majority of the tv ads on pretty much every major station (and I mean cable, not just broadcast) were political, You couldn't listen to a radio station for 10 minutes without hearing political ads, and I still have a decent pile of direct mailings (both pro and con) I set aside as they came in during the campaign.

    It wasn't a matter of 'seeking out news', it was a matter of avoiding omnipresent political spam across all the traditional media forms.

    That having been said, I think your wider argument is still valid - it's 'where do you spend your time interacting with outside information'  (what you're generically referring to as news, I guess.), and for younger folks, that's primarily the net. Facebook, twitter, 4square, MMOs, whatever.

    •  A valid point... (10+ / 0-)

      but... it does show a change in people's attitudes. In 1980 people got all their political information from ads, newspapers and to some extent the nightly news. Now they are getting political information in many different ways, so like I say later in the diary even when people don't turn on TV to watch the news they are already better informed less likely to take what they see and hear at face value. Thus ads don't have the impact they once did.

      Progress 365 not just a slogan a goal - 300 progressive seats in the House and 65 progressive seats in the Senate.

      by jusjtim35 on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 03:46:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The big money will be thrown at GOTV next time (9+ / 0-)

      and probably much more targeted marketing. As long as there's essentially no difference between political parties and post-Citizens United spending, that money is going to go where it's most effective.

      However, I still say that GOPer corporatists will clog the airwaves with hate ads (and for that reason, the most unremarked tool of the next election will be, like this one, the mute button). It's what bullies do, even if it does nothing more than make them feel good about themselves.

    •  And Romney Won Every Age Over 39 Which Are (6+ / 0-)

      the more old-media generations.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 04:00:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And that touches on another key theme (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jusjtim35

        that is often discussed. That there aren't enough new angry white men to sustain the Republican party.

        They will have to adjust to appeal to the changing demographics in a way that will be difficult for them.

        I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

        by Dave from Oregon on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 02:47:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  My kids in their young twenties don't listen to (8+ / 0-)

      the radio or watch TV in the way we remember.  They stream music from "the cloud" and watch TV anyway but live for the most part.  They are relatively impervious to traditional political advertising. They get news feeds from sites they follow, probably never watch network news.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 10:04:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mine, too. And students now *must* weigh sources. (0+ / 0-)

        They learn early in classes that it is critical  to carefully evaluate the information that is available  to them on the internet. And that they must justify their sources and think critically about who is putting out what information and why. E.g.: Wikipedia is not acceptable, except as a starting point, and certainly not as a reference.

        This is a very different attitude than many older people grew up with. I did encounter the 'evaluate the source' attitude  in grad school, but so many in my generation basically feel that if it's in print, it's gotta be true. Or on the TV, since they grew up with Walter Cronkite and the David and Brinkley.

        It is a very different world  now, an explosion of information.

        Life is a school, love is the lesson.

        by means are the ends on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:56:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think you're on to something here. (15+ / 0-)

    The internet truly is fundamentally changing the way in which many perceive the world.

    There's an additional factor playing a big role, imo, which is also driven by the internet:

    Small donor funding for campaigns has increased a lot due to the fact that it is now so easy to donate online.  This goes a long way in pushing pack against the big donor, SuperPAC money and empowers grass-roots and progressive candidates who just wouldn't have had enough money to run their campaigns a mere ten years ago.  Heck, you don't even need a credit card anymore to donate to federal campaigns as ActBlue now has a donate via PayPal option.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 05:04:00 PM PST

  •  I'm guessing no matter how many ads or secret (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, Lujane, jusjtim35

    meeting 1 person 1 vote does not equal 1 corporation acting like a citizen.  Democrats are not easily converted.  

  •  Good diary (14+ / 0-)

    I can see a huge difference between me and my parents. I'm 55 but I'm on the computer all day, every day, for my work as an editor. While editing with Word, I'm constantly hopping over to research and do fact-checking online. Plus I get bored with whatever I'm reading from time to time and flip over to the 'net on and off throughout the day. So I see any breaking news within probably half an hour max, and if any news item seems slanted or poorly reported, I'll read various sources and check to see if anyone here has written about it.

