POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We've heard of it, at least 10-20 percent of us have ... just very few of us can figure out how (or why) to use it.

*This was actually a mini-topic I saw on Facebook a couple days ago, basically 35 & up, it's beyond virtually all of us.

I guess people use snapchat to send pictures of their bewbs or stuff

[ISiddiqui]

I simply can't comprehend this nonsense that most Americans don't know what Twitter is and weird crappy diagrams don't really help with that. Our local homeless ministry is on Twitter (granted they only tweet once a month, but still).

And interestingly enough it does seem indeed that most Americans DO know what Twitter is:

87% of respondents had heard of Twitter, compared to 88% who had heard of Facebook. (Note that the survey population was 12 and up, including a representative portion of seniors).

From and Edison Survey done back in 2010

So when the news quotes Twitter, and especially in the 2016 race, where Donald Trump's Twitter feed has become almost nightly news, people know what the Hell it is. Saying otherwise just shows that you are a moron.

Of course the original post indicated that the Tweets end up on Facebook eventually (and they do) and then get shared. Are you next going to assert that people don't know what Facebook is?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And interestingly enough it does seem indeed that most Americans DO know what Twitter is:

In fairness on that point though, how many of them think they have some vague idea what it is versus how many of them actually know what it is? Or ever see anything from it?

So when the news quotes Twitter, and especially in the 2016 race, where Donald Trump's Twitter feed has become almost nightly news

re: "nightly news" -- did you know that only 4.5% of adults 25-49 watched an evening network news show last week? And if you add the entirety of cable news networks prime time, the number is still in single digits?

And even in markets with fantastic high-performing local evening news programs, the percentage never really gets over 25%?

As of Sept 2014, Pew Research found the following usage stats for social media
As of September 2014:

71% of online adults use Facebook
23% of online adults use Twitter

[Izulde]

87% of respondents had heard of Twitter

Heard of != knowing what it is. Those are two completely separate things.

[thesloppy]

On the other hand, you don't necessarily have to have an account, access their site/app, or even know remotely what it is to be inundated with Twitter content. It's served up second-hand in just about every medium these days, from other sites on the web constantly & directly embedding content, to television news/entertainment/political shows quoting tweets, it's snuck into advertising (particularly movie reviews), and even all the way into the local indie fishwrap that I'll grab while waiting for a sandwich.

I don't have to actively seek out content from the hottest twitter stars of the day, because some aggregator/site/blog will fool me into clicking on a monetized link using an intentionally vague or misleading headline, and the Daily Mail, TMZ, ESPN, DailyKos, FreeRepublic or any number of other sites will proceed to force feed it to me. I still won't know who the hell they are when I'm done, but I might be practically forced to process their thoughts.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In fairness on that point though, how many of them think they have some vague idea what it is versus how many of them actually know what it is?

Are we talking about Twitter, the Constitution, or the holy book of your choice?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Are we talking about Twitter, the Constitution, or the holy book of your choice?

Don't troll.

It's fucking tedious.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Don't troll.

It's fucking tedious.

I'm not wrong.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm not wrong.

Definitely not wrong.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by nol

edit with bonus fleregram:
The circles were getting too small but the next one was going to be "people who think that some random meme on Twitter that got 1000 RTs has some kind of sway on political discourse in America."

You try way, way too hard.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Heard of != knowing what it is. Those are two completely separate things.

The phrasing was "you think the average voter has heard of Twitter?".

[albionmoonlight]

One of the issues here is how many persuadable voters are really being reached via political twitter?

If you frequent political twitter, that means you like politics. Which means that you have probably already picked a side. And that you are already planning to vote.1. Political Twitter is great for arguments. But I am not sure who's minds are really being changed.

It reminds me of something I read about the outsized view of daytime cable news that Washington insiders have. Folks who work in politics have TVs with FoxNews, CNN, etc. on in the background all day. And they work trying to get stories pushed on those networks. So they are very interested and concerned with the impact of the news coverage.

