DailyTech - The Technology of Politics: Elections '08 On Demand

Submit News

Blog: Internet The Technology of Politics: Elections '08 On Demand
Nirav Sanghani (Blog) - February 19, 2008 1:15 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

7 comment(s) - last by werepossum.. on Feb 22 at 7:50 PM

If you want the info on the current elections and already in front of the television, check this out

It was an average Sunday night as I sat on my couch flipping away through television channels. With little luck, I went to Comcast's On Demand service to see what it had to offer. To my surprise, I stumbled across one interesting little offer that really caught my attention: Election '08 On Demand.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I worked on Senator Barack Obama’s Iowa caucus campaign in 2007, so I found this quite intriguing. I decided to check this out and see how much information is given by this program, and if this could be a useful tool for politicians to utilize. To my surprise, my encounter with Election ’08 On Demand was quite a pleasant and fulfilling one.

It worked just as Comcast advertised. Viewers can “learn more about candidates and issues through enhanced, detailed messaging”, and Comcast Spotlight offers the built in folder with political content every election season. It offers a flexible means for viewers to really learn about the candidates instead of getting the basics from thirty second TV spots or radio ads.

Just from a quick tour, this tool seems like a very effective method for politicians to get their message out. The only problem is that Elections ’08 On Demand is not advertised as much as it should be.

With the necessity for our leaders to tackle some big issues, the upcoming presidential election will prove to be one of the most important in our nation’s history. One of the keys to this election is for campaigns to get as much of their message out to as many people as possible. Many of our candidates have chosen different vehicles to do so; using Facebook and MySpace to reach out to the youth. The candidates also use flashy websites to, recruit volunteers, and spread their ideas on issues.

What’s great about Elections ’08 On Demand is that all candidates, running for any office, can post ads, interviews and other videos with more details on their platforms. Another important feature allows campaigns to create buttons on menu. The button gives campaigns up to thirty minutes of programming, holds video clips, messaging and different position statements.

So if you are interested in getting more information on any of the candidates and if you are a Comcast customer, take a couple minutes and check to see if who you are looking for is on there. And yes, I understand you can use the internet or call your local campaign office, but this is a good alternative and you can never have too many methods to get political messages across.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Mentioning Barrack Obama

By pauldovi on 2/19/2008 7:02:33 PM , Rating: 2

Is going to start a political conversion as opposed to a conversation about technology in politics!

RE: Mentioning Barrack Obama

By Ringold on 2/19/2008 11:09:05 PM , Rating: 4

Well.. I don't know. I don't see the added value in this. Be it Obama or be it McCain, watching campaign-provided video's is simply watching longer-duration political propaganda by free will on these OnDemand channels versus the involuntary 30 second zingers that sneak in on our TV shows. In other words, if someone is watching these things they either like the Kool Aid already or they don't.

This is election isn't special either on issues. Obama is your standard-issue Democrat with all the positions one would expect a good Democrat to have. McCain says he has all the positions a good Republican would have. Why watch their goods? Has anyone forgot the Republican position on economics? My god, it's only been the same since 1981! 1964 if you want to count Goldwater. And the Democrat position on, say, labor unions? I don't know when they picked that particular issue up, but it wasn't yesterday. All the positions of the past exist in the present candidates. For all Obama's desire to preach change, his policies aren't novel; since it's my field I only bothered to look at his sites economics positions, and no substantial "change" from past party positions. He varies, if anything, only in intensity on some issues; he'd raise capital gains rate "up to" 28%, where as Hillary has called for 30% (versus the 15% now, favored by McCain, no surprise). More interesting is that McCain actually shares a position, trade adjustment assistance, but I'm not sure thats a partisan issue. McCains voting record is more moderate, but his current campaign positions (to rally the base?) on economics might as well just say "God Bless Reaganomics." You wouldn't know that from videos, though, as he's currently trying to hide some of that. Nothing new there.

So why watch lectures?