    Meanwhile, my parents, in their early 80s, don't own a computer, don't want to learn how to use one, and get all of their "news" from Faux. They are constantly bringing up crazy wingnuttery they hear on Faux, and I'm constantly having to refute it with facts from other sources that I find online. Not that it ever does any good. I might temporarily sway them, but then they hear the Faux viewpoints and are swayed right back.

    •  My mom was like that before she died. (10+ / 0-)

      Totally brainwashed by Fox and Rush, paranoid about what President Obama was doing to our country.  She had been a stay at home Mom of five kids and had limited education or experience in the "real world" to counter the propaganda.   What they do is a form of elder abuse.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 10:08:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Consider an intervention. Next time you are alone (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chantedor, ivote2004

      with their TV set the parental settings to ignore FOX NEWS. This might push them temporarily to audio Limbaugh and Beck but despite your moral objections to treating them like children remember you are protecting them. And never admit you are the perp.

      I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

      by OHdog on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:42:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've been thinking this for some time (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jusjtim35, ivote2004

        It's gotten so bad, but until reading personal experiences here I didn't realize how sad and demoralizing it is for older people who have more time to think about the delusions.

        I've concluded that if it was somebody close to me, I'd have to take them somewhere, whether on vacation, out to eat, bar, anyplace where they can't get away or watch that stuff and intervene on it.  I'd make them sit and listen to my assessment of their news sources, and the effects they have on people, not out of anger or vengeance, but out of loving concern for the horrifying effects those lying bigots have on trusting people.  

        I know arguing issues based on facts doesn't work, so having nothing else to do, this would be better than nothing.

  •  Money still very important . . . (7+ / 0-)

    I think Economic Blogger Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture blog put it well:

    9 It takes more than money. No one is happy about all of the money in politics, but the impact may be more muted than we believe.

    Consider the outsize money interests in this election cycle. Sheldon Adelson poured $100 million into six races, and lost them all. Karl Rove’s super PAC put more than $300 million into myriad races; he found success in Indiana – but was shut out everywhere else. And the $91 million dollars Connecticut candidate Linda McMahon spent in two Senate campaigns yielded her exactly zero electoral success.

    A threshold amount of money is necessary to be competitive in any business endeavor, but only to a point. Beyond the marginal utility of a minimum dollar amount, pouring more money onto a project is no substitute for substance, a clear value proposition and a product consumers want.

    The key part here is the threshold amount.  The campaigns in the Senate and the Presidential race had money to neutralize the fundraising of GOP campaigns and outside spending -- even in cases where they were outspent (e.g. Sherrod Brown's race in Ohio, once outside spending is factored in).  For the Dems we had some of this money in key races down-ballot, however, I suspect if we had even more that we could have won back the House.

    This isn't to diminish the growing importance of social media.  It definitely matters and it definitely has an impact, but going into 2014, in addition to social media, it is going to be vitally important for Dems in House races to have the resources to meet the "minimum threshold" amount to be genuinely competitive.  In races where one candidate is able to dominate traditional media, an advantage in new media probably won't be sufficient to counter-balance the impact.   If a candidate can at least get his or her message out through traditional media, and if the candidate is a quality candidate, then those social media advantages might help to provide victory margins.

    •  I agree with this. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, ladybug53, GDbot, bontemps2012, DvCM, nicolemm

      OFA and his Super PAC spent a ton of money also. The money does matter, but it's not the be all and end all it once was. People aren't just blindly accepting what comes at them over the airwaves anymore. There are other means of getting instant news and analysis now. People like some of the parents listed in the comments above grew up watching TV. They came to trust it at a time when giants like Walter Cronkite dominated the news cycle and there were limits on how much air time candidates could have and how much money they could spend. That generation doesn't know another way.

      However, today's kids and young adults grew up with computers much the way that older generation grew up with TV and thinks nothing of plunking down in front of the screen and spending a few hours chatting, reading, learning, communicating, gaming, etc. People are now constantly in touch with the world and their friends. Nothing happens in a vacuum anymore. Witness Mitt's 47% moment. 30 years ago, heck 20 years ago that never sees the light of day. Today it was just sitting there on YouTube waiting to be discovered.

