techPresident - Ross Perot - Comments

After the election

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:52:40 -0400

Fascinating post, I really appreciate the historical perspective.

I wonder what will happen if the movement feels that Obama lets them down. If he becomes President, and probably even just in the course of the general election, at least some of the larger clusters that have been drawn into the game are bound to be disappointed by one or more policy positions.

When it happens, will people be able to use the same infrastructure that assembled them to pressure him? Or will they just leave? Can the movement arraign itself to allow for processes or consultation and/or accountability that will give people the sense that even if they disagree with his stance or one thing or another, they at least had a fair chance to be heard, and should stay to fight, also on the internal fronts, another day? Would the campaign even want that?

It seems to me that a recurring tendency in somewhat decentralized and largely self-organized movements is that they are very inclusive, and may work pretty well, as long as everyone remains on more or less the same page in terms of the short-term and purely instrumental goals. But one thing is for a lot of people to come together because they agree that the country needs a Democratic President. Another is to maintain cohesion and the power it generates once things gets more complicated than that.

Interesting thought!

Joe212 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:52:22 -0400

Interesting thought!

If he wins the election, and wants to successfully implement the changes promised, we'd need the support from his current organization/group to ensure Democratic Party majority controlled in both senate and congress. As such, I think his existing organization should be managed by the DNC. By the end of the day, it is all about "money" and "quit pro quo". In order for him to be able to advance his programs, he needs support both from those guys in Senate and Congress, who in turn also need his support to raise money for their reelection campaign.

One of the reasons of the party insiders/superdelegates have been exciting of supporting Obama is the ability of Obama and his campaign organization to raise money from small donors. (Why in the hell they want to support the other candidate whose campaign was in such huge debt?).

In any event, if this movement is sustainable, it will change the dynamic in American politics.

Campaigning vs. Governing

Luigi Montanez — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:01:53 -0400

It'll be interesting to see what will happen when this movement seeking to capture power actually attains that power. Didn't work out so well for the Conservative Movement these past few years.

Campaigns are competitions at their core. Americans like that. There are contests that we can follow, votes we can tally, dollars we can count. Governance, on the other hand, has no points system. Yes, Obama can keep revamp WhiteHouse.gov to be more transparent. He can continue to utilize his massive list with calls to action. But will his followers really respond the way they do now?

American government, from the federal level down to the local school board, is not a very attractive thing. But campaigns are great fun. They have clear winners, there's a clear goal, and there's a lot of drama. Governance is about the infinite shades of grey, and the outcomes are never clear, often frustrating, and always complicated. Who wants to get involved in that?

The only way I can see the Obama movement continuing is if a clear issue-based organizing infrastructure is set up. That way, supporters can pick and choose where they want to expend their energy. Those who want to see solutions to global warming can engage in one space, those interested in universal healthcare over here, etc. It may even make sense to organize around concrete initiatives within the larger issues. Whatever the solution, it needs to remain accessible to the masses while recognizing that attention is a scarce resource.

He'll probably keep BarackObama.com up

Patrick Ruffini — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:13:05 -0400

There's not a lot of precedent here, but past practice has been turn your list over to the RNC/DNC once you win.

I suspect Obama will keep his list independent of the DNC, and organize independently from there. As we've seen, the person is a lot more powerful a platform than the party.

very funny!

Freedomfighter — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:46:21 -0400

"it suggests that the era of Big Money and Big Media pre-selecting the nominee of the Democratic party may well be over" .........yeah right, ROFLMAO!

Here are some factors to consider:

1) the anti-Clinton movement gave Obama a huge advantage. Progressives did not like her, moderates hated her husband and young people found her unappealing. This made it easy for Obama to appeal to many types of voters.

2) white guilt which did not, and still does not want to criticize Obama, because it fears being seen as racist.

3) Young people under 26 who read more books of Harry Potter than history. Obama looks like a high school debate guy, and the young are drawn to him and react as if they are voting for American Idol or prom king instead of president. Doubts? How far would a white Republican candidate get if his middle name was "Hitler"?