When, in reality, the number of persuadable voters who watch daytime cable news probably numbers under 100 at any given time. If you choose CNN over a Law & Order re-run at 3 in the afternoon, you probably already know who you are voting for.

1. I know that there are people who follow politics strongly who are pure independents. But they are rare. Just like there are people who passionately follow a sport but don't have a favorite team. They exist. But they are uncommon.

[cuervo72]

Those stories act as seeds though to spread the message through word of mouth. If someone sees a story about Obama or Hillary on Fox News, the odds of someone spreading that information to their friends, family, co-workers, internet message boards aren't insignificant I don't think.

[flere-imsaho]

Can you guys take this twitter war to Twitter, please?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Those stories act as seeds though to spread the message through word of mouth. If someone sees a story about Obama or Hillary on Fox News, the odds of someone spreading that information to their friends, family, co-workers, internet message boards aren't insignificant I don't think.

OK. This makes some sense. So maybe the game is that a lot of stuff is thrown at the wall in political twitter, facebook, etc. And the vast majority of it just gets shared among like minded folks and forgotten in 48 hours.

But sometimes a story/meme/idea/whatever that was nurtured there (or on cable news) gets through and breaks into the mainstream. President Obama's "Cling to guns and religion" and the "God Damn America" comments of his pastor come to mind. Romney's 47% comments and Rubio's debate performance also would seem to qualify. Oh, and the Dean Scream might be the biggest one of these regarding cable news.

So most of political twitter is just the choir preaching to itself. But it is still an essential part of a campaign because that is where potential election-changing events are nurtured, an unpredictable few of which will catch on and become mainstream.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So most of political twitter is just the choir preaching to itself. But it is still an essential part of a campaign because that is where potential election-changing events are nurtured, an unpredictable few of which will catch on and become mainstream.

I think so, yes.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As of Sept 2014, Pew Research found the following usage stats for social media
As of September 2014:

71% of online adults use Facebook
23% of online adults use Twitter

Which is for those who post per month. A lot of people don't particularly notice Twitter unless there is a major news story developing and then Twitter lights up.

And I think all of us who use Facebook know of Tweets that get shared onto Facebook.

If you look at the original post, it was saying (paraphrasing) Tweets gets shared, retweeted, then shared on Facebook, shared again and suddenly its everywhere. So even if you think, oh, only 23% use Twitter, if it gets shared to Facebook, that's 71%. And in the interim it gets reported - cable news is just one place, it's on internet news sites as well... and even more, its on internet entertainment sites. And beyond that, just about every popular show has hastags they promote, and sometimes ghosted on the bottom right of the screen, and I'm guessing most people know what that's for.

Remember the whole Kanye is $53mil in debt thing that exploded all over the entertainment media (mostly by folks who had schadenfreude, of course). That started with a tweet Kanye put up in the context of his The Life of Pablo release. It just exploded from there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm guessing most people know what that's for.

And what I'm saying is that the majority know only in the vaguest sense. And, honestly, notice even less.

Remember the whole Kanye is $53mil in debt thing that exploded all over the entertainment media (mostly by folks who had schadenfreude, of course). That started with a tweet Kanye put up in the context of his The Life of Pablo release. It just exploded from there.

And, to use that example, what I'm getting at is -- even with this example -- the large majority of people didn't notice this "explosion" at all, or if they did it was simply to briefly mock Kanye.

Or at least that's true with the ones over the age of 30. And that's still the majority of the country (not to mention the majority of those who will actually vote in November).

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed people used it briefly mock Kanye. But people also read a bunch of these entertainment sites or watch those entertainment shows. I know it was all over TMZ, for one, and I think they even talked about it on The View. Those vehicles tend to reach a number of folks.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Heard of != knowing what it is. Those are two completely separate things.

Yep. And to think, all of this came from a post where I was making fun of someone who thought that whatever the fuck people may be posting to Tumblr that then possibly gets shared and retweeted and then shared again on Facebook is the worst thing that's happening in this country today

If Twitter meant anything to the average voter, Donald Trump would be crying in the corner right now because of all the times John Oliver or some other person epically pwn3d him online in a viral meme or video. That's not the real world.

