techPresident - Eventful - Comments

Ron Paul's Revolution Fogged Out In Iowa

littlebier8 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:49:13 -0500

Two nights ago, I wasted considerable time watching CNN, MSNBC, and FOX to monitor Ron Paul's progress. I say "wasted" because in every single pie chart they had percentages for Mitt Romney, Michael Huckabee, and Fred Thomson, and then this gray, foggy section that was "Others." Who was in that section? Well, there was Rudolph Giuliani with roughly 4%, Duncan Hunter with <1%, and Ronald Paul with over 10%. So basically that foggy area in the pie chart represented the "dark horse" candidate, only 3% behind the so-called front-runners Fred Thomson and John McCain, and 6% ahead of the so-called Republican Rudolph Giuliani. Despicable. The mainstream press (I know I sound paranoid and annoyed, and I am) are trying to ignore Paul's message and his support by lumping him into the "Other" category. No, he didn’t win, or even place, but getting 10% with limited news coverage and little position-recognition, in a state known for its pro-war stance, in a predominantly pro-war party is not just noticeable, it's a miracle. He nearly beat two big-name candidates, but is he given credit? No. FOX News is also planning to cut Paul out of a New Hampshire debate tomorrow, prompting the NHGOP to withdraw its support from the debate. I am sorry Rupert Murdoch, but the Revolution won’t be called off because of a little fog.

You can add directly from MySpace

Tex MacRae — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:17:21 -0400

Click the "get and share tab." You can add it directly to your myspace or facebook or blog without going to the candidate page. It's a pretty good sharable widget. Come on, admit we have a great widget.

It's on MySpace

Joshua Levy — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:30:13 -0400

The difference is that MySpace users can add the widget directly from MySpace, without going to a candidate page.

Just as in Facebook, people are more apt to add apps and widgets if they see them on the page they're on.

Ron Paul campaign widget

Tex MacRae — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:41:16 -0400

The Paul campaign has a donate widget for blogs, myspace, etc. It takes PayPal. Am I missing something here?

What's the advantage of using the MySpace/PayPal tool?

Here's a MySpace page with a Ron Paul widget on it.

edit: Click the "get and share" tab on the widget to see code for all kinds of applications.

Duncan Werner

Joshua Levy — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:41:26 -0400

Our friend Duncan Werner designed them for us. He basically created a new wrapper for the data that our custom Drupal modules spit out. Neat, huh?

Huge improvement

justin@justinhamilton.org — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:25:31 -0400

Can you share with us how you do this?

my bad

Joshua Levy — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:59:45 -0400

Jerome, my mistake.

wrong

Jerome Armstrong — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:23:43 -0400

"Even MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, a Dean Internet advisor in 2003, calls it "the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race.""

No, I didn't say that, the Obama campaign said it about themselves in an email. I would agree, if the only metric you have for that being the number of donors.

Much more to Ron Paul

palongrifles — Mon, 28 May 2007 14:57:42 -0400

There is MUCH more to Ron Paul than his stance about the Iraq War. That's all you hear about him because that's all the Democrats will allow the media to say about him. The media has made the central issue of the next campaign "the war". The central issue ought to be all the unconsitutional agendas that BOTH the elephants and donkeys have brought upon us, and their constant erosion of the essential Bill of Rights. And that, my friends, is where the real Ron Paul stands. The main reason he is against the war is because nowhere in the Constitution is a president empowered to take us to war on his own. The role of congress is much more defined as to war making than merely passing bills (or not passing bills) to fund a war. Ron Paul stands for strict interpretation of the constitution and Bill of Rights. Period. That's the ONLY view on the subject which ensures ALL citizens are treated fairly and according to the founders intents. We watch Congress, the courts, and the President shred the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th Ammendments and say nothing, while allowing ourselves to be duped by the propaganda machine of big government, the big business of media.
And we focus on a war, ranted against mainly because a Republican President is "responsible" for it, while ignoring that the two parties have established a sleeper tyrany over us. Ron Paul is against tyranny and anti-Constitutional power grabbing - not just against the war in Iraq.

Agreement

Avery Knapp Jr — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:03:46 -0400

For a few months, I've predicted what you've articulated: Ron Paul is the Howard Dean of 2008. When I was interviewed by Robert Smith for the same segment on NPR, I too was surprised he only used 2 soundbites from me. But I disagreed with your conclusion, and Mr. Smith's conclusion, that Dr. Paul's success is due the Sanjaya effect, and I'm glad you've revised it.

