techPresident - Email - Comments

"Transactions" win elections not geeky web tools

jnail — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:49:25 -0400

Patrick, your post makes no sense to me. Its a geeky critique of a tool that is for the mainstream web user.

Elections are all about "transactions". Not just money but volunteering, engaging and doing things like getting out the vote, voter registration, getting folks together like House parties etc.

Your reference to the lame McCain Nation is even less sensible. Obama had over 4000 house parties on June 28th and has thousands of volunteers out actually working on voter reg while McCain is just now putting out a social site on the "Internets".

The "GOP toolbar" - that is a joke right?

Your reference to "a well-honed machine run like IBM at its peak, not a hungry, innovative startup" is a bad thing? Elections are won with discipline and focus not some naive startup mentality.

The typical voter has no idea what Twitter is and does not care. They are day to day web users who need basic, simple, easy access and sites need to work for them.

The campaign could clearly update pages more frequently and all sorts of things but most of us use our MY BO page and by now know where to click to get the info we need.

Well-documented that Obama smears started in conservative media

Luigi Montanez — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:56:54 -0400

Yes, Clinton supporters and conservative Democrats may have repeated/believed the smears, but it was only well after they already had traction from Fox News (Muslim/Madrassa rumor), Rush Limbaugh (Michelle/Whitey rumor), and other conservative outlets.

Why are you assuming that it

Marco Carbone — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:17:59 -0400

Why are you assuming that it is mostly conservatives spreading these around in the first place? When I was canvassing for Obama in northern Nevada, I encountered these rumors several times from hardcore Democrats (who all happened to be Clinton supporters). I would contend that these rumors are being spread around mostly by low-information voters, regardless of their political proclivities.

This was cutting edge for

ChrisM — Thu, 29 May 2008 07:54:45 -0400

This was cutting edge for them...

For ONCE I agree

Freedomfighter — Tue, 20 May 2008 23:53:45 -0400

Tech President is so horrendously biased toward Obama, so I feel strong compulsion to agree with this article. Short messages with many links are far better than a long email with a link at the very end. Kudos to Michael Whitney for providing true constructive criticism!

I doubt he'll like what I told him

cfinnie — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:31:45 -0400

But, if he wants to know why somebody from her core support cohort (58-year-old white woman) didn't vote for her, I hope he does read it. Considering the people she's brought in to the campaign so far though, I doubt it. Listening doesn't seem to be something they do, unless it's a poll. Maybe they feel they have more control if they get to ask the questions. I suspect they just don't really care.

Interesting, I've already

der74hva3 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:07:53 -0400

Interesting, I've already seen this in some forum. If I find the link, i'll put it here.

Derek Hval

der74hva3 — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:22:21 -0500

Derek Hval

No, Images Are Consistently Blocked

Michael Whitney — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:32:56 -0500

Spaminess is not a factor in blocking images. For many email programs, including Gmail, Live Mail, Outlook, and AOL, the default is to not display images. 30% of people don't even realize there's supposed to be an image there.

http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/archives/2007/02/current_conditions_...

Additionally, in a study by M&R Strategic Services, images have no effect on the performance of an email campagn - they might as well not be there.

http://mrss.com/news/Do_Images_Help_Or_Hurt.pdf

Freedomfighter, none of the factors you described actually affect image effectiveness or email deliverability.

So, the McCain campaign is sloppy and ignorant about how to run an effective email campaign. They do not have it together and don't understand how to engage people online.

People are more email saavy then you think......

Freedomfighter — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:03:43 -0500

Joshua,
I understand what your talking about but email programs have changed drastically and people are more saavy about email than other computer programming.

Most image blocking only happens if the email is determined to be spam. Spam settings usually judge an email by length, text used, and attachments used. By including a lot of text, the email is far less likely to be seen as spam and arrive in the inbox where the graphic would display.

In addition, I think the Democrats are going to have a hard time beating McCain because he is well known due to vast media coverage which means he really does not need a lot of money to win.

Consider the latest controversy, does it help or hurt? Those who remember the Monica scandal will be bored by it. Republicans, even the conservatives, will come to McCain's defense. How can you beat that with money or emails?

power of a network

conservstudent — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:54:04 -0500

The power of a network will far surpass that of a simple email list... always. The thing you don't get with an email list is investment. With a social network, people will invest themselves in it, nobody cares about an email list.

The candidates don't even need to build a social network, they can just use existing ones. Social networks are the future.

***
http://republican.konnects.com

30% don't see images

Michael Whitney — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:53:02 -0500

At the very least, a third of everyone who opens an email won't even know there's an image, because that's the default for their email program.

Email is about text. The text should clearly make the point.

Hillary vs. Obama

dr0976 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:07:44 -0500

Pipe piper of the Democratic party with the Youth and the Media? Have you not seen his ratings with individuals that make over $50K, degreed or the elderly? Barack has reached into every demographic possible and it is because he knows where we are going. No one can accurately tell you how we can get there because that time has not come yet and broken promises and bull is what we are served each year! Hillary Clinton has a platform almost identical to Barack's and that is why so many Americans are voting Democratic and why the vote is so split, Barack's uniqueness to this realm is what drives us, he has the ability to inspire and make us believe in him, what he stands for and where we can go because best believe his plans are forthcoming. Barack Obama will be the next President. And have you ever realized that George W. Bush had experience and and look where we are today?

choreographed campaign

malachi7608 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:19:37 -0500

There isn't anything presented in the public view by Clinton's campaign team that isn't prepared in advance. It's often subtle, but maybe it's enough to slip by the largely less-educated electorate which the Clinton campaign attracts (people like myself). As for me, this is the kind of president I want. I think the population needs to be subdued with smoke and mirrors, just as we were during the current Bush years. We're just better off when we're shielded from the truth. Trust me. Is ignorance bliss? I think so. Iraq is a bloody mess and, believe me, we don't want to be occupying our minds with that vulgar reality. Just ignore it! Besides, I like that our country has been carefully governed by only two families for more than 20 years now. Why change? Since the 1980s, we have had Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, and not possibly Clinton again. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. That's got an awesome ring to it!

Love live the Bush/Clinton dynasty!

Clinton '08

Hillary vs Obama

mary62 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:36:35 -0500

I'm supporting Hillary because I feel that Mr. Obama is the pipe piper of the Democratic party with the Youth and Media following him and never asking where were going and how in the heck are we going to get there?
At lease we know where Hillary has been and can expect what the future will be with her as President.