How Scott Brown Used the Internet to Change the World of Politics

Tomorrow it will be the one year anniversary of Republitech and thus one year since Obama has been sworn in. It is rather fitting that today is the special election in Massachusetts to replace Senator Ted Kennedy. A Republican named Scott Brown looks like he might beat Democrat Martha Coakley in a state that has not sent a Republican to congress in well over a decade. While we won't know until later tonight who will win, it is an excellent lesson on how Republicans have an opportunity to seize the moment and leverage technology.

We have been hearing a lot about Brown's campaign. However, there are some things his campaign has been doing quite well that have not been highly publicized. The first comes from a CNN article that caught my eye - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/15/first-on-the-ticker-gop-candidate-saturates-google-with-ads/. It was last month that I talked about the power of pay-per-click ads, specifically Google's tools (See post here). There are two things I want to highlight with Brown's Google ads. First, he started early. It got him name recognition, traffic to his website, and most critically donations in the early stage of his campaign. Second, his campaign clearly has spent time developing a pay-per-click strategy. They have a focused keyword strategy going after those searching for "Martha Coakley." Since Coakley is not buying advertising on Google at all, Brown has had free reign on both his name and his opponents. In other words, you are going to get pro-Brown ads no matter if you are searching for Brown or Coakley.

There is one "mistake" I noticed after doing some quick searches on Google. While the campaign is in Massachusetts, the race has become a national sensation. I could not find any ads on Google for either candidate. This is most likely because Brown has limited his ads to the state of Massachusetts (I am in Ohio). People all over the country have been motivated to lend support (money, phone banking from their house, etc). Why not reach out to them through Google ads? The only thing I found was this:

It is an ad with a link to a form to allow you to donate money to support Coakley (albeit somewhat indirectly through the DSCC). There should be Republican ads popping up.

The second facet of Brown's online strategy I want to discuss is that of social media. I read this interesting blog post just the other day written by Professor William A. Jacobson (Cornell Law School) - http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/01/brown-massacres-coakley-online.html. The charts Jacobson provides are quite telling. Brown is a topic that people are finding very interesting and talking about. Some of this is probably due to the recent national attention the race has been given, but there are two candidates in this race. Voters are finding Brown's social media efforts to be engaging, helpful, and motivating. Coakley appears to be uninteresting. Interestingly enough, in the previous CNN article Coakley's campaign's excuse for not running Google ads was to focus on social media. Clearly her campaign has failed. I also want to point out that so many people have taken interest in Brown's social media outlets that he is receiving positive and free grassroots advertising. Take a look at the YouTube videos at the end of the blog post that were created by average citizens mocking Coakley's campaign strategies.

Don't get me wrong, Scott Brown is a great candidate beyond what he has done with technology. He is active, motivated, respected, thoughtful and unlike his opponent, he is gaffe free. Even so, in a state like Massachusetts a Republican is going to have to be way above and beyond their opponent. The lessons from Brown's campaign are clear. Online campaign is not a theory. it is not a fad. It is a communication tool that gets the Republican's message out and it has put Obama in a very awkward spot.

Below are some of Brown's online resources. Please check them out!
Website - http://www.brownforussenate.com/
Twitter - http://twitter.com/scottbrownma
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Brown/178795233167
YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/user/scottbrownma

The next post will be February 2nd.

Impact of Social Media

Today I would like to share with you what is perhaps my favorite video of all time. It was created by the blog Socialnomics which is managed by Erik Qualman. The video is called Social Media Revolution:


The stats which you see are well researched. I have seen similar numbers from multiples sources and Socialnomics does provide a list of citations if you would like to look them up.

While the video focuses on business, many of the same principles apply to campaigns. A campaign's "product" is the candidate and his or her platform. Finding people to volunteer and work for the campaign is not that much different from finding potential employees (although you are looking more for a specific passion rather than a specific skill). All this information should at the very least show the vast opportunities that lay out there in social media.

I could go into detail about each statement the video made, but that would create a ridiculously long post. I have in the past touched on many of the specific issues, but I would like to address an important concluding point of the video. It states "We no longer search for the news, the news finds us..." That, in summary, is the point of social media. Campaigns have the ability to send out information and news through social media and deliver it straight to the voter. And if that does not happen, then someone's friend, family member, or co-worker will forward those news items to them. Part of any social network, even off-line and in person, involve sharing ideas and opinions. The Internet has just enabled this to happen effortlessly on a massive scale.

