a sense of being overwhelmed by data? >> if you guys don't mind -- >> please. >> i think the filter is every individual online. and that's what i think we'll see bear out over time. is just like when you scan through your mailbox and you pick and choose what you're going it throw away and what you decide to open and consume, in much the same way each individual online has that power. which is what i think was really exciting about what's happening with technology and elections. is you have a way to get a lot of different viewpoints and make decision that's are informed by people you that trust. and you can filter it about and make assessments about where the news sources are or the sources of information are you choose to take with greater weight. i know sarah and chris and i were talking a little about this before. i think this is speeding ahead some of the ways that campaigns will talk directly to voters right now. and i think we'll continue to see for some time. arbiters of elections have traditionally been the mass media. and that's something that some campaigns have had major challenges with. unfortunately, i seem to work on all those campaigns. but there is a time that will come i believe when campaigns will be able to communicate really efficiently directly with their supporters and encourage their supporters to talk to different supporters. >> two questions come out of this. one is do you see the new world of social media as something toads to the old world of mass media or something instead snf is that going to displace -- in 1952 as we were mentioning just prior to coming on that was the first time a political party actively engaged? an advertising agency to promote a candidate. the agency was losser reeves and it was dwight azzen z eze ezen . by '56 nobody wanted to be left behind. what you're describing is that going to displace what we saw or is it going to be additive, on top of it? what do you think? >> i think it's additive. by the time we get to september every moment in television will be bought in ohio and florida and indiana and a couple other places. you will not be able to buy television anymore. >> there will be a lot of free moments here in california. >> not with my initiative campaigns. and i was going to say, television stations in california are going to do just fine. so no one's taking television off the table. i think newspaper tasing and magazine advertising has gone way down and radio a little bit. but people still turn on their television first thing in the morning to get the news and they sit 234 front of it at night before they go to bed. this is in addition to. i think one of the things we were talking about in the green room is we are at a moment in time where people don't necessarily trust their politicians and they don't trust the mainstream media either. we saw that over and over again in the republican primary zabts in the last several months, right? where people were actually -- romney was actually going o'after the mainstream media or ron paul was or santorum. >> nus gingrich. >> newt ding gingrich. voters are at a point if they don't trust politicians and mainstream media they do trust their friends and their neighbors and their colleagues. it's an at tifd way for chains to reach voters. if you get that news story from your friend than you might be more likely to read it. you don't trust "the new york times" anymore but you trust your friend who's sharing the story on facebook. i think it's in addition. >> i think we're at the middle. you used a tv example. but you still go back to 1960. tv obviously played a big role with kennedy and nixon. at the end of the day which campaign was more 23e6k9 in turning out voters, whether it was southern illinois or chicago. which tilted the election. there was the feet on the ground aspect in 1960 even though tv had been there. i sort of think we're in that evolutionary phase right now. what's sort of confident in had i head is zagat versus yelp model. which for years as someone who likes to travel to places and have a nice pass. i go to my zagat's and look for a nice restaurant to go to. that has quickly been replaced by yelp, which is basically a crowd form social media platform. that's in the very fine food area but in some ways i think that's a bit of a metaphor. and sarah touched on something that's at the core of this, which is the idea of authenticity and trust. i think ultimately in any competitive election it comes down to authenticity and trust. assuming it's a competitive election. and i think that's even more so in online and social media in terms of how people engage and interact. so my guess is we're in the middle at the end of the day i run any number of campaigns, particularly in this states 37 usually the initiative campaign. right now nothing's going on with pay television. we do a lot with social media platforms. impact on organizing. but when it ultimately comes down to the band of voters who are uncommitted or undecided 1k3r and the happened hitting the mosquito there's nothing that moves you like pay television. do i think that has the potential toef ofl? yeah. >> if i could just add a little something to chris because i think there's something important for people to consider on the television point. you mentioned is there something that's going to tip us to more of an online technology, communication stream for voters to campaigns? and a lot of that has to do with dem gravgsz. right now the reason that chris will testify to the strength of television is because if you're able to buy time in local news you're going to hit more people to vote. they tend to be an old er demographic and those are traditionally people that are very responsible about their civic duty and are hitting the primary election, the general election. and they break differently. there's a science to where these markets exist. and chris is very experienced in that. but really with the consumer of information that is the younger generation now, as they continue to get older i think that you'll see that being the focusing function for more of the yichlts by chains and elections to get into technology or technological advertising or only