Bloggers to WH: We're Not Gunga Din

OK, so kudos to the White House for inviting a small handful of progressive political bloggers to meet with Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to Vice President Biden. It's not every day that bloggers get to do that - actually, it's not everyday that ANYONE gets to do that - so it's good to see that the Administration has a basic understanding of the important role bloggers play in politics.

But I was more than a bit surprised at the message some of the bloggers came away with from Bernstein - apparently liberal bloggers aren't carrying the Administration's water enough when it comes to talking about the stimulus package they signed into law last year.

I wasn't there - but here's what Erin Kotecki Vest at BlogHer had to say about it:

...I also walked away feeling the message we were supposed to leave with was this: It's our duty as bloggers to help sell YOU on the stimulus. Bernstein wanted to know where the positive blog posts were on the great things the Recovery Act was doing.

This is where I let out a heavy sigh and curse the DC machine that seems to have sucked the souls of many.

How am I supposed to blog these awesome stats (and there really are some good ones) on how we're on the road to recovery when all I have are "seed" projects that don't kick in for years and years and things that haven't, necessarily, trickled down to my family, your family, our lives?

And Americablog's John Aravosis, a longtime friend who supported candidate Obama fairly early in the primaries, had this to say:

...The only reason we're facing a budget constraint is because we gave in on the political constraint. We permitted Republicans to spin the first stimulus as an abysmal failure, when in fact it created or saved up to 2m jobs. Since Democrats didn't adequately defend the stimulus, and didn't sufficiently paint the deficit as the Republicans' doing, we now are not "politically" permitted to have a larger stimulus because the fiscal constraint has become more important than economic recovery.

And whose fault is that?

Apparently ours.

Bernstein said that the progressive blogs (perhaps he said progressive media in general) haven't done enough over the past year to tell the positive side of the stimulus.

Well. Where to start.

First of all, if the Administration isn't happy with the way the stimulus bill has been "sold" to the public, they should probably look in the mirror. But let's just say dressing down a blogger for not cheering hard enough isn't my idea of an effective outreach strategy.

See, John Aravosis isn't just an influential and passionate blogger. John gets invited to appear on television a lot, because he's smart and pithy and aggressive. John has dozens of contacts on Capitol Hill. And John has raised more than $40,000 for the Obama campaign, and thousands upon thousands more for Congressional candidates nationwide. There's simply no way Jared Bernstein would walk up to someone who ISN'T a blogger but has raised tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democrats and scold him for not being a big enough cheerleader. Bernstein would instead thank the fundraiser for the support and explain, in specific terms, how his boss was going to follow up on the promises he made.

This is the difference people miss about social media, particularly in Democratic politics. Bloggers aren't simply "media," unbiased or otherwise. They're activists. They're fundraisers. They're the base. Remember the "contributions cloud" I put together for Senator Hagan last week?

See that ridiculously big "ActBlue" right there? That's how Democrats finance campaigns today. Through the Internet. It's bloggers like John who direct readers to send big gobs of money to candidates, through ActBlue. All those little dots represent the small amounts of money raised from more "traditional" sources when compared to ActBlue.

I don't know how (or if) Erin Kotecki Vest raised money for candidates, but I know dozens if not hundreds of top-tier commercial brands are constantly knocking on her virtual door, asking her to review products, mention particular names, and so on. She's enormously influential among online moms. She's also part of the Democratic base. And let's be clear: a big chunk of the Democratic base is very disappointed in the Obama Administration right now.

Jared Bernstein needs to understand something. Meetings at the White House are nice, and it's good that he's doing them. But as politics is practiced these days, bloggers don't work for him.

He works for them.

The Contributions Cloud

It's well established I have a thing for text clouds (and wordle) - particularly in a political context. Cloud generators are neat tools - but if you know how to apply those tools you can generate some interesting questions. I first learned about the idea on Americablog, when I saw a cloud of a State Of the Union Address. Since then I've used cloud generators to compare speeches between different political figures, and even to compare groups of bloggers in different online communities.