4) George Bush sucks at speaking. Face it. The last ten presidents before Bush spoke a thousand times better. But just remember, a good speech does not mean a good president.

5) Obama raised lots of money from groups like Moveon. To say big money did not play a part is disingenuous.

Charts and Graphs!

Josh Koenig — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:20:23 -0500

While he isn't planning to run for president again, he says he "will launch a Web site next month with plenty of the charts and graphs he made famous when explaining the deficit in 1992."

That's actually kind of exciting.

For all his fascistic eccentricity I think Perot outlined a potentially powerful alternative model for a candidacy that no one has really bothered to take up since: he actually attempted to communicate substantive information on an adult level with voters. What a novel concept!

At the time, this required massive resources to purchase large blocks of television for his campaign infomercials. 16 years later, it could be done by any candidate that cared to and distributed online for a relative pittance.

Unfortunately, I find it likely that the consulting consensus has passed this model over (much as it's passed on the model of real decentralization/participation) as it's just too dang hard for these people to implement.

Still, I hope for a day when rather than publishing thickly-written academic whitepapers into the oblivion of their "policy" section of their websites, candidates (or even articulate surrogates) make substantive presentations of their ideas available in a compelling video format.

Maybe they could even do this with their strategies for winning and implementing their plans, engage the participatory cycle from their supporters. I mean, it's not as though any campaign's overall strategy is ever unknown to their opposition; but it is often obscure to their supporters. Let 'em in on the plan, and they'll do a heck of a lot more for you (and more effectively to boot).

That would generate quite a lot of buzz, I'll tell you. And it wouldn't even cost that much to do.

Yes ~ Ron is the 2008 Ross!

4Yahshua — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:50:49 -0500

Greetings! Just want y'all to know that I really believe this especially after watching him on Glen Beck on 1-1-2008. The man does not believe in any U.S. Government complicity in the events of 9/11!!! Wake up bloggers!! Don't you watch T.V.? Sadly, the man seems to be another "shill" for the Bush Sr. White House!
Seek the Mighty One Upstairs!

TREES ~ YES BUSHES? NO!!!!!!!!!
"For 26 years we have had a Bush Sr. White House! How can we get back OUR House??"

Paul and Dean aren't that similar

Zephyr Teachout — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:09:38 -0500

I don't think Dean and Paul are that similar at all, actually.

Dean, at core, is a pragmatist who believed in self-government, and he appealed to people with those traits. Paul--although I'm still figuring him out--seems to start from first principles and believe in little government. They are polar opposites in temperament.

The only similarities I see are the use of Meetups (but, as Paul supporters have pointed out, that was a completely supporter-driven tactic), high numbers of online fundraising, and an opposition to a central orthodoxy in the party regarding the Iraq war.

That's not a very deep set of comparisons, and if the internet wasn't around, I don't think the comparisons would be there. The orange caps, as you'll recall, was a campaign (top down) invention. The Georgia for Dean and its ilk press releases were always more muted than the DFA official press releases.

Dean/Paul Movement Comparisons Are Fascinating

Luigi Montanez — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:33:56 -0500

The similarities: Overwhelmingly white, college-educated, and well-off financially. But the Paul movement seems to be younger (the Dean movement was much older than portrayed by the media) and much more tech savvy than Deaniacs.

But it all comes down to the primaries. How does the Paul movement actually become a political campaign that converts money and energy into votes? If Iowans thought Deaniacs in orange caps were a put-off, what will they think of brash, "REVOLUTION" t-shirted Paul supporters? How exactly does the Paul campaign plan to harness their activist energy?

Assuming Paul loses in the primaries, what happens to his movement afterwards? Does it stick together a la DFA, or like libertarians are apt to do, break apart? Will we be seeing Chairman Ron Paul installed into the RNC after a Democratic landslide and President Hillary in 2008? Completely fascinating to think about.

FYI, here's the RonPaulGraph for total donors:

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/total_donors.html

72,000 for just this quarter, but I don't know if that's really a count of total donations or unique donors.