tv Discussion Focuses on Technology and Political Campaigns CSPAN January 6, 2017 7:07pm-8:01pm EST
the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20th. cspan will have live coverage of all the day's events and ceremonies. watch live on cspan and cspan.org and listen live on the free cspan app. and now, developments in technology and the use of social media to reach voters in past elections. including this past election cycle. new york university hosted this event. we come to the fourth panel and our moderator kim carey. kim was general counsel and acting secretary of the
department of commerce, where he led the department's internet policy task force. he is primarily in the privacy security and information area. you want to introduce your panelists? >> sure. >> thank you, sally. and thank you all for sticking this out. now, we're on to does technology make any difference. or is alternatively, is technology to blame for all of the sins that we've heard about earlier today. certainly, the whole of technology in campaigns has has tronz formed with the explosion
of information communication's technology. the explosion of data. it's changed every data of enterprise. we have come long way from the decision i remember early in the 2004 campaign. when jim jordan, the then campaign manager said there are no votes on the internet. and we are of course at that time, watching the howard dean campaign take off. powered by the internet. and in 2000, campaigns had websites. that was about it. 2004 was you know, we were still in the era of e-mail and dial up.
in 2007, of course along comes the iphone and things really begin to change. we recall that that the obama campaign harnessed that technology, harness eed social media and many other thing, as well as data and analytics. things have built on that since. i am, we have with us on our panel today, some of the break out stars of those earlier campaigns. the first to harness the power of the internet and technology.
j >> joe: led the component of that campaign. went on to found blue state digital and lead the obama campaign's digital effort in 2008 and to work on the 2012 and numerous other campaigns. scott goodsteen followed a similar path. worked on the obama campaign's social and mobile campaign. founded, excuse me? right. went off on your own to found revolution messages which helps to develop the digital engine of the bernie sanders campaign. then on my left, we have nate personally, who has the james b mcclachy at stanford law school
is an expert on the machinery of democracy. election fund raising, campaign finance. and has looked at the impact of digital technology on that. let me start there. because nate, you, you just helpeded to organize a similar discussion. of this year's campaign. particularly, the role of digital technology. out on the other coast. in silicon valley, the heart of the beast. and i think we heard that mentioned this morning. but let me ask you. i'll ask each of you to sot of pick this up in succession.
how technology would give us an overview of how technology was used in the 2016 campaign? set a baseline for the discussion here? and what was pretty and what was new this year, 2004 was the year e-mail, what was 2016? and lastly sir, how is it that the campaign that was widely perceiveded as the much more digitally sophisticated campaign bring iing in the expertise of 2008 and 2012, was didn't didn't prevail. as technology and other things. so, let me start with you for that overview and i'll ask you, scott and joe, to look at that from your perspective and particularly, what the technologies were that you worked with in this campaign and
how you saw those having an impact. >> first, let me thank everyone here who organized this. my sometime employer boss comrade in arm, bob bauer, i've often been zbribed as the demon spawn and wear that proudly. trz i see trevor morrison here, my former colleague at columbia. and dear friend. and thanks to so many people i've worked with over here. we had a conference at stanford last week on the digital campaign. about six months ago, i thought what the conference was going to be about, hillary clinton's campaign marginally improved on barack obama's campaign of 2008 and 2012, here the new tools and here's how she won. needless to say, we had to change the topic. in part, not just because there
