“War has rules, mud wrestling has rules - politics has no rules.”
-Ross Perot
The “online politicking 3.0” model
Media technologies at the center of contemporary formal and informal political processes;
Two dimensions of the “online politicking 3.0” model:
Uncontrolled decentralization of politicking (3 axes);
Hyper fragmentation of politicking. (multiples axes)
The Tea Party movement is one of the first mainstream manifestations of this model.
Source: Raynauld, 2013
Recent political movements/mobilization initiatives that have adopted a Tea Party-inspired mobilization model:
Sources: Mascaro, Novak et al., 2012; Gaby and Caren, 2012; Sawchuk, 2012; Twenge, 2008; Wattenberg, 2008
The “online politicking 3.0” model
High levels of mobilization “net geners” despite low levels of political knowledge
The gun debate in the United States and the rise of the “patriots”:
The “online politicking 3.0” model
Source: Youtube.com
“Broadcast politics” paradigm
Highly hierarchical top-down transfers
of “controlled information”
Limited number of traditional political
and media elites
Deceitful;Negative;Manipulative.
Geographically-dispersed
mass audience
Limited interactions
Costco-style politics?
Sources: Trippi, 2004; Putnam, 2001; Bennett and Manheim, 2006; Chadwick, 2006; Shah, Cho et al., 2005
The rise of the political Web in the United States
Sources: Williams and Gulati, 2006; Davis, Baumgartner et al., 2009; Foot, Schneider et al., 2009; Xenos, and Foot, 2008
Four distinct stages of Web-based politicking: Emergence phase (1994-1998);
1996: “Kitty Hawk” moment of Web politics
Definition and diffusion phase (2000-2002);
Maturation phase (2004-2006); Post-maturation phase (2008-…)Gradual emergence of the “online
politicking 3.0” model shortly after the 2008 U.S. Presidential election
cycle
Web 1.0
Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model
Source: PEW Internet & American Life Project, 2012
social media
Source: PEW Internet & American Life Project, 2012
Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model
social media
Sources: Vergeer, Hermans et al., 2011; Gulati and Williams, 2010; 2011; Tau, 2011
Lowering of the threshold for political participation (offline and Web 1.0 media vs. Web 2.0 media)
Reduction of financial costs; Reduction of the digital knowledge
and technical expertise required; Reduction of time constraints;
Accessibility (e.g.: apps, software, etc.);
Content generation. Etc.
Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model
social media
New opportunities?
Sources: Correa, Hinsley et al., 2011; Putnam, 2002; Farthing, 2010; Jackson, Dorton et al., 2010; Selwyn, 2009
Set of dispositions compatible with “informal, personal and fluid” digital participatory patterns:
Openness to “extraversion” (new political and media experiences);
Desire to be creative, innovative and autonomous;
Willingness to be self-expressive and socially-active;
Propensity for individualistic self-promotion through “affirmation and validation”.
Post modernistic mindset
Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model
Set of dispositions compatible with “informal, personal and fluid” digital participatory patterns:
Readiness for greater personal and collective transparency;
Openness to the playful nature of social media technologies;
Self-efficacy towards politics and Web-based media platforms.
Post modernistic mindset
Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model
Sources: Correa, Hinsley et al., 2011; Putnam, 2002; Farthing, 2010; Jackson, Dorton et al., 2010; Selwyn, 2009
Sources: Twenge, 2006; 2008; Bennett, Wells et al., 2009
Dispositions anchored in personal values: Freedom; Assertiveness; Self-mastery; Empowerment.
Post modernistic mindset
Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model
Self-instigated or highly entrepreneurial
form of political engagement
Rapid incubation of politically-oriented digital “hipster narcissism” or identity-centered egoism:
Post modernistic mindset
Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model
Sources: Papacharissi, 2009; Chadwick, 2009; Malikhao and Servaes, 2011; Chi and Yang, 2011
The use of the concept of narcissism in this context does not refer to the clinical
personality disorder, but to a culturally and technologically-induced state of
“introspection and self-absorption that takes place in blogs”, social network
sites and other user-generated media platforms.
Zizi Papacharissi
Sharp contrast with the dutiful or managed citizenship model:
Link with self-actualizing approaches to offline politics: “Lifestyle politics”; “Subactivism”; “Sub-politics”.
