Split testing is a very useful tool for online union websites and is used by major businesses, advertisers, campaigns like the Obama campaign, and giants like Google and Facebook. All unions should use split testing for their campaign sites, and should consider how to integrate it into their Joining pages.

What is split testing (also called A/B testing)?

Simply put, if you have an important web page (such as your “Join the Union” page), you want to maximise the number of people who take the desired action (called “conversions”) – in the case of the join page, the number of people who actually join.

Most websites have static pages, where the content and design is fixed. But what if some element of the design or text on the page could be improved to increase the number of conversions (joins to the union)? What if you changed the “join” text, or changed the picture, or changed how complicated the join form itself was? This could increase the number of people who join, or it could decrease it. You want to know which, and you also want to know which change it was that increased the number of joins.

Split testing allows you to perform an experiment where you create two (or more) versions of the same page. When someone visits the specified page, they are randomly shown one or another of the “test” pages (either the original one, or the new one). You can then see which version of the page is more successful in getting someone to take the action you want.

After you’ve created the split test, you build a sample – a number of “conversions” – perhaps 100 or so – and check which version of the page was most successful. You can stop using the least successful page, and also experiment more on how to increase the number of conversions. The more you experiment and test, the more data, and (hopefully) the more conversions you’ll get.

Although the example above is for the “Join the Union” page, your campaign sites should also try to use split testing. Most campaigns will have a call to action. This call to action could be signing up to a mailing list, sending an email to a politician or employer, or filling out a survey. Ultimately, your union wants as many people as possible to perform that action.

Split testing can be used for all of these (as well as on your union’s merchandise page).

Google Website Optimizer has made the process really easy for you to add AB split testing to your site. It’s a free service (like most Google services) and links with their many other (free) products like Google Analytics.

If your union’s campaign website is a simple HTML site, then this is really easy to do. If you use a content management system, most of the open source, free CMSs have plugins that do a lot of the coding for you. WordPress for example has two plugins for this purpose (here and here).

Many unions have proprietary content management systems running their websites. Talk to the company that designed your site about split testing using Google Optimizer. Any design firm worth their salt should be able to do it for you – and since it’s offered for free from Google, it shouldn’t cost too much to set up.

This post is part of Project 52 – one blog post per week for the entire year.

Related posts:

1. Five reasons your union should fix its website before getting onto social media
2. Four effective “calls to action” to use on your union campaign website
3. Five tips for the ultimate union campaign website

TechPresident and CNN International are posing the question whether this UK election is the first “social media” election. Certainly both Labour and the Tories have made extensive use of the Internet, including iphone apps, and innovative web apps. We’ve seen Twitter and Facebook used extensively, and David Cameron was widely reported in the election commentary as having mastered online campaigning.

However, in my view, this is not a “social media” or “internet” election. Rather, this is the first TV election in the UK. This election has had the first televised leaders debates in British history. Television is still the main mass-media communication channel, and up until this election, political parties in the UK have been unable to run TV ads with saturation coverage that we get in Australia or the US. The debates have acted as de facto election ads, with the leaders under pressure to give polished performances.

The television performances of the leaders have far outweighed the effects of the parties social media campaigns, although strong local campaigns in individual constituencies may affect a close outcome. Good use of social media in those campaigns obviously help.

Although this UK election is the “TV election”, we’ve also seen a glimpse of the future of UK election campaigning – making extensive use of the power of the internet to mobilise supporters, gather donations, and contact swinging voters. The energising of party supporters and activists online will continue to grow, and using cloud-based web apps (like MyConservative or Labour’s MemberNet) will become essential for modern parties in the UK, US and elsewhere.

This post is part of Project 52 – one blog post per week for the entire year.

Related posts:

1. Beat up: Election authorisation for blogs
2. Massachusetts election outcome shows dangers of incumbency
3. David Cameron on the campaign trail

Following a fortnight of uncertainty after the 2010 Tasmanian election, the Greens Party led by former advertising guru Nick McKim, have flexed their muscles to effectively appoint the ALP as minority governing party.

This bloke is probably really unhappy.

