Norwegian politics doesn’t work the same way as in the US – a Norwegian politician using the high drama and emotion of Obama’s wonderful speeches looks foolish in a down-to-earth Norwegian. And because of regulations limiting political advertising, Norwegian elections (thank goodness) aren’t based on donations. We don’t have a two-party system, or primaries in the same way, and election cycles last a few months at most, certainly not two years. I wonder, though, whether Norwegian political parties in next year’s national elections could make use of the internet in organising volunteers as well as Barack Obama’s campaign did, as TechPresident discuss in their argument that the internet won Obama the presidency: “Online volunteer organizing essentially built the campaign a structure in places where it didn’t exist, letting paid staff parachute in and immediately take command of a working political army.” Sounds pretty good.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Norman Hanscombe

    True, Jill, but for me the biggest change from when I first took a closer interest in U,S, politics was the change in the relative size of campaign spending. I can’t recall the Democrats ever outspending the Republicans by such a huge margin. Back here in Australia, as I’m sure you’re aware, our political scene has, in some respects at least, become almost surreal. In common with quite a few longtime activists, at times I’m not sure whether it’s fascination or despair which dominates my emotions.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]