What's new?

Read Blog
31 Dec 2012
Notes Permalink

Housekeeping 2012

2012/12/31

Books published 1
Papers published in peer-reviewed journals 3
Papers in review maelstrom 3
Dissertation chapters written 1/2
Papers presented at conferences 1
Other talks given 12
Blogposts published on “Too Bad You Never Knew Ace Hanna” 23
Other publications 4
Courses taught 3
Courses taken 1

Kilometers traveled 37.874
Days spent on the road 104
Cities visited 30
Countries visited 5 (Belgium, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, USA)

Secret evil plans n

So much for 2012. Let’s see what 2013 has got in store.

10 Nov 2012
Notes Permalink

Technology in US-Campaigns: Readings

2012/11/10

The US-election has come and gone and suddenly seemingly everyone agrees that “data” is the next big thing in political campaigns. This is great for journalists. Now they can update their pieces on the 2008 Obama-campaign by simply replacing the words “Facebook” and “Social Media” by the words “data” and “databases”. It’s also great for consultants since they are suddenly awarded with a new transformative, disruptive, and definitely decisive tool to sell to their clients. As such this is nothing new. The “microtargeting revolution” of the 90s and the “social media revolution” of 2008 were sold the same way.

So one could read the growing deluge of journalistic pieces on how Obama won with data with curiosity but reserved detachment:

    • Databases: been there done that
    • Campaigns buying data: only possible with the rather lax privacy regulation in the US
    • Campaigns collecting data: too expensive, would lead to public outcry in other countries
    • Campaigns using quantitative models: does not work without extensive databases
    • Volunteers knocking on doors: specific to the US-context does not work in other countries

    While some of these statements might have a point, they mistake new tools and campaign techniques for the true lesson of the US-campaign of 2012. The new tools and techniques used by the Obama-campaign are specific answers to a specific campaign context. As such they have probably little general applicability. But focusing on this means missing the bigger point: the innovations of the Obama campaign are rooted in the organisational culture of the campaign itself and the culture of its allies. This organisational culture holds important lessons for campaigns in different electoral, legal and cultural contexts. Ignoring these lessons means missing the bigger picture and just adopting a comfortable reading that justifies one’s business-as-usual approach.

    Two of these changes in the organisational culture are:

    • A quantitative turn in the selection, evaluation and interpretation of tried campaigning techniques off- and online
    • A heavy emphasis on the training of campaigning staff in campaigning techniques and skills by the campaign and its allies

    Both these trends have been identified and very well documented by scholars and practitioners alike. Still, there is the danger that these more nuanced accounts of the messy process of campaign innovation are ignored in favour of the breathless accounts of shiny new campaigning toys. If this happens this will lead to a boom-and-bust cycle for the use of “data” in campaigns that will resemble the hype surrounding the use of “social media” in campaigns.

    To put the discussion of the real innovations of the Obama-campaigns of 2008 and 2012 and their potential influences on the election results on a sounder footing a short list of texts by scholars and practitioners might prove helpful. Sure, an article in one’s favourite newspaper or magazine might be a quicker read, but – as argued above – in choosing these accounts one would more often than not sacrifice sound analysis for peace of mind.

    Background on political campaigns in the USA:

  • General analysis of the campaign 2008:

  • General analysis of the campaign 2012:

  • Organisational culture of Democratic campaigns and their allies:

  • Get out the Vote:

  • Technological Innovations:

  • [Update: 2012/11/13]
    Very good interview with Matthew Hindman on the role of the Internet in the US campaigns of 2012.

    [Update: 2012/11/14]
    Very helpful account of what is presently know about the analytical efforts of the Obama campaign by Lois Beckett.

    • 09 Nov 2012
    Notes 2 Comments Permalink

    Organisationskultur als tatsächliche Lektion der Obama-Kampagne für den deutschen Wahlkampf

    2012/11/09 2 Comments

    Die US-Wahl ist noch keine Woche vorbei und schon zeichnet sich ab, dass Innovationen der demokratischen Kampagnenführung in ihrer Bedeutung für den deutschen Wahlkampf wenig zielführend interpretiert werden: Anstelle die gezielte Wähler-Mobilisierung über große Datenbanken mit detaillierten Datensätzen als für Deutschland nicht durchführbar zu erklären (da Geld für den Aufbau der Datenbanken fehlt, bzw. es rechtlich für Parteien nicht möglich ist, vergleichbare Datensätze kommerziell einzukaufen) und es dabei zu belassen wäre es sinnvoller, sich zwei grundlegende Elemente demokratischer Kampagnen seit 2004 genauer anzusehen:

    1. Eine Veränderung der Kampagnenkultur weg von anekdotischem Expertenwissen hin zu quantitativ belegbaren Erkenntnissen durch die Nutzung von Experimenten in Kampagnen;

    und

    2. Die gezielte Ausbildung von Freiwilligen in praktischen Fragen der Kampagnenführung on- und offline durch verschiedene Organisationen aus dem Umfeld der demokratischen Partei (zB New Organizing Institute).

