Republicans and Web 2.Doh?

A recent story from Robert Cox in the Washington Examiner discusses the role of Web 2.0 in the online political world.  His thesis is that Republicans are falling behind in the Web 2.0  world, and that this represents a serious problem in the future elections.

The essence of his argument is two fold - Democrats have built a large online donor base through Obama and Clinton, and raised $10 million from donors who can give more money. Republicans have done very little. 

In the first quarter of this year, Democratic candidates raised almost $80 million, far ahead of the Republican candidates, who combined raised just over $50 million. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised $6.9 million over the Internet from 50,000 individuals, most of whom gave in small amounts. That means they can be tapped again during the campaign. More than 8,000 individuals signed up as volunteers through the Obama Web site.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., raised $4.2 million over the Internet. The Republican candidates did not break out online contributions separately but all of this suggests the gap will only grow wider over the course of the 2008 election cycle.

The second argument is that the search engine Google and Wikipedia will combine to drive Republican messages out from casual searches done for political reasons.

It's an interesting argument - highly flawed in his conclusions, but funny enough, the title is actually correct.  Lemme explain.

Fundraising:  Republicans are coming off a disappointing time for their elected officials.  The 2006 elections were about dissatisfaction with the Republican party, so a smaller percentage of individuals giving money is to be expected.  Democrats are coming off a charged election with high motivation to take back the White House, and Barack Obama is injecting youthful enthusiasm into a race with Hillary Clinton - a dynamic that simply doesn't appear on the Republican side.

Yes, the Democrats built a strong presence of small donors, but in 2004, Republicans owned the small money contributor.  But political donations are not the same as a Web 2.0 community.  Republicans have the donors - they just aren't giving money because they are not enthused. 

Will Obama contributors give to Hillary?  What about vice-versa?  It's a poor data set to make assumptions, and you're better off going with the hard numbers from 2004 than the 1Q 2007 numbers for the primary.  The election is still 18 months away.

As for the Google/Wikipedia nexus - the idea that there still exist internet neophytes that will unwittingly be led to Wikipedia during a Google search and buy the information hook, line, and sinker would be laughable if it were even remotely true.  To get a good read on the situation, you'd have to analyze just the political terms and the political entries on Wikipedia, and compare them to total click results on Google searches. 

I don't think too many people are going to Wikipedia from searches on "presidential candidate health plans," and the sheer number of political bloggers on both sides will overwhelm Google's ability to selectively target Republican blogs.  Google can do damage to the Republicans by giving money from their ultra-rich founders, but they aren't going to make too many base changes on their search algorithms to change the way people think.  I mean, come on.  That's tinfoil hatland.

But I said Robert Cox was right in his title, if not his analysis, and this is where Republicans should get a little nervous. Digital formations created by Web 2.0 communities have a terrific advantage in organizing small groups and giving them megaphones. Ask Trent Lott, Joe Lieberman or JL Kirk.

Web 2.0 ultimately is about organization by the masses - not control by the parties.  If the Democrats ever get their act together on National Security, or if the mass of the American public really decides things are really getting out of hand, the Web 2.0 crowds will self-organize and propel candidates to real election victories (not Ned Lamont pyrrhic victories). 

Understanding how to build a community is a valuable skill for politicians to have, and right now, the Left is the only group with people who know how to do it online.  At the same time, the abilities of small groups to generate results is often countered by the larger public's disdain for partisan politics.  Look to France for their runoff several years ago between Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen.  After an initial victory to get into the runoff, Le Pen lost to something like 80% of the French voters. 

Small groups do not a movement make.  At the same time, the use of small internet groups to advance political strategies is in its infant stages.  If Republicans want to compete, they better get started.

More from Jonah Goldberg.  Girl from the South. Lorie Byrd (good comments from the Wizbang readers)