3 ms·

I didn't downvote you, but I do think you're mistaken. 1) Your source cites the November 2008 exit polls. The campaigning mentioned in the article was being do

I didn't downvote you, but I do think you're mistaken. 1) Your source cites the November 2008 exit polls. The campaigning mentioned in the article was being done through 2007, when Hillary Clinton still had her hat in the ring. Now, it's hard to use campaign donations as a gauge of support for presidential candidates (particularly among people who are too poor to even afford broadband). However it's easy to point out that Hillary Clinton's platform was more beneficial to the working class, whereas Barack Obama's vague Yes-We-Can appealed more to broadband-connected hipsters like me. As you can see from About's (pro-Clinton) US Liberals blog[1], half of the Obama campaign chest going into 2008 came from individual donors, whose email addresses were harvested on websites just like the one described in the OP. 2) I'll also dispute the claim that the poor have less access to broadband, having grown up so debilitatingly poor myself. In America, internet access is cheap, and even for the poor, the value of a fast, reliable internet connection far outweighs the cost. Those who are remain on dial-up connections are residents of low-density rural areas where broadband is unavailable. These people are a) unlikely to have been Obama supporters, and b) unlikely to have gone around donating campaign money on the Internet. 3) Barack Obama's was the most Internet-connected campaign in US history. If dial-up users were as large a chunk of his support base as you say they were, he would have spent a lot more time going door to door in Des Moines, and a lot less time on YouTube. [1] I wanted to link to the New York Times article, but it's probably more informative all around if I just link to a blog which quote-mines it. At least About.com doesn't make you log in. http://usliberals.about.com/b/2007/07/19/hard-truths-about-democratic-2008-fundraising-results.htm http://usliberals.about.com/b/2007/07/19/hard-truths-about-d...

lkrubner 16y ago
This is not a subject where anecdotal information reveals much, because the USA is diverse and few of us understand what all of the different population segments face, in terms of information access, or Internet access. According to Wikipedia the digital divide still exists, and income plays a role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide While it admits to several definitions of the divide, it mentions broadband access as one aspect of the problem. My original point remains: Obama had disproportionate support from those population segments that were likely to have limited broadband access, therefore video would be a poor choice for him. The larger point is that you can not generalize from this one example, mentioned in the originally linked article. Video was a poor choice for Obama, but might be a good choice for a new web startup that is pitched to a demographic where broadband access can be assumed.
- anthuswilliams 16y ago
  Of course the digital divide is affected by income, but you're missing key pieces of the story. 1) The digital divide between classes is negligible compared to the divide between rural and urban dwellers, particularly wrt broadband access[1]. Also, n.b. class based Internet analytics is prone to error, since the poorest segment of America lives in remote rural areas where broadband access is unavailable to begin with. 2) As I pointed out above, the OP was in reference to 2007, when the Democratic candidacy was still up in the air. Further, Barack Obama drew support (particularly individual campaign donations) from young Internet-savvy people, whereas the real blue-chip donations went to Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Chris Dodd). Your data is from the exit polls in 2008, after the Democrats had (more or less) formed into a united front. This makes your larger point untrue[2]. The data from the Obama campaign indicates that these particular videos were less effective than the images, and to assume this is due to bandwidth complaints is specious at best. [1]http://pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2006/Rural-areas-lagging-in-broadband-Internet.aspx http://pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2006/Rural-areas-laggi... [2] Well, it is true that you can't generalize from this one example, and that video may still be a good choice for web startups, but not for the reasons you suggest.

lkrubner 16y ago

This is not a subject where anecdotal information reveals much, because the USA is diverse and few of us understand what all of the different population segments face, in terms of information access, or Internet access. According to Wikipedia the digital divide still exists, and income plays a role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide While it admits to several definitions of the divide, it mentions broadband access as one aspect of the problem. My original point remains: Obama had disproportionate support from those population segments that were likely to have limited broadband access, therefore video would be a poor choice for him. The larger point is that you can not generalize from this one example, mentioned in the originally linked article. Video was a poor choice for Obama, but might be a good choice for a new web startup that is pitched to a demographic where broadband access can be assumed.

anthuswilliams 16y ago
Of course the digital divide is affected by income, but you're missing key pieces of the story. 1) The digital divide between classes is negligible compared to the divide between rural and urban dwellers, particularly wrt broadband access[1]. Also, n.b. class based Internet analytics is prone to error, since the poorest segment of America lives in remote rural areas where broadband access is unavailable to begin with. 2) As I pointed out above, the OP was in reference to 2007, when the Democratic candidacy was still up in the air. Further, Barack Obama drew support (particularly individual campaign donations) from young Internet-savvy people, whereas the real blue-chip donations went to Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Chris Dodd). Your data is from the exit polls in 2008, after the Democrats had (more or less) formed into a united front. This makes your larger point untrue[2]. The data from the Obama campaign indicates that these particular videos were less effective than the images, and to assume this is due to bandwidth complaints is specious at best. [1]http://pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2006/Rural-areas-lagging-in-broadband-Internet.aspx http://pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2006/Rural-areas-laggi... [2] Well, it is true that you can't generalize from this one example, and that video may still be a good choice for web startups, but not for the reasons you suggest.