    Beide dieser Elemente haben die effektive Nutzung von Datenbanken und quantitativen Modellen für die gezielte Mobilisierung potentieller Unterstützer erst möglich gemacht und beide dieser Elemente wären ohne Weiteres auch in deutschen Kampagnen anwendbar. Es geht also nicht darum, ob spezifische Werkzeuge und Methoden der Obama-Kampagne in Deutschland verwendbar sind. Die Frage ist eher, ob wir aus der Organisationskultur der Kampagne und ihres Umfelds lernen können.

    29 Oct 2012
    Publications Permalink

    Gastbeitrag für politik-digital.de: “Die Rückkehr der Freiwilligen: Die steigende Bedeutung von GOTV in amerikanischen Kampagnen”

    2012/10/29

    Für politik-digital.de habe ich einen kurzen Gastbeitrag über die Bedeutung des personalisierten GOTV in US-Kampagnen geschrieben:

    Die Rückkehr der Freiwilligen: Die steigende Bedeutung von GOTV in amerikanischen Kampagnen

    Wer mehr Informationen zu diesem Thema erfahren möchte seien die aktuellen Arbeiten von Rasmus Kleis Nielsen ( “Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns“) und Sasha Issenberg (“The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns“) empfohlen.

    22 Oct 2012
    Teaching Permalink

    Syllabus: Political Communication Winter Term 2012/3

    2012/10/22

    Another semester, another syllabus. This winter I’ll be teaching an introductory course to political communication again. Since the winter semesters are a bit longer in Germany than the summer semester I had the chance to add a few topical sessions. The biggest change is probably the addition of the session on “Personalized Political Communication” (to borrow a the term by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen). The session deals with the increasing use of personal contacts in US campaigns.

    As always, if you have advice on the syllabus or if you think I’m missing crucial texts or concepts, please let me know.

    General Readings
    Denis McQuail. 2010. “News Public Opinion and Political Communication,” in: McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. 6. Auflage. London: Sage, 503-536.

    Donald R. Kinder. 2003. “Communication and Politics in the Age of Information,” in: David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 357-393.

    Holli A. Semetko. 2004. “Media, Public Opinion, and Political Action,” in: John D. H. Downing, Denis McQuail, Philip Schlesinger and Ellen Wartella (eds.). The Sage Handbook of Media Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 351-374.

    Winfried Schulz. 2011. Politische Kommunikation: Theoretische Ansätze und Ergebnisse empirischer Forschung. 3rd Edition. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    How To Do Presentations
    Garr Reynolds. 2008. Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery. Berkeley: New Riders.

    Nancy Duarte. 2008. slide: ology: The Art and Science of Presentation Design. Beijing (a.o.): O’Reilly.

    Nancy Duarte. 2010. resonate: Present Visual Stories that Transform Audiences. Hoboken (a.o.): John Wiley & Sons.

    Introduction
    Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard. 1992. “Scientific Method,” in: Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. 3. Auflage. New York: Longman, 19-35.

    Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard. 1992. “Effects of Mass Communication,” in: Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. 3. Auflage. New York: Longman, 247-268.

    Strong Media Effects and Propaganda
    Mandatory Reading:
    Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton. 1949. “Studies in Radio and Film Propaganda,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 6, 58-79. Reprinted in: Robert K. Merton (ed.). 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 563-582.

    Presentation on:
    Harold D. Laswell. 1971 [1927]. “Chapter 1: The Matter in Hand”, “Chaper 8: Conditions and Methods of Propaganda: A Summary”, “Chapter 9: The Results of Propaganda.” Propaganda Technique in World War 1. Cambridge, MA, u.a.: The M.I.T. Press, 1-18; 185-213; 214-222.

    Samuel J. Eldersveld. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior,” The American Political Science Review 50 (1), 154-165.

    Klaus Merten. 2000. “Struktur und Funktion von Propaganda,” Publizistik 45 (2), 143-162.

