techPresident - The Hillary Clinton Internet - Comments

Sadly no

Ruby Sinreich — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:41:11 -0400

Your assertions about who supports Obama are almost offensively ignorant, doctorate. But you keep believin' if that illusion makes you feel better.

HRC Internet

doctorate — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:00:56 -0400

One thing you overlooked was how the media techniques used by the Obama campaign create an illusion that he has more support than he actually has, nationwide. For example, his online army is known for voting repeatedly in certain web polls in order to achieve a favorable - but deceptive - result for their candidate. Similarly, the fact that one candidate typically wins a caucus, but not necessarily the popular vote in a given state, says more about the age group attending the caucuses and their dearth of responsibility and time constraints. The leisure demographic, as you aptly phrase it, naturally associates itself with a variety of electronic vices that are an afterthought to middle America. Many Obama supporters are financially dependent on others - either students on their parents, or latte liberals on their spouses, or pseudo intellectuals on their trust funds. Thus, the marriage with technology is one made in heaven. HRC's supporters are more grounded, and connect better with the type of voters Democrats will need in the Fall.

Listening and Responding are not the same...

Michael Turk — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:30 -0400

Don't get confused. Listening and responding are not the same, either.

Most people on Twitter follow a lot of people, but you watch what they're saying and you engage only when you have something to add. Otherwise it's still largely a one-way medium.

Whether he responds is not the issue. You're exactly right in calling it the "perception" of listening. Given a choice, which is better. The perception that someone is listneing when they really aren't, or the perception that someone cares so little for the medium that they won't even try to hide the fact that they don't care to see what you're saying and will actively refuse followers?

Keep in mind, Hillary's campaign began with the 'this is a conversation' message. The reason 'Vote Different' worked is because it illustrated how one-way that conversation really is.

Actively refusing followers on Twitter does more to prove that point than any video ever could. If this is a conversation, why aren't you liestening?

Hard to run a pro Hillary site

seattlerock — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:19:20 -0400

This is so true.
--------
From my own personal experience, its taxing and emotionally draining to be Hillary supporter on the internet. When my music slideshow video of the Clinton campaign’s Latino campaign song was featured on the front page of YouTube.com, it was immediately flooded with negative comments from Obama-supporters, and who downrated the video, the norm for pro-Hillary content on YouTube. And, yet, paradoxically, there is a lot of great pro-Hillary content on YouTube which is never showcased, some of which I included in a post earlier this year.
--------

I run a bunch of Hillary Grassroots groups and profiles on many networks like http://www.myspace.com/hillaryclinton2008, and I spend most of my time deleting Obamaniacs. I probably delete a good 30 to 50 anti Hillary comments from Obama fans every day on each profile.

I have two groups that have pretty much died due to the constant abuse from Obama fans.

The perception of "listening" is not the same the same

Xavier Lopez-Ayala — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:34:21 -0400

as actually listening, in my opinion. Scanning pages of @barackobama's tweets, not once did he respond to anyone.

Based on the sporadic nature of his tweets, it would seem as though his staff is only logging in to tweet that one time and then quickly exiting the page, so no one's actually "listening."

Not to mention the fact that he's "listening" to more people who follow him because no doubt some people have STOPPED following him after he's reciprocated the "follow."

For example: I follow @barackobama, he follows me back.. I decide I'm not going to vote for him, or don't want to see his tweets, and decide to un-follow him, he's still following me.

Hillary lacks traction online for a reason

blogswarm — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:38:43 -0400

But if the Clinton campaign is so top-down, than shouldn’t the coverage of the smallest concession of “total control” be lauded by the folks over at TechPresident as movement in the right direction, and more openness encouraged?

Uh, no. Maybe if she were the nominee, but as that is nearly impossible (and pyhrric if it were to happen), a better model to moving in the right direction is to continue to use Hillary's "strategy" as an example of how not to win online.

At the heart of the matter is the overarching strategy which has been efficiently executed and has ensured that Clinton would be unable to gain traction online. You cherry pick individual tactics and events in a way that is completely divorced from the overall strategy.

There’s no doubt that his grassroots supporters have helped him win in caucus states and states with small voting populations, but his large media budget and advanced online precinct captain system was unable to defeat Sen. Clinton’s California HillStar program, which blended traditional organizing and GOTV efforts with social networking, both on- and off-line.

That is probably the best example. I live in CA and Hillary didn't win because of her HillStar program, she won because of an extremely efficient traditional VBM program and because Obama largely took a pass on CA so that he could play small ball and become the front-runner he is today.

While there are some good moves Clinton has made online, they have largely been in-spite of her overall strategy. And even comparing the good and the bad, there is no reason to give credit to a net-negative online program and every reason to use her campaign as example #1 of what not to do in a post-broadcast environment.

But since you decided to start a conversation devoid of discussing the overall strategy and focusing on small tactics, my favorite anecdote is the "choose the campaign song" saga. First, the finalists showed that Hillary supporters have as crappy taste in music as they do in politicians. Then, they chose fucking Celine Dion. Finally, even Hillary Clinton admitted her supporters have crappy taste when she stopped using her supporters' choice as her campaign theme song. When it comes to giving credit where credit is due, I will agree that decision deserves credit.

Congratulations

Michael Turk — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:55:58 -0400

In the Democratic Primary, you are the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. even if you are doing cool and innovative things (distributed phone bank and walk efforts, 5000-8000 house parties, etc) you're not going to get recognition until after the fact (if even then). The media will downplay any suggestion that you are using technology well and play up the 'momentum of the movement' on the other side.

I feel for you, but as I learned, that's the shakes, kid.

On the Twitter front, here's the distinct difference, and one that defeats your point, rather than supports it.

Barack has 25,833 followers, you have 3,353. Barack follows 26,030, you follow 0. Barack listens to more people than he talks to. If you want people to believe you're having a conversation, then you might want to take a look at that.

The Hillary Clinton Internet

Xavier Lopez-Ayala — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:25:12 -0400

Time to make room for a different point of view on Hillary Clinton's use of the web: The prevailing narrative about the Clinton campaign is embodied in the phrase “top-down,” and there is some truth to that characterization. But if the Clinton campaign is so top-down, than shouldn’t the coverage of the smallest concession of “total control” be lauded by the folks over at TechPresident as movement in the right direction, and more openness encouraged? I would answer in the affirmative, but, largely, the coverage remains negative, at worst, critical at best.