But what if you could use a cloud generator to measure influence - not only in a specific conversation, but in a series of political decisions? If you believe that political contributions have some semblance of influence on a politician, and you believe that the more one contributes the more influence one has, a cloud generator might be an interesting tool. I decided to give it a try. Again, I should stress that I use clouds to generate and guide questions, not necessarily conclusions. Here's what I did:

1) I went to opensecrets.org to get the "top 20" campaign contributors for the most recent campaign cycle available for my two Senators - Richard Burr and Kay Hagan. (I'm not trying to make a political statement. Readers may recall I used them as examples in my idea for C-SPAN.)

2) I went to wordle and for every $1000 donated I entered the name of the contributor in the text box. I removed spaces from the names of donors to make sure it showed up as a single word. So if "Guy Smiley" contributed $10,000 to Senator Hagan, I would have entered "GuySmiley" 10 times.

3) I messed with the fonts and layout and stuff to get a cloud that looked spiffy.

Some caveats - Senator Hagan was "in cycle," and Senator Burr wasn't - so Senator Hagan raised a ton more money. Also, here's the disclaimer from Open Secrets:

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2009 - 2010 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

So let's get to it. Here's the "Contributions Cloud" for Senator Burr:

And here's the cloud for Senator Hagan:

At first blush it looks like Senator Burr got his campaign cash from mostly corporate sources while Senator Hagan got hers from, well, Act Blue and Emily's list. (those basically indistinguishable dots in Senator Hagan's cloud are mostly labor unions and a few progressive PAC's.)

Again, Senator Burr wasn't in cycle and wasn't doing a lot of aggressive fundraising, so I'm not sure it's fair to jump to a bunch of conclusions for him. It may make more sense to do this with House candidates, who are always in cycle. But I do think Senator Hagan's cloud is rather telling - The amount of money she raised from individuals online absolutely dwarfs everything else. Technically, ActBlue is a Political Action Committee - but essentially it's an online portal used by progressive Americans to donate to political candidates at virtually every level.

Do the people who contribute money to candidates through Act Blue speak with one voice? Hard to say, though there's no doubt they skew left. But the most important question that comes to my mind is this: Are the Democrats now this dependent on the online channel for campaign finance?

Discuss... ;)

Game Changer: The Supreme Court, Campaign Finance, and Social Media

Last week, depending on how you look at it, the US Supreme Court either struck a blow for free speech or ended democracy as we know it.

In a controversial 5-4 decision that overturned decades of precedent, the Court rejected several specific restrictions on corporate (and union) spending on political campaigns. The decision arguably gives large companies (who dramatically outspend labor and other interests on political activities today) the ability to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on television commercials that mention political candidates by name at any time during a campaign.

I found it very interesting that mainstream media coverage of this decision immediately leaped to the conclusion that this meant we will see millions more political attack ads on television. We will, but that's just the beginning of it. I didn't really see much about how companies can leverage the online channel now - I think that's because mainstream journalists and beltway pundits still have no clue how the Internet works.

As the reaction from the party in, ahem, "power" suggests, the ruling strikes fear in the hearts of any Democrat who wants to take on an industry. Dems are already trying to draft legislation that will curtail the Court's ruling and looking for angles to make it work - companies that get money from the government (The GOP opened that door recently on abortion restrictions in proposed health care legislation), companies that make most of their money overseas, and so on. Regardless, it looks like large companies will have much more influence over the political process for the forseeable future, and Democrats will be looking for something to level the playing field again.

They'll start by looking at sites like Act Blue and the political blogosphere - the virtual ATM that propelled President Obama to victory in 2008. It's no secret that the Obama campaign leveraged social media to break all kinds of fundraising records.

Small problem, though. The political blogosphere is amazingly polarized and cynical. It's not a place for consensus-builders or moderates. The people who raised money for the President online think the President must deliver on the things he promised in the campaign. They feel betrayed on health care, on civil rights, on labor and environment issues, and on our presence in Guantanamo Bay and the Middle East. They largely think the Administration has said one thing and done another when addressing big bank bailouts and regulation, and all things financial.

