Candidate Page Recon

I’d like to know about policies on the future of the net, on women’s rights issues, on educational funding and content (controversial issues including sex education, evolution), on gun control, on medical technologies and research rights, on religion and its place in the public sphere (especially issues such as gay marriage legislation), on the war, on foreign policy, on tax schemes, and a number of other topics, in no particular order. Being somewhat outside the political situation at the moment due to a lack of time for adequate research into all candidates, I have heard that Obama seems to have made “change” a buzzword; I’d like to know what in specific he hopes to change and in what ways. In the last few years a number of issues have stuck out to me as not only distateful but justified for the wrong reasons; I’d like to see whether his positions on change of these situations align with what I’d consider proper justification.

On looking at the site, I feel like some of the talk about his page being a ‘brand’ is not only accurate but in fact primary to its purpose; though finding content on the issues was not a problem, I experienced difficulty in extracting positions on most subjects from the expertly bland content. More decisive content was found in the downloadable PDF “Blueprint for Change,” thankfully searchable as it’s, again, largely vague impressions of ideas with no particular suggested solutions (in other words, a masterpiece of political potential success – like a number of religious texts, it could conceivably be used to support at least most possible views.)

However, the marketing is supreme. Going beyond the most dominant networking sites – Facebook, Flickr, Myspace, Youtube, Digg – they’ve selected a handful of pages that encourage real-world involvement (Eventful) and a handful of demographically-targeted markets by religion and race. One thing in particular I’ve not seen elsewhere is the outreach beyond black and Hispanic demographics to the “Asian vote,” which though not targeted beyond its presence on AsianAve including seven photographs and a single paragraph in regard to sensitivity to the community may be the only outreach at the moment to an untapped and numerous minority. The website itself features pages custom-tailored to a number of concerns, under a menu titled “People.” Under “Action,” supporters can manage their own profiles, blogs and social network within the site. Mobile phone wallpapers and ringtones are available, but I’ve not seen any other mobile services, such as updates via SMS, available through any other means than Twitter.

In looking at Ron Paul’s site, though, in a clickthrough from this article, I see why his designers praised Obama’s – my immediate thought on seeing his home page was to wonder whether the template was originally for an insurance sales representative. His site has links to Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, Digg and Twitter, as well, but the content (excepting Youtube, to some degree) is less integrated into the main site. User participation seems to have been almost entirely foregone; the “Supporter Spotlight” is on an interactive par with any testimonial page but in reverse, with an individual’s contributions showcased rather than their questions or perspective. Comments on the blog posts number in the lower double digits, though the blog has an RSS subscription link. The site is no easier or harder to navigate than Obama’s, however, though slightly larger fonts and higher contrast may make text easier to read for some viewers while a slightly busier look makes content recede. The technological requirements of both sites are relatively high, though Ron Paul’s has more up-front animation in cycling through graphics and messages. Obama’s featured more flexibility and quality choice in video content and generally more nontraditional media; Paul’s was largely text- and image-based and generally felt more like a standard commercial website.

Naturally Obama’s site reaches to a younger demographic, who are more likely to use the internet for research than other media; Paul’s feels built for my parents’ generation, who are unlikely to default to internet usage for information-gathering (making the gearing of the site seem sort of pointlessly redundant), and provides basics. Obama’s will receive more clickthrough views due to broad presence on social networking sites, whereas Paul’s is likely to receive traffic through advertisement or intentional seeking by the audience. Obama’s site, then, is optimized to his needs in campaign; Paul reluctance to rely on internet communications to spread his message speaks of and more exclusively to an older audience and implies that this is who he identifies as a compatible base and seeks to pursue on the campaign trail. While they are a more vote-conscious demographic, this may cost him new potential voters.

Tags: branding, interactivity, marketing, politics, web 2.0, web design