advertising i guess is the way i should say it than they are in television or your local network news because that demographic is no longer going to be the leading consumer. and or the most -- >> any understand you correctly, when you were talking about the election of 1960, which this was supposed to be a defining election with regard to media because it was supposed to prove marshall mccluen was right, that the media is the message. it is said, correct me if i'm wrong, more people who saw the darkts the so-called great debates on television, thought kennedy had won 37 and more people who heard them on the radio thought nixon had won. and the words were the same. so the medium was the message. if i heard you correctly also, you made reference to the disposition of the state of illinois in that election. >> yes. the great state of illinois. the land of lincoln. >> that's what i've been told. it was also the land of richard j. daley. >> and rahm emanuel. >> yes. a lot of close friends. but my recollection is that joe kennedy -- i'd like to be corrected if i'm wrong about this. joe kennedy called richard daley during the election and said are we going to take i will and i will daley said, by the grace of god and with the help of some close friends and those close friends were the graveyard vote. >> yes. obviously i was an round. i cannot attest to that. nor will i take an advantage on that. >> chris is a lawyer, by the way. >> yes. the reason i invoked that moment was richard nixon had a similar conversation with a very powerful series of leaders in southern illinois. and to the extent you have what's been reported on some of this stuff, theertdically what you had was southern illinois had a bunch of folks who might not be alive voting and you had the chicago area having a bunch of folks who might p be allowed voting. i thought television played a decisive role in that election for the reasons you mentioned. one side did a little better than the other side. >> so what you're saying is that if i don't want to be lonely i can either move to ohio and get a job in a factory or die. >> because the graveyard vote will still matter. >> people will be e-mailing and you knock on your door every day. >> this mention of getting people together in san francisco and getting them to contact people in states in play. is this something people talk about? let me tell you why i'm asking. because of the electoral college, which is a relic of the 18th century constitution that was written when this was a country of 4 million people hugging the coastline, we have something called the electoral college. what it does is it effectively disenfranchises me from the f t election. live in california. i moved from massachusetts. he from the frying pan into the fryer. does that matter? in the election of 2000 either vice president gore took florida or he didn't. look, maybe 35,000 jewish voters in palm beach actually did vote for pat buchanan. i don't know. >> we're pretty sure they didn't. >> there's no question that gore won on a popular vote basis. but that doesn't matter because that's not the way they're counted. what i'd like to hear from you is to a certain extent you're empowering me as somebody whose vote doesn't count or the new ternlgs put it this way, writ large, is enabling me to influence someone in ohio or colorado or the ten states that really do matter, we're told, in this election. is that true? >> yeah, i think that that's not a necessarily new practice. i think that as long as we've had elections that have existed out of a single province will counties will call in to target counties and states into target states, that has been going on -- >> my question is will the new technology make that more scientific -- >> it will make it more efficient. >> more efficient, more targeted. the efficacy will improve significantly. >> for example, i have a college classmate who works in cincinnati. for all i know he hasn't made up his mind. so if i went to san francisco would this company you talked about in san francisco, would facebook or would twitter sort of know that and tell me to get in touch with tim quinn? >> i think there will be and there is targeted advertising that campaigns will be able to invest in that we'll be able to identify whether or not voters have certain sentiments on certain issues. to your special question. if your friend in cincinnati was to have strong views on a certain type of issue, then they could be getting advertising through the campaign directly to them and it's quite possible that in the future there would be a campaign organized enough to know that you should be reaching out to your friends that are weighing in on a specific issue based on direction they're giving you. so yeah, sure, you could get communication from a campaign that says if you have friends that have weighed in on this issue in this manner you should reach out to them and tell them the truth. i think that gets back to where we originally started the craig conversation, around how the media battle will be changed as a result of the online communications and social networks because starting two elections ago and certainly 2010 it became much more high-profile, but now -- remember john mccain, who's one of the most prolific tweeters in the world, did not have a twitter account in 2008 when he ran for president. so we've seen already an evolution in 2012, both candidates will have he great twitter followings and they'll be weighing in on issues quickly. and so i think that what you'll end up seeing is that rapid response move through social media so people are seeing contact on tv or they're picking up on a national news media event and they're able to get direct communications from people they trust, either supporting it or voice an opposition to it. >> couple quick thoughts. one as systems become interoop rabble and you can shift and move this stuff, it's certainly conceivable living in san francisco i could get a list of 20 people that have some connection to me at some point in my life that they've been able to determine through various data bases and they've been identified as undecided voters. and i'm told can you call these 20 