was a surprise vktry by donald trump, but then there were all kinds of other issues dealing with the digital campaign. who knew we had to talk about macedon macedonian teenagers putting up twitting botts. that was not something that could be forecasted within the last eight ors a year or more than that. so, there's a lot to say here. question is a big one and i don't want to take too much time at the intro so we can -- the first is digital tools are only tools. the fundamental rs achkted by those tools. secondly, that there are things that trump did in this campaign which were innovative, unexpected and not well-known that i think need to be talk ed about. and the third is sort of the larger question as to what even the digital campaign is in this environment given how many changes we've seen in news. so, on that first point, just
sort of an obvious point we need to stress, which is that you know, what's the quote that vikt vi has a thousand father, but defeat is an orphan. so, maybe it's the case that we attributed too much to the digital tos tools ofiester year. maybe we're saying they failed hillary clinton. the truth is barack obama was an incredible candidate besides the digital tools and hillary clinton had certain flaws that maybe were apart from the digital campaign and donald trump maybe had some strengths. in addition, all the fundamentals of the campaign, all the models that political scientists used to predict elections with were different this time than four year aegs, so we shouldn't overemphasize the use of digital tools in being determtive of the campaign. that's first. secondly, donald trump's
operation was not as people sort of looked at the two operations in the summer and fall and hillary clinton had digital operation, donald trump didn't have one. to some extent, one of the things we've learned, there's a few features. i think ginsburg mentioned this before. there are serp things that donald trump did. like he did spend more money facebook than hillary clinton did. at least according to the campaign. they spent half of their money on digital. and split it evenly between digital and tv and she spent more on tv. the amount spent on digital was three to four times what it was in the previous campaign, so we are seeing this move in that direction. but the campaigns, the media buys in the and what they spent their money on was radically different. donald trump bought zero, almost zero local cable tv advertising, something you would have thought four years ago would have been something everybody would have
been doing this time. and his was more of a ramshackle improvised operation, he ended up outsourcing his digital architecture to the platforms themselves as opposed to putting it in house because hillary clinton had an operation that had been in developments for so many years, so that one of the reasons he ended up spending more money on facebook than hillary clinton did is because he used the people there to help him with the digital operation. now, what are some of the things he did that i think were different than in previous times. give you one exam l that has come out. which is the way that he covered the third debate. it has never happened before that the campaign ran what was a quasi television studio to cover the third debate. the live stream of what we thought was trump tv, trump's
own digital operation, covering the third debate, actually brought in 9 million viewers and it was more than the abc news live stream on facebook, which was the official live stream. he also was able to $9 million from that one production. and it was you know, totally different type of experience than we've seen before. so the use of live video and sort of even though it was again, sort of you know, wasn't polished like when they had the live video with mike pence, video with mike pence for a day, if you can handle it. that was something that they sort of revolutionized and experimented with and their digital operation rate run by cambrid cambridge, when you look at what they did, it doesn't seem like it's so different in its basic strategy than what you would have expected from any other
digital consultants. one of the things that jen mentioned before that i don't think people -- how they did use native advertising. they did put native advertising, i think politico was one of those places and some other areas and the way they were able to use certain other digital tools that had been used four years prior. but i do think the big story is how you define the digital campaign in the age of trump. it's sort of hard to figure out where the campaign ends and whatever is noncampaign begins, so just to think about this problem, how do you describe the digital campaign when breitbart is putting out a story on trump or hillary clinton and the campaign manager of trump's campaign is breitbart or is steve bannon, the editor of breitbart, and then donald trump retweets the breitbart story.