I do want to end with one word of warning. Consider demographics before buying into social media. Know how your constituency reacts to various social media outlets. Additionally, those voters on Facebook, Twitter, etc are going to have a different demographic make up than your district in general. A couple of years ago I would have said the main difference is age. Today that is a difficult claim to make. Some polls suggest that Twitter is having difficulty being popular with teenagers because too many of their parent's generation are using it (thus of course making Twitter "uncool"). In any case just be aware that the audience on social media may be different.

I encourage you to visit Socialnomics, read some of the posts, and watch the other videos.

The next post will be December 8th.

Republicans and New Media

About a month ago the Ohio Erie County GOP Chairman Mathew Old asked be to put together a document with my ideas on how Republicans can leverage new media. My hope is that this document can help campaigns begin to think about new media and ask important questions. Below is the link to the document and the summary.

Republicans and New Media (pdf)

Many will argue that "traditional" media has evolved over time. In many ways, it has. From the written word, to the radio, to the television it seems the dynamic of media is on a continuous and steady march. However, in the past few years there has been a fundamental revolution in media. It is the advent of the Internet. Traditional media is all one way communication; the advertiser has all the power, controlling the information while the public is at the mercy of billboards and commercials. The majority of the public does not have the resources to broadcast their thoughts and opinions to millions of people. With the arrival of the Internet, individuals have just as much power as the advertiser. They can write a post on a blog that will reach just as many people, if not more, than a TV ad. They can tweet and Facebook their friends about their positive or negative opinions. Many organizations fail to understand the multidirectional nature of communication on the Internet. They are stuck in the traditional media mentality and end up annoying customers with spam and failing to address complaints that are instantly shared with millions of fellow users.

Corporations are just now realizing that the Internet has given their consumers more power than their own PR departments. For the most part, political campaigns are even farther behind. The 2008 election gave rise to one political organization that clearly understands and respects the complex and powerful nature of the Internet: the Obama team. Obama’s new media campaign demonstrated that these technologies are relevant but no single organization can control the discussion. To be successful, a candidate must participate in the discussion, not lead it. They must use the opportunity to listen, not shout. They must sincerely engage voters, not spam them. A candidate must genuinely understand the paradigm shift, rather than simply jumping on the band wagon without understanding where the band wagon is going.

Republicans and New Media (pdf)

The next post will be Oct 13th.

The Public versus Private Solution

Recently, Audra Shay got into a bit of trouble leading up to the National Young Republican elections. Shay was running for the chairman's position and was favored to win. However, a few days before the election, a leftist blogger allegedly discovered what was described as racist comments on Shay's Facebook page. You will not find any of the comments on Shay's profile. The leftist blogger claims she cleaned her profile up after the contents became public. Whether or not Shay's Facebook comments were as "ignorant and racist" as the blogger claimed, there is still a lesson to be learned: the Internet, specifically social media like Facebook, is public.

Our society has faced difficult issues between the Internet and privacy. Politicians have also struggled with the public's right to know and privacy. By campaigning online, those two struggles have combined to create a tangled mess of ethical and moral issues. That is, is Facebook a private communication channel? But, if so, does the public have a right to see the contents of a public figure's Facebook? This post is not about what should be public realm and what should not, it is about risk management with your online resources. After all, an answer to the debate of politicians' rights to privacy and the public's right to knowledge has been waging long before the invention of the word "politics."

So what is a good risk management strategy? In my view it is actually pretty simple. If you are a politician, assume everything online is public. If you work for a politician, assume everything online is public. If you are related to a politician, assume everything online is public, et cetera. Traditionally, family was considered off limits and this was generally respected by opponents and most media outlets. However, bloggers are a different story. They are individuals who can say whatever they want. In the week leading up to the Young Republican elections, one of the top results on Google for "Young Republicans" was a blog post entitled "Young Republican Leader Audra Shay Is Crazy, Illiterate, Racist." Even the left wing media would not be so bold in naming their articles.

This problem also relates to a post of mine not to long ago about search engines, Be Seen With SEO. These blog posts were everywhere and a lot of them made it to the top search results for "Young Republicans." Even if what Shay was accused of was not true, it is still embarrassing to the organization and to the Republican Party. It is true that after a while most of these posts will lose their position in Google searches, but some will still linger. For example, The Huffington Post has enough traffic and enough weight for Google to continue ranking it's anti-Young Republican post about Shay pretty high.