people, you have a relationship with them, you support candidate x. i think that's something that's going to happen in some fashion. right now there's a company out of san francisco called polit politi-ear. you can follow not only everyone talking about your particular candidate, they also use this for hotels and other types of business that's have high consumer interest. not only can you follow everyone who's talking about you on social media but it identifies this particular person is tweetding about you they have a large following but more than just a large following they have a large following that's in a demographic or matches up with issues that you or campaign should care about. you're able tone gauge in a back and forth conversation with that particular person who's particularly influential because they have a much larger universe of folks who trust memorandum. so i think you're going to get more and more technology of that coming into play that becomes tactical tools for campaigns tone gauge in that dialogue and -- >> dialogue is the key. >> yes. >> chris brings up a really interesting point. if you look at it, he's talking about being able to be persuasive on social media and four years ago one of the major nominees wasn't using it. that's how much we advanced in four years. and it's exciting. every time we have elections where people around the world will be focused on the decision and new technologies will spring up. it's exciting to see something like polititear 245 will emerge in 2013 and what we'll see in 1016. >> you telling us campaigning's going to have to become more expensive because someone's going to have to pay for this and it's going to be in addition to, not an stead of. >> we see it get more xupsive every two years, right? or every four years. the predictions are that this year's presidential election will amount to spending more than a billion dollars. that is unbelievable. now, not helped by the supreme court, who said that corporations can decide to play in these campaigns as well. so you're going to see enormous amounts of money flow into these races because you've got super pcs who can spend like crazy. i think we are nowhere near the tipping point where they become less expensive. i can't imagine. >> i'll give a shout out to facebook where to buy advertising on facebook is a lot more efficient and cheaper than it is to buy television. right? now, i think there's different metrics and people on my side are still trying to figure out can we get to the proverbial swing voter? i'm shocked that got an answer. but bottom line is assuming you can get to your targeted voters and you can get to them in a way that moves them then it's a much more -- because you're hitting your bullseye. we talked about paid television, uses the mallet, right? 80%, 90% of the people reach with pay television have made up their mind one way or the other. targeting you can do via social media and other online tools, you ultimately can focus in on a real bullseye target so every dollar's actually communicating with someone that you want to talk to. >> do you think the obama campaign, four years ago, not now, they were obviously out front versus mccain with regard to social media? i mean, it was famous that the president had a blackberry, the now president had a blackberry, and hopefully -- so how much of a difference do you think that made in that campaign? i mean, do you think -- and even let me ask you, and then i'd like to broaden that more generally because i have another question following. how much of a difference do you think it made? >> i think it made a huge difference. i think the obama campaign in 2008 was the most -- reaching millions of people that we've never seen and to be honest if they took that blueprint and they did nothing but the exact same thing, in 2012 they would be crazy, right? so they have already gone and i'm not -- >> the word changed. >> the world has changed that much so tucker is exactly right. john mccain wasn't the only person without a twitter account in 2008. it was in its infancy. they are incredibly cutting edge in 2008. i'm sure they are doing much different stuff in 2012 to stay ahead. do you think it ultimately made the difference between a president obama and president mccain? i don't know. i dent think it did. i think it was a year tore democrats. i think president obama had a message that spoke to the country. i don't think that technology made the difference between him being in the white house or not. but it made massive amounts of difference in terms of fund-raising and reaching voters that wouldn't have been reached otherwise. >> and can any of you put your finger on an election and not necessarily for an individual but for a ballot, proposition for example where you feel technology actually did make the difference between, you know, a win and loss? >> i'll use one example. which is, in technology, it works many different ways. i mean, we can talk about communicating with people via the social web or we can talk about e-mail trees. but really, there are campaigns arity rating on technologies in a lot of different ways and really exciting ways. for example, you know, the whitman campaign in california developed a system to be able to track realtime jerry brown's speech. so when jerry brown would have an appearance, there would be someone from the whitman campaign with an iphone, that could then, was live streaming it back it whitman campaign headquarters so that the communications team could be e-mailing reporters responses to the actual charges that jerry brown was making in realtime. and it was the first time they could piece something together. you and now of course the national level you have a live stream with the television stations. but as it whether or not a campaign actually made the difference, you know, in kind of an unconventional way, brian billbr ae can be congressman in 2006, a special election, cunningham had been run out of town for good reason. and that was a hotly contested seat and was seen as a bell weather as to how the 2006 house congressional elections would ultimately fair. unfortunately, it was not the bell weather that republicans had