For our last blog I would like you to take a look at several of the campaign websites for those seeking the office in 2012. You should compare these sites in terms of 1) their style and appearance; 2) what types of information to they offer and what do they emphasize; 3) what tools are available for supporters to use to help the campaigns and how can supporters take action. Keep in mind that while most will ask you for your e mail address you do not need to enter it, you can always click on an option to go directly to the campaign site (though following what the campaigns do might be interesting now that you all love the presidency!) First it will help to take a look at President Obama's campaign site.
Next you should browse through the leading GOP candidates' campaign sites:
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Michelle Bachmann
Rick Santorum
Jon Huntsman
- Do any of these campaign sites affect how you feel about the candidate?
- Which campaign(s) seem to be the most pursuasive? Why?
- What tools or information do you find the most useful/effective for campaigns?
First off I'd like to say that I'm actually impressed by the candidates websites and are certainly a big step up from the website of John McCain in 2008 in terms of aesthetic image as well as critical content including issues, news and links to twitter and facebook, making the websites all encompassing.
ReplyDelete1) I'm an issues guy and although they all generally explain where the candidates stand on the basic talking points, theyre website will not make me vote for one candiadate or another or even move towards a candidate based on their web material.
2) Ron Paul's issues section has a wider array of topics than all the other candidates including Barack Obama making him seem deeper and maybe a little more persuasive becase of it.
3) Ron Paul's homepage has a money gauge which indicates a set goal of 4 mil $ and where they are on that level which shows ambition and and an honest stance of where he is fundraising wise. Key news and info on Mitt Romney is front and center on his webiste which is certainly very useful. On Jon Huntsman's he shows how he stacks up conservatively contrary to popular belief which is very effective in conveying his conservative image.
I think Obamas site is the most well done. I like the different features and applications he used on the site. I particularly liked the tax cut calculator. I think his site is hip and extremely easy to navigate around. However, I did feel that every site I looked around on was great! I have never looked at campaign websites in the passed, but I was presently surprised how much information you can get on the candidates and their platforms on their websites. I think every candidate is utilizing proper usage of Facebook, Twitter etc, like Jordan said, and this is extremely important with this day in age. Especially after seeing the campaign numbers that we looked at of Obama vs McCain 2008, in class.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way that Jordan does. These sites wont persuade my vote one way or another. There has to be tons of things that you look at as a voter. I think having a quality website with adequate information on it is integral in this era if you want to win an election, but more for a source of information to look back on or look something up. It definitely wouldn't be my defining factor.
I agree with Jesse in that I too feel Obama's campaign site is the most well done. Though all the potential candidates sites give you tons of information on the candidate and all his policy, I found the Obama site to be much easier to navigate and had more "pop" to it. All the sites do a good job at promoting via facebook or Twitter which as we saw in class is going to be essential for every election to come.
ReplyDeleteThe Ron Paul website did change the way I feel about him. His website, though not my favorite out of the bunch seemed to be more straight and to the point. His "Issues" link is also much deeper than any of the other candidates. This makes him look a lot more determined at least to me. Newt Gingrich's campaign seemed more persuasive because of his "21st Century Contract with America" that is displayed on the center of his homepage.
It is obvious that the most useful and important tools for all the campaigners in this election will be the usage of the ever growing social networks and multi-media. That is the one of the reasons why Obama did so well in the 2008 election. By ruling the media world you are reaching out to all sects of people, especially the young men and women of this country who would be willing to go door to door to campaign and make all night phone calls for donations. So it is important for each candidate to reach out to the young men and women like Obama has done already.
After reviewing several of the campaign sites I certainly had different initial reactions to each of them. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama’s sites opening pictures were both very influential in terms of seeing them as relatable people. Mitt Romney is shown with his wife shaking the hands of other people and is not wearing a suit and tie. This shows that he is personable and I think it’s a great message for his campaign. Barack Obama’s opening picture is also of him with his wife. The slogan saying “dinner with Barack and Michelle” also gives off the vibe that while he is the president, he is also a normal guy, who has a wife and family just like you. Rick Santorum as well does a great job of showing that he is a family man through the use of the picture with him and all of his seven children on the left side of his home page.
ReplyDeleteWhen I opened the site for Ron Paul however my initial reaction was much less positive. The first thing I see right in the middle of the page is “donate today.” While all of these sites encourage the opportunity for financial support of the candidate, I thought that having “donate today” right in the center of the site and much bigger than everything else’s just looks tacky. I feel like it’s saying, “your concerns will come, just after I get the money to win my campaign.” Michelle Bachman’s site was not as bad as Ron Paul’s, but also was a little too pushy with the “give money.”
In comparing different aspects of all of the sites, I think the best site for the average American who does not know very much about the difference between all of the candidates is Barack Obama’s. In addition to the picture of him and his wife in the opening page, his actual site is very resourceful. I feel that if I want to know how he feels about an issue, he has nothing to hide, all of his information is right there. There are several different links which all pertain to the most common concerns the average American has with his/her country. Health reforms, tax cuts, war in Iraq, are all front and center, and I think gives a very professional and honest impression to the people.
Posted for David:
ReplyDeleteThese sites definitely affect how I feel about the candidates. Just a few impressions (I'm not trying to be insulting, these are only my opiniions of the websites, not necessarily of the candidates themselves): Huntsman's seems to be focused on praising Huntsman (pushing what almost seems like legitimate propaganda, though propaganda nonetheless), Santorum's doesn't seem too professional (his "Faith Family & Freedom tour" picture is partially obscured by other icons), Bachmann's is interesting and engaging (though she seems to be just as interested in advertising her book, it's one of the options on the transitory news/info reel), Perry's is stable (though plain and unengaging), Paul's comes across as greedy (his homepage mostly consits of a large donation request icon with his monetary goal, as if he wants to buy the caucuses), Romney's is good overall (though still plain compared to Bachmann's), Gingrich's appears good (though it doesn't seem to include as many details as the other sites do), while Obama's is the most easily navigable, best organized, and most informative (though even his site doesn't seem as bright and engaging as Bachmann's).
Seeing the sites changed my mind about all of the candidated, and a few in particular, specifically Bachmann and Paul. In regard to Michelle Bachmann's site I was surprised at how interesting her site made her seem, and I was forced to revise my opinion of her to a more positive one. Ron Paul's central icon and implied focus on drawing donations (not to mention the creepy looking picture of him that's part of that donation request icon) lowered my opinion of him as a candidate.
In my opinion President Obama's site was the most persuasive, a result of it's user friendly features (everything is readily accesible from the top of the home page), inspirational images and messages, constant supply of easily understood news and info (especially the "Obama's Record in Brief") and grassroots appeal (seen in the options to add your name to those who want Congress to extend the payroll tax cut, videos and articles by ordinary people, twitter feed, and easy methods of volunteering). Romney's is the best site after Obama's, and of the Republicans it is the best overall (if not the most interesting) because of it's transitory newsreel (which includes inspirational messages and statements that encourage people to be a part of the process), and its' somewhat user-friendly layout under the "spotlight" section where one can access most relevant elements of his campaign and website.
In terms of useful/effective tools I would have to include style, organization, details, and accessability. By style I mean that the site has to be visually appealing, engaging, or interesting. Bachmann's accomplishes this through the use of bright and diverse colors. I refer to organization in terms of layout. The site's features, info, pictures, etc, have to be in an easily understandable and organized/professional form (such as Romney's "Spotlight" section and Obama's "state, issues, groups, blog, volunteer, store, donate" line of options along the blue strip at the top of the page). In terms of details the site has to provide some substantial information about the candidate and his/her campaign, goals, policy, etc. In this issue Obama's site seems to provide the most information (or it is at least the site where it is most readily available). By accessability I mean how easy it is for visitors from the site to get involved. Obama's seems to be the most accessable, with 6 ways to volunteer, twitter and social network site links on practically every page, and easily identifiable donation options on every page.
On reviewing the presidential hopefuls I started with Newt Gingrich. Unfortunately for him he looks a bit like a teacher I had while in High school, not a good thing, and so I may be biased against him. He presents his beliefs on issues as "solutions" and I find it hard to believe he has the ability to fix all our problems. His website was not intuitive and the social networking widgets were barely visible ( they were on the right side of the screen below the "learn More" and it was almost as large as my mouse pointer. He wasnt very persuasive.
ReplyDeleteI then looked at Mitt Romney's site. Here I was much more impressed with the ease of use and general intuitiveness of the site. I also liked the part where they offer a condensed version of his stance on an issue or the full unabridged version if it really interested you. The placement of the social networking widgets was also much better. This website definitely affected me.
