I know it’s early, but can you imagine a political convention without a known nominee going in? Hot damn, that’s the best reality TV that can be. So get this, the last convention that was somewhat in doubt was 32 years ago with Reagan and Ford, however most pundits say the last true brokered convention was 56 years ago. Let’s not quibble, the fact is this year both the Democratic and Republican conventions have a chance of being decided in real time. They resemble sporting events and not coronations.

They would be the first brokered convention with mini DV cameras, live blogging, Twitter, Utterz… yipes!

Obama, Clinton, Edwards for the Democrats and McCain, Romney neck and neck with one more heavy Giuliani still poised to win a couple of big states on the Republican side.

Look I just can’t get too excited thinking about it because the chances are still slim, but indulge me for just for a moment.

Delegates will become citizen journalists and spin doctors will all of a sudden wish they had a Twitter or Utterz account. (Twitter and Utterz training available here act now!).

Sure those folks are wired with text messages and crackberries, but they will need to reach out to people that may not be in their distribution lists. They may have to reach out to someone that was the opposition just 10 minutes earlier. They may want to try and drive web users to online polls or engage them to show which candidate can motivate outside the walls of the convention hall because that’s the ultimate victory. Eegadds!

Will journalists be plugged into twitter profiles for the candidates or the candidates’ spokespeople (that is a separate conversation whether to have surrogate profiles to float trial balloons)?

Yes social media friends, a brokered convention is one part crisis, two parts breaking news, and all of it adds up to an interesting scenario for microblogging platforms. Stay tuned.

Here is some background on the convention process and brokered conventions

Election 2008 Countdown and Delegate Count

Democratic Convention Watch

Power Line News

Republican National Committee

Democratic National Committee

Time 15:00

Put a taste of the Iowa caucus into your corporate communications. This will be an ongoing theme on the Marketing Edge during this election year. My premise is that social media is like oxygen to the embers of ideas. The networks and groups formed using social media resembles grassroots organizations and therefore companies need to take a page from political campaigns.

In this podcast we chat with David Almacy, VP of Digital Strategies for North America for Waggener Edstrom.

He also was at the White House for President Bush in 2005 – 2007 as the director of internet and e-communications. David was also recently recognized by PR Week in their 40 Under 40 issue.

We share some views on the Iowa Caucus about social media and mainstream media. There is also more on my perspective on this issue from Minn Post reporter Christine Capecchi in an article entitled Caucuses 2.0: Online efforts become instant political laboratories in Iowa

Having spent a decade in political communications, and a few years covering politics as a reporter, social media has the potential to help change society, because of the speed with which it can spreading ideas, and the ability to galvanize more people around an issue/brand faster.

Look, the civil rights movement didn’t need social media; but the same fundamental tactics for grassroots organization and communication skills are now necessary for companies who wish to participate in, not market with, social media. There is more of a movement in social media than a marketplace.

If I was to crystallize the general difference of perspective between political communications and corporate communications pre-social media into a bumper sticker, it would be this:

Brand champions may say this is the same as Lovemarks. I agree, and in the world of politics and on the battle field of ideas that shape a society, people have died for the brand they love.

In this discussion David and I touch on the use of social media, the fragmentation of information sources, and the mysterious mix of mainstream media quantity with social media passion.

Another interesting take on measuring social media in this presidential campaign is the Spartan Political Performance Index. Stay tuned as this election year, creative minds will tweek, shape, and test all forms of social media. The winners will be those observers in corporate marketers who can see applications for their brands.

Another Marketing Edge Book Drawing

We are holding a drawing for the book The New Influencers by Paul Gillin, he’s another thought provoking guy at the Society for New Communications Research. So if you want in on the drawing send me an email to marketingedge@providentpartners.net with the words New Influencers in the subject line.

The YouTube era becomes mainstream.

You know, I’ve been at a few of those goat rodeos called presidential debates back when I was press secretary of the Republican National Committee. My expectations were low regarding the YouTube experiment with CNN and Anderson Cooper.

I was hoping it was not dominated by a bunch of people who finished uploading a Jackass contest entry and threw on a question for the candidates. I thought CNN would do its usual headline grabber followed by the always handy “Most Trusted Name in News” or something like that. It is entertainment after all: plot, conflict, antagonist, protagonist, etc., etc., etc.

But no. Anderson Cooper and the producers earned a good deal of praise. The questions did, for the most part, seem to represent a cross section of the country’s most pressing concerns. It did indeed seem like we were talking in America’s living room. Congrats to Senior Vice President David Bohrman and CNN Political Director Sam Feist — not to mention YouTube — for giving a voice to individual.

Of course, some of those individuals are political types, playing the game, working the system. So be it. It’s a free country. Expect it and live with it.

The way this format works — if the American people want honest answers — is to reward those answers. For example, when Joe Biden keeps hammering on the fact that you can’t physically get the troops out of Iraq for a year, and gets others to reluctantly concede that fact, then Biden’s numbers need to move in a positive direction.

For the public’s role, they need to appreciate that an honest answer is likely one with which they might not agree. And the manner in which we reach these conclusions needs to be one of mutual respect and civility. Only then will candidates and the political machine take notice and change. If not, then this format runs the risk if further trivializing the election cycle circus.

A couple of questions were, well, questionable. For example, reparations for descendants of slaves. I thought, “Where did this come from?” There are plenty of other significant ways to get to the issue of race: police brutality, predatory lending practices, and so on. But reparations? Maybe the question-selection team wanted to get questions that would allow for a clear split among the candidates instead of the lip service usually applied to those issues.

CNN needs to be careful on questions like the snowman talking about global warming and the gun toter. Stick to the substance; we can handle it. The format is engaging enough without dramatizing the questions, too.

Other questions were priceless, like the gay marriage question asked by the two women from New York. Great timing gals. The best question of the bunch was the one that attempted to separate BS from real deal on the issue of “working together,” the current politically tested phrase that means nothing. The question went something like this: If you are so good at working with Republicans, which one would you pick as a running mate if you could only pick a Republican? Nice answer from Biden on that one.

I hope the format underscored that we are all Americans, and it’s not about Democrats and Republicans. Statistically, one side can’t be wrong all the time and visa versa.

The media tries to play that “you’re wrong, I’m right” game, as well. Anderson tried to get Edwards to say yes or no about whether he is better on women’s issues than Hillary. To Edwards’ credit, he did not take the bait. Why? Because that’s the bait that leads to unnecessary, mindless conflict. It might be good for TV in the old model — the “Hey, fight in the schoolyard!” sort of dribble — but the country needs more substance.

Perhaps this format will teach the media that lesson.

Image courtesy of CNN.com.