where is the media, nonmedia distinction? a lot of, now, it's been true for a long time that those barriers have been breaking down. particularly in the digital environment, it's extremely difficult to figure out where those boundaries lie. and you could talk about it in all kinds. where does digital begin and sort of nondigital if we call it, that traditional media, begin. so, the story is donald trump, it's not just the power he has on twitter. it's the fact it game the platform. there's a lot more to discuss again, trying to figure out foreign and domestic in an age where you have russian twitter botts being used in an election
let alone as i said before the stories about fake new us sites. no doubt it had an effect. i'll say this. that one study, 20% were done by botts in this election. that's something that we really do need to investigate. as jen was talking about before, that this is now a worldwide phenomenon. she was talking about the regulatory issue, trying to look at how different countries regulate this and this is something we at stanford are looking at. the phenomenon right of a pop list internet focus is not
unique to the united states. what we saw in italy last saturday, the five star movement there the so-called pirate party in iceland, the second largest party in iceland, use of the internet by the prime minister of india. what we are seeing here is ability of parties and nontraditional politicians to go over the media and to run their campaigns through different means. >> thanks for having us. i appreciate the opportunity to have the conversation. i think the part i agree with most from nate there is the credit goes to the candidates. every campaign is a reflection, not just of the candidate as a person and their message and what they have to emphasize but their personality and management style and leadership tendencies
and all of that. those amount to a band of outcomes that affect strategy and personnel. one of the best parts about working for barack obama, his leadership style and personality allowed for a very special mix of the types of things you need to run a digital campaign and a big grassroots campaign really well. there is part of obama that is a cautious, rule-following very deliberate person who wants to get things right and be deliberate and measured about things. there's also the, what i do oppose is the dumb war community organizer who wants to shake things up and do something
differently. i think those aspects of his personality and biography were reflected in the campaign. and in a kind of creative tension between operatives who came from politics and a bunch of folks who came a little bit from the outside. i was 25 when i started on the campaign in 2007. and there were a bunch of us who were more of the insurgent side of the party of the discipline of the profession. and we managed to all co-exist together and put something together that was consensus-driven but in service of a different type of way of campaigning and a different approach to politics and the other campaigns were taking in that first race in '08. if there was a band of possible outcomes for obama, i think we operated high near our ceiling. now that being said, had we somehow lost in 2008, i would probably be in an institution somewhere because i know where we could have raised that incremental $100 million in 2008. we didn't think of things fast
enough. we didn't innovate fast enough. we were building the team as we went there was more we could have done there, but we did enough. and so when you think about the 2016 campaign, i actually think donald trump operated from a digital and technology perspective in the bottom half of potential outcomes. when you look at the campaign, for all the things you're pointing out, they did get started late. they didn't bother building much of that during the primary. what we know is like compound interest, the learnings and organization you put together gets more effective and more intelligent and more powerful as you go. in the end for all the hats and christmas ornaments with the "make america great" again on then, donald trump will raise as much in small dollar money than
mitt romney, probably less. we'll find out with the last round of fcc reports. we need to be, relative to obama who is in both campaigns up over three times as much as that. we need to be careful about what we are actually thinking about when it comes to the campaigns, specifically in the digital thing. from the outside there are a few things to look at. innovations in 2004 and 2008 and 2012 were very much within the campaign apparatus and control. that was one of the errors on the romney campaign. they had outsourced big parts of that infrastructure to the rnc and super pacs, so it didn't have the ability to control and innovate in a disciplined way. for the most part, those innovations were mostly around taking big dollar donations, and there wasn't this other set of weaponized outside forces the way there was in 2016. there's the quasi-media sources, the fake media, the masadonian kids and robots and hackers. the actors going in trying to take down an organization through illegal activity. that is something we saw in the other races, but fought back and
were able to repel. that became a much bigger operation this time. i think the other thing that's not mentioned enough about the digital campaign this time is that the weaponized outside forces, the hacks, breitbart, the fake media, but there's also just the mechanization of abuse online that i think had a toxic effect on the ability of the electorate to have a conversation with itself about the campaign. i think that is obviously related to the fake news, the breitbarts and all the rest, but it's also related to the big tech companies being asleep at the switch and not necessarily
enforcing what they would otherwise in terms of their policies about how their platforms ought to be as a public space on political content. i think that's something that was really unfortunate and not something that anybody had a good answer for outside the platforms, other than talking about bullying and all the rest and trying to appeal to the better angels of our nature, but the folks who had the ability to drain the swamp of abuse in the political conversation online, which was a very big force in this election chose not to, and choose not to currently. we are starting to see some of those reforms, but there does
