The Internet offers political candidates a new way to campaign. Part of the Internet's novelty comes from technological options not available in most other media. Candidates, however, must weigh various benefits and costs in using a given technological innovation. For example, technology that allows for increased user interactivity may lead to a more stimulating web site but might distract users from the campaign's central message. In this article, the authors use data from 444 congressional campaign web sites, over two elections, to examine how candidates approach web technology. They investigate the factors that lead candidates to utilize or avoid particular technological features. They show that technological adoption is determined by both practical and strategic political considerations. Of particular interest, the competitiveness of a candidate's race leads the candidate to use more sophisticated presentation technologies but less advanced interactive innovations because these latter options interfere with the candidate's message.
Barone, M., & Cohen, R.E. (2003). The almanac of American politics: 2004. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
2.
Barone, M., & Cohen, R.E. (2005). The almanac of American politics: 2006. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
3.
Barone, M., Cohen, R.E., & Cook, C.E., Jr. (2001). The almanac of American politics : 2002. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
4.
Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning online: The Internet in U.S. elections . New York: Oxford University Press .
5.
Bucy, E.P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. Information Society, 20(5), 373-383.
6.
Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Cornfield, M. (2004). Politics moves online: Campaigning and the Internet . New York: Century Foundation Press .
8.
Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Druckman, J.N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65, 559-571.
10.
Druckman, J.N., Kifer, M.J., & Parkin, M. (2007, April 13). Going negative in a new media age: Congressional campaign websites, 2002-2006. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theMidwest Political Science Association , Chicago.
11.
Dulio, D.A., Goff, D.L., & Thurber, J.A. (1999). Untangled web: Internet use during the 1998 election . PS: Political Science and Politics, 32(1), 53-59.
12.
Eveland, W.P., & Dunwoody, S. (2002). An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the web and print. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 34-53.
13.
Fenno, R.F., Jr. (1996). Senators on the campaign trail: The politics of representation. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
14.
Foot, K.A., & Schneider, S.M. (2006). Web campaigning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
Foot, K.A., Schneider, S.M., Dougherty, M., Xenos, M., & Larsen, E. (2003). Analyzing linking practices: Candidates sites in the 2002 U.S. electoral web sphere. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 8(4). Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue4/foot.html
16.
Foot, K.A., Schneider, S.M., Xenos, M., & Dougherty, M. (2003). Opportunities for civic engagement on campaign sites. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://politicalweb.info/reports/information.html
17.
Gordon, R. (2006, June 19). Internet rewrites political playbook: Tech savvy campaigns go online to find votes, volunteers, funds. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.
18.
Graber, D. (2001). Processing politics: Learning from television in the Internet age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Goldsmith, S. (2004). Major-party candidates work on the web, while many challengers stay offline. Retrieved December 2004, from http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/public/print2.asp
20.
Gulati, G.J., & Treul, S. (2003, August 23). Divided by gender: Congressional elections and presentation of self on the Internet. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
21.
Herrnson, P.S. (2004). Congressional elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
22.
Herrnson, P.S., Stokes-Brown, A.K., & Hindman, M. (2007). Campaign politics and the digital divide: Constituency characteristics, strategic considerations, and candidate Internet use in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 60(1), 31-42.
23.
Ireland, E., & Nash, P.T. (2001). Winning campaigns online: Strategies for candidates and causes (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: Science Writers Press.
24.
Jacobson, G. (1992). The politics of congressional elections (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
25.
Kahn, K.F. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman. New York: Columbia University Press.
26.
Kamarck, E.C. (1999). Campaigning on the Internet in the elections of 1998. In E. C. Kamarck & J. S. Nye Jr. (Eds.), Democracy.com: Governance in a networked world (pp. 99-123). Hollis, NH: Hollis.
27.
Kaye, B.K., & Johnson, T.J. (2006). The age of reasons: Motives for using different components of the Internet for political information. In A. P. Williams & J. C. Tedesco (Eds.), The Internet election: Perspectives on the web in campaign2004 (pp. 147-167). Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield.
28.
Keeter, S. (1987). The illusion of intimacy: Television and the role of candidate personal qualities in voter choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(3), 344-358.
29.
King, D.C. (1999). Catching voters in the web. In E. C. Kamarck & J. S. Nye Jr. (Eds.), Democracy.com: Governance in a networked world (pp. 125-131). Hollis, NH: Hollis .
30.
Lupia, A., & Philpot, T.S. (2005). Views from inside the net: How websites affect young adults' political interest. Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1112-1142.
Norris, P. (2004). Who surfs? New technology, old voters, and virtual democracy in U.S. elections 1992-2000. In E. C. Kamarck (Ed.), Democracy.com? (pp. 100-120). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
33.
O'Keefe, D.J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Paul, N., & Fiebich, C. (2002). The elements of digital storytelling. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://www.inms.umn.edu/elements/index.php
35.
Pew. (2000). Internet election news audience seeks convenience, familiar names. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=137
36.
Puopolo, S.T. (2001). The web and U.S. senatorial campaigns 2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2030-2047.
37.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Schneider, S.M., & Foot, K.A. (2002). Online structure for political action: Exploring presidential web sites from the 2000 American election. Javnost—The Public, 9(2), 43-60.
39.
Southwell, B.G., & Lee, M. (2004). A pitfall of new media? User controls exacerbate editing effects on memory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 643-656.
40.
Stewart, D.W., Pavlou, P., & Ward, S. (2002). Media influences on marketing communications. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 353-396). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). Online interaction and why candidates avoid it . Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111-132.
42.
Stromer-Galley, J., & Foot, K.A. (2002). Citizen perceptions of online interactivity and implications for political campaign communication. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 8(1), Retrieved August 28, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue1/stromerandfoot.html.
43.
Tedesco, J.C. (2004). Changing the channel: Use of the Internet for communicating about politics. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of Political Communication Research (pp. 507-532). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
Tewksbury, D., & Althaus, S.L. (2000). Differences in knowledge acquisition among readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 457-479.
45.
Trippi, J. (2004). The revolution will not be televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the overthrow of everything. New York : HarperCollins.
46.
Williams, C.B. (2003, April 5). An assessment of candidate web site performance and effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theMidwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
47.
Williams, C.B., Aylesworth, A., & Chapman, K.J. (2002). The 2000 e-campaign for U.S. senate. Journal of Political Marketing, 1(4), 39-64.
48.
Wilson, J.Q. (2006, February 15). Divided we stand. The Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110007966
49.
Xenos, M., & Foot, K.A. (2005). Politics as usual, or politics unusual? Position-taking and dialogue on campaign websites in the 2002 U.S. elections. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 169-185.
