techPresident - John McCain, Vlogger - Comments

Approval Process 2.0

Patrick Ruffini — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:17:37 -0400

A lot of the reasons why something like this couldn't happen center around the vetting process. OK, so why not change the vetting process?

So long as a piece is not 1) illegal, or 2) factually inaccurate it takes a majority of decision-makers plus one to approve, with campaign management holding a veto. Single departments can't hold something up because of philosophical objections if they're in the minority.

The immediate effect would be to make clearances a lot *faster* as approvals don't pile up on the desks of division heads who have back-to-back-to-back meetings and multiple crises happening that day.

It doesn't make sense to require unanimity in an organization whose job it is to move fast. Not even Congress, inefficient as it is, requires unanimity.

Not exactly what Patrick was recommending...

Luigi Montanez — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:25:17 -0400

Well they released one today, but I have three words for them: Video Thumbnail Optimization.

Presidential Weekly Radio Address

Mindy Finn — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:58:17 -0400

Amen brother Patrick. On the Romney campaign, I advocated strongly for at least a weekly, if not twice-weekly, video address a la the White House's long-time weekly radio address that would 1) provide a platform for the candidate to break news and elaborate on policy positions, 2) demonstrate that he will modernize and improve the White House's mass communications efforts, 3) help drive web traffic and build our list, thus growing our contributor and volunteer bases, and 4) show the candidate's strong interest in reaching every American who will listen. This is not much different than what candidates do at events every day; yet, for some reason, it's like pulling teeth to get campaigns to fit the time in the candidate's schedule.

Perhaps...

ChrisM — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:09:03 -0400

...if they truly go to 50 state structure and alexandria becomes message and policy shop....the offloading of day to day campaign activities and personnel might make it more likely to allocate time and energy to something like this...

Under no illusions

Patrick Ruffini — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:55:35 -0400

I know it would it take a sea change in philosophy and organization.

That's why I'm calling for it.

It would be the equivalent of building the pyramids

ChrisM — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:50:48 -0400

He barely signs email which suggests a top heavy approval process...can you imagine the vetting a daily video would need to get within that campaign structure...

Great idea...won't happen without a sea change in philosophy and organization...

Sooner or later, this will happen

Micah L. Sifry — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:09:09 -0400

Patrick--

I've been arguing for more than a year that someone should use online video to do intimate, daily chats that could connect directly with viewers. Webcameron with a touch of steroids if you will, or a digital version of FDR's fireside chats. Sooner or later, someone is going to try it, and your post only strengthens the arguments for it. But given how lame McCain's current site is, can you seriously imagine them making this leap?

Micah

They sign up for e-mail lists and give money

Patrick Ruffini — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:30:07 -0400

The rate of visiting campaign Web sites, signing up for email lists, and giving money online is practically indistinguishable from the general voting population up to a certain age (about 65).

But it's a moot point. McCain should be releasing his video to air on the cable networks. Enough people will go online to get the full thing to make it worth his while.

Question.....

Freedomfighter — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:30:22 -0400

How much of the over 50 crowd, which votes, watches YouTube type stuff on line?

John McCain, Vlogger

Patrick Ruffini — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:02:33 -0400

How does John McCain go up against the $3 million-per-email Obama machine and the $2 million-per-email Clinton machine? It's a big question with serious implications for the future of the Republican Party. And the answer is not incrementalism.