seem to be a level of denial. looking at the innovation across the different campaigns, you saw incremental moves from both candidates and party in the general election. there's lots of things to nerd out on that. i think the big changes were in the outside of the campaign this time. >> echoing what joe just said. a lot of this discipline comes from the top down. at some point tech evolved and evolved and evolved, as to become part of the campaign. what i mean by the top down was, if you think about the obama social media program i had the honor of working with under joe in '08, we were creating the rules as we went. what we created was, we wanted these to be embassies of the campaign. we created sort of rules. if you said hateful, xenophobia, racist, we kicked you off our platform. if you said things about our opponents, we kicked you off the
platform. we gave you factual answers and links so that you could find the truth. the team created of "tell us the truth" or "fight the smears" campaign to actually do search engine optimization. this year we saw the exact opposite. the ugliest corners of the internet being elevated by not only the candidate, but being talked about in the media and by everybody. instead of, we're only going to use social media to get it positive, social media has grown up, the internet's grown up and now we are elevating and retweeting the darkest corners of social media in a way that is not good for politics in my opinion. as far as technology, i disagree with nate here on the panel that
technology keeps evolving or i would be standing up here talking about how barack obama is a myspace guy writing books about how great myspace is. we are humbled on the tech side to figure out what's working, what's not and shed what's working. there was a race like there is -- if you go to south by southwest conference, it was the newest tech. now it's a bunch of venture capitalists and reporters looking for the new tech and there is nobody in tech working these conferences. you saw stories of this is the periscope election. this is the vinyl election, the snapchat election. people were racing to call it some new tech thing versus the
most evolution of tack was is more people on mobile, 50% of bernie sanders campaign came from a mobile phone. 42% of all of our contributions came from a mobile phone. is that sexy and is that headline-worthy versus it's the platform that you never heard of election? probably not. you saw this rush to be that. instead, look, the bernie sanders campaign we were scrappy. we didn't invent a lot of tech. we used a lot of tech. we used blue state digital, facebook. i disagree with you on facebook. we spent more money on facebook than hillary and were jumping up and down hillary wasn't spending enough money on facebook. [ inaudible ] >> it's incremental evolution
and how it was set up. i've got to give credit to david axelrod for allowing tech to sit in the right place at the campaign at the right time. everybody got paid equally. media consultants got paid equally. pollsters got paid. it was about winning which meant if i had a cool scrappy idea about ways to use something, and i could bring it to joe and we would do it and do it quickly. it wasn't 22 approval processes like mitt romney's campaign. it felt authentic and real. we were burning up laptop computers and leaving them on tarmacs in the rain doing live stream video. maybe the trump campaign did something different with live stream.
i don't see it. the dodd campaign was doing live stream video. >> i agree with all of that. i left bernie sanders for time reasons. >> he gets left out of all these meetings. it's fine. >> i was really just comparing the clinton campaign and trump campaign. bernie sanders, yes, not only the way they use facebook but fund raised also broke all kinds of records and methods. i don't disagree. i hope i wasn't minimizing the importance of technology. i was simply saying despite spending money on technology, having a sophisticated digital operation on the democratic side, nevertheless the sort of ramshackle organization donald trump was able to put through was successful.
>> what does it say, 2016 barack obama showed up south by southwest? >> i tend to agree with scott's analysis of this particular conference. even though that's the price of success of growing any kind of thing like that where people begin to come looking for the things that you're known for. i think the great thing about tech with the campaigns and this is more true on the democratic side, i didn't really perceive the republican, the crowded republican primary as a petri dish of innovation where people were trying out these different digital tools, techniques, approaches, structures, the rest. like it felt -- donald trump was doing something obviously very different which could be characterized as nothing. but that it wasn't really a different set of innovations. i think one of the unfortunate things about the democratic primary really just being these two big operations was that we
didn't have the opportunity to see a lot of different models play out behind different candidates. so if elizabeth warren had been in there, if joe biden had been in there, if a couple more folks had been in there, the campaigns would have looked and felt down stream from the candidates and their styles and personalities. the number of people who came up through both of the campaign, ready to run a scrappy chris dodd campaign which scott's colleagues at revolution did and get that experience and cut their teeth and prove different models and innovations and ideas, i think that would have been a beneficial thing to the party. >> and from a talent perspective, the barrier's never been lower, at least on the democratic side, a real sophisticated, meaningful campaign to be put together and
play out as an experiment in leadership and organizational culture and innovation. i feel like we maybe missed a little bit of that opportunity by having a pretty small primary field. >> i want to pick up on something talked about earlier in the context of journalism. that's not getting too much into the trees of data and analytics. in that context. and this ties into what you
talked about, joe, as one of the things the trump campaign did was to outsource a lot. did the clinton campaign overlearn some of the romney mistakes, spend a lot of time developing their own model, their own technology, the ada model, the more of computer science. and then have a model that allocated resources to other states and relied heavily on that model?