This act by the Greens Party came after both major parties refused to negotiate with the Greens, and made this a part of their election pitch during the campaign. The end result, Labor 10 seats, Liberals 10 seats, and Greens Party 5 seats, saw the Liberal Party get more votes overall than Labor. During the campaign, with the threat of a hung parliament – no realised – both Liberal and Labor said that if there was a tie in seats, the party with the most votes would be given the opportunity to form government.

Denied the ability to negotiate with Labor or Liberals over ministerial portfolios or policy, and apparently ignored by the Governor over the last week, Nick McKim and the Greens Party announced that they would support a Labor government:

Nick McKim announced via a southern newspaper today that his party would offer support to the incumbent government by not moving or supporting motions of no-confidence in parliament unless there was evidence of gross malfeasance, maladministration or corruption.

Their decision of course is entirely opportunistic and unprincipled. But that’s fine. Because the Greens Party, like all modern political parties, are principally concerned with gaining and exercising power. And luckily Machiavelli can help us decipher the Greens Party’s decision.

This article is a part of Project 52 – one post per week for the year.

Whenever those states which have been acquired as stated have been accustomed to live under their own laws and in freedom, there are three courses for those who wish to hold them: the first is to ruin them, the next is to reside there in person, the third is to permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a tribute, and establishing within it an oligarchy which will keep it friendly to you. Because such a government, being created by the prince, knows that it cannot stand without his friendship and interest, and does its utmost to support him; and therefore he who would keep a city accustomed to freedom will hold it more easily by the means of its own citizens than in any other way.

Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter V

In this case, the (modern) prince is the Greens Political Party. Acquiring a state in this case is gaining significant political power over the political processes in Tasmania.

“…there are three courses for those who wish to hold them: the first is to ruin them, the next is to reside there in person, the third is to permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a tribute…” The three options open to the Greens Party after “acquiring” Tasmania were:

1. Ruin them: The Greens Party could have continued to hold both Labor and Liberal to ransom, and perpetuate the political stasis in Tasmania, where no major party could effectively govern. The Greens Party would have benefited by keeping both other parties in a state of crisis, able to topple either (or both) at their whim, unless both supported each other. Obviously, this was the least politically acceptable for the Greens Party – who’ve already been damaged by accusations of blackmail, and holding Tasmania to ransom.
2. Reside there in person: This was the Greens Party’s preferred option – the modern equivalent of having a place in the ministry with a formal arrangement. The Greens wanted to exercise power from within the government. That’s why Nick McKim constantly said he wanted to negotiate. He desperately wanted to reside within cabinet, and control the government and the governing party from this powerful vantage point.
3. Draw a tribute: The final option – the one that we can see today – is for the Greens Party to choose another party (Labor) to govern, then extract political concessions. Nick McKim is hoping that Labor will be so beholden to the Greens Party that he will be able to exercise political power over the government without being a minister in cabinet.

The upshot of this is that twelve years of Labor continues in Tasmania. As in South Australia, it’s time for Labor to go back out to the community and reconnect – it did after all experience a large swing against it. The disaster that would have been a Liberal government is averted.

Unfortunately, Labor is now at the mercy of a ruthless, opportunistic political party under the leadership of Nick McKim. It must be wary of its vulnerability to the Greens Party, and forge its own path.

Related posts:

1. Lessons from the (Modern) Prince, Part 2: Timing of reform
2. Lessons from The (Modern) Prince, Part 1: The CPRS
3. Lessons from the Modern Prince, Part 3: He was against it before he was for it (aka: the Barnaby principle)

Just before the election was called, there were some very interesting articles about David Cameron and the UK Tory Party’s approach to online campaigning. The Tories (like most opposition parties, such as the Democrats with Obama in 2008, and Labor in 2007 with Kevin 07) are being quite innovative and creative with their online activities.

A lot of what he is doing is fairly standard fair, but amazingly it is only being slowly adopted by governing parties.

For example, the Tories campaign is using Google Ads effectively:

Within seconds, anyone Googling “boilers” or using the phrase in Gmail will find a link to a “prebuttal” budget document on the Conservatives’ home page — a rolling response, updated in real time as the Chancellor speaks. Once Darling sits down, Osborne’s aides race to read the giant document supporting the speech, pulling together an official response within the hour, which is in turn rolled out through a further set of Google ads.

Cameron also pioneered UK politicians using YouTube to bypass the mainstream media and speak directly to voters (and in the process, generate a lot of free media coverage).

The very first clip was to be of the Tory leader at home with his family. Cameron and Hilton debated the risks: let the public into your house and you may never get them out. But they went for it. On Saturday September 30, 2006, the day conference opened, The Guardian’s headline declared: “Tories unveil their secret weapon: webcameron”. It was a radical step: conferences normally kick off with a big policy announcement, not a YouTube clip. The videos themselves were even more unusual: a strikingly intimate portrait, complete with Cameron wearing rubber gloves as he talked politics doing the dishes.

Furthermore, Cameron’s MPs have also engaged with social media, as this Facebook example shows:

As the Conservative candidate for the marginal seat of Dover and Deal, he had become used to odd questions. Even so, this Facebook message was unusual. Elphicke scribbled a reply: he was, he said, against it. But who wanted to know? The correspondent turned out to be an 18-year-old pupil from Dover Grammar, who had Googled Elphicke’s website and followed the link to Facebook.

Questions from other pupils followed –”Why isn’t there anything in Dover for us to do at night?” asked one — and before long Elphicke was using his Facebook page to connect with his young constituents. One set up a Facebook group to help him get elected, which now has 71 fans. A few dozen volunteered for his campaign.

However, the Tories have been criticised for spending huge amounts of money on their social media efforts, including several unsuccessful campaigns that had little return on investment.

This is something to watch out for: you don’t need to spend millions of dollars (or even large sums) to use social media to engage with your supporters and voters in general. You should also be careful about jumping on every social media fad that comes along.

This article is part of my Project 52 posts – one post per week over the year.

Related posts:

1. Britain’s first internet election?
2. Communicate, don’t sell
3. Social Media for Unions E-Book

This week has seen what appears to be the end of the honeymoon period for Tony Abbott, coinciding with his triathlon run, resignation of key powerbroker Nick Minchin, reshuffle and demotion of Barnaby Joyce, and his disastrous health care debate with Rudd.

Abbott’s reversal of fortune is a case study of Machiavelli’s advice to “avoid flatterers” as advisors, and to stick to your guns. Following the advice of flatterers and flip flopping is a recipe for a prince (or political leader) to be held in contempt.

This series of posts is part of Project 52 – one post per week throughout the year.

It is that of flatterers, of whom courts are full, because men are so self-complacent in their own affairs, and in a way so deceived in them, that they are preserved with difficulty from this pest, and if they wish to defend themselves they run the danger of falling into contempt…

With these councillors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions. He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.

Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XXIII

There is a tendency for political commentators to look at a poll and then search for the most recent things that happened while the poll was being conducted to explain the results. In my view however, polls don’t measure what people thought of the week before the poll. Rather, most people (who don’t follow politics or current affairs regularly) are impressionistic. They get their political news in small bursts over a period of months (or even years).

Thus, polls measure people’s impressions of politics that have been formed over a long period of time. Polls closer to elections (such as the week before the election) are far more likely to find people at the time they are turning their mind to politics.

How are we to see the recent Newspoll that has Abbott’s personal ratings drop significantly, Labor’s TPP to rise, Rudd’s popularity to return to 2008 levels and the Liberals’ economic credibility to crash?

There are two reasons.

“It is that of flatterers, of whom courts are full“… Tony Abbott has surrounded himself with a shadow cabinet full of flatterers. In modern political parlance, these people are his ideological clones: ideas free populists. Barnaby Joyce is the standout of these flatterers, praised by Abbott as an outstanding “retail politician”.

Political parties that rely on flatterers as shadow-ministers “fall into contempt” with the Australian people, who can see that the shadow-ministers simply give advice to promote their own ideological interests. Barnaby and his ilk (the Peter Duttons, Cory Bernardis, Sophi Mirabellas, Greg Hunts, Eric Abetzs, and Bronwyn Bishops) are seen as Abbott yes-men (and yes-women). They have no credibility on policy. They are simply ideological warriors.