Post modernistic mindset
Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model
Individuals are motivated “by a sense of duty to incur costs to participate for the good of society by voting and joining with others in sanctioned civic organizations that promote
civic spirit”.
Sources: Papacharissi, 2009; Chadwick, 2009; Malikhao and Servaes, 2011; Stolle and Hooghe, 2009; Bennet, Wells et al., 2009
Sources: Blumler and Coleman, 2010; Balmas, Rahat et al., 2012; Rheingold, 2008; Stromer-Galley and Wichowski, 2011
Three axes of decentralization:1. Political content production and sharing
processes;2. Overall structure of e-politicking;3. Architecture of political organizations.
The concept of decentralization
The diffusion of the initiative, the execution and the control of digital political communication and mobilization
processes from formal political elites to a rapidly growing number of formal and informal political players with an increasingly diverse range of preferences, interests and
objectives.
Sources: Gil de Zuniga, Jung et al., 2012; Williams and Gulati, 2009; Hughes, Rowe et al., 2012; Huberman, Romero et al., 2008
Political content production and sharing processes:
Reduction of the multidimensional “transaction costs” of being politically-active online;
Anonymity and pseudonimity; Mobilization of previously-peripheral
formal and informal political players: Resource-poor candidates and
organizations; Citizen-driven groups; Ordinary citizens.
The concept of decentralization
Sources: Endres and Warnick, 2004; Xenos and Foot, 2008
Structure of e-politicking: Content-based interactivity:
Hyperlinks; “Liking” or sharing content on
Facebook; Other functions.
Social interactivity: Multidirectional social interactions; Synchronous and asynchronous
interactions; Horizontal political organizing.
The concept of decentralization
Internal structure of political organizations: Declining confidence in formal political
institutions; Rise of “self-organizing” (“organizing
without an organization”); Rise of “post bureaucratic organizations”:
Flexible structure; Constantly adapting to external
environment; Redefinition of formal tasks.
The concept of decentralization or
compartmentalization
Sources: Kreiss, 2009; Pasek, moore et al., 2009: 199; Bimber, Flanagin et al., 2005.; Bennett, Wells et al., 2009
Bruce Bimber
The concept of fragmentation or
compartmentalization
Sources: Bimber, 2005; Bennett, 1998; Brundidge, 2008; Sampedro, 2011; Metzgar and Maruggi, 2009; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012
Multiple axes of fragmentation: Political preferences (political
polarization); Issue preferences; Credibility perception; Socio-demographical characteristics; Etc.
The “breakdown of broadly shared social and political experience [, knowledge, community concerns as well as traditional behavioural
patterns] and the rise of personalized realities” (rise of networks of sphericules)
Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement
Mainstream emergence in early February 2009:
“Porkulus” demonstrations by Keli Carender (“Liberty Belle”), a Seattle-based activist:
120 participants in President’s Day rally on February 16, 2009;
300 participants in demonstration on February 23, 2009;
600 participants in Tax Day protest on April 15, 2009.
Keli Carender
Sources: Disch, 2001; Berg, 2011; 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012; Skinner, 2012; Formisano, 2012; kelicarender.net
Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement
Mainstream emergence in early February 2009:
Rick Santelli’s rant against foreclosure relief that aired live on CNBC on February 19, 2009.
Rick Santelli
Sources: Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012; Joe, Gimpel et al., 2012; Weaver and Scacco, 2013; Bailey, Mummolo et al., 2012; Youtube.com
Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement
Many authors have defined the Tea Party movement as an Astroturf or “genetically modified grassroots” phenomenon essentially driven by members of the media and political elite:
Interest groups; Media organizations; Media personalities; Elected and non elected politicians; Etc.
Sources: Hay, 2011; Wilson and Burak, 2012; Kirby and Ekins, 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012
Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement
It can in fact be defined as a highly-decentralized and fragmented political mobilization initiative:
Formal and informal political players; Geographically-dispersed; Wide range of interests and objectives:
Healthcare; Economy; Social issues (e.g.: gay rights,
personal responsibility, etc.); Gun rights.
Sources: Hay, 2011; Wilson and Burak, 2012; Kirby and Ekins, 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012
#TEAPARTY
Quantitative content analysis of #teaparty discourse on Twitter:
Tweets with #teaparty hashtag posted between December 9, 2009 at 22h41 +0000 and March 19, 2011 at 15h40 +0000 (Midterm elections);
Twapper Keeper for data mining and archiving (open-source);
MySQL and Gephi (version 0.8.1 beta) for data analysis;
Challenges and opportunities.