    Limited Effects: Opinion Leaders and Two-Step-Flow of Communication
    Mandatory Reading:
    Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and William N. McPhee. 1954. “Social Process: Small Groups and Political Discussion.” In: Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 88-117.

    Steven H. Chaffee and John L. Hochheimer. 1982. “The Beginnings of Political Communication Research in the US: Origins of the Limited Effects Model”, in: Everett M. Rogers and Francis Balle (eds.). The Media Revolution in America and Western Europe. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 263-283.

    Presentation on:
    John P. Robinson. 1976. “Interpersonal Influence in Election Campaigns: Two Step-Flow Hypotheses.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (3), 304-319.

    W. Lance Bennett and Jarol B. Manheim. 2006. “The One-Step Flow of Communication.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 608, 213-232.

    Duncan Watts and Peter Sheridan Dodds. 2007. “Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation.” Journal of Consumer Research 34, 441-458.

    Limited Effects: Reinforcement and Selectivity
    Mandatory Reading:
    Joseph T. Klapper. 1960. “Reinforcement, Minor Change, and Related Phenomena,” in: The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press, 15-52.

    David O. Sears and Jonathan L. Freedman. 1965. “Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly 31 (2), 194-213.

    Presentation on:
    Wolfgang Donsbach. 1991. “Exposure to Political Content in Newspapers: The Impact of Cognitive Dissonance on Readers’ Selectivity.” European Journal of Communication 6 (2), 155-186.

    Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure,” Political Behavior 30 (3), 341-366.

    Shanto Iyengar and Kyu S. Hahn. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use,” Journal of Communication 59 (1), 19-39.

    Return to the Concept of Powerful Mass Media: Spiral of Silence
    Mandatory Reading:
    Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. 1991. “The Theory of Public Opinion: The Concept of the Spiral of Silence,” in: James A. Anderson (ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 256-287.

    Serge Moscovici. 1991. “Silent Majorities and Loud Minorities,” in: James A. Anderson (ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 298-308.

    Presentation on:
    Diana C. Mutz and Joe Soss. 1997. “Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment,” Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3), 431-451.

    Carroll J. Glynn, Andrew F. Hayes, James Shanahan [@JamesShanahan]. 1997. “Perceived Support for One’s Opinion and Willingness to Speak Out,” Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3), 452-463.

    Dietram A. Scheufele and Patricia Moy. 2000. “Twenty-Five Years of the Spiral of Silence: A Conceptual Review and Empirical Outlook.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12 (1), 3-28.

    Agenda Setting
    Mandatory Reading:
    Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media,” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2), 176-187.

    Everett M. Rogers and James W. Dearing. 1988. “Agenda-Setting Research: Where has it been? Where is it Going?” In: James A. Anderson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 11, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 555-594.

    Presentation on:
    Stephen D. Reese. 1991. “Setting the Media’s Agenda: A Power Balance Perspective.” In: James A. Anderson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 309-340.

    Marilyn Roberts and Maxwell McCombs. 1994. “Agenda Setting and Political Advertising: Origins of the News Agenda.” Political Communication 11 (3), 249-262.

    Russell J. Dalton, Paul Allen Beck, Robert Huckfeldt and William Koetzle. 1998. “A Test of Media-Centered Agenda Setting: Newspaper Content and Public Interest in a Presidential Election.” Political Communication 15 (4), 463-481.

    Stefan Walgrave and Peter Van Aelst. 2006. “The Contingency of the Mass Media’s Political Agenda Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory.” Journal of Communication 56 (1), 88-109.

    Framing
    Mandatory Reading:
    Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science 10, 103-126.

    Robert M. Entman. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of Communication 43 (4), 51-58.

    Presentation on:
    Robert M. Entman. 2003. “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11.” Political Communication 20 (4), 415-432.

    James N. Druckman. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects,” American Political Science Review 98 (4), 671-686.

    Dietram A. Scheufele [Blog] [@dietram] and David Tewksbury. 2007. “Framing, Agenda-Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media-Effects Models,” Journal of Communication 57 (1), 9-20.

    Adam F. Simon and Jennifer Jerit. 2007. “Toward a Theory Relating Political Discourse, Media, and Public Opinion.” Journal of Communication 57 (2), 254-271.

    Knowledge Gap and Digital Divide
    Mandatory Reading:
    Philip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue and Clarice N. Olien. 1970. “Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge,” Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (2), 159-170.

    Maria Elizabeth Grabe, Rasha Kamhawi and Narine Yegiyan. 2009. “Informing Citizens: How People with Different Levels of Education Process TV, Newspaper and Web News.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 53 (1), 90-111.

