Did Obama's camp fail to realize what a horrible title “MyBO” is? How? I thought this to be a particularly pro-Obama article, beyond the article's aim of praising his campaign team's ability to fully utilize social networking as a campaign strategy. I can’t imagine an unbiased source not at least pointing out, in someway, how unfortunate "MyBO" stands as an abbreviation.
The article seems to place Obama’s campaign success on his use of social networking, but can that really be the case? Traditionally, older people vote more than younger people, and people typically tend to become increasingly conservative throughout their lives. So how is it that, given there are far more babyboomers than millennials (otherwise, why worry about where social security is headed?), Obama won his campaign on clever campaigning strategies that were ostensibly directed at a younger fan base? I suppose to answer my own question, but also further critique the article, I noticed it mentioned nothing of the change in political scope that occurred from Bush to Obama. After dealing with what many people considered to be, politely, a roller-coaster term, or more vehemently, a failed presidency, it was a natural shift for the people to elect a democratic leader. Such a thing is not unusual; these shifts have occurred in the past. I simply consider it a failing on the article's part to not at least in someway address these as possible factors in the outcome of the elections.
The article seems to place Obama’s campaign success on his use of social networking, but can that really be the case? Traditionally, older people vote more than younger people, and people typically tend to become increasingly conservative throughout their lives. So how is it that, given there are far more babyboomers than millennials (otherwise, why worry about where social security is headed?), Obama won his campaign on clever campaigning strategies that were ostensibly directed at a younger fan base? I suppose to answer my own question, but also further critique the article, I noticed it mentioned nothing of the change in political scope that occurred from Bush to Obama. After dealing with what many people considered to be, politely, a roller-coaster term, or more vehemently, a failed presidency, it was a natural shift for the people to elect a democratic leader. Such a thing is not unusual; these shifts have occurred in the past. I simply consider it a failing on the article's part to not at least in someway address these as possible factors in the outcome of the elections.
The article was useful, however, because I did not realize Obama had such a strong political campaign that took place through social networking. I was not made aware of MyBO (see?). It was interesting to learn of the great minds that went into the campaign and the clear edge that made Obama ascend to such a strong political candidate, seemingly overnight (and it is perhaps possible that this is because it DID happen overnight, in a manner of speaking).
I suppose the greater lesson to be drawn out of this is the power that can now be generated through the use of the web. People are now co-operating in numbers that are simply unprecedented throughout history. Instead of the typical 100,00 humans needed to make something happen, we can now have ten to as many as one hundred times that coming together to generate a greater effect. It all can come down to simply a collective will, and someone to organize the event. As long as at least those two motivators are there, I believe a surprising amount of change can be made.
No comments:
Post a Comment