      It's a brand new paradigm. I do agree with others who have pointed out, money will simply move, but the point is, how do you counter sites like DK and TPM? You can't. You cannot advertise around our truth our relentless efforts to shine light on dark corners, to drag the Koch brothers kicking and screaming out into the light of day. No more hidden names doing back room deals. Oh the deals still happen, but the actors are now known. We can't be stopped. We can't be silenced. We can't be bought and we can't be fooled at least not on the level we were before...

      Progress 365 not just a slogan a goal - 300 progressive seats in the House and 65 progressive seats in the Senate.

      by jusjtim35 on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 11:55:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, and there's also a saturation point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW

      The presidential election in swing states is a good example of near-saturation.  One side may have more money than the other to run Ohio ads, but at some point it stops mattering much.  Iowa caucuses are another good example of a relatively information-saturated electorate.  In general, saturated elections are more likely to produce progressive outcomes, as the influence of big money is reduced.

      But most elections are far from the point of information saturation.  Think of "super Tuesday" primaries that depend more heavily on the media because candidates and scarce resources can't be everywhere.  A more critical example is U.S. House and state and local races, where I agree that money still holds heavy sway (and it's clear that the Kochs and CoC realize this).

      I've thought of writing a diary on these ideas, but in the current "money doesn't matter" atmosphere around here, I'm not sure anyone would pay attention.

      There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. -Thoreau

      by Frameshift on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 01:25:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In 2012, GOPer propaganda targeted their donors. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jusjtim35, DvCM, Mayfly, se portland

    Simple enough:

    1. White.

    2. Male.

    3. Paranoid.

    4. Old.

    There's one helluva lot of situational paranoia running around out there in America. Look at the television programs this fall and you will be "Revolution" and a new one "Red Dawn" that go off into paranoid fantasy.

    Canadians have plenty of guns. They rarely shoot each other. It's not done. Not to say that guns are anything useful. They're not -- but the big death tolls in America come with suicides and killing family and friends. Apparently Canadians have less messy ways to depart this life.

    American Crossroads did nothing but pump up communal delusions -- the crap Rush Limbaugh uses to leverage his dittohead fanatics and boss around the professional GOPers.

    It works to throw a "horse head" primary challenge up against the likes of Dick Lugar.

    It does not work to attract women, Hispanics, young people, or Blacks.

    We had good luck taking American Crossroads ads and echoing them to people who were not in the communal delusion / paranoid / Angry White Male target audience.

    Old white guys who are sane ??? Perfect for a call for sanity. Poaching can be quite successful.

    •  Good point. We have plenty of old (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jusjtim35, Mayfly, bontemps2012

      paranoid white guys around here who use the LTEs as a way to spew their hate and paranoia about Obama.  Funny thing, Mr. Light and I were watching The Dust Bowl the other day, and the rich people were calling FDR a "socialist".  I know they're old enough to remember it, or at least hear family stories about it, and they are all old enough to enjoy the fruits of Roosevelt's New Deal.  How that cycle comes around!

      Needless to say, too many old paranoid white people to overcome in this red county - we only pulled one local Dem out and that was because of the liberal county next door helping elect her. She and all the other Dems both local and national lost here in my county. Not from lack of trying!

      -6.50/-5.23 "Don't find fault, find a remedy." - Henry Ford

      by Merry Light on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 06:55:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  the $ value of volunteer work has to count too- (5+ / 0-)

    real volunteers- not paid volunteers that candidates like linda mcmahon had- are worth a fortune.

    "...i also also want a legally binding apology." -George Rockwell

    by thankgodforairamerica on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:49:01 AM PST

    •  Agreed... (3+ / 0-)

      In addition it can be argued that sharing stuff electronically are actually working as unpaid volunteers. I gave as much money as I could afford this election cycle, preferring to do it in two lump sums - one to OFA and one to the DNC to spread around as they saw fit - and my hearing loss makes me a bad candidate for GOTV work by phone. I live in CA and couldn't afford to travel to a swing state to help. I was also in a job interview process (I got it and it started October 1st), so being away from home was a bad idea the last few months of the election. I did what I could be being active online and like I said in the diary, I could see the effects I had on at least a few people. Maybe they would have come around to my point of view on their own, but why take chances?

      I consider myself an electronic volunteer for the Dems :-D. It was really all I could do, but I took on the task with gusto...

      Progress 365 not just a slogan a goal - 300 progressive seats in the House and 65 progressive seats in the Senate.

      by jusjtim35 on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 07:46:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jusjtim35, Lawrence, ivote2004

    Dems must continue to employ this new vehicle for dissemination of news. facts and outing the lies of the GOP.

    Since most the younger voters just so happens to be Dem, its imperative that the connection built during the election is carried forward and there is a huge need for them to be recruited as a partner during policy formulation, and the popularization, and implementation of the policies.

    A great place to start is health care and the ACA. Its important that the legislation be actualized and brought to life so the young guys and gals can actually feel, live and breath OBAMACARE!!

  •  Another benefit to online news (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jusjtim35, ivote2004, se portland

    is the potential for real time discussion with other Americans.

    Even the nasty, negative comments can help our side; someone who is low-information or relatively undecided might be perusing Fox Nation and suddenly come upon pages of racism and hatred, and might be totally turned off.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 11:34:01 AM PST

  •  Here's the rub - big money will always find a way (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jusjtim35, ivote2004

    to influence the political system. The old Rovian ad buy methods have obviously lost some of their influence. After Nate Silver, prognosticating talking heads on cable news now look like clueless jerks, making up any old narrative that suits their masters. But they have just started to understand the shifts in America's demographics and information sources. With Dems out there like Patrick Leahy, who knows what kind of restrictions will be on internet news sources and social networking. That's why I think we have a narrow window to get progressives into Congress while the old big time fixers like Leahy and Lieberman have to go.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 11:42:42 AM PST

  •  Great news for democracy and sanity (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jusjtim35, isabelle hayes, ivote2004

    I've been thinking it was strictly demographics.  You know, minorities becoming a larger % of voters, who this kind of advertising just doesn't sway, as opposed to my demo, older white males, who buy into the bs more readily.  I didn't have faith that the rest of us were actually getting wise to these old tricks, but your diary tells me that many people are getting info independently instead of from the tube.  

    I've been thinking lately, we older white people have handed this country to future generations in worse shape than we found it, so it's up to the minorities and younger people to come to the rescue.  Of course there's a few of us who have never fallen for the divide and conquer strategy, but just not enough.  

    Even my mom, who has always relied on the mainstream media but has never been swayed by it to vote for the bad guys, now gets her political news from the web.  

    Fantastic diary, I'm cheered up to know that things may actually start changing for the better.

  •  They don't necessarily need GOP victories (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly

    And in fact, the power in a two party system may inevitably end up split roughly equally the vast majority of the time.

    What they need is to shift the political playing field that both parties compete upon, as they have long done.  No one talked about global warming in this election (not until the last few days, anyway).  Whose victory was that?

    I think we dismiss the influence of money on our political process at our own peril.

    There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. -Thoreau

    by Frameshift on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 01:18:34 PM PST

  •  What about mid term elections? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, jusjtim35

    That is going to be our major problem. By 2012, current demographic trends will really hamstring Republican efforts. I think we have one more major election to get through before a lot of the crazy gets wrung out of the system.

    I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

    by Dave from Oregon on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 02:52:32 PM PST

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ivote2004

      2016 and 2020 are going to be big elections like this one, after that the GOP model won't work anymore, there simply won't be enough of their voter base left for them to crack 45% consistently.

      Also, I'm not dismissing money, merely pointing out it's not the be all and end all it once was at least not with the current advertising model.

