360DigitalInfluence

Over the past six months, candidates for the 2008 Presidential election have rushed to embrace Web 2.0 by creating profiles on MySpace’s Impact Channel, uploading videos to YouTube’s You Choose page, and even experimenting with Twitter. While it remains to be seen if this sort of engagement will translate into real votes come election day, it’s safe to say that no candidate has been willing to risk coming across as out of touch with the 18-34 year old demographic which lives online.

Given the widespread enthusiasm for Web 2.0 on both sides, I was surprised to read that only three of the Republican candidates (McCain, Paul and Tommy Thompson) have signed on for September’s planned Republican “YouTube debate”, in which questions are posed to the candidates via pre-submitted videos. The Democratic version, which happened last week, drew ratings comparable to the traditionally formatted June debate (~2.6 million), but attracted the highest number of 18 – 34 year old viewers for a cable news debate since tracking began in 1992.

I caught the last half hour of the Democratic debate and found it to be much more intriguing than traditionally moderated, or even townhall style formats. The questions naturally had an unscripted feel to them, and the mood on stage seemed more candid as candidates reacted to the voter in the video and dealt, to varying degrees, with some curve ball questions – such as the voter who asked which candidate would protect “his baby” and procured an assault rifle. The final question of the night, in which a voter asked candidates to look to the person on their left and note one thing they liked, and one they didn’t, also produced great live television. Overall the debate was totally watchable, if not enjoyable.

A lot of buzz about the Democratic debate was largely favorable, and with over 400 videos already submitted for the Republican event, I for one, thought that a new format had surely been ushered in. As such, the news that the Republican YouTube debate might be pushed because of candidates “scheduling conflicts” and hesitation to participate in the format raised my eyebrows. Time Magazine wondered whether the turn of events “shows a potentially costly reluctance to engage with voter or is simply an exercise in prudent message management.”

While Republican hopefuls have traded sound bites about their willingness to field questions about global warming from a snowman, the way the Democrats did, angry party followers have started SaveTheDebate.com. The site urges candidates to “reconsider”, adding that “Republicans cannot surrender to Democrats on any front – least of all new media – or we may lose in 2008.” The open letter to the candidates goes on to link the Republican’s failure to outperform Democrats online fundraising to their inability to “effectively engage” younger voters in the online space.

The impact of SaveTheDebate.com is yet unknown, and it’s still unclear whether or not prominent Republican front runners, like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, will throw their hats in the YouTube ring. Personally, I think that social media is changing elections for the better and allowing voters to be involved in ways that may ultimately encourage more to actually venture out to the polls. And, by the looks of it, fallout over refusing to participate in this new, hip format might ultimately do more harm to a candidate than any unscripted debate moment could.