>> ultimately, a campaign -- i learned this from down the road at american university is about three things. that's time, people and money. ultimately, you're supposed to figure out the right equation of time, people and money to win. that's it. and so if you're able to talk to elders in the field and people in wisconsin, like a good friend of mine theresa velmain and chapman, they worked clinton '92, obama '2008 and 2012, and they're telling you there's a problem. you listen to your labor unions and they're telling you there's a problem. so i've been very clear in my assessment of this as saying, all the data and all the models and everything else in the world and the best tools, the best technology in the world don't mean anything if you can't actually have a real message
that's connecting and resonating with voters. the models may have been genius and right and accurate, but they weren't listening to voters. this is where the art and not science of campaigns comes in. as whether you should be building these tools inhouse or out of house, again, i go back to the original sentence of mine, it's about time, people and money. on the bernie sanders' campaign, we didn't build a csm system. it cost us $500 off the shelf to use his tools. that grows the bigger the list we get. eventually you buy your own servers and deal with the other stuff. that's out there facebook events tool is a powerful tool. if i had that tool when i was doing anti-war organizing, i wouldn't have done necessarily a website. i would have used facebook events. in time, people and money, i don't know these campaigns should be building warships and trump may have stumbled into that because he didn't have the time and the people -- clearly
had the money -- didn't have the time or people to build his own warship. >> let's talk a little bit about where things go from here. in some respects, campaigns don't change. abraham lincoln wrote a manual in 1840 that said states must be well organized could be brought to the polls, divide into small districts, make a perfect list of voters, keep a constant watch on the doubtful voters, have them talk to by those in whom they have the most confidence on election day, see that every whig is brought to the polls. it's the same today. how does technology change that? what do you see next? what are going to be the innovations of the next cycle? pull out your crystal balls. >> the great thing about technology and the sort of digital campaign and culture
around the mideast from the campaign's perspective, it's a way to bring those things to life to do those things better, smarter, more efficiently at a bigger scale. i think that's going to be the question. i think the one that sticks out is that they hear from whom -- they hear from in whom they have the most confidence that. notion of trust and how people are willing to stand behind their candidate, the issue they care about and their role in the election is on the table from a civic perspective. the rise of abuse online and in the new york city subway is troubling and undermines the civic and political fabric of people's willingness to participate in campaigns in a
meaningful way. i think what we are going to see hopefully, even before the next presidential campaigns get started, is more politicians and more organizations working to build and reenforce that trust and asking more ordinary citizens who are concerned about the future of the country and issues they care about to take up and spend that social capital that they have in their neighborhood, in their family and their work place, and try to be out there standing for something and that the equivalent thanksgiving conversation next year and the year after that and the year after that is one where people are having discussion and hopefully influencing each other as opposed to the kind of let's just agree to not talk about it detente that happened at so many tables this year. >> where i see this going, i think there's a couple of things
we can learn from the trump campaign that are impressive if you want to tweet out emotion at 3:00 in the morning -- i don't agree with the tone or content of his sort of obnoxious ways, but the emotion, the raw emotion at 3:00 in the morning, in 24 hours to change the entire conversation during drive time is something impressive i urge every democrat that wants to be an opposition leader to be doing right now. i'm watching a lot of democrats with millions and millions of followers as assets not actually getting in that game and showing rage the way you saw joe biden earlier today talk about helps real emotion around leaving office, and we felt that. there were people in the audience tearing up.