People who are for less government and less war are real and numerous in America, and as Dr. Paul's pro-freedom message is heard by everyday people, it will resonate with people (including but not limited to Republicans), and Dr. Paul will make a large splash, perhaps all the way up to the convention. If nominated, Republicans will gain in registration numbers and popularity, not lose as in 2006.

This Iowa poll seems to suggest that there may be a split in the Republican Party: between those who want to end a war in a country that is not our enemy, and those who support Rudy McRomney. Incidentally, I don't see how Rudy McRomney can get the nomination: Rudy is pro-federal funding of abortion, McCain is pro-war with Iran and Iraq and pro-spending and wants to limit political speech (McCain-Feingold) not to mention his immigration stance, and Romney is PRO-SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! They may have money, but they lack conservative values.

Avery J. Knapp Jr., M.D.

Ron Paul and Howard Dean

Michael Cornfield — Thu, 24 May 2007 17:31:36 -0400

Great hypothesis, Micah.

The Q2 financial reports will teach us a lot more about extent and intensity of the Ron Paul boomlet.

a couple of points

Todd Zeigler — Thu, 24 May 2007 15:00:04 -0400

Good piece.

I think it is important to note that a primary reason Paul supporters are using these tools is because there is no on or offline campaign infrastructure to speak of. If you are a supporter of a top tier candidate, you are given plenty of ways to participate that don't involve the social web. Volunteer at a phone bank. Stuff envelops. Walk your neighborhood. Launch an online fundraising campaign. Host a house party (as opposed to a meetup). There are lots of options.

Paul doesn't have any of that, so the campaign and volunteers have no choice but to use free online tools like MySpace, YouTube, Eventful, Digg and Meetup to get their message out there and to organize. Supporters of traditional candidates have other options and are not being encouraged to do this sort of stuff.

I tend to think right now you have a relatively small group of people making a lot of noise as opposed to the Dean campaign where you had a genuine movement. Time will tell.

http://www.bivingsreport.com

Agreed

Fred Stutzman — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:44:38 -0400

Ian - I agree and I'm looking forward to your post. To carry your analogy further (and possibly too far), even if candidates don't want to hand off the ball, better running backs will emerge. If the popular content on youtube can be shot on a mobile phone, anyone can be a creator. Can we really expect that candidates will have a monopoly on the good content? The barriers to entry are gone - it is truly a wild west.

Let "Us" Carry the Message

iwilker — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:34:22 -0400

Hi Fred,

This is a really good post, and you raise a question that really resonates for me and is very much on my mind in my work for advocacy groups: "What candidate really wants to (and can effectively) maintain identities in every social property?"

My thoughts on that outgrew comment size, so I'll throw a post onto my blog instead. But the long and short of it is that in my view the "holy grail" of social media lies not in a single bazillion-watt megaphone but in showing rank-and-file voters how much agency they actually have to move the national conversation on a political issue, a candidate, a brand. And then -- I'm much more a hoops guy than football fan, but I'll use a gridiron analogy anyway -- hand off the football (your message) to those voters, and let them carry it. "Flip the funnel," as Seth Godin has said. I don't know that any candidate will come anywhere near perfecting this in the '08 cycle, but someone will and reasonably soon. And then shall the bastions of colorless "command-and-control"-style communications come a-tumblin' down. (Well, at least I hope so.)

-- Ian

Ian Wilker
roots.lab - helping NPOs leverage the social web.
www.ianwilker.com/rootslab

Thanks

Fred Stutzman — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:04:01 -0400

Let me echo you, because I think you've also hit the nail on the head. The consultant as oracle phenomenon doesn't hold up in the social media context. Spend all your time on the Myspace efforts? We'll thats just setting yourself up to be blindsided by Youtube. There isn't just one answer in 2008, and the consultant that most effectively leverages this meta strategy will most likely succeed.

Of course, this also changes the nature of the consultant. In the past, these consultants were organizers-who-did-tech. In 2008, its about media-savvies-that-do-organizing-that-do-tech. Its another level of abstraction, and there aren't all that many people that do this stuff well. And being media savvy is so important...if candidates are beefing up their Youtube staff, they are in deep trouble. Hot media will win again and again.