[stevew]

I love nol's diagram. Much love.

[wustin]

My internet goes out for an entire day and I come back to read average voters arguing about Twitter on my phone.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[TCY Junkie]

Bad options.... Seen a plethora of videos of Trump supports getting beat up at a TRUMP rally. Could probably write pages on both so will list their good qualities as I see them.

1) For the last 5 years or so I've wanted a president that wasn't a career politician. So this is a plus for Trump for me.

2) Trump does not owe anybody favors. Even some republicans are afraid of him getting elected. Can't control him and they are afraid of change.

[SirFozzie]

Dipping yourself in battery acid is also change.

edit: I wasn't trying to make a personal attack, but a "negative change for the sake of change isn't a good idea" argument. Just realized that it could be taken completely wrong.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

2) Trump does not owe anybody favors. Even some republicans are afraid of him getting elected. Can't control him and they are afraid of change.

He owes hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign entities. He definitely owes them favors.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by nol

If Twitter meant anything to the average voter, Donald Trump would be crying in the corner right now because of all the times John Oliver or some other person epically pwn3d him online in a viral meme or video. That's not the real world.

You realize the Oliver takedown was on Youtube, right? And Trump's Twitter posting is quite prolific (and has got 9mil followers). It's the most immediate and common way he engages with his supporters. Are you just upset because YOU don't get all the 'new fangled' social things?

[molson]

Even if you're living in 2001 and still have a Yahoo email account, and never use twitter (like me), you see references to the trendy tweets of the day on Yahoo.com, or whatever other newsish site you stumble around.

[nol]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You realize the Oliver takedown was on Youtube, right? And Trump's Twitter posting is quite prolific (and has got 9mil followers). It's the most immediate and common way he engages with his supporters. Are you just upset because YOU don't get all the 'new fangled' social things?

No, it's that I do understand them all too well but also am from middle America and don't have my head up my own ass, so I'm aware that there are an enormous number of voters (I don't have a political science degree but am pretty sure that old people tend to vote at a much higher rate than does the 18-34 demographic that Twitter and everything else like that is desperate for) for whom this stuff simply doesn't matter

I understand Twitter well enough to know that it skews much younger and more African-American than Facebook and cable news - did you know that? That plays into my opinion that no matter how personally entertaining I may find the Trump-skewering meme or thinkpiece du jour, in the scheme of things it is not reaching many undecided voters. That also applies in the opposite direction. Even if I see something I disagree with or think is just flat-out stupid, I know it's either a relatively minor annoyance that doesn't deserve to be mentioned among the biggest problems in America today or an echo of something that was a problem long before social media ever existed.

I mean, 9 million followers. Once you get rid of bots, duplicate accounts, people involved in journalism, and people who just are following him to crack jokes on anything he says, where does that get you? And then to say in an electorate of over a hundred million people that it reflects the average voter, come on. In fact, here's a nice little article I came across that illuminates my current view, which is that when someone throws out something like "surely you must realize Trump has 9 million followers," it indicates they have a desire to be seen as a hip person who knows what the youths are up to on social media without necessarily having a very deep understanding of it: Inside Donald Trump's Twitter-bot Fan Club

[ISiddiqui]

You don't think the older viewers who catch O'Reilly or read the local newspaper don't see the references to Trump's twitter comments (especially when the Republican leadership is having to address it)? C'mon. You are just being ridiculous now. You seem to think middle America is in this weird bubble, where their news sources don't acknowledge Twitter. It's ludicrous.

[digamma]

I'd call my step-mom pretty representative for that class of voter. 60'ish, works part time, middle class. She occasionally finds her way onto facebook, has heard of twitter, but never used it, and sure as hell hasn't heard of tumblr.

It's not that controversial a statement to say the average voter (which skews older) is less social media savvy than pretty much everyone you come into contact with, Isiddiqui.

