Nicholas Earnshaw

Howard Dean had mass internet-driven support, and it worked out for him? Wrong person with the right technology?

Welcome political pyramid schemes?

Duncan O'Leary

It certainly seemed to work for him but the problem is that his perceived level of support never actually materialized in terms of votes. As you suggest part of this may be due to the screeching in Iowa, the fact that he blew all his budget on the first few primaries, and any number of other factors. There is a school of thought, though, that the internet simply allowed him to use the internet to make it easier for his existing supporters to donate to his campaign/generally participate, rather than encouraging new ones to do so.

The link on the i-society blog has a number of suggestions as to why Dean bombed but I think this is the most convincing. Clay Shirky (who writes the explanation) argues that the 300 people turning up to meet in New York City in early 2003 was a typical example of this, saying “Prior to MeetUp, getting 300 people to turn out would have meant a huge and latent population of Dean supporters, but because MeetUp makes it easier to gather the faithful, it confused us into thinking that we were seeing an increase in Dean support, rather than a decrease in the hassle of organizing groups”.

All that said however, I’d still like to think that blogs have the potential to go beyond being tools which simply galvanise natural supporters and generate funding; if people really are becoming less deferential and more demanding of information and the chance to make their voice heard, then maybe blogs can still play their part.