Methodology
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTY
Overview of the #teaparty twittering dynamic:
1,747,306 tweets with at least one #teaparty hashtag;
79,564 unique twitterers; 96.64 per cent of the #teaparty tweets
with all the correct information (technical issue affecting 3.36% of the dataset).
Overview of the results
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTY
Decem
ber 2
009
Janu
ary 20
10
Febr
uary
2010
Marc
h 201
0
April
2010
May
2010
June
2010
July
2010
Augus
t 201
0
Sept
embe
r 201
0
Octobe
r 201
0
Novem
ber 2
010
Decem
ber 2
010
Janu
ary 20
11
Febr
uary
2011
Marc
h 201
1
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
51,197
68,204
60,405
47,787
50,349
156,680
129,215
174,582
181,122204,575
275,408
198,596
42,35733,700
3,113
11,391
Monthly volume of #teaparty tweets (per number of tweets)
Twittering patterns
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTY
December
2009
January
2010
Febru
ary 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August
2010
Septem
ber 2010
October
2010
November
2010
December
2010
January
2011
Febru
ary 2011
March 2011
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Monthly number of unique twitterers who contributed at least once to the #teaparty conversation (per number of twitterers
Twittering patterns
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTY
85,629 @replies (4.9% of the dataset) by 11,296 unique #teaparty twitterers;
578,939 #teaparty tweets (31.13% of the dataset) by 54,802 unique users served a retweeting function;
1,179,742 #teaparty tweets (67.52% of the dataset) by 54,534 unique authors featured at least one hyperlink.
Twittering patterns
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTY
12
34
5
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000 1,179,742
16,982920
837
Minimum number of hyperlinks embedded in #teaparty tweets(per number and percentage of tweets and per number of unique twitterers)
Heavy use of hyperlink
shortening services
Negative impact on the analysis
Twittering patterns
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTYTwittering patterns of prominent Tea
Partiers
Political or media personality
Number of #teaparty tweets
Andrew P. Napolitano 35Glenn Beck 12Rush Limbaugh 5Dick Armey 0Sarah Palin 0
Senate contenders Number of #teaparty tweetsJoe W. Miller (Alaska) 921Christine O’Donnell (Delaware) 168Sharron Angle (Nevada) 102Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania) 2Jim DeMint (North Carolina) 1Rand Paul (Kentucky) 0Ken Buck (Colorado) 0Marco Rubio (Florida) 0
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTYNetwork analysis
Number of @replies
877
Number of nodes
654
Number of edges
648
Average degree 0.991
December 14, 2009 to
December 20, 2009
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTYNetwork analysis
Number of @replies
4,424
Number of nodes
3,258
Number of edges
3,542
Average degree 1.087
November 1, 2010 to
November 7, 2010
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTYNetwork analysis
Number of @replies
4,280
Number of nodes
2,630
Number of edges
3,131
Average degree 1.19
October 25, 2010 to October 31,
2010
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTYNetwork analysis
Number of @replies
688
Number of nodes
807
Number of edges
624
Average degree 0.773
January 10, 2011 to January 16,
2011
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTYHashtag use
49,797 different hashtags (including the #teaparty hashtag) used by #teaparty twitterers;
1,747,306 #teaparty tweets with at least one hashtag;
178,417 different hashtag combinations (hyper fragmentation;
10 most popular hashtags:1- #teaparty2- #tcot3- #p2 4- #sgp5- #gop
6- #tlot 7- #ocra 8- #912 9- #twisters 10- #iamthemob
Source: Raynauld, 2013
#TEAPARTYHashtag use
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
Minimum number of hashtags embedded in #teaparty tweets (per number of tweets and unique twitterers)
Number of hashtagsNumber of unique twitterers
Source: Raynauld, 2013
Conclusion
The Tea Party movement is a political game changer;
Transformation of the concept of populism: Movement not centered on a single
politician or a small number of issues; Movement not driven by traditional
politics; Movement that is out of control; Etc.
True democratization of populism; The case of the “Maple Spring”.
Great research: “The neighbourhoods of
#cdnpoli”; Health of the Canadian
democracy; Check out theiwebsite.
QUESTIONSor
COMMENTS
Top Related