i would like to see more of that online. evolving online ways trump did by spending 50% of the money i think is what you said roughly, is something very different. bernie sanders' campaign, a much as we did online, our spend was not to that extent. our spend was around 30% online. google and facebook and folks like that are saying, it depends whether it's going to be 20%, 30%, 40%. corporate america you're seeing spend 50% in branding and persuasion type tactics or mass communication. the final thing is i do think that the increase of ad servers and ad technology are growing. so people that used to say early money is like yeast, early ad money is like yeast. and that all of these things work like compounded interest. so the fact that bernie sanders
when he first launched gave us enough money to do acquisition to then go and get repeat donors of young voters, to give us $20 at a time was super important and is only going to grow more and more important as the ad technology quickly evolves. >> as i said, the trump campaign says they did 50% digital, 50% traditional advertising. we'll see. one of the problems in studying this is we don't have real good disclosure where money is spent outside of tv. we may never know. but i think the trends are quite clear, given how much money was frittered away either by jeb bush and his campaign or of hillary clinton on television ads that there's -- you know, the generational shift under way in campaigns. those folks are going to get older and more senior in the campaign. they are going to dominate them
in four to eight years. we should expect that trajectory to continue. this sense which the boundaries of the campaign are disintegrating and how the, whether it's the platforms or media organizations in trying to figure out sort of more broadly how to integrate all those other kind of gray areas that are relevant to the campaign, if we are fighting them, the last war next time that that's where you're going to see the action. very few people are going to have the kind of immediate name recognition then twitter following and then ability to get media attention than donald trump did. the $2 billion and free media was just in the primaries. it's probably double that if you look through the general election. very few candidates who just announce are going to be able to garner that kind of attention. the playbook, the loose playbook is there how you're going to try to use these new digital tools to get the attention you need in order to run an effective
campaign. >> let's step back. we should take up one more topic then questions. let's step back for the nuts and bolts. talk a little bit more about broader impact on democracy. 20 years ago the grateful dead lyricist wrote, we are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence. you brought up sort of some of what's going on in parallel around the world, joe. we heard a lot of discussion here today about some of the negative impacts of social media. to what stent do you see technology to blame or not to blame for those challenges to
civic discourse and to civility civic discourse and to civility? >> as i said before, i think the platforms where so much of the discourse has taken place have more control than they are exercising over enforcing a basic standard of decency in their own codes of conduct they already have. that's something to be addressed. it's important to note that more people voted in this election than any other one. i think that's in spite of really concerted efforts by people to prevent -- prevent groups from voting. let's just say by republicans to prevent people from voting. right?
sorry. so i think that's an important reality. i think there are some silver linings, things like automatic voter registration, the initiative that just passed in alaska will provide a fascina fascinating set of data for economic world to look at the effect of broort voter registration on turnout. my hope is that the pecokyoucu y arties of the elector college and voting process after this election will hopefully become more focus of attention but also, you know, become more of a bipartisan and less polarized issue. i'm not sure what the political path for that is, but i think that that's a key aspect. i'm encouraged by the fact that the fight is on in those things
and we're seeing progress on it. it's tough times out there for civic life. the politics isn't helping with that. what i can see from where i sit, and we work with progressive and democratic advocacy groups part of the time, we also work with 5013 c charities a lot of the times. charities like museum an universities and partners like unicef and things like that. where we're seeing in the data across these hundreds of organizations is both the political and advocacy groups that are fighting for civil rights and justice and everything else are seeing a big uptick, as has been reported in the media, also the 5 o w501 c
chari charities. while the civic depiction scene can seem like it's in the ditch, what we can see on the back end of the data people are sitting bolt upright as a result of this election season and in the aftermath deciding to give the progressive sides they believe in and what they think the consequences of this policy administration are and gives me some hope. >> sounds like your wheelhouse. >> your question, i took it, was where is this technology taking us as a democracy? you know, to go back to the earlier theme from the earlier panel, it's an unmediated democracy, the old mediators are not there whether talking political parties or traditional media organizations, a very different situation when a candidate is able to talk to his
twitter followers when they had to talk through walter con cite or pay money to get airtime. walter ckronkite. this has consequences we have seen and always the utopian and disopen toian view of anything. the power everybody has an equal voice, equal megaphone but the disopen toic side, it's enabling a lot of more racist fringe to have a greater megaphone as well as just the fact that democracy needs mediators, you need someone to aggregate interest and you need political parties to effectuate policy and people yelling is not the way to run the government.