      Progress 365 not just a slogan a goal - 300 progressive seats in the House and 65 progressive seats in the Senate.

      by jusjtim35 on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:52:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jusjtim35, Yamara

        From noteworthy seeds planted back in the 60's and 70's, and nurtured in the 80's and 90's.......

        2004 was the beginning of de-massified digital tools really sinking their teeth into American electoral politics. (Mnemonic: Howard Dean.) That was when the embryonic "iVote" began to kick in -- ergo iVote2004.

        2008 was a major and decisive victory in the long war of digital empowerment. After the Microprocessor Revolution, the Internetworking Revolution, the Personal Computing Revolution, and the World Wide Web Revolution, we were ready to take political power, and we did.

        But there was no assurance that we could keep that power.

        We got ahead of ourselves in 1992-2000, as Clinton-Gore foreshadowed the politics of the 21st Century. But although we controlled the White House, and Gore clearly saw the power of the digital and the urgency of the environmental, we didn't control the Establishment, and we frightened the hell out of them, and too much of the infrastructure and economy was still vested in the old MassMedia/MassMarketing/MassProduction world. So 2000 was the make-or-break backlash by the established interests; the old empire knew they had to grab the ball back, no matter what the cost, while they still could, and so they did what they did in 2000.

        The team that grabbed the 2000 election thought that 2012 would be a repeat, because they failed to understand the nature of the war, the nature of progress, the underlying dynamics, the bigger picture.

        For those of us who do understand the bigger picture, the real question for 2012 was: could we solidify? Would we still be on a 2 steps forward 1 step back rhythm (as 2010 hinted), or had our digitally-empowered-demographics matured to hold our gains and support forward movement and acceleration?

        As of Nov 6, we have our answer.

        IMHO, in 2020 we'll look back at 2012 and see it as the confirming battle in our winning of the war. But hindsight is what is 2020, and we're not there yet ;)

        So 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 all will require continued diligence from our team, no doubt about it. But the longterm strategic weight now shifts to accepting and owning that we have won -- we are in power, now -- and turn our main attention and our most potent digital artillery toward a much more important challenge, a much more challenging challenge.

        And that challenge -- a challenge that must be central to the 2016 discourse, and will be make-or-break by 2020 -- is essentially this:

        halting our destabilizing influence on climate;

        transitioning so that human culture become a steward of, rather than a cancer upon, the earth;

        nursing our shared and sacred ecosystem back to health;

        ensuring our planet remains habitable;

        establishing the foundations for long and harmonious cohabitation with our fellow lifeforms;

        and opening the possibility that we may someday earn our right to visit the stars.

        #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

        by ivote2004 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:49:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Triumph of the nerds (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jusjtim35

    First, thanks for bring this up. I have been thinking about it for a while. Yes there is a demographic shift in America, but just as big is smart phones and social networking.

    But the Obama campaign was smart with their T.V. ad buying too. By using detailed data collected from set top boxes, they were able to target the people they most needed to reach, the people on the fence and the sporadic voters. And they did it at a fraction of the cost that the Romney campaign sent, because they bought air time on places like the Food Network.

    Washington Post: Obama campaign took unorthodox approach to ad buying

    The team bought detailed data on TV viewing by millions of cable subscribers, showing which channels they were watching, sometimes on a second-by-second basis. The information — which is collected from set-top cable boxes and sold by a company called Rentrak — doesn’t show who was watching, but the campaign used a third-party company to match viewing data to its own internal list of voters and poll responses.

    Davidsen said the campaign sought to reach two broad categories of voters: people who were still on the fence and Obama supporters who were sporadic voters.

    The team’s calculations showed that it would get the most bang for its buck in some strange places: the Family Channel, the Food Network and the Hallmark Channel, among others. On broadcast TV, the campaign went for more daytime programs and late-night entertainment shows than Republican nominee Mitt Romney did.

    It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

    by se portland on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 06:05:24 AM PST

    •  MATH! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      se portland

      It's why we dems will hopefully be kicking GOP ass for the next several elections...

      Progress 365 not just a slogan a goal - 300 progressive seats in the House and 65 progressive seats in the Senate.

      by jusjtim35 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 08:22:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site