    Presentation on:
    Kasisomayajula Viswanath and John R. Finnegan. 1996. “The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: Twenty-Five Years Later.” In: Brant R. Burleson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 19. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 187-227.

    Stephen Earl Bennett, Richard S. Flickinger, John R. Baker, Staci L. Rhine and Linda L. M. Bennett. 1996. “Citizens’ Knowledge of Foreign Affairs.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 1 (2), 10.29.

    Eszter Hargiatti [Blog] [@eszter] and Amanda Hinnant. 2008. “Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet,” Communication Research 35 (5), 600-621.

    The Selection of News and the Construction of Reality
    Mandatory Reading:
    Hans Mathias Kepplinger. 1989. “Theorien der Nachrichtenauswahl als Theorien der Realität,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B15, 3-16.

    W. Lance Bennett. 1990. “Towards a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States,” Journal of Communication 40 (2), 103-125.

    Presentation on:
    Hans Mathias Kepplinger and Johanna Habermeier. 1995. “The Impact of Key Events on the Presentation of Reality.” European Journal of Communication 10 (3), 371-390.

    Jens Woelke. 2003. “Rezeption von Fernsehnachrichten – Befunde zum Nachrichtenwert und zur Relevanz von Nachrichtenfaktoren.” In: Georg Ruhrmann, Jens Woelke, Michaela Maier and Nicole Diehlmann (Ed.). Der Wert von Nachrichten im deutschen Fernsehen: Ein Modell zur Validierung von Nachrichtenfaktoren. Opladen: Leske+Budrich, 163-199.

    W. Lance Bennett, Victor W. Pickard, David P. Iozzi, Carl L. Schroeder, Taso Lago and C. Evans Caswell. 2004. “Managing the Public Sphere: Journalistic Constructions of the Great Globalization Debate,” Journal of Communication 54 (3), 437-455.

    Mass Media and Politics
    Mandatory Reading:
    Michael J. Robinson. 1976. “Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise: The Case of The Selling of the Pentagon,” American Political Science Review, 70, 409-43.

    Hans Mathias Kepplinger. 2002. “Mediatization of Politics: Theory and Data.” In: Journal of Communication 52, 972-986.

    Presentation on:
    Christina Holtz-Bacha. 1989. “Verleidet uns das Fernsehen die Politik? Auf den Spuren der Videomalaise,” in: Max Kaase and Winfried Schulz (eds.). Massenkommunikation. Theorien, Methoden, Befunde. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 239-252.

    Mitchell S. McKinney and Diana B. Carlin. 2004. “Political Campaign Debates.” In: Lynda Lee Kaid (Ed.). Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 203-234.

    Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and Katrin Voltmer. 2007. “The Mass Media in Third-Wave Democracies: Gravediggers or Seedsmen of Democratic Consolidation?” In: Richard Gunther, José Ramón Montero and Hans-Jürgen Puhle (Ed.). Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75-134.

    Winfried Schulz and Reimar Zeh. 2010. “Die Protagonisten in der Fernseharena: Merkel und Steinmeier in der Berichterstattung über den Wahlkampf 2009.” In: Christina Holz-Bacha (Ed.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Das Wahljahr 2009. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 313-338.

    Political Learning: Hard News vs Soft News
    Mandatory Reading:
    James Curran, Shanto Iyengar, Anker Brink Lund and Inka Salovaara-Moring. 2008. “Media System, Public Knowledge and Democracy: A Comparative Study,” European Journal of Communication 24 (1), 5-26.

    Matthew A. Baum and Angela S. Jamison. 2006. “The Oprah Effect: How Soft News Helps Inattentive Citizens Vote Consistently,” Journal of Politics 68 (4), 946-959.

    Presentation on:
    Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris. 2006. “The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth,” American Politics Research 34 (3), 341- 367.

    W. Lance Bennett. 2005. “Beyond Pseudoevents: Election News as Reality TV,” American Behavioral Scientist 49 (3), 1-15.

    Mass Media and and Campaigning
    Mandatory Reading:
    Klaus Schönbach and Edmund Lauf. 2002. “The Trap Effect of Television and its Competitors,” Communication Research 29 (5), 564-583.

    Pippa Norris and David Sanders. 2003. “Message or Medium? Campaign Learning during the 2001 British General Election,” Political Communication 20 (3), 233-62.

    Presentation on:
    Jürgen Wilke and Carsten Reinemann. 2006. “Die Normalisierung des Sonderfalls? Die Wahlkampfberichterstattung der Presse 2005 im Langzeitvergleich,” in: Christina Holtz-Bacha (ed.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Die Bundestagswahl 2005. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 306-337.