Now if your goal is to just prove nol made a semantic mistake, by all means, tilt away.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Bad options.... Seen a plethora of videos of Trump supports getting beat up at a TRUMP rally. Could probably write pages on both so will list their good qualities as I see them.

1) For the last 5 years or so I've wanted a president that wasn't a career politician. So this is a plus for Trump for me.

Except this means you have a President who doesn't understand how the government operates, someone who thinks that the Supreme Courts conducts criminal investigations.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'd call my step-mom pretty representative for that class of voter. 60'ish, works part time, middle class. She occasionally finds her way onto facebook, has heard of twitter, but never used it, and sure as hell hasn't heard of tumblr.

It's not that controversial a statement to say the average voter (which skews older) is less social media savvy than pretty much everyone you come into contact with, Isiddiqui.

But does she read news or watch TV that references Twitter? Has she heard of Trump claiming "I was right" about Muslims (basically) after the Orlando bombing? Because that came directly from Twitter. Most people didn't actually see it on Twitter - they saw it on cable news or their local newspapers reporting on it or other politicians referencing it.

Edit: For example, I've never seen a Trump tweet directly on Twitter. I see them when they are shared on Facebook, reported on by CNN, reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution or the New York Times, mentioned to me by coworkers who saw them on whatever news they receive.

[digamma]

Again, if your game here is semantics, tilt away at the windmill. Otherwise, I think the horse is already dead.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Bad options.... Seen a plethora of videos of Trump supports getting beat up at a TRUMP rally. Could probably write pages on both so will list their good qualities as I see them.

1) For the last 5 years or so I've wanted a president that wasn't a career politician. So this is a plus for Trump for me.

2) Trump does not owe anybody favors. Even some republicans are afraid of him getting elected. Can't control him and they are afraid of change.

Believing in climate change, believing vaccinations are a good thing, and believing Obama was born in the US are 3 things that set the bar as low as it can possibly be for me as far as presidential candidates go. Trump fails all 3 of those.

There's absolutely no way I can even consider voting for a climate change denier that believes vaccines cause autism and that Obama may have been born in another country. That doesn't even get into the stupid things that come out of his mouth and his other stances.

Change simply for the sake of change is the worst reason for change.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You don't think the older viewers who catch O'Reilly or read the local newspaper don't see the references to Trump's twitter comments (especially when the Republican leadership is having to address it)? C'mon. You are just being ridiculous now. You seem to think middle America is in this weird bubble, where their news sources don't acknowledge Twitter. It's ludicrous.

What you seem to be ignoring is how relatively few people: watch the news, read a local newspaper, etc etc, with any sort of actual frequency. It has reach in terms of "have you in the past 30 days" but on a daily basis (or even a weekdaily basis) the numbers are well below half.

And then you filter that down to what they actually catch.

There's some impact of Twitter out there, but you're GROSSLY overestimating it's impact on the majority of the population.

And THAT is "ludicrous".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What you seem to be ignoring is how relatively few people: watch the news, read a local newspaper, etc etc, with any sort of actual frequency. It has reach in terms of "have you in the past 30 days" but on a daily basis (or even a weekdaily basis) the numbers are well below half.

And then you filter that down to what they actually catch.

There's some impact of Twitter out there, but you're GROSSLY overestimating it's impact on the majority of the population.

And THAT is "ludicrous".

I don't think so. I think people are vastly underestimating it's impact. Have you in the past 30 days is frequent enough, esp if every time you look at it there is a reference (and especially since media narrative has been driven by the next crazy thing Trump has said, the references are many).

[nol]

Originally Posted by digamma

Again, if your game here is semantics, tilt away at the windmill. Otherwise, I think the horse is already dead.