Really you should consider the Internet and public speech the same thing. This goes for all forms of online resources: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and even email. Just as a private written letter can be leaked, so can an email. In some ways the Internet is even more dangerous then the other forms of communication as it automatically creates a record of every little thing you do. The point is: pay attention to what you and those around you say and do online!

This post should not discourage you from using the Internet. If you have considered your risk management strategy for the Internet, it should be no more harmful then when you give a speech. I have stated before that the Internet is a wonderful thing for politics. It helps you engage and interact with thousands of people you would have otherwise never met on the campaign trail. You just have to be responsible online.

True Grassroots

The growth in online social networks have created what could be described as true grassroots movements. The recent examples are the Tea Party protests that have been occurring the past couple of months (concentrated on or around Tax Day) across the country. There protests were not coordinated by a political party, organization, or by one single individual. They were started and organized by the local population.

Traditionally to hold events like this across the country, all with significant turn out, you would need an organization and a lot of resources. Communication would be slow and one way (top down). There would be a few individuals as the leaders and spokespersons which all the ideas and direction would come from. However, as the Tea Parties demonstrated, social networking tools enable a network to be created over night by ordinary people. The tools that were used were Facebook, blogs, text-messaging, chat forums, and the like. This has allowed the movement to be truly reflective of what citizens want. No established organization is giving them mission statements or talking points. It is just people expressing their opinions. Although the Tea Parties had common themes and messages, each demonstration was uniquely organized and independently run.

The Republican Party should approach this true grassroots movements with caution but optimism. On the caution side, these types of movements can be directed against a party itself, including the Republican Party. Economic conservatives do not hold a monopoly on true grassroots movements. Their cause and the emergence of technology simply aligned at the right time to make them one of the first major users. Republican leaders need to recognize that this is a movement lead by citizens, not elected officials. The Wall Street Journal reported on a few Tea Party demonstration including the one in Chicago. RNC Chairman Michael Steele asked if he could speak at the event. Organizers politely turned him down saying "With regards to stage time, we respectfully must inform Chairman Steele that RNC officials are welcome to participate in the rally itself, but we prefer to limit stage time to those who are not elected officials, both in Government as well as political parties. This is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around." A true grassroots movement should be spoken by the people and listened to by elected officials.

But this is where the optimism for the GOP can come in. Republican leaders and elected officials should listen and really listen to the true grassroots movements within their constituency. Michael Steele was asked not to speak, but he was invited to listen. Republican officials should always accept opportunities to listen. With awareness to new technologies this should be easy. Keep an eye on blogs within your community, stay active on sites like Facebook, and always have an eye out for new and creative ways your constituents come up with to use technology to organize. With true grassroots movements, leaders should be able to be more responsive and better address the concerns of their constituencies. By no means am I suggested elected leaders should stick their finger into the wind of grassroots movements to make the decisions. But an elected official is a representative of his/her constituency. The Tea Parties were about excessive government spending and fortunately the Republican Party is listening and looking for solutions while the Democrats did not hear anything.

The next post will be May 12th.

References:

The Wall Street Journal Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html

Small Campaigns can Think Big

Much attention has been focused on what the major campaigns are doing. For example, we see thousands of dollars and whole technical teams dedicated to the technology aspect of campaigns for President. But what about the smaller campaigns? If Republicans truly want to revolutionize how they campaign with technology, every campaign from the bottom on up needs to take a moment to look at their options.

First, let us take a look at what a small campaign may have. Money is probably not one of them, but that does not preclude an Internet strategy for that campaign. Small campaigns also have smaller constituencies (geographically and population). Small campaigns need to look at technology somewhat differently because of these two facts.

So how does a small campaign leverage what it has to create a meaningful campaign online? Due to limited resources, they should focus their purpose. Larger campaigns have the luxury of being able to pursue multiple strategies and directions on the Internet simultaneously. Smaller campaigns probably will not have the money to invest in server space, custom programming, and high end database software. My recommendation for small campaigns would be to focus on a communication strategy on the Internet. That is, focusing on informing rather then networking. You should still have a social networking strategy, Facebook and LinkedIn are both free, but do not invest a lot of time and efforts in those areas. While communication can be done outside the Internet, things such as electronic newsletters, blogs, and articles on your website make informing your constituency far easier.

