Random question for the 60ish people left on this forum (based off voting on tapatalk question), if you've been getting texts for your local elections, have you replied? Did a person respond?

If I were a candidate, all my money would be on texting and in person replies. Engage the person, empathize, get em to vote for me. A million spend this way is votes. Attack ad bullshit is a waste.

Thoughts?

The human on the other end couldn't convince me they're not a bot and therefore it wouldn't do anything for me. Claude et al are just too good and fluent to trust an unseen respondent.

Yeah, but the average IQ can spot AI a mile away.

Maybe. But I also find politicians response to question unhuman most of the time so it'd be hard to tell if it's political bullshit or a bot. "Well Bob, what I find really important to talk about is <insert totally unreleated topic here>." Polished politicians are about as human as Claude.

And, I would reply, AI me, vote lost. That's why I think an old school, people based, text/reply, ad campaign, might mean the difference between winning or losing. If I were a candidate and had a million, I'd 100% spend it on real people engaging real people.

People know when its AI. Anything less you got or lost their vote long ago. The middle, no affiliation types, double hating, kind need dialog and reason to vote. Engagement can gain votes. I know, because it could gain mine.

I've been spammed by the election texts this cycle. I find them annoying and have not responded to a single one.

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

People know when its AI. Anything less you got or lost their vote long ago. The middle, no affiliation types, double hating, kind need dialog and reason to vote. Engagement can gain votes. I know, because it could gain mine.

Agreed. But I think that engagement needs to be in person, whether directly with the undecided voter or them watching/listening to the candidate engage with someone else. If I was running for office, I don’t think I’d waste money on mailers or mass texts. I’d maximize human-to-human engagement - me, plus volunteers. Go door to door, set up a table at X location on the weekend, radio/podcast/print news interviews, rallies/speeches, post at least weekly videos on SM answering crowd-sourced questions/addressing stances on the hot topics/responding to the inevitable 100% bullshit statements your opponent has made about you, etc.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by brabus

10 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Random question for the 60ish people left on this forum (based off voting on tapatalk question), if you've been getting texts for your local elections, have you replied? Did a person respond?

At least one per day, usually more, never respond.

10 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

If I were a candidate, all my money would be on texting and in person replies. Engage the person, empathize, get em to vote for me. A million spend this way is votes. Attack ad bullshit is a waste.

Thoughts?

Technology continues to evolve and change the game. I think the DNC mastered that first when Obama ran, but the GOP caught up.

Recently, I was asked to run for local office and seriously considered it over the summer but the BS associated convinced me otherwise. I met numerous times with the local "leaders" who wanted me to run. They have an interesting machine and the local GOP group is moving away from flyers and TV ads with a huge focus on geo-fenced direct engagement. There is so much data on each one of us out there and the software uses it to know party affiliation, likeliness to vote, key demographic and geographic data points. From what they showed me (which I take with a grain of salt), in the last local election they used half the budget of the incumbent and defeated him by 15 points.

For what it is worth, they still believe the attack ad sways voters. One of the reasons I dipped out was I told them I would not resort to attack ads under any circumstance.