Ron and Mike

A few weeks ago, no one would have heard of Ron Paul, nor Mike Gravel (pronounced, "gruh-vell", rather than the way you think it would be pronounced). Both are, respectively, candidates for President for the Republican and Democratic party. Ron Paul's name has been out a little more, for some reason, but really, Gravel was no one anyone gave any attention to until a recent Democratic debate.

Now, most people rarely watch these early debates. Most people start to care when each party has figured out which candidate they want to back, that is, when the choices have winnowed down to two candidates, with an occasional outsider like Nader or Perot.

But with sites like Digg and Reddit and the combination of sites like YouTube, passionate people can make others aware of smaller (in support) candidates. This means these candidates can take advantage by taking strong stances during the debates, something front-runners can't afford to do, for fear of making missteps that might derail a campaign that is just about to start.

On the other hand, Paul and Gravel have little to lose. They can afford to be passionate during the debate, taking stances that might otherwise seem loony. And people tired of candidates that play it safe like this eagerness.

Whether this translates to votes, I don't know. Recall the Democratic primaries that put John Kerry as the Democratic candidate. How many people might have grudgingly accepted Al Sharpton were he not otherwise considered unelectable, being tarred with the Sharpton-Jackson brush, as two guys who are only heard during issues of race (and that, only when it affects African Americans). Sharpton's stature probably raised a fair bit, much of which has been brought back down after the Imus flap.

The point is many people didn't particularly care for John Kerry, but he was the candidate because he had experience, he had been in Vietnam where Bush hadn't. This is why many states jockeyed to move their primaries up front. People don't vote in a state primary in a vacuum. It's very much like betting on a long horse race, where voters can see how the horses are doing 1/10 of the way, then 2/10 of the way, and so forth. As Kerry was building momentum, people voted for him based on "electability".

And that may really set the tone for Paul and Gravel. Gravel, for my money, is a bit too white, a throwback to 50s style politicians. But once he gets a few interviews (as he has with Wolf Blitzer), he may not sound quite like the blowhard he did during the debates. Paul is caught in a particularly good position. Republicans are trying to decide whether they support the war or not, with McCain hanging his hat on as ardent Bush supporter. It's a precarious position, and a complete about-face from his stance eight years ago, when he suffered a Bush hatchet-job, that lead him to quietly support Bush in 2004.

Paul can be the guy who opposes the war, who is trying to steer Republicans away from Bush's policies, a stance that many Republicans may warm too. With no outstanding candidates, Paul might make up some ground. McCain and Giuliani are leading, but the rest of the candidates are hardly known. The Democrats, on the other hand, put out three candidates--Barack, Hillary, and John Edwards--that are already quite well-known. Even the other candidates: Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson, are not complete unknowns. Heck, Al Gore could come back in the race, and he may seem more palatable than anyone already in the race. Fred Thompson is likely the only guy who's not in the Republican race that might have some recognition.

The question is whether party backing is still the ultimate arbiter for who wins. We know the YouTube generation doesn't have power to move things yet, but it's growing. Consider Snakes on a Plane who used Internet advertising to push a rather blah movie through the stratosphere. Well, at least among the Interneterati. The rest of the public gave this movie a lukewarm response.

But people may look back at this election, years from now, and see the seeds of a new way to campaign, and that being a safe campaigner may not always be the answer.