Because Abbott only listens to these flatterers, and because the people can see they are without substance or wisdom, he has fallen into contempt.

Abbott highlighted this fact when he first elevated Barnaby Joyce to the shadow cabinet as Shadow Finance Minister, and then dumped him in favour of Andrew Robb (another flatterer).

Tony Abbott's problem is that he flip-flops.

“…outside of these, he should … pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions.” Tony Abbott compounds his political sins of listening to Barnaby Joyce by being a flip flopper. He is the modern equivalent to Emperor Maximilian (Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire during Machiavelli’s time).

Fra Luca, the man of affairs to Maximilian, the present emperor, speaking of his majesty, said: He consulted with no one, yet never got his own way in anything. This arose because of his following a practice the opposite to the above; for the emperor is a secretive man — he does not communicate his designs to any one, nor does he receive opinions on them. But as in carrying them into effect they become revealed and known, they are at once obstructed by those men whom he has around him, and he, being pliant, is diverted from them. Hence it follows that those things he does one day he undoes the next, and no one ever understands what he wishes or intends to do, and no one can rely on his resolutions.

Tony Abbott didn’t consult over his announcement on paid parental leave and opposition to the Government’s scheme. There was a great commotion and dissent in the Coalition Party-room over the business-tax element of the plan. Similarly, his shadow ministers were annoyed that they weren’t consulted. As a result, Abbott announced that he may end up supporting (or at least not opposing) the Government’s parental leave scheme.

Tony Abbott was against health care reform, saying “it’s a bad plan”, yet after the horror Newspoll, he said: “The coalition will not necessarily oppose the government’s public hospital changes”.

The constant flip flops demonstrate that (apart from the fact that Abbott should be an acrobat rather than an ironman) the Opposition Leader is incapable of being steadfast in his resolution. At the first sign of trouble, he changes direction – like a political weather-vane.

This view was established from the start of his leadership, when Abbott supported, then opposed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Malcolm Turnbull branded Abbott a weathervane over this issue.

Looking at the recent Newspoll, Machiavelli’s advice seems apt for Abbott’s poll-plummet: “He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.“

Related posts:

1. Lessons from The (Modern) Prince, Part 1: The CPRS
2. Lessons from the (Modern) Prince, Part 4: Understanding the Greens in Tasmania
3. Lessons from the (Modern) Prince, Part 2: Timing of reform

Following from my previous post on the lessons that Machiavelli’s The Prince can give us today, I thought I’d discuss the timing of policy reform. This is applicable, in my view, for most policy makers, especially political policy makers, and for large reforms. This series of posts is part of Project 52 – one post per week throughout the year.

Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.

Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VIII

In keeping with my nod to Antonio Gramsci, the prince in this example should be thought of as the political party, rather than an individual. The prince is not the leader (i.e. not Rudd or Obama, etc). The “usurper” in the quote above equates to a political party who has just won government over the former prince. The “injuries” are the prince’s legislative and other reforms.

“… the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily…” The newly elected political party’s first task is to identify its legislative program. As Machiavelli remarks, it is best for new princes to implement their changes (injuries) as soon as possible. This is of course difficult, as the new government will not have the detail and knowledge base to immediately introduce its new bills to parliament.

A wise prince (political party) therefore prepares its bills and other legislation for major reforms before the election. This is evident for example with Jeff Kennett, whose ministers secretly formulated legislation that was passed through parliament within months of winning government in Victoria, while the Labor party was still in disarray.

It is for this reason also that wise princes should make their changes as soon as possible. The deposed prince (the former government and new opposition) are demoralised, disorganised and ill-equipped to handle a disciplined, powerful prince. They likely do not even have a leader (as we saw after the 2007 election, it took  a while for the Liberals to elect a new leader).

The new prince also has the benefit of claiming a mandate. Thus, they benefit from a supportive public, a media preoccupied with the “honeymoon period”, and a disorganised opposition.

“… and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits.” All of the controversial legislation should be weighted at the front of the new prince’s reign. Things like health care reform, carbon pollution reduction, tax changes, and so on. Meanwhile, the benefits, such as tax cuts, increases to welfare and benefits, or improvements to the pension, can be introduced throughout the parliamentary term. All of the “pain” is experienced at the start, the unsettling period is over quickly, and any displeasure from the electorate can be restored through the beneficial changes throughout the rest of the four years.

“… neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs.” This is a problem that the Obama and Rudd have found. Because they have spent a considerable part of their first terms “listening” and “consulting”, they have spread out the injuries.

The subjects in this case is not just the electorate, but also the “nobles” – the powerful entrenched business interests, such as the carbon lobby, private health insurers, and the rest of the Business Council of Australia members. While they may have been supine at the start of the prince’s reign, they grow in boldness and anger as the new government slowly introduces its legislation. Their interests are mostly for no change. By giving them time, they can plot and plan against the prince – building opposition in parliament and the community. The prince is therefore “compelled to keep the knife in his hand” – and be constantly publicly fighting and defending throughout the parliamentary term. This fighting distracts the populace from focusing on the good things.

As Machiavelli says, people remember the wrongs commmitted against them far more than generosity.

Finally, given the Australian electoral cycle, the earlier major reforms are brought in, the most the Australian people and business can become used to the changes. Hopefully, by the time the election comes around again, the new changes are ingrained and now considered part of the natural order of things, making it difficult for future “usurpers” to undo the reforms.

Related posts:

1. Lessons from The (Modern) Prince, Part 1: The CPRS
2. Lessons from the (Modern) Prince, Part 4: Understanding the Greens in Tasmania
3. Lessons from the Modern Prince, Part 3: He was against it before he was for it (aka: the Barnaby principle)

As part of my Project 52 posts, I thought I’d spend a few weeks musing on the lessons of Niccolo Machiavelli not learned in our modern times. I’ve added a parenthetical “Modern” as a reference to my favourite theorist Antonio Gramsci‘s famous treatise The Modern Prince. In The Modern Prince, political parties are cast in the role of the Renaissance prince.

The modern Labor party is acutely aware of history – the Howard decade, the Hawke/Keating and Whitlam legacies. Many of the senior operatives in Labor are amateur experts on American history or the history of World War 2. Unfortunately, there seems to be a book missing on their shelves. The seminal Florentine real-politick manual, The Prince.

This is particularly evident in the handling of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Those who by valorous ways become princes, like these men, acquire a principality with difficulty, but they keep it with ease. The difficulties they have in acquiring it arise in part from the new rules and methods which they are forced to introduce to establish their government and its security. And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

Machiavelli: The Prince: Chapter VI.

“Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions…” This is evident when looking at the national debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the first step to economy-wide change built around putting a cost to polluting. Climate change is one of the most serious problems facing Australia and the world, and is caused in no small part because of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emissions. There is no cost to pollute, so no incentive for businesses or citizens to reduce their emissions. The CPRS introduces a (small) cost. It is a first step towards a clean economy.

The political problem is that large emitters profit enormously from the current arrangements. They can pollute with no accounting of the externalities of their actions. Needless to say, they have fought tooth and nail to stop any reform. It is in their interest to oppose any change, and furthermore to fund efforts to make the introduction of the CPRS as politically painful as possible. This has seen scare campaigns run in regional electorates, legions of carbon lobbyists descend on Canberra and marginal seat MPs, and millions of dollars sent to climate denialist groups (including the Liberal Party).

“…and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.” Similarly, any added cost to polluting will be in large part passed on to consumers – citizens. This added cost to ordinary Australians has prompted opposition from a significant (but no a majority) part of the community. Ordinary Australians are being asked to subsidise the big polluters through taxes, and to bear any increased costs through polluters passing on higher costs. This is despite the large number of Australians who support carbon pollution reduction.

Little wonder that supporters are “lukewarm”.

“This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side…” In this case, the opponents are the Liberal Party, who, while they cannot make laws, can hold up laws. Supporters of the CPRS are worried about supporting in the event the Liberals get reelected. Furthermore, they are unwilling to invest in a climate of uncertainty when the Liberals are blocking the CPRS in the Senate. Similarly, many ordinary Australians are being targeted by the scare campaign of the carbon lobby – they are scared of losing their jobs. The carbon lobby (especially aluminium) is especially effective. The vast bulk of Australians are disorganised and inattentive, while the carbon lobby and big business have money, organisation and the Liberal Party in their favour.

