Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In case anybody was still uncertain about how completely the Internet has changed the political landscape, the Romney camp has recently conceded that they have wasted so much of Romney's time on in-person fundraising (as opposed to Obama's effortless web fundraising) that they are actually going to sacrifice fundraising for more actual campaigning.
Quote:
A paper issued on Monday by the Campaign Finance Institute, a research organization, argued that Mr. Obama was reaping major benefits from his long-term cultivation of small donors, millions of whom have given checks of a few dollars.
In August, the institute noted, “the Obama campaign received almost as much from unitemized donors who gave $200 or less during the month of August ($25.1 million) as former Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign raised directly from all donors ($26.9 million).”
And remember the 47% video? Not only was it captured by a mobile device and made available first online... Business Insider now reports that it has been views three times more often than his convention speech, something that would have been impossible in the old days of traditional media.
Quote:
Barack Obama's convention speech has been viewed 5 times as many times as Mitt Romney's convention speech.
Mitt Romney's "47%" video has been viewed 2 million times more than his convention speech.
Clint Eastwood's convention speech has been viewed 2 million times more than Mitt Romney's convention speech
Michelle Obama's convention speech has been viewed 3-times as many times as Romney's convention speech--and 6-times as often as Ann Romney's
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Interesting thread idea! Yes, it has certainly changed fund-raising, including allowing "instant" and "micro" donations. And it has also empowered extremist fringe groups more, like not only the proverbial right wing "base" here, but also worldwide, such as all the muslim groups that were inflammed by the "Sam Bacile" anti-muhammed video posted on the internet.
Although on the other hand, Obama has even been criticized for relying on it too much, and forgetting that many older voters still rely on "old school" media, like TV and newspapers for their news.
There is definitely more information out there for those who search it out (like us), but the average person who doesn't bother delving too deep into politics is going to get their main information from TV, papers, and friends.
The advantage has been to Obama because he does better with many of the young voters that have mush for brains. The younger voters use the internet more than much older voters.
I wonder how much it costs Obama in cost per click advertising on Facebook and other sites when conservatives keep clicking but don't contribute.
It is definitely changing the landscape on how one campaigns and runs for office.
And because of that influence, should it surprise anyone that political parties and candidates would hire people to post on their behalf on message boards such as this one? IMO, it would be negligent of a campaign to NOT have paid professionals to post in their behalf in most internet venues, even though none of those professional posters ever admit to their status. If some PR company hired a team of people to post on message boards, and supplied those posters with research people to find internet info in at least somewhat support of their positions, they'd have a high post count for a short period of time and be able to provide links really, really fast......faster than just an ordinary poster who is interested in politics.
There is definitely more information out there for those who search it out (like us), but the average person who doesn't bother delving too deep into politics is going to get their main information from TV, papers, and friends.
But people who do search out information on the internet also talk to their friends. They relate info from the Internet.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 10-03-2012 at 05:27 PM..
Reason: typo
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
But people who do search out information on the internet also talk to their friends. They related info from the Internet.
That's true, although if all those endlessly-repeated bat-$hit crazy emails are any indication ("Obama death squads!", "FEMA Internment Camps!", etc.), that kinda "information" ain't always such a good thang!
That's true, although if all those endlessly-repeated bat-$hit crazy emails are any indication ("Obama death squads!", "FEMA Internment Camps!", etc.), that kinda "information" ain't always such a good thang!
I agree. Also the subtle twisting of facts on a message board isn't such a good thing......the twisting in order to create a negative title for a thread...which sometimes shows up in a google search. That's why I think it is only common sense to think that political parties and candidates hire professional posters for message boards such as this one. Of course I have to say that it seems the republicans have the dems beat in that strategy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
