Print This Post Print This Post

Jan

5

In Iowa, social networks beat political machine: analysis by network expect, local Valdis Krebs


If you want to understand more about how Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus (and, I would suggest, Barack Obama as well), read Social Networks: 1, Political Machine: 0 by Valdis Krebs at Network Weaving. The implications of spreading the word in a group aka social networks such as church, homeschooling communities or gun owners, versus one by one by one aka phone-banking, in the newspaper or on the couch watching television ads:

In 2004, George W Bush won Ohio and therefore the presidency — Ohio put him over the top in the electoral college. In several conversations I have had about the 2004 Ohio election I have been told that Bush won his slim majority in Ohio by also connecting to exisiting social networks. The Bush campaign used the social networks connected to churches thoughout the state — not just evangelicals, but Catholics and Protestants also. The extended social networks of a couple hundred churches roughly equal Bush’s 119,000 vote margin in Ohio in 2004.

We have heard that “all politics are local”, now we also find out that “all politics are social”.

And if you really want to sound like you know what you’re talking about, read this paper of his from 2004 called, “It’s the Conversation, Stupid!”

That blog you want to RSS? Network Weaving.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:40 pm January 5th, 2008 in Blogging, Campaigning, Culture, Elections, Media, Politics, Social Issues, Tech 

Comments

One Response to “In Iowa, social networks beat political machine: analysis by network expect, local Valdis Krebs”

  1. 1 Anon on January 6th, 2008 1:08 pm

    This isn’t exactly about social networks, but close enough …

    In the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards got 30% of the delegates and Hillary Clinton got 29%. Had Clinton picked up one more delegate, her percentage would have also rounded up to 30%. Here is a story (“The Girl Who Sank Hillary”) about how the decision of one caucus goer prevented Clinton from getting that 30% and an effective tie.

    I think the authors are attributing a little too much significance to that single vote. However, the story still provides a good description of interactions and decision-making at one caucus.

Leave a Reply




"));