tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19616804520367065662024-03-08T07:22:19.477-08:00Jeff GulatiJeff Gulatihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903273736416399042noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961680452036706566.post-80989954433139511342007-08-31T13:06:00.001-07:002007-08-31T13:06:16.782-07:00Will social networking sites have an impact on the 2008 presidential campaign?<span xmlns=''><p><strong><em>Will social networking sites have an impact on the 2008 presidential campaign?<br /></em></strong></p><p><br /> </p><p><span style='font-size:13pt'><strong>A study of the 2006 congressional elections points to a connection between campaign activity on Facebook and electoral success.<br /></strong></span></p><p><br /> </p><p><span style='color:black'>Christine Williams and Jeff Gulati, Bentley College<br /></span></p><p><br /> </p><p><br /> </p><p><strong>Online Social Networks introduced as 2006 Election Tool<br /></strong></p><p><span style='font-size:10pt'>Facebook launched its <em>Election Pulse</em> feature in September 2006, providing generic profiles to candidates running for a congressional or gubernatorial seat. Each profile included the candidate's name, office, state and party affiliation. The candidates were provided with log-in information and passwords, which allowed them to manage their profiles during the campaign. <br /></span></p><p><br /> </p><p><span style='font-size:10pt'>Once the candidates took possession of their sites, they could personalize their profiles in the same way open to any member. They could post photographs, summarize their qualifications for office and major accomplishments, list their favorite television programs, movies, books and other interests. Facebook profiles also provide the capability for the candidate to publicize their support for a number of existing political groups, causes and other candidates, post notes to their supporters, and post and respond to comments on their wall.<br /></span></p><ul><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>Facebook's efforts with <em>Election Pulse </em>and its streamlining of the process for connecting candidates and supporters seemed to encourage a substantial number of candidates to integrate the site into their online strategies.<br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>32% of candidates running for the Senate updated their <em>Election Pulse</em> profile in some way over the course of our study.<br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>13% of candidates running for the House updated their profile.<br /></span></li></ul></li><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>Although MySpace and YouTube received considerably more press coverage and hype in 2006, the candidates clearly directed more of their attention to Facebook when considering how to use online social networking sites to mobilize supporters. <br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Only 21% of the Senate candidates and only 2.7% of the House candidates had profiles on MySpace. Excluding profiles created by someone not officially affiliated with the campaign suggests that, at best, only 12% of Senate candidates and 2.3% of House candidates had a legitimate campaign on MySpace. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Even fewer candidates campaigned on YouTube. Only 13 of 130 Senate candidates created their own "channels," where the candidates could post videos and allow "subscribers" to their channels to share videos with other supporters. Not one of the 1,102 House candidates had their own channel. <br /></span></li></ul></li></ul><p><span style='font-size:10pt'>On each profile, Facebook displayed the number of supporters for each candidate and provided a continuous snapshot of each candidate's percentage of "votes" in his or her race. Candidates need not have accessed their profiles to gain supporters. <br /></span></p><ul><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>Most Democratic and Republican Senate candidates had supporters in the triple digits with an average of 2,146 supporters. <br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) had the most support among Senate candidates, with 12,038 Facebook users having registered themselves as supporters by October. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Four other Democrats—Bob Casey (PA), Harold Ford (TN), Sherrod Brown (OH), and Ned Lamont (CT)—exceeded 5,000 supporters. Nine of the top 10 candidates were Democrats. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>The most successful Republican candidate and sixth overall was Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), who registered support from 4,981 Facebook members. <br /></span></li></ul></li><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>The average number of supporters for Democratic and Republican House candidates was 125. As was the case for the Senate, House Democratic candidates were more popular than Republican candidates with the Facebook community. <br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) had the most support among House candidates, with 913 members registered as supporters even though she had not personalized her profile by October. <span style='color:black'><br /> </span></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS), Patty Wetterling (MN), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Rep. Marion Berry (AR) also were among the most popular House candidates on Facebook. <span style='color:black'><br /> </span></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>The Republican with the most support and ranked 9<sup>th</sup> overall was then-Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), with 580 supporters. <span style='color:black'><br /> </span></span></li></ul></li><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>In general, the decision to campaign with Facebook is a clear reflection of partisan differences in mobilization strategies that finds Democrats more eager than Republicans to use the Internet as a way to communicate with their supporters. <br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>61% of Democratic Senate candidates updated their Facebook profile, but only 39% of Republican candidates did the same. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Among House candidates, there was no statistical difference between the two parties: 17% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans updated their Facebook profile.<br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>In both Senate and House races, minor-party candidates lagged behind the major-party candidates. <br /></span></li></ul></li></ul><p><br /> </p><p><br /> </p><p><br /> </p><p><span style='font-size:10pt'><strong>Which candidates were more likely to use Facebook? <br /></strong></span></p><p><br /> </p><ul><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>Among House candidates, the most likely to update their Facebook profile were:<br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>challengers<br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>better-financed candidates<br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>candidates running in competitive races <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>candidates running in districts with a higher percentage of college graduates<br /></span></li></ul></li><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>Among Senate candidates, the most likely to update their Facebook profile were:<br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Democrats<br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>candidates running in competitive races <br /></span></li></ul></li></ul><p style='text-align: center'><br /> </p><p><span style='font-size:10pt'><br /> <strong>Did Facebook Matter in 2006?<br /></strong></span></p><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Incumbents who updated their Facebook profile did not perform any differently in terms of final vote percentages than incumbents who did not update their profile. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Incumbents who ran against challengers who updated also did not perform any differently in terms of final vote percentages than those who did not. <br /></span></li><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>The number of the incumbents' Facebook supporters and the challengers' supporters indicates that a candidate's' Facebook activity had a significant effect on the incumbent's final outcome. <br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>A 1% percent increase in number of Facebook supporters for incumbents increased their final vote percentage by .011. Put another way, an incumbent who had 100% more supporters than another incumbent (i.e., twice as many supporters) would have finished with a vote share that was 1.1% higher than the other incumbent. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>A 1% increase in the number of Facebook supporters for challengers reduced incumbents' vote percentage by .015. At the same time, if the incumbent's opponent had twice as many supporters as the other incumbent's opponent, he or she would have finished with a vote share that was 1.5% lower.<br /></span></li></ul></li><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>Social networking sites had an even larger impact in open-seat races: <br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>open-seat candidates who updated their Facebook profile had a 3.8% higher vote share than candidates who did not update their profiles. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>open-seat candidates who doubled the number of supporters (i.e., increased their support by 100%) increased their final vote share by 3%. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>open-seat candidates running against challengers who doubled the number of their supporters saw their vote share decrease by 2.4%. <br /></span></li></ul></li><li><div><span style='font-size:10pt'>While these results suggest that the impact of Facebook has the potential to be substantial, it is important to note that there is a diminishing return associated with adding more supporters. <br /></span></div><ul><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>For example, increasing the number of supporters for an incumbent from 100 to 200, would add 1.1% to an incumbent's vote share. But to add another 1.1%, 200 more supporters would need to be added. Another 1.1% increase would require 400 additional supporters. <br /></span></li><li><span style='font-size:10pt'>Moreover, no candidate is adding supporters in a vacuum. Presumably, the challenger also is adding supporters, making the net effect somewhat minimal. <br /></span></li></ul></li></ul><p style='text-align: center'><br /> </p><p style='text-align: center'><br /> </p><p> </p></span>Jeff Gulatihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903273736416399042noreply@blogger.com0