    Winfried Schulz and Reimar Zeh. 2010. “Die Protagonisten in der Fernseharena: Merkel und Steinmeier in der Berichterstattung über den Wahlkampf 2009.” In: Christina Holtz-Bacha (Hrsg.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Das Wahljahr 2009. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 313-338.

    Personalized Political Communication
    Mandatory Reading:
    Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2012. “Chapter 1: Personalized Political Communication in American Campaigns.” & “Chapter 2: The Gorund War Enters the Twenty-First Century.” In: Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 4-33 & 34-62.

    Presentation on:
    Donald P. Green, Alan S. Gerber und David W. Nickerson. 2003. “Getting Out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments.” The Journal of Politics 65(4): 1083-1096.

    Elizabeth M. Addonizio, Donald P. Green und James M. Glaser. 2008. “Putting the Party Back into Politics: An Experiment Testing Whether Election Day Festivals Increase Voter Turnout.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40(4), 721-727.

    Political Communication Online
    Mandatory Reading:
    Christian Vaccari. 2010. “Technology is a Commodity: The Internet in the 2008 United States Presidential Election.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7 (4), 318-339.

    Andrew Chadwick. 2011. “The Political Information Cycle in a Hybrid News System: the British Prime Minister and the “Bullygate” Affair.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (1), 3-29.

    Presentation on:
    Matthew Hindman. 2005. “The Real Lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the First Digital Campaign,” Perspectives on Politics 3 (1), 121-128.

    Eva Johanna Schweitzer. 2010. “Normalisierung 2.0: Die Online-Wahlkämpfe deutscher Parteien zu den Bundestagswahlen 2002-2009.” In: Christina Holtz-Bacha (Ed.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Das Wahljahr 2009. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 189-244.

    Terri L. Towner and David A. Dulio. 2011. “The Web 2.0 Election. Does the Online Medium Matter?” Journal of Political Marketing 10 (1-2), 165-188.

    So, what is missing?

    03 Sep 2012
    Notes Permalink

    GOTV in International Campaigns?

    2012/09/03

    Yesterday the blog “Mobilizing Ideas” published “Is GOTV a Universally Applicable Answer for Campaigns to the Challenge of Fragmented Audiences?” a short piece I wrote on the applicability of US GOTV tactics in international campaigns. The essay is part of a larger discussion on the blog inspired by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen's new book “Ground Wars” (2012), in which he portrays the state of the art of GOTV in the US-Congressional campaign 2008. If your are interested in the topic be sure to check out his book. Also participating in the blog-discussion are Dave Karpf (The MoveOn Effect) and Daniel Kreiss (Taking Our Country Back), themselves authors of two recent excellent additions to the online campaigning literature.

     

    28 Aug 2012
    Publications Permalink

    New Article: “Online campaigning in Germany: The CDU online campaign for the general election 2009 in Germany”

    2012/08/28

    A few days back “German Politics” published the iFirst version of my paper “Online campaigning in Germany: The CDU online campaign for the general election 2009 in Germany“. In this paper I describe the attempts of the German conservatives to include Web 2.0 elements in their campaign of 2009. It's a little light on theory but I hope that the rich description in the paper helps the reader in getting a feeling for the present state of Web 2.0 campaigning in Germany. Please let me know what you think.

    The paper was first prepared for the MPSA meeting in 2010, which as it turned out I could not attend because of a rather temperamental volcano on Iceland. Early in 2012 I presented another early version of the paper during a workshop organized by Rachel Gibson and Andrea Römmele at the ECPR joint session in Antwerp, Belgium. So this paper has a bit of milage on it but I’m happy that it’s finally out.

    Here is the abstract:

    The German election year 2009 saw the first attempts by political parties to include Web 2.0 services in their online campaigns. The 2009 election therefore offers the opportunity to examine how political parties outside the USA – where online campaigning has become commonplace – choose to use online tools in their campaigns. This paper examines the online campaign of the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) with a special focus on the campaign's use of Web 2.0 services. The different elements of the campaign will be discussed with regard to three basic functions of online campaigning provided by the relevant literature: 1) presence in the online information space; 2) support of the infrastructure of politics; 3) creation of symbols for political support and participation. This paper shows that these functions were all present in the CDU's use of online tools in the campaign of 2009.

    Andreas Jungherr. 2012. (Online First). “Online campaigning in Germany: The CDU online campaign for the general election 2009 in Germany.” German Politics.