The reason I say that you should focus on communicating rather then networking is, since you have a small constituency, you can do a lot of networking in person. Shaking a person's hand leaves a bigger impression then Facebook "friending" them. The Internet should be used as a supplement to networking. People can forgive Obama and McCain for only reaching out to them in cyberspace because it is difficult for a Presidential candidate to meet all 350 million Americans. Social networks help big campaigns connect individuals with their communication channels. They do not state their positions on current issues, but they do show links to their web sites, blogs, and video that does explain. However, for a local campaign, people expect the individual to be seen in the community. You already have a way for you constituency to find your communication channels, the physical world. Social networking online can be done for smaller campaigns, but, depending on your constituency, you may not get a lot of excitement or support. I do not want to discourage you from creating a Facebook profile (you should have one to begin with) but I also do not want the Internet to sound like a cure all in politics.

Focusing on communication will strengthen your constituency's loyalty. Hometown offices deal with hometown issues. These issues have a bigger impact (or at least a more tangible impact) than national ones. Sure, people care about diplomatic relations with the European Union, but more likely individuals will have a stronger opinion about local zoning laws with that new factory coming into town. Communicating on a regular basis with the community will strength you relationship with local citizens. It will show you are engaged, and that you intend to engage and involve them on these issues.

Smaller campaigns not only lack the funding, but also are limited to a small number of part time volunteers. Now, I do not want to downplay the role of volunteers in a political campaign. They are the heart and soul of the campaign. The problem I am pointing out is that for someone running for a position like city council member of a small town, the likelihood that one of the volunteers understand programming or social networking is small, not to mention one who has enough free time to get meaningful projects turned around in a reasonable time. But, being a small campaign you may have a way of finding some volunteers. Use you personal network to see if you can find anyone to help you out. A lot of times you might find a high school or college student who is willing to help for free. That is how I first got involved in online political campaigning. I volunteered to do some web work for free for a couple of local campaigns. If you have a little extra money, it may pay to hire a graphic designer to make you sites a little sleeker.

Finally, a small campaign should think in the long term, especially if you are early in your political career. If you build a website, the domain name should not be tied to the particular campaign you are in. What I mean is rather then picking "www.smithforcitycouncil.com" you should pick something like "www.votesmith.com." That way when you move along your political career you save money and the hassle of switch names. Also, voters will be familiar with the site already and wont have to go digging around for your new URL. This is one place where online social networking might be more worth the time. You will have a prebuilt network every time you run. Even if the network is small compared to the size of your constituency, starting with a network will make it easier to expand then if you were starting from scratch.

Whether you take my advice or not, the important thing for Republicans is that the discussion on technology takes place at every level of the party. Smaller campaigns may need to prioritize, but campaign strategies involving the Internet should still be included as options.

The next post will be April 28th.

The Database

Today's post is going to build off of the ideas of virtual networking from the last post. However, rather then using pre-existing websites, I am going to explain the power of building your own custom internal database. The pre-existing systems such as Twitter and Facebook are cheap and easily assessable to both the politician and the voter. However, they have their limits and are dependent on decisions made by external third parties (namely the developers) whose goals and objectives may not align with your campaigns. Creating your own database gives you total control of the information which can be used for benefit a political career in both the short and long term.

First, I want to clarify one thing. I am not suggesting in any way that you must choose between pre-built external systems and having your own custom internal databases. Both strategies should be employed given that a campaign has the resources. Furthermore, I am not suggesting building your own social networking site. While your own site may have social networking features, you should not create something that rivals pre-existing sites like Facebook and MySpace. If you want to use something like Facebook, use Facebook. Your constituents are already using Facebook so there is little cost to them to connect to you. If you have the resources to use both external pre-existing and internal custom systems, do so, but use them in a way that takes advantage of each in their own unique ways rather then creating unnecessary and costly redundancies.

So what exactly do I mean by a custom internal database? The simple explanation is that it is a list of voters and information related to each voter. The more complex explanation is creating a set of interrelated tables linked by relational elements that contains information about various groups of voter data sets. These data sets can be subjected to programmatic equations and expressions to create a report that interprets the raw data as facts and trends. I am not trying to show off with how complicated I can make it sound, but I want to emphasize that creating a useful database is not something you can do in an afternoon. To have your own system be helpful it should lean more on the complex side. It will pay off in the long run to hire someone who understands relational databases really well rather then have someone on staff figure it out. The point of this post to explain the application of such systems, not their interworkings, so my first definition of a database being a list of voters and information related to each of those voters will be the most useful.