“…and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” Even those people who support adding a cost to carbon pollution, there is waning support. Many are cool on the idea because they believe the CPRS does not go far enough. They get information from “green groups” that say that the CPRS gives too much compensation to big polluters or that the targets are not high enough. (Without joining the dots that currently there are no targets, and no reductions in pollution at all). Simply put, they do not believe things will be better under the CPRS – especially since the reforms are so long into the future (2020, 2050 and beyond).

If Machiavelli were around today, he would no doubt be shocked that Labor has been so unMachiavellian.

For environmentalists, and environmentalists in the Labor Party, it may pay to follow the Florentine’s advice a little more closely. We need to overcome the credibility gap in stating that a price on carbon will be pain-free. As Machiavelli says, the most effective princes (or parties) are those who are virtuous and truthful, in reality.

Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

Related posts:

1. Lessons from the (Modern) Prince, Part 2: Timing of reform
2. Lessons from the Modern Prince, Part 3: He was against it before he was for it (aka: the Barnaby principle)
3. Lessons from the (Modern) Prince, Part 4: Understanding the Greens in Tasmania

For my Project 52 post this week, I thought I’d quickly comment on Karl Rove’s recent article in the Wall Street Journal.

Karl Rove writes that the conservative, anti-Obama Tea Party movement needs to avoid being co-opted by the Republicans. They strength, he writes, is their decentralisation and their ability to “hold the feet of politicians in both parties in the fire” over debt, spending and federal power.

The key paragraphs are these however:

If tea party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, “birthers” who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.

The GOP is also better off if it foregoes any attempt to merge with the tea party movement. The GOP cannot possibly hope to control the dynamics of the highly decentralized galaxy of groups that make up the tea party movement. There will be troubling excesses and these will hurt Republicans if the party is formally associated with tea party groups.

Rove’s article is not advice to the Tea Party movement, but rather a warning to the Republicans to be wary of the ultra-extreme constituent units that make up the TPM.

Rove knows that in order to win elections, the Republicans need to win the support of the independent voters, as well as the Republican base. This is how Obama won – by mobilising the independents. Independent voters don’t generally support the ultra-conservative extremists like 9/11 deniers, birthers or La Rouchites.

The Republicans have been warned – don’t try to subsume the Tea Party movement into the GOP. Rather, mobilise them on issues and try to get them out to vote – but aim for the “conservative centre” rather than the fringe.

Related posts:

1. The rise of the US Right: “learning from the Left”
2. The Democrats will be victims to incumbency
3. Republicans struggling, near bottom

For my Project 52 post, I thought I’d comment about a recent Pew report has come to my attention via DownloadSquad that says that young people are blogging less:

Pew Internet released a report yesterday called Social Media and Young Adults that shows teen blogging down by 50% over the past four years, even as blogging increased among those over 30 years old.

The report also shows that teens are not very likely to be Twitter users (only 8% of internet users between the ages of 12 and 17 report using the service), even though they are heavy users of almost all other online applications; in fact, 73% of “wired American teens” are social networking website users. Twitter seems to stick out as a service that younger people are not as interested in.

The report is really talking about teens – 12 to 17 year olds – and I have to say that the conclusions follow my observations. While I grew up before the Internet and social networks became ubiquitous, I remember MSN and ICQ were used widely. With Facebook and MySpace (and their in-house chats), it seems to me that most young people are more interested in talking with each other.

DownloadSquad also concludes that young people aren’t “content creators”. I’m not sure I agree with that. Rather, I think young people only share their content – photos and videos – with their friends, rather than putting them on Flickr or a blog.

Related posts:

1. Online usage demographics are changing
2. Three tips to get more people liking your union’s Facebook page
3. Twitter – who is using it and how

The legion of No Clean Feed activists have developed several campaign sites, one of which is The Great Australian Internet Blackout. Their call to action (in addition to writing to the Government and adding a twibbon to your Twitter profile picture) is to blackout (darken) your website on Australia Day.

