Posted on 09/28/2012 12:12:19 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
The significance of social media is indisputable. While its monetary value is still up for debate, the influential role it plays in users’ lives is inarguable, and that’s become incredibly evident in the world of politics. The fact that campaigns now have Social Media Directors is proof enough that this stuff matters – as in could decide elections matters.
As November nears, it’s becoming increasingly clear that our next president takes social media seriously, and the results have been mixed. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has particularly had a rough go at attempting to mold the minds of America using these tools. A quick recap on the Romney teams social missteps: •The “With Mitt” app misspells “America” as “Amercia.” Hilarity and fodder ensue, as you’d expect. •Romney’s Twitter followers jumped more than 100k followers over 24 hours back in July, causing many of us to assume the campaign bought them. A charge they denied – but suffice it to say there’s a lot of evidence suggesting this was absolutely what happened. •The Romney donation products appear to copy wording from Obama’s.
And those are just some of the most obvious digital blunders .....
... But the act of using social media to connect is what eludes Romney: He doesn’t exactly seem like a personable guy, and his attempts at humanizing himself using the social Web sound just as measured and calculated,and occasionally awkward as everything else he does.
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaltrends.com ...
"Self-hip": Some one who styles herself as hip, while others who live just a bit know the truth about said person.
Social media’s influence is so overblown.
Only the hipsters that live on there ever think their inane musings ever move events.
Just ask the people in the middle east how well tweets changed things.
I don’t retweet anything that isn’t extremely clever or original, and by its nature that won’t be Romney campaign info. I don’t follow 50 people only because they don’t post clever stuff. I don’t want a president who I “clever” or “quotable.” I want omeone serious, and this colmn’s praise of Obama is EXACTLY what’s wrong with him. He thinks he’s a celeb, not a leader.
FNORD
Look at the bottom of this page:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#.UGX69RiRrm0
Social media: Intent to vote Obama 33%, Romney 36%
Sentiment and top opinion drivers: Obama 40% +ve, 60% -ve
Romney 50% +ve, 50% -ve
Ooops!
Yeah you should tell the former Egyptian government all about how they have nothing to fear from social media... you’re gonna need a ouija board though. Social media can organize people, anybody that thinks otherwise is ignoring reality, anybody that says otherwise on a social media site is accidentally hilarious.
I just want some one to point the following out to this Molly -
That the hippest president has screwed her up royally.
First of all, just about every company that doesn't sell useless accessories for iPhones has found Social Media to be a complete flop.
Second, extensive use of social media probably correlates about as negatively with voting and responsible citizenship as anything a statistician can put together.
Here is a rhetorical question (that means "self-answering" for those of you who are heavily into social media): Are people who actually care what the Kardashians are doing, whether Britney/Simon/Randy are in or out at X/Am Idol/Am's got Talent, or how many followers they have on Twitter really serious about anything, let alone political issues?
Please.
Romney is measured, calculating, and occasionally awkward in most everything he does. That’s not opinion, it’s just observation, and one that many others have made prior to this writer. If you don’t think that is true, just go to youtube and search “Romney who let the dogs out” and then get back to me.
That depends when you read about him. Prior to his nomination he was solid and gaffe free. Now they label anything a gaffe no matter how solid. Pretty clear to me the enemy picked Romney because he had the least chance (in their opinion). The enemy may even have looked at sites like this and saw how badly Romney was talked about and made the decision to pick him as the fall guy.
Compared to who? Who was the candidate in the race who would do better in November?
The enemy may even have looked at sites like this and saw how badly Romney was talked about and made the decision to pick him as the fall guy.
They had the whole "rich guy" thing planned out in advance. Those who relished class war probably did want to run against Romney because they saw it as an opportunity to solidify their coalition.
But they also probably had strategies for taking on Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Perry and the rest. They might have done better against those candidates, but it might not give them as much satisfaction as taking on Romney.
Social media is anything but.
Yes, that’s true, they preferred Romney because I think they saw him both as beatable, and as someone liberal enough that they could deal with it if he did manage to win. So, maybe they played him up to be better than he is in the primaries, and worse than he is now, but the truth lies somewhere in the middle. He’s not a total gaffe machine, but he does come off most of the time as disconnected, offputting, awkward, or what have you.
With the exception of Huntsman, all of them. I think Gingrich would have done the best, because he would have gone into an all out war against the media. We would have been cheering him on until election day.
But would the rest of the country?
I wish somebody else -- somebody more conservative -- had been nominated because then we'd know if the theory that voters would flock to a real conservative was true or false.
It worked with Reagan, but didn't work with Goldwater, and you can't expect every more conservative candidate to be a Reagan.
The Democrats like running against Romney, because there's the whole "class war" dimension, but they must have had strategies to deal with any of the candidates, and with the media on their side, it wouldn't be easy for any Republican running this year to make headway.
Sure, Reagan could have, but Gingrich (or Bachmann or Cain or Perry) isn't Reagan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.