Pretty much. What he's doing is the equivalent of looking at basketball Twitter and then expecting to go into a sports bar or barbershop and strike up a conversation about Tristan Thompson's win shares per 48 minutes. And then there's the fact that what people put on Twitter is, you know, curated from what they have actually said and thought before. It makes it easier for the media because they can just go on one site to get it rather than figure out what particular rally or press release it came from, but other than that it has no bearing on the actual message.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What you seem to be ignoring is how relatively few people: watch the news, read a local newspaper, etc etc, with any sort of actual frequency. It has reach in terms of "have you in the past 30 days" but on a daily basis (or even a weekdaily basis) the numbers are well below half.

And then you filter that down to what they actually catch.

There's some impact of Twitter out there, but you're GROSSLY overestimating it's impact on the majority of the population.

And THAT is "ludicrous".

Right, and maybe I should have nipped that in the bud earlier by just saying "it's ridiculous to think the average person gives a fuck about Twitter" knowing how many people like to really go at me for semantics without addressing the actual point. But then again, that may have been too mean and condescending to say.

[ISiddiqui]

Your incredibly strange and unhinged ad hominems aside, generally speaking, what people put on Twitter usually isn't curated from what people have said or thought before. If anything they'll generally put it there first and then reference it later - especially so for politicians' first reactions to something (for example, what did news outlets go to for the Presidential candidates' reactions to the Orlando massacre?).

[SirFozzie]

Holy shit, there are HOUSE Campaigns doing a better job at fundraising then Trump.

Comfortably Smug on Twitter: "Wow. Trump FEC numbers are AWFULLLLL https://t.co/6LQXEBwPey"

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Holy shit, there are HOUSE Campaigns doing a better job at fundraising then Trump.

Comfortably Smug on Twitter: "Wow. Trump FEC numbers are AWFULLLLL https://t.co/6LQXEBwPey"

Trump campaign expenses in May, per @FEC report:
Hats: $208k
Online advertising: $115k
Data management: $48k
Communications consulting: $38k

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) June 21, 2016

[SirFozzie]

Welcome to Trump Fortress 2.

[flere-imsaho]

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Holy shit, there are HOUSE Campaigns doing a better job at fundraising then Trump.

Comfortably Smug on Twitter: "Wow. Trump FEC numbers are AWFULLLLL https://t.co/6LQXEBwPey"

And apparently 10% or so of all the campaign spending has gone to Trump owned businesses.

[BishopMVP]

How American Politics Became So Ineffective - The Atlantic

I still think revoking the direct election of Senators would be a good thing too, but I'm an unapologetic elitist at this point.

[ISiddiqui]

A really good article and I agree. Middlemen and parties are good things, by dismantling their powers, we opened up the system to nuttiness.

[mckerney]

Will Reporters Pay for Donald Trump’s Scotland Trip? - NYTimes.com

On Friday Donald Trump is making a presidential campaign visit to Scotland. Why, you ask? Good question.

Most Americans don’t know that reporters finance the bulk of presidential candidates’ campaign travel, by buying seats on the candidate’s charter plane. Mr. Trump has taken this a step further. He wants campaign reporters to pay for a charter to Scotland to open a Trump hotel property. Cost to reporters: $10,000 round trip, plus hotel and restaurant bills, which will probably be racked up at the two Trump-themed venues they’ll be visiting — if anyone signs up

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And apparently 10% or so of all the campaign spending has gone to Trump owned businesses.

It may seem like a lot, but it's totally worth it when he can lock up the Latino vote by spending a few thousand to have Trump Grill make the perfect taco bowl.

[ISiddiqui]

I know it's Thinkprogress, but they have cites for what they are reporting about... this Trump payment to "Sterling Draper" just gets stranger and stranger:

The Weird Story Behind The Trump Campaign’s $35,000 Payment To ‘Draper Sterling’ | ThinkProgress

It looks like Lewandowski may have been fired because he was skimming money (The 'HQ', as it were, for "Draper Sterling" is very close to where Lewandowski is from).

[Thomkal]

A potential running mate for Trump perhaps?

Tennessee Congressional Candidate Has A Dream To 'Make America White Again'

[NobodyHere]

[Kodos]

That is awesome!