Mitt Romney - Republican Front-Runner?

You know, with regard to the Republican nomination for next year’s presidential election, I keep on hearing the name Mitt Romney being mentioned as the frontrunner. And for the life of me, I can’t work out why.

Part of the reason is that Mitt Romney is not an inspiring candidate. In fact, when I think of the name Mitt Romney, all I can think of is the man who strapped a dog to the roof of his car before setting off on a long journey. And that sort of thing doesn’t immediately make me think “oh, he’d be a good president”. Or a credible candidate for the presidency.

Of course, he’s far saner than some of the other potential candidates – and yes, I’m talking about Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee here. He might be dull, insipid and uninspiring (with a penchant for unintentional [?] animal cruelty, but at least he looks and sounds like a credible (if deeply boring) candidate for the presidency. Which maybe why, given his track record of failure when seeking the Republican nomination, he has become the frontrunner.

There’s a precedent for this, of course. A US political party faces the prospect of having to run a presidential campaign with someone far away from the centre ground. Therefore, they take action, and the establishment moves to embrace a much more mainstream candidate. It happened to the Democrats, for example, in 2004, when the more radical Howard Dean (who, for a long-time seemed destined to be the nominee) was replaced by the much more mainstream (and much more pedestrian) John Kerry.

Which is the point – if nominated, Mitt Romney will be the Republican’s answer to John Kerry. And we all know how John Kerry’s bid for the presidency ended…

The Limitations of a Political Web Strategy

It is becoming the mantra of politicians across the country: “we must have a coherent web strategy!” Derek Draper’s increasingly laughable LabourList is the latest addition to numerous attempts by political parties to “capture the power of the web.”

I can see the appeal – after all, the web is cheap (over a thousand posts over several years and this blog has still yet to cost me a penny) and the web is also fashionable. After all, the internet helped Obama get elected and if it worked for Obama, then everyone else must jump on the bandwagon. If nothing else, then at least you look hip.

The problem that both the Labour party and the Tories find and will continue to find in relation to exploiting the web is that the web is simply a tool for communication, and it works best if a party is struggling to get into the limelight. Put simply, the Labour party doesn’t need another mouthpiece – pretty much the whole of the population learns what the Labour party is saying as soon as a government minister opens their mouth. It hits the front pages, it hits the newspapers – if people don’t hear of the government policy, then it is because they choose not to interact with numerous different media outlets and, let’s be honest, probably don’t want to hear about government policy. The same applies to the Tories. By trying to hit people with information through, say, Facebook, all the Tories and Labour are likely to do is piss people right off by effectively spamming them with unwanted information.

A web strategy produces better results for smaller organisations and insurgent campaigns. One of the many, many failings of UKIP is that it has failed to get a decent online presence and spread the word through the online world. The Lib Dems have also failed to truly grasp the potential of the internet. Likewise, I’d argue that the success of LPUK may yet hinge on how we use the internet as a tool to spread understanding of what Libertarianism actually is and why it should appeal to people across the UK. One of the reasons why Obama is now resident in the White House is because his campaign realised the potential for both spreading the word about the then little-known candidate, as well as enabling his at one time quixotic campaign to make millions through small donations.

And, as well as not automatically suiting larger parties, there is a further problem with pinning your hopes on a good web strategy. You actually have to have a good candidate to promote. Howard Dean over in the US had a great web strategy – yet as soon as he started screaming like a man possessed, web strategy or nor web strategy, John Kerry over took him in the 2004 Democratic primaries. So, and I’ll direct this comment in particular towards Labour – if your candidate is crap, nothing is going to save you. The Labour party could have the whole internet behind them, but as soon as that glowering, grey gimp Gordon opens his inarticulate and bitter mouth, they are, against every available parameter, fucked.

Ultimately, I’d say this. It really doesn’t matter what your web strategy is if you don’t have something to communicate. And that is the problem that both the Labour party and the Tories have. They can pour thousands of pounds into their web strategies and potentially millions into their communication schemes. But they don’t actually have anything new or inspiring to say. They need to work out why they want to be in power first – actually figure out what they have to offer people. Once they have done that, then it will be the time to worry about how to communicate their message. As it stands, a lack of a valid web strategy is not the main problem for the ideologically inert and flaccid Labour party. And the Tories can continue to be better than Labour at the whole interweb thing, but whilst their message is one of broad consensus with those they wish to oppose, they aren’t going to achieve a great deal.