As for President Obama's website. It is extremely intuitive and easy to use, and getting involved in the he campaign seemed a breeze. Though it seems his site isnt quite complete, when i tried to access the dashboard under the "take action" widget i was told i'd be notified when it comes online.
Overall I found myself more inclined to Huntsman, it was easy to navigate, presented an intelligent leader who understands the american people and is the perfect candidate to help the american people fix the economy.
After look at the presidential candidates websites, three stuck out in my mind. First, I thought that Newt Gingrich's website was very well done. I especially liked when he has a tab that says “join now to save America.” It brings a lot of emotional appeal that makes it seem that America is in a sense of urgency and Newt is there to save them. He adds a sense of dramatics to this and it makes sound very appealing.
ReplyDeleteI also liked Michele Bachman’s website because on the first page she has outlined her top prioritizes for America. The fact there is no need to browse through her site makes it very easy for the user. In a technology age when people have very little patience she caters to this by outlining her point on the front page.
I agree with everyone who has said that Presidents Obama’s page was very well done. The way he uses multi media is truly remarkable. As Jesse said, I thought the tax cut calculator was a fantastic idea. As a voter you many times you hear different policies and possible changes, but it is often hard to realize how it would directly affect you, with the tax calculator that was made possible.
Most of the campaign sites are pretty much the same. They all show ways you can help out, such as the option to call other voters and get them to support the candidate. Several also sell merchandise. Each website also discusses the current problems facing the United States, what each candidate has done about it, and what their opinions are.
ReplyDeleteThey also show any current events relating to the candidate.
The one web site that was different than all of the others, was the one for Ron Paul. The homepage listed the total amount of money his campaign has raised so far. I think that this is important for voters to know, as it shows how well his campaign is doing.
As far as the structure and the content of all of the campaign websites are concerned, I would have to say that none of them would convince me to support a specific candidate at first glance.
I would have to understand what their exact positions are, in addition to their biographical information. Each website may have an effect on my opinion of the candidate, but I will not use it to make my final decision as to who I should support.
It would all depend on news reports, political debates, polls, and other such factors. I can't rely on just one source, which is a biased point of view.
I think it is clear that all the campaigns have learned from 2008 and all are using social media to try to promote the candidates. I think the reason why Obama's website appears really well done is because instead of vague promises to "restore America", "turn America around" or the like, Obama is able to pinpoint actual legislation that has been passed under his Administration and focuses on accomplishments like health reform and ending the War in Iraq. This is an obvious advantage for the incumbent, as he can point out what he actually has done instead of just promising things.
ReplyDeleteI think what Josh said is pretty astute. All the websites seem the same, in that they have youtube clips, slogans and promises plastered everywhere. I found Mitt Romney's really impressive. I liked how he put real peoples quotes about how they feel about him on the front page. This allows voters to identify with other voters, which can only aid Romney. The problem I have is that these sites are too boring. What on these sites is going to attract the younger crowd? Didnt the Republicans see Obama clean out McCain regarding the younger more influential crowd?? I think these sites need to be more "friendly" to the younger crowd.
ReplyDeleteThe Campaign websites here, don't have a large affect on how I personally view the candidates. Most of my candidate opinion is based in how I see them act in the media. Although the internet forum has become (almost a larger) part of 21st century media, what a candidate says in the heat of the moment in live debates etc. says a lot more about a candidate (in my opinion) than any well constructed website could. This may be spurious but as I went down the list from Obama to Huntsman the websites became more and more simple, low tech, and less engaging. I may be more interested in looking at Pres. Obama's cool website then Rick Santorum's weird scroll-down page, but ideally that certainly does not make a better president. In fact the opposite may be true- perhaps a candidate is hiding behind smoke and mirrors. But the ideology and the actuality fall in different places. The average American will be lured by a more appealing website than not.
ReplyDeleteAs I have said, the candidate on the hot seat and how he acts is most effective in helping or hurting a campaign. For the republican candidates, Newt Gingrich has his fluffy hello america videos but more importantly has many videos of him making decisive comments in debates on his home page. If I did not know Newt I would learn a lot about who he is from these clips. None of the other candidates have real life, non staged videos on their home page accept for Mitt.
President Obama's website is different then all the Republican candidates, understandably. Because he has spent one term in office, his campaign's agenda is entirely different then that of the Republicans and therefore his website is modeled differently. It effectively shows the positive accomplishments and explains why all the problems in America are not necessarily because of Pres. Obama and why he needs to continue his presidency. The mere attractive interface is enough to grab a young voter on his side.