So if the Democrats want the cash it will take to beat back corporate financing of campaigns, they really have four options:

1) Just do what companies tell them to and try to figure out a way to save face with voters.
2) Double-down with the trial bar, historically the largest source of funding for the Democrats
3) Deliver on the things they promised to the liberal bloggers and open the spigots back up
4) Create a new, massive social network of inspired moderates

Right now the Democrats' answer lies in social media channels. It's the one thing the GOP and its corporate allies really don't do well. The challenge with this option, however, is having the courage to cede part of its agenda to real people.

Stay tuned.

Social Media's Next Political Test

OK, sorry, this is a long post. Sue me.

A while back I speculated that the early primary dates would create a long lull in the campaign season with two presumptive nominees who had nothing to do but hurl nasty rhetorical lobs at each other. I figured that social media tools would be critical at that time, because the campaigns would be conserving cash even as they raised it, and they'd be forced to rely on earned media and the user-generated content that social media tools provide to build and maintain a messaging platform.

Well, we have a lull in the campaign season now. Sorta.

There are six weeks before the Pennsylvania Primary, but there aren't two presumptive nominees. It's plenty nasty, but to my disappointment it's the two remaining Democratic candidates engaged in political fisticuffs. (Of course, I think one is trying to brawl while the other is trying to stay positive and above it, but that's just my opinion. And that could change at any moment.)

Regardless, this is a time when social media in politics faces another crucial test. We now know social media can help turnout a new generation of voters, and it can help raise gobs and gobs of cash. Now we have to see if it can sustain a messaging strategy.

Like Ohio and Texas, Pennsylvania has a couple of fairly expensive media markets - particularly Philadelphia. But now there are six weeks of airtime to fill with tv commercials, when there were only two for Ohio and Texas. I'm not so sure that even the Obama fundraising juggernaut can sustain that kind of saturation bombing of the airwaves.

Pennsylvania's demographics seem to tilt toward the Democratic constituencies that have supported Senator Clinton. The population is older than in most states. There's a substantial number of Catholics. Blue-collar. Furthermore, the Governor and the Mayor of Philadelphia - two of the most important Democrats in the state - have endorsed Senator Clinton. The Clinton campaign has a lot of veterans on it who know Pennsylvania politics very well - President Clinton's people worked hard to win this state, particularly in 1992. Her strength in the state is embodied in the 19-point lead she had in polls here just as the Mississippi Primary was wrapping up.

Senator Obama has support from those constituencies that rely on social media to do their jobs and communicate with their friends and families - the creative class, tech-savvy folks, and college kids. We already know they'll use the 'net to raise more cash than the Clinton campaign, and we can probably predict that they'll come out to the polls. But they're still short.

Saturating the airwaves with commercials for six weeks will probably annoy a lot of voters. If the campaign continues its nasty tone, it's easy to see how some will lose interest and choose not to participate.

The task in front of the Obama campaign is to leverage the creative advantage they have in the social media space to earn and build coverage in more traditional forms of media. They'll probably try to do it by letting their supporters do their own thing. That's a pretty zen strategy, one that I'm not sure any other campaign to date would do. But so far, it's worked for them.

Remember will.i.am.'s video where he took Senator Obama's speech in New Hampshire and put it to music and did that whole "we are the world" thing? Could anyone have predicted that an a capella group full of suburban white kids from Lewis & Clark college would cover it and post it online?


I'm thinking a gospel choir in Philly would knock this sucker out of the park - and get on the 5pm news to boot. There are thousands of these things floating around YouTube.

Of course, Senator Clinton's folks are starting to get the hang of this social media thing - thanking Ohio and Rhode Island voters via twitter, for example. But they have a lot of catching up to do. Had they invested more in social media earlier, they might have the tools to overcome the money advantage of the Obama campaign.

Of course, we have six weeks to watch this develop. Stay tuned - if you can stand it.

He's a Barack-star now

This morning is February 11 and if we had listened to the wise men who get invited to all the Sunday talk shows six months ago we'd be absolutely certain of the following:

• Fred Thompson's Reaganesque gravitas is helping Rudy Giuliani at the top of the ticket;
• Hillary "Inevitable" Clinton is recharging her batteries after leaving her rivals in the dust;
• Young voters aren't participating because they never do.

