The Tech Industry Meets Presidential Politics: Explaining the Democratic Party’s Technological Advantage in Electoral Campaigning, 2004–2012

Networks and Innovation in the Production of Communication: Explaining Innovations in U.S. Electoral Campaigning From 2004 to 2012

“…These GOP researchers not only reveal Democratic innovation as a whole, but also offer intriguing hints as to the source of it: ties among its staffers to the technology industry. This finding was confirmed descriptively by Kreiss (2016) and Kreiss and Jasinski (2016), who showed that Democratic campaigns hired from more diverse fields than Republican campaigns and spun off new organizations at a greater rate.…”

“…Second, we conduct the first network analytic empirical test of their dataset of the professional biographies of technology, digital, data, and analytics staffers working in electoral politics from 2004 to 2012. While the work of Kreiss () and Kreiss and Jasinski () was limited to frequencies of hiring patterns and other descriptive statistics, the novel network analysis we provide here demonstrates empirically how the two parties' networks have evolved, both overall from 2004 to 2012 and during discrete election cycles. We submit that our network analytic procedures, which reveal the network positions of the most innovative campaigns during discrete cycles, have wide applicability for production studies and communication research.…”

“…They had an opportunity to step back and reassess things from 35,000 feet in a way that those of us that were in the daily grind didn't … Meanwhile, these staffers were joined by others coming from fields such as the technology industry and commercial sector. While this helped fuel the campaign's extraordinary innovation, it also caused organizational tensions that needed to be managed by people who had multiple overlapping ties to these individuals and their diverse fields (Kreiss & Jasinski, 2016). Numerous former staffers argued, for instance, that the campaign's celebrated and innovative technology and analytics teams (see Issenberg, 2012) were often at odds with other departments precisely because of the ways their approaches would often upend existing practice, such as using data as opposed to gut instinct regarding fundraising or making the most effective persuasive appeals.…”

Twitter e información política en la prensa digital: la red social como fuente de declaraciones en la era Trump

“…La consolidación de Twitter como medio de comunicación política se ha producido a la par que la tendencia a la profesionalización o especialización de la gestión global de ese tipo de comunicación (Kreiss;Jasinski, 2012). Sin embargo, esta profesionalización de su uso no se ha dado de una manera homogénea (Quinlan et al, 2018).…”

New media and politics

“…2015; Kreiss 2012; Stromer-Galley 2014;Graham et al 2013). The studies identify various contextual factors that explain candidate behaviour in social media; political systems(Enli and Skogerbø 2015;Gibson 2015), compulsory voting(Highfield and Bruns 2016), technological skills(Kreiss 2014;Kreiss and Jasinski 2016) incumbency advantage(Enli and Naper 2016) and economic resources(Gibson and McAllister 2015). Research on social media and election campaigns is for various reasons mostly designed as single-country case studies, and in spite of edited collections covering a variety of counties(Cluver et al 2007;Bruns et al 2016), there is a lack of thorough comparative and crossnational studies.A key concern in this body of literature is the degree of interactivity between politicians and voters.…”