Their reasons for doing this are:

1. The filter won’t protect children because it is ineffective;
2. It will cost consumers more and may negatively impact speeds;
3. Australia will be joining a censorship club with Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.

The first two reasons are (more or less) fine with me, as I’ve discussed here. I’d put them differently to how it’s phrased on TGAIB.

The last one, in my view, is wrong-headed. It is this argument (the filter = censorship) that is the least effective:

In my view, the No Clean Feed campaign’s focus on the Internet filter equating to political censorship is foolish. It does not live up to most Australians’ lived experience. Few Australians are affected by the “censorship” inherent in the current refused classification material regime.

Related posts:

1. No Clean Feed and Hoekstrian exaggeration
2. Some key message ideas for #NoCleanFeed
3. No Clean Feed campaign needs to drop their "censorship" obsession

There’s been some discussion about whether the Democrats will be victim to the over-cooked expectations of Obama supporters and energised conservative Republicans:

First, the background: the party of the president in office essentially always loses seats in the mid-term elections (2002 was a post-9/11 one-off), a tendency likely to be reinforced in 2010 by the fact that so many Democrats rode the Obama wave to win marginal districts in ’08. Plus, this year many progressive activists are turned off by what they perceive to be a failed healthcare reform bill, while others oppose Obama’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Add into the mix on the other side a fired-up movement of Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin fans and you have what looks like the recipe for a massive Democratic defeat in eleven months.

My view is that, given the still-parlous state of the US economy, the Democrats will be a victim of incumbency. This is certainly my analysis of the victory by Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell – who beat the incumbent Democrat.

This is not a resurgence of the Republicans, but a reaction against the failing body-politic of the USA. Disenfranchised Americans will try to punish whichever party is in power – not just the Democrats. The Obama campaign, while lauded as a “digital revolution” and a shining example of grass-roots, bottom-up empowerment, has not translated into decentralisation of decision-making. Normal people are still locked out of the policy making process in Washintgon and in their home states.

The ten percent  unemployment (much higher in many areas) doesn’t help.

I also agree with Colin Delany from TechPresident that the Tea Party movement won’t necessarily equate to success for the Republicans. The Tea Party movement is largely an astro-turf movement, but even where there is a real ground swell, the Republicans are still an integral part of the broken system that the Tea Party-ers are rallying against:

…the Tea Partiers may have energy, but they primarily seem to employ it against other Republicans, particularly those in the party establishment, even when they’re not squabbling amongst themselves. Many mainstream Republicans will face ideological primary challenges in 2010, forcing them to spend scarce resources early on and to take positions that could box them into a corner in the Fall. And with the RNC short on cash, individual candidates can’t count on the party bailing them out even if they do manage to shrug off the rightwing rabble.

The Democrat’s biggest problem will be to turn out their disheartened supporters, and to convince Americans that they should retain control of the Congress.

More on the Senate by-election at Larvatus Prodeo.

Related posts:

1. Massachusetts election outcome shows dangers of incumbency
2. Tea Party warning
3. Republicans struggling, near bottom

Via Adii of Woothemes, I’ve stumbled across Project 52, a “personal challenge geared toward getting fresh content on your website. The goal is to write at least 1 new article per week for 1 year.”

So far this year, I reckon I’ve managed one post per week. A challenge like this may help me keep my publication schedule more constant, rather than the fits and bursts of the last few years.

It’s certainly strange to think that I’ve been blogging here since 2008 (and previously blogged over at Blogger from 2005).

Project 52 isn’t just about posting once a week. Project creator Anton Peck writes:

What’s needed:

• Write a clear vision of what p52 means to people who want to participate, how to join, and how to spread interest.
• A sense of membership/community for those who are participating.
• There should be a way of publicly browsing the participating domains that have been updated.
• Total accountability. Letting yourself down is far less stressful than letting an audience down. If someone misses a week, it should be public.

The idea of building a community appeals to me, as does the accountability. Knowing that there are others watching to make sure that I keep up with the one post a week makes it more likely that I’ll keep to the schedule and won’t miss a week.

We’ll see how it goes.

Related posts:

1. Why I’m joining Labour
2. Britain’s first internet election?