Instead, Barack Obama swept through the weekend with four caucus victories and a grammy. He still trails in delegates (this whole "superdelegate" idea is starting to look a bit awkward for the Democratic party, yes?), but now leads Senator Clinton in grammy awards, 2 to 1. Of course, Bill Clinton won a grammy as well, and since Obama has said he's running against both of them, you could argue it's a tie.

The last GOP senator to win a grammy? Why, Everett Dirksen, of course, for his recorded documentary of "Gallant Men" in 1968. (OK, so, I looked it up. I can handle a little mocking.)

I only raise the grammy point because I noticed the techPresident chart that tracks mentions of candidate names in the blogosphere, and I think folks might see a spike in Obama-blogging that is partially explained by the grammy and not the caucus wins.

So the Barack-star is on a roll. Of course, Senator Clinton isn't out of it by any means - she's leveraging the online channel to the tune of $10 million from 100,000 donors in 5 days. The Obama campaign is claiming they continue to outpace the Clinton campaign. Micah Sifry has been watching the money race like a hawk.

The Six Million Dollar Man

I'm thinking maybe the Republicans might want to take notice of that whole Internet thing - for real - right about now.

Because Congressman Ron Paul officially matters. Even if he's still polling at less than 3 percent nationally.

He matters to the political set because he'll be tapping a finite resource of television and radio time with that record-breaking haul - preventing some of the "top tier" candidates from buying ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he leaves after February 5, watch for at least one of the candidates to start adopting some libertarian rhetoric (and courting Congressman Paul) in an attempt to raise some of the cash he's clearly shown he can acquire.

He matters to social media types because he's become the latest case study to review and to cite in our blogs, presentations, and client meetings. The Paul campaign is using creative means to tap into the community that they care about most and they've done a great job building extraordinarily deep support within that community -they haven't yet crossed into other communities, but he's a hero to this one.

Indeed, he matters most to libertarians because he's given them tangible milestones and accomplishments that other communities (and candidates) haven't achieved. He's strengthened the community and he's shown how they matter. Next cycle they'll be even more of a force to be reckoned with than they are now.

Ron Paul: It's The Community, Stupid

Smart techie-republicans and journo-bloggers are trying to get their arms around Ron Paul's one-day, record-breaking fundraising total of $4.2 million. They're deconstructing the tools, the date he chose (Nov 5 - Guy Fawkes Day), the appearances he made, and so on.

Ron Paul raised a boatload of cash simply because he identified a self-selecting community, he took the time to understand its needs and wants, and he participated in their discussion in a respectful and relevant way. He remained consistent in his message regardless of the venue - online, at debates, campaign events, or interviews with the media. He took the discussion he was having online and made sure he made the same points offline.

Politically-active cyber-libertarians (or whatever you want to call them) have been on the 'net and in the blogosphere for years now. They're not the largest community online, but they're amazingly well integrated, they have recognizable online opinion leaders, and they have a clearly defined set of priorities and ideals. Ron Paul has let them know he's one of them, and the community has responded with its enthusiastic support.

Will this translate into votes in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire? Nobody knows. But the financial support he's gotten exclusively in the online channel has now given him a chance to state his case in the mainstream media. If he gets 13 percent of the vote instead of 3, he's taking votes from a frontrunner candidate. So those candidates at the top now have to decide if they'll shift their messages or positions to accomodate this newly-inspired audience. If they do, Paul may see his support drop but his issues rise. If they don't, Paul becomes a legitimate player with delegates in hand and an active, vocal community in his corner.

Either way, this online community - of which Ron Paul is unmistakably a part - wins.

Election day and election news...

Hey - if you're in Kentucky, Virginia, or anywhere there's an off-year election, don't forget to vote today.

I'm almost amused at the reaction people have had to Ron Paul's monster day fundraising - leveraging the online channel almost exclusively. I've been shocked since day one that the Republicans haven't tried to leverage the online channel more. I think this shows they can make up the gap they now have with Democrats very quickly.

And in this corner, Slatecard

We've all seen stories about how Democrats are leaving Republicans behind in online campaign fundraising. Act Blue, the dominant campaign finance portal for Democrats, has raised over $30 million since 2004.

Republicans are finding an appropriate response - and one-upping Act Blue, I think - with Slatecard. If I were a Republican, I'd want to take notice of this.

