This is my first diary so if I make any mistakes try not to be too harsh.
I believe it is generally accepted that the internet is a growing force in elections. The tools that it provides candidates to spread their messages and get controbutions are essential to any campaign these days. However, there is a fairly new tool on the internet that I do not believe was used to its fullest this election Cycle. YouTube was created in early 2005 making the 2006 elections the first to see this new media used in campaigning. By now, everyone here is familiar with the use of YouTube to display political ads. If you aren't familiar with it, go to www.youtube.com and search the name of any candidate running this year and you're almost certain to find their televison ads. YouTube is full of those little 30 second snippets of information. This is fine, it is a very cheap way to try to get your message out. However, I think many candidates could do so much more.
Consider all of the videos that candidates could upload using you tube. First, you can give people segments of your stump speeches. A television ad doesn't allow you to give much more than a few sound bites. It doesn't really let you get out your message. That is simply the reality of television ads. However, if you put your stump speech and YouTube you can provide interested people a more complete explaination of your positions. Some people have done this but many of them didn't do it until late in the campaign. For example Scott Kleeb had television ads on YouTube since early September but he didn't put his stump speech up their until November. Now, lets continue with the example of Scott Kleeb. He got quite a bit of press from Daily Kos in October but there were many questions about his stance on the issues. People were directed to his website for answers but to be honest his website didn't do a very good job outlining his positions. Now, if links to his stump speech were provided it may have answered some of those questions and perhaps he would have gotten even more contributions from people on this site. It would also be something very helpful to include on a site like ActBlue where people would be interested in watching a candidates stump speech to make up their mind if they want to give them a contribution. It would also get some play with people from the candidates district/state. Here I will drop the Kleeb example because to be honest, not all that many Nebraska voters will be using YouTube. However, in other states or in the upcoming presidential elections people doing research on the candidates in a race might find information on YouTube and be influenced. A person might not be willing to go to a candidates stump speech but they may be willing to watch it on their computer. Second, a candidate can upload debates on YouTube. If a candidate did very well in a debate he could put it up on YouTube for the same reasons he'd want to put up a stump speech. It also has the advantage of contrasting the candidate and his opponent. Also, there are a lot of people who mis televised debates who would have liked to watch them. Now, after some searching a person could probably find the debate on a local news networks website but why not make it easy for people and put it on a high traffic site like YouTube.
I have no idea how effective using YouTube to its fullest would be compared to the other forms of campaigning but I do know one thing. Uploading a vidoe on YouTube is free. In the end it might not net a candidate very many votes and it might not net a candidate very many contributions but it will cost a candidate essentially nothing. It is a shame more candidates didn't use it to it fullest this last election and I hope that changes for the '08 cycle.