Robocalls are obnoxious and intrusive, which can be a good thing, not a bad thing.

It's extraordinarily difficult to break through clutter.

I think they should be used early in the campaign as an organizing tool, with an opt-out key that users can press to avoid receiving future ones.

They are too cheap, too attention-getting, and too potentially effective for grass-roots campaigns to discard.

As with email, their best use is to cultivate current supporters rather than to recruit new ones. Many people use computers infrequently or not at all, but everyone uses the phone. If you have a large enough list, this can be an effortless way to build a crowd.

Robocalls are also ideal for microtargeting and for emergency reaction to last-weekend smears.

I like 'em.

How can they be regulated?  Only if

1)the rules are tight about identification and
2) the fines are HIGH - $500/call for mis-identified calls + MANDATORY jail time for FIRM PRINCIPLES for cases in which more than 10 false calls are made.

They always have a very limited rate of return, which will continue to decrease, but have some value due to how cheaply you can get the service and how quickly you can get them recorded and out.

The Republicans and other outside groups, dem leaning too, make the most effective use of them for spreading negative info.

This is their most "effective" use, and which is why clear standards should be set, i'm in agreement with the post.

In terms of "good" use.  I find them most usefull for notifying people about interesting campaign events or surrogates coming to their area.  Especially in the beginning stages of campaigns or for lesser known candidates.

They've a somewhat limited use for GOTV reminders.

In terms of persuasion, I'd say useless, human canvassers is the way to go far and away.

For rural areas or campaigns with not enough volunteers, use human, phone bankers.  But ones who are well trained and knowlegable and can have an in depth conversation with the voter, not just read a short script and hang up.

All robo-calls should be banned.  I don't think that there is any constitutional problem as long as the ban is content neutral.  The ban here in Minnesota has been upheld.

Here's a link to the current state of the law:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-07 17.htm

I like Robo-Calls.  It gives me a chance to reconnect with some of my long lost robot relatives.

Arnold Schwarzenegger
http://www.arnoldspeaks.com

i think you're right that the number of doors can definitely be upped.  to add to that, i think the number of doors knocked will jump again as the technology that enables it is used more widely and voter files are accurately updated to reflect what doors are accessible and which ones aren't.  

I don't know where I would stand strategically on this issue, but I know personally they were annoying as hell.  They would not discourage me to vote in a year like this or any other year probably, but getting a canned phone call from Barack Obama telling me to vote for Catherine Cortez Masto, or another one from John Edwards for Question whatever, or Barbara Boxer for some dumb candidate, and the list goes on and on.  I just kind of felt harassed for no good purpose.  I was much more responsive to the calls that were in person by a volunteer.  I could engage in a discussion, and learn.  Also the robo-calls came in the middle of the day when I teach, but I keep the phone on for emergencies, and I suddenly see an odd number come up, and I become scared and take the call, and it is Rahm Emmanuel telling me someone needs to be voted out of Congress.  It was just disruptive plain and simple, and will back-fire if it is over used.  I know it is easier and more cost effective to robo-call, but I am just not sure the benefits outweigh the negatives.  

Robo-calls are always a bad idea. First,  phone calls are immediate and intrusive.  Second, I don't want to have a conversation with a machine because it is not a conversation by definition. You are being spoken to.  Implicit in this is you have no control over the conversation, the timing of the conversation nor do you have a way to respond.  Thus it is not respectful.  The emotional reaction to such robocalls depends on how people deal with the loss of control. Anxiety and anger are typical.    

Conversation dynamics aside it is an issue of privacy.  I own my phone and you have no business using it as your marketing tool.  I do not have access to my phone when you call me.  Can you imagine not haveing access to your TV or computer because someone wanted to send you an unsolicited message?

If someone signs up for a do not call list that should be respected.  I know that there are exceptions for political calls and charities but these exceptions were put in to get the law passed.  I wish there were no exceptions and that the democartic party would champion that position.   Rewrite the law, have Bush veto it and run on it in 2008.

I got calls from Robert Redford, Sens. Hilary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein (I live in California) and other famous folk, which did NOT impress me.

Because I voted absentee, many calls came after I'd voted.

Besides, I thought it was silly (and annoying) to hear from Dianne Feinstein about a ballot measure. It did not alter my voting decisions.

The only calls that caused me to think about the election were 'push polls' that favored a Los Angeles DA against Jerry Brown, running for State Atty General. The obviously biased questions made me focus on the race and consider who I'd really support. Those calls (with human operators) came early in the election cycle.

Robo-Calls are annoying and they don't work.

In New York this year we deployed interactive robocalls where the person making the call asked the person getting the call to press "1" if they were going to vote yes.

When we recanvassed the people the robocall had id'ed we found the robocalls did a good job of accurately id'ing supporters.

To me, the bigger thing is that most people need multiple touches to remember to vote.  Robocalls and canvassing and direct mail and live calls work in conjunction with each other, not in competition.