It's just starting out, but it looks like Slatecard takes the features that have stood the test of time at Act Blue - a list of "hot races," a wide range of campaigns to choose from, a blog, and so on - and adds some web 2.0 features that allow users to be more creative and communicative. Slatecard contributors can customize their own slate of candidates. They can also affix "badges" to their slates to show WHY they're contributing to the campaigns they choose - a position on a particualr issue, a revulsion to a particular Democrat, and so on. This sends a signal to candidates and helps them "follow the money." It's just one more opportunity to let political activists provide information along with financial support.

Full disclosure: I know one of Slatecard's founders, David All. We worked briefly together and I found him to be a creative, assertive, and entrepreneurial guy.

Republicans have some catching up to do online, but I think Slatecard will help them do it quicker than most people think. Will Act Blue adopt some of Slatecard's 2.0 coolness? Time will tell.

Online surpassing television in politics

I saw this post at Tech President about how people with digital video recorders like Tivo will just pass right by all the political commercials the candidates and 527's will be cramming the airwaves with this year. First, I noted the irony - campaigns are raising millions online and using that money for TV ads that people won't watch.

And then it dawned on me: forget about Tivo - I hardly watch television at all. I tested myself on where I get my information and here's what I got:

That big orange chunk is blogs and social media. The green is online news networks and publications like the Boston Globe and Lexington Herald-Leader. About a month ago the proportions were reversed, but now I rely on Twitter for breaking news updates from BBC, CNN, WSJ, NYT, and so on. I was surprised to discover that the third largest category for me was satellite and terrestrial radio (it's mostly sattelite). I subscribe to a couple of magazines and one newspaper (Business Lexington). I watch television maybe 2 hours a week - excluding sports, but even then I don't watch much of that on TV either. (For some reason, I love listening to baseball on the radio.)

While I don't necessarily think I'm representative of the general population, we all know people continue to leverage online sources more for information. Newspapers were the first to suffer, but television is clearly also feeling the bite.

Campaigns and 527's are already looking at the television vs. online debate much differently. First, the online channel gives the campaign an opportunity to interact with the user and ask for money. Television doesn't raise a thing - it costs money, and the rate of return is diminishing, thanks to DVR's and other innovations.

As the political folks move more online they face even greater challenges than the product marketers who annoy mommybloggers. First, they have to decide how much time they will spend talking to their natural base - political blogs with aligned ideologies. The need for relevance in outreach is critical, since consumers and citizens beyond the political activists don't aggressively and constantly seek out political information. They will have to make the case that what they're selling is integral to the discussions already taking place.

The problem with candidate blogs

Jeff Commaroto for Tech President and Election Geek:

Did you read the blog post on the candidate Web site where the blogger gushed over the candidate and outlined the talking points of the campaign? So did I, over and over and over again. I have to be honest, I follow a lot of blogs but I almost never read the blog sections of the candidate’s sites. I cannot imagine most of you do either.

He's right - I don't read "candidate blogs." (I do sometimes follow candidates on twitter.) That's because the current assumption of what blogs should be isn't a particularly strategic component of a political campaign. In an organization where message control is the ONLY communications priority, a "campaign blog" is really nothing more than "candidate went to event and was a big hit." That's a press release, not a blog post. I'm also assuming comments are screened to maintain consistency with the message. Frankly, I'm not convinced the campaigns should spend resources on something if it isn't strategic.

Unlike Jeff, however, I might be interested in a series of issues-based discussions. Maybe a surrogate blog if it were single-issue focused and there were several of them under one candidate's umbrella, and I could see a bunch of these single-issue posts in an RSS feed or something. I could explore one issue in-depth if I wanted.

I might also read a campaign blog if it became a clearinghouse of the candidate's journey with links to the places the candidate visited locally. There are a lot of 2.0 tools you could build around that, and you'd drive traffic and interest to local blogs and sites as you go through town. Local online people would remember that.

The problem with campaign blogs right now is they're locked into a one-dimentional assumption of what blogs CAN'T do - namely, go off message. They're just playing it safe; it's as if someone is just checking the box marked "write campaign blog." They're not being used as tools to broaden messages and invite new supporters the way they could be.