the yunique consequences of the move toward internet democracy is really about the effective anonymity, extra territoriality and virallity on political di discourse. anonymity, one of the consequences and one of the things that enables a lot of hateful rhetoric, unlike you run a television ad to a mass audience, because of the anonymity and other platforms twitter allows you, you don't have to take responsibility for the speech and facilitates the hateful language we've seen. second secondly, the idea of soverei sovereignty or territoriality, when we are principally looking at television as the way candidates are communicating to voters you didn't really have to worry about the fact that one of them -- only in the manchurian candidate sense do you worry
there was foreign influence going through official origins. now, you don't know the origin of internet communication, it could be coming from anywhere in the world. third, it gets to the fake news talking about before, viralty is the political currency. it's not about truth, it's about what's popular. the key fact is that you try to get your message to get as much resonance and popularity as possible. this really is the problem for the platforms, which is that if you listen to what facebook s says, when mark zuckerberg talked about saying the fake news he didn't think was the problem, our purpose on facebook is to have an engaging experience, to promote a mean g meaningful engaging experience. the truth is that has nothing to do with truth. a meaningful engaging experience could have all to do with hearing all the signals you want to hear. the same is true for search
engines, their currency is relevance, figuring what the message is and information you receive are relevant to characteristics about you. that has nothing to do with whether it's true or not and where we come when the traditional media institutions were moderators of the political d discourse. >> thank you very much for that. we have time for only one question from the audience because we have another part of the program ready to go. but it is -- because of its universal accessibility, social media is used at a high rate by people with disabilities. voters with disabilities are 36 million voters but turn out at only 42%. do you see campaigns using social media to bridge this type of voter gap in the future, since we're trying to look
forward? and this should be a fairly quick but i'd like your best view as on this. >> i mean, it's an interesting mention. when i was doing social media platforms originally for obama, it was before facebook allowed you to have -- you'd need a.edu address and a certain amount of foll followers, 5,000 followers for a presidential campaign. there's a platform that was the disabled americans social media platform. you could actually have intelligent conversations with people on these unique niches, niche-based platforms. we had black planet was the largest african-american social media platform that had over 500,000 followers for barack obama before any of the other platforms. i do think you need to organize and talk to niche-based
communities in unique ways. now, all these other platforms have died and also in facebook. facebook algorithm figuring this stuff out and going out and reaching and having a platform or showing, not telling an doing videos that addressed these different communities and different niches is super important. it was almost easier when every community had their own platform. but now through much easier advertising networks that i talked about earlier, you can engage these communities. i think the biggest problem with the selection is not that the technology is not there, it was again using a message and eng e engaging these communities. one thing i'd say different on video, you know, whether it's viral versus engaging, is that, you know, if you're trying to organize people in iowa, you don't care if the video has
200,000 voters on it, you care if it has 15,000 views in iowa. thinking about engaging and thinking about views is way more strategic a lot of times than speaking about viralty. >> thank you very much. i'd like to express our appreciation for this panel. thank you. coming up tonight on c-span3 a news briefing on security for the upcoming presidential inauguration. then a discussion about possible reorganization of the national security council in the donald trump administration. military cooperation between the u.s. and japan and later conference on u.s. foreign intelligence gathering. the presidential inauguration will be on january 20th. in a news conference on the inauguration,