What different campaign styles have made history? Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, presidential campaigns were conducted at the grassroots level, often by party leaders and office holders, but seldom by the candidate himself. One notable exception is William Jennings Bryan’s 1896 tour of the country by rail in order to deliver his Democratic message to the American people.
Other nominees held “front porch” campaigns, during which candidates didn’t leave the privacy of their own homes. Introduced by Benjamin Harrison, the front porch campaign became notable in 1896 when 750,000 voters flocked to William McKinley’s Canton, Ohio, home to hear the candidate speak. A modern example of the front-porch campaign is the “Rose Garden” campaign, whereby sitting presidents seeking reelection minimize their travel schedule and instead deliver announcements from the White House, in an effort to simultaneously campaign and maintain their demanding executive agenda. The term “front porch” campaign has come to denote any campaign conducted close to home without extensive travel or one-on-one interaction with the populace.
Active campaigning became more prominent with Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in 1932 conducted the first modern “whistle stop” campaign, traveling thirteen thousand miles by train and visiting thirty-six states in an effort to reach voters. The “whistle stop” campaign—during which candidates toured the country by train and delivered speeches from the rear platform—became a tried and true campaigning method. Historians generally cite Harry S. Truman as the candidate who holds the record for the most stops, covering thirty-two thousand miles and delivering an average of ten.
What are the 3 types of campaigns?
Acquisition campaigns acquire new prospects and customers. Monetization campaigns generate revenue from existing leads and customers. Engagement campaigns create communities of brand advocates and promoters.
Social media have the potential to influence power relations in political parties as they
allow individual candidates to campaign more independently of the central party. In
this paper, we scrutinize the relationship between individualization and digital social
media in a study that combines the 2013 Norwegian Candidate Survey with candidates’
Twitter data.
We ask, first, to what extent are social media used as an individualistic
campaign tool? Second, does an individualized social media campaign style increase
influence in the Twitter-sphere? Third, what constitutes success on Twitter? We found
two main styles of social media campaigning: a party-centered and an individualized
style.
Moreover, an individualized style did increase the possibility of being active on
Twitter, but it had a negative effect on Twitter's influence. The Twitter influentials are
young, male, and relatively centrally placed in their parties. In a hybrid communication
system, it appears that the candidates who gain influence in social media are those who
are able to create a synergy between traditional media channels and social media.
Social media offer candidates new campaign communication channels, and successful
candidates use them in tandem with other platforms in the emerging hybrid media
system. This influences power relations in political parties.
In this article, we have
shown that in the context of the contemporary Norwegian campaign, social media are
now one of the most important communication tools for candidates in their campaigning efforts, and even in this party-centered environment, candidates emphasize the
possibilities to convey their personal side in these media. We found that candidates’
use of social media can be divided into two main dimensions: a party-centered and an
individualized social media style. Candidates who had a communicative aim of focusing on their own candidacy were more inclined to have an individualized style on
social media as well.
Increasing a candidate’s visibility in his or her own party is an
essential part of the individualized social media campaign style.
The individualized social media style increased the likelihood of being active on
Twitter. However, in general, the relationship between an individualized social media
campaign style and Twitter influence was negative. Based on these results, candidates
who use social media to focus on their own candidacy are not the most successful and
influential candidates on Twitter. Hence, the distinction between activity and influence
is essential.
The profile of the Twitter influentials modified this picture somewhat.
They found Twitter useful for showing their personal side. Moreover, the influentials
used the interactive opportunities to a greater extent than others, and their Twitter
conversations were more about politics. The influentials are younger, male, and relatively centrally placed in their parties. However, Twitter influentials do not constitute
the absolute top politicians, who mostly consist of party leaders, figuring on national
television every day during the election campaign.
These results indicate that Twitter does influence power relations in party politics as
social media provide new avenues for candidates to communicate with their constituencies and with the general public. Even though the increase in individualized campaigning seems modest, our results indicate that the candidates who gain influence on
social media are those who are able to create a synergy between traditional media
channels and social media.
Candidates have not created equals on Twitter and those who
are influential appear to have communicative and political skills enabling them to harness both the affordances of social media as well as to generate attention and visibility
in the traditional media.
As emphasized initially, in Norway, the electoral systems offer few incentives for
individualized campaigning. However, the lack of incentives for individualized campaigning is not necessarily a lack of incentives for using social media platforms.