Candidates: Run Home to Mama

Joanne Bamberger, on Huffington Post and her own blog, PunditMom:

I am newly motivated, though, to start a PunditMom coffee campaign here in my neighborhood. What if I could convince a good number of my friends to chip in $27 to a fund for a candidate we could all agree on? I know things aren't going to change overnight, but it might be a good start to raising our profile and getting the attention of those who think we're just not that important.

This means two things to me.

First, moms are getting more involved, thanks to the online channel. Virtually any increase in civic engagement is a very good thing, and more involvement from moms is a great thing. They're putting a little coin on the table - and thanks to the 'net, you don't need huge dollar amounts, you just need groups of people - and this will get candidates' attention.

Second, the rhetorical bar has been raised for the candidates. It will no longer suffice to say the other side stinks. "Political blogs," whose stock in trade has typically been discussing the latest outrage from the other side, will see a new kind of blogger enter their space - one who isn't as interested in anger and vitriol but one that demands specifics on policy. And since they have kids, they know when they're being hustled.

It will take time for the candidates to figure this out. It will also take time for companies and trade associations that want to have political discussions. You can't market to this crowd like you used to. There is a huge opportunity out there for the candidate that seizes it - and gets it right - first.

the kos phenomenon

It's Monday, so I must be hungover from markos madness. the mainstream media that all but ignored BlogHer can't seem to get enough of Yearly Kos, with everything from Washington Post Op-ed's to Bill O'Reilly battle cries.

It's fascinating to watch professional pundits try to explain why Markos Moulitsas has built so much power in politics. They point to his partisanship, his snark, his to his ability to raise money for candidates, and so on. I think they leave out the most important point - and oddly enough, it's the point that I think Moulitsas makes most.

Daily Kos is successful because it's a community. It's not just Markos Moulitsas telling people what he thinks on the front page. Moulitsas was one of the first politically-oriented bloggers to build a platform on which other bloggers write about whatever they want.

There's a conservative version of Kos - Town Hall. But Town Hall is subtly different -it's more of echo chamber. Sure, people can join Town Hall and start their own blogs there, just like Kos. But Town Hall also asks members to sign up for email updates from the site's leaders, which no doubt prompts members to write about the topic of the day. Town Hall is a cog in a wheel of a larger communications machine. I don't have a problem with that at all, I'm just noting the difference.

I actually like Town Hall. I think it's an efficient way to distribute messaging, but it's still top-down. Kos really is more of a discussion.

Here's an admittedly partisan but I think fair point - and I hope some R's out there will feel comfortable weighing in here. When conservatives are asked why they're supposedly "behind" in online communications, many of them acknowledge they're "losing" (though I'm not sure how that's defined) to democrats but quickly note that they completely dominate talk radio. But political talk radio, despite appearances, really isn't a conversation. Political talk radio is a lecture with a 7-second tape delay where dissenting voices are typically filtered out. It's one of the reasons that women have largely stopped listening to talk radio.

I'm not saying that talk radio lacks value or inspiration. I do, however, note that American political conservatives seem to do better when the message is controlled by a centralized voice and readily admit they're doing worse when the conversation has more participants.

I'm really quite surprised that this is the case. Conservatism isn't, in my opinion, inherently hostile to dissent or diversity. It just seems that right now some of the strongest conservative voices in the media are. I think that's what keeps smart, tech-savvy conservatives like David All or The Irritable Elephant up at night.

how long will the windfall last for political bloggers?

I had a nice discussion earlier this week with an old college buddy about something that may become a fun friday post, but that's still in the works. WSJ had an interesting piece on how the elongated election cycle is pushing campaign advertising funds toward the web:

While the amount of money the campaigns are collectively expected to spend online this year won't likely amount to more than a rounding error compared to the hundreds of millions expected to be spent on broadcast ads, it marks the beginning of a broader shift away from candidates' reliance on traditional media.

Compared to the previous presidential election, it's a bonanza, and it's going nowhere but up -- unlike television and newspaper ads, online ads drive interested parties directly to requests for money and contact information. For the first time the campaigns can quickly calculate a financial ROI for an online ad down to the penny. You can't do that with a TV ad. At this point in the election season, money is as important, if not more important, than differentiating oneself from the others.