A well designed database can give you extremely useful information. Most obvious is streamlining communication such as emailing, phone banking, door-to-door, and even old fashion mailings. Creating a list of voters and their addresses should be as simple as a click. Each report can be custom tailored which can have criteria such as party affiliation or geographic location. Rather then compiling a new report for every event, a few search terms and a click can get you there. Even more exciting is that your internal database can use public data such as voting trends in particular areas during primary season and combine it with on the ground experience your volunteers have with phone banking or going door-to-door. Have your volunteers keep track of how receptive the voter is to your candidacy. Later, assuming your database has been designed well, you can mine your own database to discover trends. You may need to target your message more to a certain area or demographic, or perhaps a certain city is donating more then others. I could go on and on about all the different types of analysis, but right now I just want to demonstrate how vast the possibilities are.

Let us take a look at the most famous internal database, the one Obama built for his Presidential Campaign. Take a look at a few of the facts regarding his database. According to NPR, his database has over 13 million email address. This includes those who volunteered on his campaign, attended his rallies, donated, or just signed up for his newsletters. With a simple click of a button, Obama could send out an email to each address to keep the votes focused on his message and ask loyal followers for donations.

And what has happened to Obama's database? Mike Allen of Politico.com recently explained "The database...will now be used as a unique tool for governing, with former canvassers now being enlisted to mobilize support for the president’s legislative agenda." He is now using his network to help him lead the nation as President. One could make the argument that this is responsible governance. He is using his campaign network to help the nation, not just himself. To a certain extent you must give him credit for a creative approach. However, this will only reinforce the Democrats agenda and will limit the extent of the debate. We should be on the look out for it turning into a government funded propaganda machine. In any case, this new use of the database will help Obama come November 2012. His followers from 2008 will continuously receive information and invitations to participate in government. This will make those voters feel respected by Obama and they will be more likely to turn out with the same amount of energy as they did for him the first time. They will also be constantly told how great Obama's plans are. Obama is not going to use his own database to be critical of himself.

Even though an internal custom database sounds like something only major campaigns use, it could be applied to smaller campaigns. The idea should be very appealing to up and coming politicians looking at establishing relationships with constituents for the long run. This election cycle you are running for city council, next you may be running for state senate. Having your database by your side will give you research about your constituency and access to contact information to those who have and will continue to support you. Moreover, any campaign that has a constituency spanning multiple geographic or demographic groups can benefit from the information that can be generated from voter data. It will help you run a more focused and engaging campaign.

What ever you may do, I have two points that you should consider before embarking on a project of this scale. First, pay attention to election and privacy laws when it comes to saving voter information past election day. Second, this should not be considered a do-it-yourself or simple job. The design of the database is extremely important and generating truly useful reports will require someone with a background in coding. You will quickly be frustrated with a poorly designed database.

The next post will be on April 14th.

References:

NPR article on Obama's database -
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97722217

Mike Allen's Politico.com article on Obama's database -
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html

The Power of Social Networking Sites

The other day I was browsing around on Facebook when I thought it would be fun to see what State Senator Kirk Schuring was doing with the Facebook network and tools I had built up for his run for Congress. The fact that his fan page no longer existed did not surprise me. The fan page was for his run for his Congressional campaign and not him personally. Since the election was several month ago and he lost it seemed appropriate that it was removed. The thing that did shock me was the fact that Kirk Schuring's Facebook profile was also gone. If I did not know better, the assumption would be Sen. Schuring is leaving politics all together.

As of writing this I have not heard back from my former contact close to Schuring on the topic. However, I feel that this is a very important topic that needs discussing. I do not mean just Sen. Schuring's Facebook page, but all politicians and all social networking sites. "Networking," the meeting and greeting a wide variety of people who typically hold important positions, has been a keystone to a political career since the beginning of time. Pessimists often call this "knowing the right people." However, I want to point out getting to know people in your constituency personally not only helps one get elected, it is also responsible governance. Our political leaders should have a well established communication line with business, labor, and other organizations who are all stake holders of government in a democracy. Not too long ago this meant picking and choosing who to talk to on a regular basis to form specific points of contact within a constituency. The realities of time and resources limited politicians to just communicating frequently with those in key positions like business executives, union leaders, and other politicians. When you are competing for a constituency as large as say a U.S. House of Representatives' seat, it does not make sense to ask hundreds of thousands of people "What do you expect from your government?" You would get more meaningful and useful information by talking to those who represent various interesting within your constituency.

Within the past few years, the very definition of networking has changed. Of course talking and getting to know those traditional points of contacts are still important. The Internet, however, has allowed the politician to make everyone a meaningful point of contact. Again, this is not just a great way to get elected, but a responsible step for a politician to take to better represent his constituency. Take Facebook for an example. As described before, Facebook allows an individual running for office to reach out to anyone else with a Facebook profile. Multiple individuals can describe to you very quickly and efficiently what is on their mind and how they feel towards certain policies. You can also send out information on your campaign, activities you are currently engaged in, or what ever position you currently hold. It gets everyone in your constituency involved.

