Prior to the Liberal Convention I wondered if online perceptions would match real world manifestations:
Of interest to me, does the online "hype" surrounding my guy Crawley translate to real delegates, because I see his candidacy as very much social media driven, very much organic in momentum, does that "buzz" manifest into bodies or another example of the cyberworld overstating practical numbers.
I've had this running theory, that social media is still not a core electoral driver, while it has impact, for the general population, it still hasn't reached critical mass. That acknowledgement doesn't dissuade from an emerging influence, just a recognition that "social media" is still evolving, hasn't quite achieved it's potential. However, I do believe social media is quite important when dealing with a narrow, partisan audience of engaged citizens. Enter the Liberal president race, tailor made to see if social media could make a practical difference. Hard core partisans are delegates, these people are online and interconnected, this limited audience ripe for social media expressions.
Brian Klunder, who worked for the Crawley campaign, put up a piece, detailing how social media was a key player for the campaign:
However, the game has changed in the age of social media. The local MP or Senator is just one voice in a new sea of online opinions and recommendations. Watching Twitter at any given time during the campaign told me more about the amount of momentum the Crawley campaign was carrying than any conversation with “key influencers” in politics. With hashtags like #cdnpoli, #lpc, #lpc12 and #lpcprez the level of online engagement during the campaign was stunning. The goal then was to ensure material was being provided that could influence the social media conversation – whether it be through positive media, blogs, supportive tweets or a candidate that actively engaged conversation – each carried the potential of reaching thousands of people. As well, being aware of both the positive and negative issues being shared on Facebook and Twitter allowed us to fine-tune our messaging to address any concerns.
Much of my sense of how the campaign was going was monitoring social media interactions. I would routinely key in Crawley's name to access "buzz", how things were moving around the cyberworld, as stated earlier it was very organic and grassrooty. My impression was things were moving Mike's way, there was a definite online momentum and these people were delegates, a small, but powerful cadre of rank and file Liberals. Yes, Copps had much of the establishement, but Crawley was being propelled by bloggers, tweeters, facebook people, etc, within a narrow audience, it was quite relevant. As an aside, in the final days the media seemed to key in on a two person race, part of which a perception built by social media. I remained sceptical, because we've seen social media fail before, but if ever there was a situation wherein it could tip the balance, a small group of Liberal delegates seemed fertile ground.
I was stunned when Crawley won, rarely do "insurgents" actually win, but he did, and it was close. As someone said to me just after, it was so close, everyone could say they influenced the result, all these little interactions had impact, they actually changed the direction of the party, it mattered. I think it fair to say that, given the numbers, social media very well did "tip the balance" for Crawley, it manifested itself in a practical and important way. There are still challenges for the wider audience, but within this narrow audience, social media was more than just astroturf and "hype", it was real world, real time, momentum expressed in interconnected fashion, feeding itself and a real vehicle for perceived change.