Political bloggers receive a windfall in two respects -- the revenues from ads, as well as as the clout that comes from serving as a virtual campaign bundler. I'm curious to see how this space evolves.

For example, in the next campaign cycle will we see a bunch of new political blogs sprout up in the hopes of earning some of that ad revenue? And will some those blogs be built by the traditional media organizations that are starting to lose money? Will the big political blogs start developing a "seasonal business" model, where they bring on more contributors as the political ad season switches into high gear, and then ratchet back once the elections are over and the ad revenue dries up? Or will they start providing more combined earned/paid media packages, where buying an ad also gets you a chat or a guest post or a podcast?

And will the campaigns ultimately decide that social networking opportunities like those currently available on Facebook are more efficient means of raising funds?

Political blogs in each ideological camp tend to cooperate with one another right now, but as the ad revenue pool grows I'm wondering if they'll start looking at each other more as competitors. Make no mistake, political blogging will become big business in the next few years - as long as blogs continue to be primary portals of political content.

The other interesting development for political bloggers is the evolving primary process itself. As states push for earlier and earlier primaries, it's more likely that a nominee is chosen well before primary season is over. What happens then? Candidates that have dropped out aren't spending ads, and general election candidates may choose to keep the powder dry. Politically it will be a dangerous time because all we'll likely see are constant attacks against each presumptive nominee - in the absence of real news or discussion, I'm afraid that's what we'll see. Perhaps candidate ads will be replaced by attack ads from third parties. But that scenario can reduce the clout of the political blogger to a great extent.

in which the bloggers discuss their influence

Jerome and Duncan are discussing why they blog, and Jerome is offering some wisdom on how to be an influential blogger on political issues:

1) Raise money for candidates: You don't have to raise a lot to be meaningful. Even a few thousand dollars from a few hundred people matters if it's early enough... And if you can't raise any money at all, my guess is that you're just not trying. Asking for money isn't easy, but again, neither is creating change or building power. If you don't want to do it, then don't whine about people who are willing to do it using the power they create for stuff they care about.

A couple of things come to mind. First, Jerome lists a few more things, but in a sense he could really stop with number 1.

When Jon Tester was running low on cash in his Senate race as election day approached, it was the Democratic "netroots" that supplied the quick infusion he needed. That got the attention of the DSCC and the DNC and now it seems every candidate wants to do blogger conference calls, coffees, and what-have-you.

Bloggers have disproportionate influence on the political process not simply because they can raise money, but because they can potentially raise it from large and dispersed groups. The fact that individual donations are small actually increases their influence. Here's why: contributors who immediately "max out" on their campaign contributions don't have to be asked again. A small donor indicates her or his willingness to give, and prompts the campaign to ask for money again - providing the contributor an opportunity to talk about priority issues.

Since Jerome and bloggers like him are constantly collecting and distributing donations from the disperse communities bloggers have created, the blogger becomes the center of constant influence. The campaign finance system as currently constructed prompts the campaign to care more about Jerome than his readers -- but we all understand that Jerome derives his power from the community he's helped assemble.

Let's be candid: the campaign finance system as currently constructed coerces us into a discussion about money first and issues second. I'll be interested in knowing how the campaigns interact with the online communities that care deeply about issues but are NOT about fundraising. That's when the really smart issues-based online communicators will take center stage.

For example, look at The Soccer Mom Vote -- a collection of moms from diverse political backgrounds getting together to talk about issues in a less polarizing context. It would be almost unseemly to pass the hat on behalf of a candidate or party in this community. But this is the community of the "persuadables" -- thoughtful, smart and responsible people who aren't driven by ideology. Mostly women who make 90 percent of the meaningful daily decisions in their families. This is the forum where the issues that Jerome and Duncan care so much about can be discussed in more depth and with less vitriol -- allowing positions to be developed and defined more organically. If you can convince the soccer moms, you might not have to convince anyone else, no matter how much money you have.

Soon the campaigns (and everyone else) will realize that the power to make individual decisions in a family has an enormous cash value.