Slashdot Mirror
Slow Start For Mobile In 2012 Presidential Campaign
An anonymous reader writes "Social networks played an important role in the last U.S. presidential election, but the explosive growth in smartphone usage and the introduction of tablets since 2008 could make or break the candidates for president in 2012. As the Republican primaries heat up, the major contenders show on their official websites a strong recognition of social networking and connecting in digital ways via desktop computers. But the GOP and President Obama's campaigns are not yet making many mobile-specific connections to supporters via smartphones or tablets, analysts noted. Some campaigns have special links on their websites for getting updates via SMS to a phone, but they don't appear to have candidate-specific downloadable mobile apps on Apple's App Store or the Android Market so far."
I can't think of anything I'd want _less_ than a candidate for public office sending me campaign-related text messages. Does anybody outside of the campaigns themselves actually want this, or is this a social marketing consultant's wet dream?
When the world moved to the web, politicians were printing paper flyers.
When the world moved to social networking, the politicians put up oldschool web pages.
As the world moves to mobile computing, the politicians learn about social networking sites.
They are always a step behind, because they react to what their analysts are reporting, and being reactive means you are never up with the times.
Our web site has seen an absolute explosion in mobile platform use over the last 24 months. No surprise our elected representatives don't get it yet.
The country that sells politicians the same way it does sanitary towels. Somehow it seems strangely appropriate.
Is there really a demand for "candidate-specific downloadable mobile apps"? I can't think of anything more horrific spamming up the App Store.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
While I can see how the convenience of these devices speed up spreading "ooops" moments I can't really see how this will actually help candidates. Also never have there been so many cameras in the audience. What positive power is there to leverage when it comes to tablets and smart phones? I honestly can't even come up with a very convoluted answer to that one. This is a most vapid submission.
In the current climate where it seems to be the best strategy to damage contestor instead of even offereing half-arsed simple solutions to complex problems those devices make a good attack vector for smear campaigns.
I could imagine an app that makes you guess the definition of santorum. Here's a hint: it ain't pretty.
Will it help the nation? Propably no.
The real tragedy here is that a truly suitable candidate will be put off by what's currently going on.
20 minutes into the future
Are full "apps" really required? With constant news coverage, social networking accounts, mailing lists, and websites, why do I need another direct feed from campaigns? Something like twitter is much more useful. I am more likely to see their messages via my twitter stream than via a custom app that either prompts me with annoying messages or that I have to remember to check. The only people I see using the apps are people that have already decided who they are voting for and the mobile app might as well be a "donate now" button. I fail to see how a mobile app is going to do any good at promoting a campaign and actually gaining votes.
Anyone wanna take odds that they fail on the "convert" vs " preach to the faithful" problem with their attempt at technological relevancy?
If there's one thing the R.P. guys (such as myself) are good at, its convincing other R.P. fans that it would be a great idea to vote for him, you know, like we were planning to do all along anyway. Surrounded by a bunch of "He sucks because he's only about a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10" ignoring the other candidates are more like a 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 to 10.
Now a REAL online internet social presence election would involve someone online getting elected, like Moot from 4chan or perhaps uncle leo from twit or cmdrtaco, not just using a new technology as yet another spam spewing source.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I'm really not sure you need more.
Deleted
Some 3rd parties are making mobile straw polls to gauge mobile voter sentiment. One example: http://votenow12.com/
When I saw the word mobile I was thinking of Mobile, Alabama, in United States. But on a more serious note: what kind of apps would a candidate or his or her staff create? I could understand if they created a page on Facebook or Twitter, but an app for a smart device / tablet? Just wondering.
And the article says that "Smartphones are most heavily used by people under 45." Um, where I live, it seems that people over 50 use the smart phones heavily. Like, they are business executives or doctors. Just and observation.
From TFA: "In early 2010, more than 20 mobile apps popped up for college basketball's March Madness tournament, 'so why not have similar apps to track campaigns?' asked Bill Dudley, group director of product management at Sybase365" The reason is that more people actually care about March Madness than care about the presidential election. I bet you can prove it too by viewership and attendance of games vs debates/rallies. Does this nugget of insight make me an analyst?
What positive power is there to leverage when it comes to tablets and smart phones? I honestly can't even come up with a very convoluted answer to that one.
House by house, categorization using GPS.
The reverse of this is grouping issues by area and inform campaigners of the biggest issues nearby, potentially street by street. Direct targeted messages to individual streets/houses.
This is a most vapid submission.
Of course.
Deleted
I find i hard to believe that people who vote are swayed (especially in a 2 candidate race, guess primaries are different) by a Facebook page or app.
I guess you could have an donation method embedded in it for the person who would download the app.
I still think most people who are undecided make up their mind based on who sounds the best to them on TV.
When I saw the word mobile I was thinking of Mobile, Alabama, in United States
Me too. And I'm from Holland (Europe). ;-)
bjd
Just about every modern smartphone/tablet is perfectly capable of displaying normal (desktop) websites. Sounds like a waste of effort and campaign money to me.
Why would anybody want a mobile phone app for a presidential candidate?
Or maybe their market research consultants correctly told them that few people would download and install candidate-specific mobile apps.
American elections are, in large part, decided not by persuading independents to vote for one candidate or the other, it's by which party can get its ideologically-aligned supporters to the polls.
Committed supporters can be very useful in that - you feed them what are in effect talking points to persuade their less committed friends to come and vote; it makes organizing volunteers to, say, drive likely voters to the polls easier, and so on and so forth. That's where a mobile app might be useful.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Do you really want to install an app from a presidential candidate or any politician? I didn't think so.
Go to their fucking websites or follow their twitter feeds or whatever social networking site is popular now.
I think the emphasis on social networks and technology was just a case of the image of technology being used to encourage a grassroots campaign, in what was and will remain, an astroturf campaign. Obama still was funded (read; bought) by the usual suspects, and just like the who lyric in one of their songs, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" i think that all this talk of social networking is making people think they're doing something when they really aren't.
Fortunately here in australia, we have compulsory attendance to vote and as a result, campaign funding plays a subtly different role, it's more telling people why they should vote for one ahead of the other, rather than motivating people to actually vote. Compulsory attendance also means that people do pay some more attention (only slightly more) to the politics.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/obama-2012/id376413567?mt=8
While I agree that geospatially enhancing polls are a very good thing(and I'd expect rather surprising results) none of the candidates run on local platforms. Even if most of them seem to change their song&dance according to local customs.
E.g. Have a bunch of people twatting about the need to preserve Pedobears, that proud American icon, from extinction.
Have the "Save the Pedobear" campaign trending prior to "the big speech" and wait for the politicians to adjust their "song&dance" accordingly.
Hijinks ensue.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
There's an app for that