Now, I understand that there is a concern with the perceived generational divide. The younger generation uses the Internet and does not vote, while the older generation votes but does not use the Internet. Let me briefly touch on that issue. The fact that the younger generation uses the Internet but does not vote should be viewed as an opportunity. Think of them as a massive group of undecided voters. If you want to bring them in, why not reach out using a medium of communication they enjoy using? Spark an interest in politics, and you may have a life long follower of your future campaigns and the Republican party itself. The second problem, of the older generation voting but not using the Internet, probably deserves more credit then the first problem. The Schuring for Congress campaign did have individuals complain that too much was being done via the Internet and not traditional mailings. Stories like these motivate campaigns to dismiss bold new ideas with technology, especially ones that have very limited resources and man power. Why not do what has worked for them in the past. To just say times have changed would be unfair, even if true. I have seen the older generation begin to give in to these new technologies, especially those on the Internet. To give anecdotal evidence, last week while in a hotel an older gentleman asked if I could help him with the computer set aside for guests to use. His problem was that the screen's resolution was set way to low. It was an easy fix for someone who frequently uses computers, and understandably confusing for someone who does not. When he began to use the computer, I could not help but notice he did not know how to type. It was very obvious that this man has rarely used computers (or typewriters) in his life. However, after all this, the older man's only goal that evening was to check his Facebook page.

So, now that we have a good cause for a social network online, how do we go about creating one? First, do not use just one online medium. I talk a lot about Facebook, but that should only be the foundation. Facebook is a great way to draw people in and organize your supporters (typically you search Facebook for an individual before you do on other sites) but you should do more. Try branching out. Create a YouTube page and post videos of speeches, events you have been to, or just a homemade video to help voters get to know you better. Set up a Flickr account to host photo galleries to show just how active in the community you really are. Start Twittering (see February 17th, 2009 post) to show how much time and thought you put toward governing. There are so many options, there is no way I could list them all in one post. Make sure that all your social network resources are tied together. That is, advertise your Facebook account on your Twitter, and vise versa. You want people to have reason to be engaged with your campaign, spend time at your sites, and most importantly, have a reason to keep coming back to revisit.

Another thing you absolutely need to do is start early and commit early. In the race between State Sen. Kirk Schuring (R) and State Sen. John Boccieri (D), one man started early and the other did not. Sen. Boccieri (now Rep. Boccieri) had his Facebook page built up before most Republican candidates even announced they were running in the primary. The Schuring campaign was just starting to dabble in Internet campaigning when I started working for them in the early part of that summer. There was never any excitement in the Schuring campaign about the Internet. Even the website was frequently neglected. Very rarely were the online resources used in conjunction with what was going happening on the ground. Every week I asked that the Internet sites, especially Facebook, be mentioned in the email newsletter. I wanted to advertise in many locations as possible to help build up a community of Schuring supporters. But every week, the newsletter lacked that information and frequently encouraged people to go to events that had already happened. The Internet was just too low of a priority for anything useful to get off the ground. On the other side, Boccieri's sites always seemed to be buzzing with activity. There were links to things such as the YouTube video of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland endorsing him and photos of his tour in Iraq. He had many "friends" on Facebook and frequently interacted with them. There were reasons to visit Boccieri online. His followers were with him from the day he announced his run all the way to when he won the election. His resources are still online as of writing this post.

Once the election is over, the next thing to do is continue to build the network. As a responsible leader, you can use the network to get opinions on issues facing your constituency. It helps you stay connected to the average person within your constituency. You should continue to meet and greet leaders in the community personally, but you should never forget who you work for, everyone. Even if you lost and do not hold an office, it is still important to hold on to that network. Those people believed in you once and will probably believe in you again. The next time you run, you will have already had a base built up that you can activate with a click of a button. These networks are great sources of donations and volunteers, not to mention, again, helping you better relate and lead your constituency. We should think twice before throwing a whole network away.

The next post will be on March 31st.

References:

Facebook -
http://www.facebook.com

Boccieri for Congress Facebook page -
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/John-Boccieri/8919181490?v=info&viewas=7725102

Twitter -
http://www.twitter.com

YouTube -
http://www.youtube.com

Flickr -
http://www.flickr.com