Friday, June 22, 2012

Is This Presidential Campaign Really Between Money And Social Media?

Over at Madville Cory points to a Politico post that reports that "Obama beats Romney in Facebook followers 27 million to 1.8 million and Twitter followers 16 million to half a million."

Meanwhile, Political Wire quotes Clay Shirky who opines:
"Clinton used mailing lists in '92, and every election since then -- famously Howard Dean to Barack Obama -- has involved considerably more imaginative use of social media. And this election has not. I've been quite surprised by that."
"I had a student looking at Super PACs a while ago, and we said, 'Let's try and find out what the Super PACs' social media strategy is.' As she came back about 10 days later, she said, 'I think I know what the Super PAC's social media strategy is: Don't use it.' That's exactly the whole point of being a Super PAC, to be able to spend unlimited money on the kind of media where no one has the right or the ability to respond, and to minimize transparency. This election feels to me, right now, more Nixon-Kennedy than Obama-McCain because television has become the tool of choice for the source of unlimited fundraising. Politicians like television better; nobody gets to yell back to you if you're yelling on TV." [Emphasis mine]
Forget the arguments about the size of government, the advisability of same sex marriage, or any other issue.  The contest is apparently about the difference between telling everyone more than they want to know for free or spending billions to make sure that no one knows anything about you. 

1 comment:

D.E. Bishop said...

And, of course, lying. The strategy of Romney and the Repub governors.