Today, IPDI released Poli-fluentials: The New Political Kingmakers, which builds on their Political Influentials Online in the 2004 Presidential Campaign report.

RoperASW's Influentials took politics, especially Republicans, by storm. This study examines those Influentials who are highly involved in politics.

Based on an e-mail survey completed by 10,000 people this summer, Poli-fluentials dug into the nuances of online political junkies (chances are if TechRepublican is on your reader, you fall into this category). This wasn't a random survey, so findings are specific to population. However, if you're running a campaign or promoting or work for an advocacy group, you want to attract Poli-fluentials.

The report helps answer the question that plagues all of us here--are Republicans behind on the web? Now we have some evidence that there's work cut out for us. Poli-fluentials are, "more likely to be Democrats than Republicans (46% vs. 30%). Similarly, more Poli-fluentials were liberal or very liberal (45%) than were conservative or very conservative (33%)."

Another interesting finding revealed that social networking worked best for progressive or social conservative issues. People need to have internalized and have a personal stake in the issue for it to be successful. Business or private issues that don't engage people on an emotional level aren't the juicy topics that socnets attract.

These two facts alone, show that Republicans can make the most impact by appealing to our base. It's acknowledged that the right has far bigger offline networks to tap. It's time to get those groups online. We've touched on the need to get pro-life groups more active on the web before, and these numbers just show us where the holes in the rightroots are.

Poli-fluentials also overwhelmingly volunteer:

Our research indicates that volunteers to political campaigns come almost exclusively from the ranks of Poli-fluentials. Our study finds that people who make contributions but who do not actively promote candidates and causes are much less likely to volunteer--only 12% of them did. Similarly, among the people who publically promote candidates and causes, only 10% volunteer. Candidates and causes in search of foot soldiers to perform actual work of campaigns would do well to cultivate Poli-fluentials.

Bottom line: You want these people. Not only do they donate, but they're also eager footsoldiers.

There's a lot more in this study that I'm still weeding through. If you're willing to spend $25 to order it, it's worth the investment.

For a blog that's dedicated to teaching Republicans how to use the internet to achieve electoral success, that may seem like a strange title. But it's true. Zack Exley writes about the problems of hiring a Director of Internet Communications in a time when a Director of Communications should know about the Internet.

“No, don’t hire an Internet guy,” I say. “You need to make your senior leaders, campaigners & organizers responsible for the Internet just as they’re responsible for everything else. The Internet is the biggest, greatest opportunity you have—so why would you outsource it to some Internet person you’ll just stick in a closet anyways?”

But it usually feels like I’m wasting my breath. They call back a few weeks later and say, “We’ve taken your advice and decided to hire an Internet person…do you have any recommendations?”

Frustrating, sure. But it's exactly what I face when pitching services to corporate executives. Those of us that live and breathe online are comfortable with mixing our daily work with the internet. When we think of contacting people, we don't think - let's go to the internet - we just use what's available.

Executives aren't like that, and neither are politicians. It seems like work to have to learn something new, and so it's easier to hire an "expert" to do the work for you. The problem with that model is that the experts are expected to do all the work, when the only way to truly reach a constituency online is to model your behavior on what works offline. Social networking is still about connecting with people - I preach that social networking isn't hard - it's doing the same things you do in your normal life, but it's using computers to broadcast your personal message to a wider audience.

A Tech strategy works when it magnifies what the candidate is doing. It fails when it's a separate piece of the puzzle.  Think of the online strategy as your advertising department. Do you want them to make a commercial without talking to your product people.  The purpose of the commercial is to sell more product.  And the purpose of the online strategy is to increase donations and bring in more votes.  What's the point of a brilliant online strategy that doesn't deliver victory?

So take Zack's advice. When someone wants to hire you for your internet skills, take the time to explain that your tech ability is not magic - and that it doesn't work if it isn't integrated into the full campaign.