What I'd rather see them spending energy on is more concrete positions, along with why they have them, and a little evidence or some sort of logical argument behind them would be good. Obama's position on NAFTA consumes 40 words and yet says almost absolutely nothing except the default "I don't think it was good." Okay. Going to change it? If so, how and why? What would it then accomplish? What evidence supports this? As it is, their positions are just.. there. Either one already agrees, or one is presented with no reason why he or she should agree.

Not that such detail will likely ever come forward; some positions by all candidates are in response to poll numbers no doubt. One example would be Obama's position here: "Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security." The economic logic behind privatizing is immense and undeniable, it had overwhelming bipartisan support among those few who understood the plan. There is no way to achieve better rates of return; even government bonds have vastly superior yields. "Privatize" is a dirty word in Democratese, however, thus a no go. Another example would be McCain's excessive saber-rattling at Iran; sounds good to the base, who fear he's not a "true conservative." Other positions would just be much too time consuming to defend and the masses aren't clamoring for it; there are easier, less intellectual, less controversial ways to sway voters.

There. I tried to beat up on both front runners while making a point: instead of more vapid propaganda assisted by technology, why not some substance first.

Besides. I bet 80% of OnDemand usage is to pull up porn after the kids go to bed.

Parent

RE: Mentioning Barrack Obama

By maven81 on 2/21/2008 1:25:16 PM , Rating: 2

I absolutely agree with everything, with the exception of privatizing Social Security. I will admit that I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the plan. However it seems to me that it's quite a volatile proposition. We already have 401k plans that can swing significantly depending on investments made. At least social security is a guaranteed source of income once you retire. Take out the guaranteed part, and I think we'd have a problem.

Parent

RE: Mentioning Barrack Obama

By Ringold on 2/21/2008 11:43:21 PM , Rating: 2

A default contribution to a long government bond fund would yield 4.75% annual at the moment, long investment-grade corporate bonds currently 5.47% (I'm looking at Vanguard's funds). The risk of government default is theoretically zero (if it did go bankrupt it probably wouldnt pay SSI anyway), and despite volatility no AAA-rated corporate bond is in bankruptcy.

For those that want to tinker, nothing beats the long term average annual gain of 10% for an S&P500 index fund. Closer to 12% from 1970 - 2007, but 10% is the rule of thumb.

Alternatively, a default contribution could be made to a lifecycle mutual fund; those take care of the rebalancing for the lazy, though it'd be best if the gov had Vanguard establish a low-fee fund just for them. If thats all not enough, Uncle Sam could probably promise to secure the principle that gets invested in a private account; it'd make people feel safer and they'd probably almost never have to actually do it.

Most people currently get a return on their social security contributions of around 1-2%, though many see a -1% gain. Also, the current system is an unsustainable (and a looming catastrophe if we follow the European model of shrinking populations) inter-generational wealth transfer scheme. Once the transfer to a private system was complete, everyone (except the disabled) would have fully funded their own social security.

-1% to 2% returns with the current scheme set for either massive tax hikes by the middle of the century (or total collapse) or 4.75% to 10% annual returns sustainable indefinitely?

Disclaimer: There would be transition costs as younger workers stopped supporting the older generations, 2 decades or so of higher costs until it was over, but then it's be permanently secured, versus perpetual necessary tax hikes (or benefit cuts) from now through the rest of this century.

Parent

However.....

By JakLee on 2/19/2008 5:04:34 PM , Rating: 3

It does not include EVERY canidate.... I for one will very likely vote for mickey mouse.
As of this time today he has no available information on In Demand.
According to the representitive from Disney he was specifically excluded due to race.

RE: However.....

By GaryJohnson on 2/20/2008 6:48:43 PM , Rating: 2

I think Alf has a better economic plan.

Parent

Hope and Change

By werepossum on 2/22/2008 7:50:44 PM , Rating: 2

Wow, can I get the candidates' positions on Hope and Change? 'Cause I've been really wondering about that.

Nothing like musical chairs to straighten things out. Congress is about the only group of politicians with lower approval ratings than Bush, and now we're going to elect a member of that body as our next president. Shows how great democracy is. We might not always get the best leaders, but we always get the leaders we deserve. Something very zen in democracy.