Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Use By Romney and Obama In 2012 Highlight the Speed of Social Media
HughPickens.com writes On 30 August 2012, Hollywood star Clint Eastwood took the stage to lambast President Obama. What ensued was an odd, 11-minute monologue where Eastwood conversed with an empty chair upon which an imaginary Barack Obama sat. The evening of Eastwood's speech the official campaign Twitter account @MittRomney did not mention the actor, while the Obama campaign deftly tweeted out from @BarackObama a picture of the president sitting in his chair with the words "This Seat's Taken". The picture was retweeted 59,663 times, favorited 23,887 times, and, as importantly, was featured in news articles across the country. According to Daniel Kress both campaigns sought to influence journalists in direct and indirect ways, and planned their strategic communication efforts around political events such as debates well in advance. Despite these similarities, staffers say that Obama's campaign had much greater ability to respond in real time to unfolding commentary around political events (PDF) given an organizational structure that provided digital staffers with a high degree of autonomy.
Romney's social media team did well when it practiced its strategy carefully before big events like the debates. But Obama's social media team was often quicker to respond to things and more creative. According to Kress, at extraordinary moments campaigns can exercise what Isaac Reed calls "performative power," influence over other actors' definitions of the situation and their consequent actions through well-timed, resonant, and rhetorically effective communicative action and interaction. During the Romney campaign as many as 22 staffers screened posts for Romney's social media accounts before they could go out. As Romney's digital director Zac Moffatt told Kreiss, the campaign had "the best tweets ever written by 17 people. ... It was the best they all could agree on every single time."
Romney's social media team did well when it practiced its strategy carefully before big events like the debates. But Obama's social media team was often quicker to respond to things and more creative. According to Kress, at extraordinary moments campaigns can exercise what Isaac Reed calls "performative power," influence over other actors' definitions of the situation and their consequent actions through well-timed, resonant, and rhetorically effective communicative action and interaction. During the Romney campaign as many as 22 staffers screened posts for Romney's social media accounts before they could go out. As Romney's digital director Zac Moffatt told Kreiss, the campaign had "the best tweets ever written by 17 people. ... It was the best they all could agree on every single time."
He was adept at using the IRS too.
Is that he is a Mormon, and he places more faith and loyaly in that organization than he does to the US. No, thank you. Mormons are a cult, in any event, and I will not knowingly vote for someone who could buy into the obvious dreck the Mormons espouse.
Then try to tell me that the 'speed' of social media did a damn bit of good. You still elected a bunch of crooks. The only proven aspect of the whole thing is the stupidity of the voters, especially the dumbass democrats. Few people are more stupid and gullible than they are.
Posting AC because telling the truth is considered flamebait/troll. Screw the moderators.
Obama's camp is not only deft at social media, their control over IRS computer are equally legendary
Until now nobody can convincingly explain why those IRS computers which contain vital information can turn belly up, almost all at the same time
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Even if one voted for the other guy the USAsians would still be ending up with a despot
American politics has turned into a tweedledee and tweedledum show
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I sure am glad to have a tech-savvy Administration in Washington for once. Finally we have someone, who uses the same devices we do and appreciates their security. Someone, who "gets" of building web-sites, the importance of competition among ISPs, and other deeply technical issues.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Having fewer people with a higher degree of autonomy manning these kinds of communication channels does tend to produce more of an identifiable "voice", along with the ability to respond to things faster and insert your message into current events/discussions. The downside is that it's also somewhat more prone to gaffes or off-message comments, basically for the same reason, that the messages are written on the spur of the moment by one or a few people and don't go through a more "heavyweight" approval process that ensures they're in line with the brand's desired image. Of course you can then deal with that on the meta-side by blaming "a staffer" who "didn't follow policy" if anything particularly controversial happens.
I think campaigns will probably move towards the more lightweight-review model, just because inserting yourself into topical discussions is so important for the news-cycle-driven style of campaigning.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Despite what hipsters think, Twitter is just a sideshow to what's really on display here, namely something that's been a staple of military leadership training for a loong time.
One of the first rules of war is: A plan of battle never survives first contact with the enemy unchanged.
The lesson in the above statement is that you can't just draw up a single grand plan, and stick to it no matter what. The reality is that any plan will always contain elements of estimates and guesswork. Therefore you make plans for different eventualities, and learn to adapt between different plans, and even drawing up new plans based on what you've learned.
In this case, the Republicans stuck to a single grand plan, with carefully scripted events. The democrats had a grand plan that outlined the goals needed, initial plans, and separate plans to adapt to unfolding events.
Twitter was just one tool in a large toolbox to achieve the above, and is in itself nothing special. Similar things have been spread via email, SMS, etc etc before, in other countries.
Is there any part of this we didn't know well over two years ago?
Which is what all the young girls say to me so I know it well.
But Obama's social media team was often quicker to respond to things and more creative.
Or perhaps, Republicans are just slower and less creative about somethings, but certainly not everything. For example, take their plans for universal/affordable health care, immigration, the minimum wage, women's issues, the working poor, or ... oh wait.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
... you keep the Twitter ninjas, and let the rest of us have a president who doesn't screw up everything he touches.
Next election, they should keep them in a rolodex.
On 30 August 2012, Hollywood star Clint Eastwood took the stage to lambast President Obama. What ensued was an odd, 11-minute monologue where Eastwood conversed with an empty chair upon which an imaginary Barack Obama sat.
it wasn't odd. it was the perfect distilled essence of the conservative movement - an elderly white guy yelling at his own imagined version of a black person.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Why not, it's as meaningful as any other bullshit election.