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."
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 !
Any religion is.
Tell me: Why is it that when one person says he's having this imaginary friend that even he can't see but that tells him what to do and what not to do, and that he is supposed to make everyone around him play by the rules of his buddy, that we recommend him to see a shrink, if we not send him to a mental institution outright if he continues to pester people about it.
But when a few millions do it we call it religion and they not only get governmental protection to get on everyone's nerves, they also get their imaginary buddy's whims enshrined in laws.
It boggles the mind, it really does.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
they also get their imaginary buddy's whims enshrined in laws.
Those are their own whims; they merely lack the courage to admit it and pretend they come from someone/something else.
Irrational and dishonest are two different things.
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?
People made similar noises about JFK's Catholicism, but he still managed to get elected.
And while I'd vote for an atheist, I've few illusions about one actually winning in the US, even in this enlightened 21st Century of ours.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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. . . .
so is every religeon. I find the evangelicals that elected bush to be a far more dangerous cult than the mormons. Reagan, again, with the 700 club, not a "church" per se, but a dangerous group more loyal to themselves than American Values. They wrecked havoc.
IMHO the only thing that is different with mormons are time. When I look at different religions, they all seems crazy.
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!