hoped. but we, at rnc, were providing a lot of assistance. brian, running against a candidate who had been captured on tape, inviting someone who is not a legal voter to participate in the election. and in that particular district in san diego this was very controversial. that tape was then moved to youtube and then put on the talk radio stations in san diego, and in such a hotly contested race, i think that a lot of people that were participating in that election will look back and say, catching that technology and moving it in a way it the media that it did, it ultimately changed the election. there's the famous moment, again in 2006. so that -- these things, candidates making slip-ups and saying things that they shouldn't have. >> you can't escape them now. >> you can't escape them now. >> the famous closed event in san francisco where the blogger gets then senator obama talking about pennsylvania, which instantaneously by the next morning is a major national story -- >> this is what they said they have their guns and religious yn or worse to that effect. >> to that effect, yes. but a similar type of situation. >> can i just -- >> yeah. >> can you just tell the audience what the macaca moment was some. >> senator georgia ellen, in -- >> people thought he was early presidential. >> early presidential type of hype building around him. you know, i think that a lot of people considered his race in 2006 more of a technicality. he was popular in the state of president. had been governor of the state of virginia and was caught on tape by a phone, you know, making a statement that was a racial slur. and it wasn't tolerated by the electorate and he was ousted from office. you know, i think that that was a testimony of events that was made possible by his democratic poe opponent because of technology. there is a lot of technological innovations happening on campaigns aside from just on-line communication. and it is really fascinating to watch. >> i interrupted you. >> because you were talking. my first-run national campaign in 1992, and i was much younger and much quicker at that time. and one of my first assignments was to go to opposition events and then you would actually have to sprint with the reporters to the nearest pay phone. to call back to whatever had transpired, right? just think of that compared to these right now with nano technology. there will be nano drones at some point. just think of what, you could have done with water gate. all of president's men could have used a nano drone and they would never had is have had to break into water gate. but, you know, i do think that to me, it is sort of first defining moment was really the campaign because i think that is the first time -- i distinctly remember being in a campaign discussion for a rival campaign in the first reporting and dean's money just comment rolling in. there were all these on-line donations and everyone reported his numberer the can course of the day, getting bigger and bigger by substantial amount. and i remember in a meeting and someone said oh, a ceiling of what you can raise on-line and then which then precipitated a discussion about the quote unquote cascade effect. you know, can which suggests that because of technology the multiplier effect is different than what you typically had in the past. i remember that as sort of, at least for me, the defining moment when you saw the role of technology. sorry. >> no that's okay. it was interesting listening to tucker. i worked on the other side of that brian bilbrae race in the d triple c. as important as technology is. and i believe that. i work at facebook. it is is interesting. the morning after the special election, we woke up, went to d triple c, ron was going crazy. >> shock. >> yeah. and what we took away interest that race is that not that our candidate just got beaten by saying something really stupid while an iphone was rolling. but we had not tied the opponent enough to a very unpopular president bush. so our take way from that is that it had nothing to do with technology but that we missed the elephant in the room which is we should have tied brian bilbrae directly to george bush. i guess my larger point is, there's some really big things that matter so you can get all of the technology right. and if the economy is bad. if the president's unpopular, if the country is against you because they are frustrated with the direction of the country. if the right track wrong track is in the wrong place, that stuff tends to really matter at the end of the day. >> is it a forest in the trees problem, that there is so much nair why casting and such specificity that there is some huge joy gantic fact oigantic f there -- >> well, to sarah's point -- i'll be the first to admit this. unfortunately. in 2008 it wasn't a close election and there were strong reasons why the economy was ultimately the deciding factor. i've heard people that i worked with on the mccain campaign say that that campaign was decided in the mail. that most effective mailer ever sent was everybody's retirement accounts when she showed up in october. so-but actually you look at this election and i think the technology will make a difference because i this think is a much closer election. depending on if we see changes in the global community. or in the economy, if things remain the same, this is looks like a 50/50 race. >> i don't want to put you on the spot but we just heard from sarah that what you didn't do as effectively as what you wish you had was tie an owe poen tent a very unpopular president bush. why won't the democrats dot same thing with the republican candidate and make it not a -- why does your instinct tell you this is going to be a close election? >> i think the polling data suggests that right now. i think that potentially -- >> it is a 50/50 country. >> it looks like a 50/50 rate. it is impossible to tell. if i could tell you who would win the presidential race. >> then let's keep it between the two of us. >> instinct actually i believe it is a closer race than what we experienced in 2008 and when the margins of the races get closer i think technology begins that much more. >> so investments in that type of