AMP summit panel I'm moderating

Am moderating a panel tomorrow at the AMP summit:

Your AMP Summit Session

Title: Gate-Crashers and Armies of David's
Panel Leader: Jerome Armstrong (WebStrong)
Participants: Chris Bowers, Matt Lewis
Date and Time: Friday, September 24 from 2:30pm-3:30pm (please plan on arriving at least 15 minutes before your session time begins)

Location: Salon B
-- Washington Marriott at Metro Center; 775 12th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 (just off the Metro Center station at the 12th + G St. exit)

Since I am moderating, I got to decide the format, so we are skipping over the speechs and going straight into, after intro's, the questions. Here's what I came up with, let me know if you've any others you think I should add for the participants. Bowers, of course you know, Matt Lewis is a blogger over at Politics Daily.

What I will start with is a "How did we get here" question that looks back at where we were a mere 18 months ago, Obama riding in high, with what looks like Dems getting thrown out now. WTF.  Each can tell us what it looks like from their perspective, what some of the key things they've noted that happened online in that time-period.

I'm going to follow it up with asking how things might have been, if possible at all, different. What would it take to be different?  I'm hoping it gets deeper than "the economy stupid" as that's pretty shallow, and not at all factually based.

Then I want to ask about the Tea Party movement and the Netroots movement.  The latter was defined, on the progressive side, by the internet, the former isn't as much. Were progressives just leap-frogged in use of social media for organizing? The shift to being the party in power been so difficult for online progressives, used to an insurgent mode, and the shift to being out of power for conservatives has seemed to energize the movement.

Then, move to a question about how the dramatic shift of traditional media moving into online news reporting has shifted the role and voice of the blogs.

Then a look at '10 primaries. On the left, the netroots was involved huge in in AR & lost, and some others (CO, PA) but not as big; meanwhile the activists on the right have thrown out two Senate incumbents, and won multiple primaries. This is a question of accountability within each party, and why its been much more successful (insurgent campaigns) on the Republican side.

Campaign websites, anything you notice out there innovative? Campaigns using social media in ways that make a difference? It seems to me that the use of Facebook and Twitter has opened up informal communications quite a bit more than there used to have been, but beyond chatter, is any organizing being done on these networks?

The phenomena of candidates that are wildly popular on the internet, but that doesn't translate into a disparity, and sometimes just the opposite is at play, with regard to the status of the actual election. So what is to make of this dis-conjunct, and why does it still happen in a time when the internet seems pervasive enough, yet its still not reflective. What I'm thinking about here is someone like Scott Brown, who was ahead in online metrics, and won, or Obama, likewise. So why is Sharon Angle way ahead of Reid in online support, yet is a bit behind in the polls; or why did Halter do so well online comparatively, but still lost. Are these just isolated cases, or can we draw something from these scenarios about the influence of the national online activists in a statewide race.

A take of the '10 outcomes. Then beyond 2010. What is 2011-12 going to be like in DC with policy, and in Iowa/NH/SC, with the GOP nomination fight?

I'll also work in questions from the awesome attendee's of the panel.

Tags: AMP summit, Chris Bowers, Matt Lewis (all tags)



Scott Brown won

because Scott Brown ran against corporate healthcare and for real reform. The voters are voting the issues. They have the net, and they're using it and thats why the TEA party is so strong.

The money that flowed into TEA party campaigns happened after the fact.  It's not about social media, that's just the latest buzz word. It's about real issues.


So. Let's see. Panel discussion, talking about websites, why the dems are losing.... check... let's talk about twitter... check...

Content. Zero.



by Trey Rentz 2010-09-23 04:34PM | 0 recs
RE: Scott Brown won

Issues-- they will hopefully come up with the "how did we get here" question. I have my own opinions, starting with the bailouts that Obama took upon himself to own; then the Afghan debacle; and a terrible ongoing strategy around healthcare.

But yea, its clear that momentum follows issues, that's a great point. I will think about that some more because its clearly the trigger.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-23 04:42PM | 0 recs
RE: Scott Brown won

Thank you. :)

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-23 04:46PM | 0 recs
P.S. How did we get here and what the tools mean

The tools mean nothing if there is no energy. It's like starting a firewall in the desert against a blivon - you don't get any width on the band if there is no fuel or wind.


Twitter is not a major technological innovation - neither is facebook.  I discount those two. IMHO its about the blogs -


To light up the netroots, we need a list of the scumbags who gutted healthcare reform, and the people who ripped us off in the financial system deals - and we need to take guys like Alan Grayson to the top. Elizabeth Warren, also happens to be completely amazing.  There are others.



But there is a leadership vaccuum - the president's job is not to do this - this is the legislature, not the executive.


Once leadership and real connection is there -  the tech lights up. Palin does it on facebook because she gives them a reason to login.


She's a hot chick on facebook that is your 'friend'.


by Trey Rentz 2010-09-23 04:41PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads