techPresident - Republican - Comments

Ditto! Ron Paul is Repubs only chance!

rtester — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:07:18 -0400

Ditto, rg123, I totally agree with you! If any of the other guys take the Rep nomination, they won't stand a chance against the Dem nominee....because we've had Bush for 8 years and people are fed up with everything, especially the war. Any hardcore Repubs out there who want to give their party a chance against Hilary or Obama in 2008 better get behind Ron Paul!

Great post Adam If Ron gets

rg123 — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:38:10 -0400

Great post Adam If Ron gets the nomination. The Dems could be in a real poor position because Hillary will not be able to campaign
against the war or a true republican position currently she is only campaigning against Bush over and over again. But the problem with that is she will not be running against Bush. She would be running against the only anti-war candidate and a real conservative republican not a neocon. I think Ron could really school her on government she is not in his league. She loses her I'm more expierenced position. Ron Paul is the only way the Republicans can win.

Point By Point: You Are Way Off! Ron Paul will win.

adamkuehner — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:48:41 -0400

I find it interesting that no one has to waste their time telling us that "Howard Dean, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Ralph Nader, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer" don't have a shot. Let's face it: the fact that you submitted this post proves that the Ron Paul Revolution is on the rise and coming to a primary near you (check local listings)!

Your conception of a "web candidate" is flawed, to say the least. First, you continue to cite past examples in a scenario in which THERE ARE NO PAST EQUIVALENTS FOR COMPARISON. The internet is today what it has never been in any previous election. With blogs, YouTUBE, MySpace, and Meetup in full swing, the internet is an absolute election machine. About the only political comparison I can make is to JFK's ability to harness Television media in the 1960 election with Nixon. The idea that a candidate is flawed simply because he has mastered the greatest election tool in American political history is patently absurd. (I suppose JFK was just a "TV Candidate.") All this will become clear when Ron Paul shocks the world in Iowa this Saturday.

I will now respond to each of your major points in order.

1. It's not the "web" that loves "libertarianism." Rather, it's the average American who is attracted to the platform and persona of Ron Paul. Stop attempting to portray the "web" as some sort of abstract entity... (this is no time for allusions to 2nd rate Sandra Bullock movies.) The web IS PEOPLE, as any marketing major is aware. And people ARE VOTERS, as any political science major is aware. Not only that, but it is not that the web-surfers are intrinsically drawn to Libertarianism in general. If that were true, then we would be hearing more about Libertarian Presidential Candidate George Phillies (who?). No, this is not about abstract entities or general tendencies. It's about people. 70% of Americans to be exact. And they're all against the Iraq war... tired of hearing double-talk from dozens of candidates from either party who ALL ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED THE WAR. It is the consistent voice of reason that attracts people to Ron Paul, and it is for this reason that he is about to reach 3 million YouTube views before any other candidate in the field. It is for this reason that he leads all candidates in donations from military personell and veterans. And it is for this reason that Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate to have already won a Straw Poll, receiving a whopping 65% of the vote in New Hampshire in a field of a dozen candidates. Oh and by the way: those weren't E-VOTES! They were actual people who attended the event and voted.

2-4. No substantive disagreements on these points.

Your presumptuous declaration that the Paul campaign is doomed strikes me as both shortsighted and rash. You forgot a very important factor in all political campaigns, a factor which will bring home the electoral bacon for the Ronvolution in 2008. That factor is ENGAGEMENT. By engagement, I mean the QUALITY of support a candidate receives from his professing allies. Everyone wants to talk about QUANTITY of support these days. That's why we continually rely upon opinion polls. "What percentage of American voters supports so and so?" But this is to neglect the fact that half of American voters consistently stay home on election day. Moreover, only 6% of voters traditionally participate in the GOP primary. Thus, the fact that Rudy McRomney happens to garner a large QUANTITY of support from POTENTIAL VOTERS WITH LAND-LINE PHONES who participate in PASSIVE POLL INQUIRIES THAT REQUIRE NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER means very little if a majority of these folks stay home on election day. And from what we see so far, no other candidate in the GOP field has anywhere near the engagement of the Paul campaign, most of whose supporters are willing to go the extra mile to get this man in the oval office.

Think about this, all you naysayers: (Keep in mind that only 6% of Americans actually vote in the GOP primary) Let's say Giuliani garners 25% of the opinion poll, but only 10% of those polled actually make it to the voting booth. Now, let's say that Ron Paul garners a meager 5% in the opinion polls, but 80-90% of his WILD AND CRAZY supporters cast their votes (If the internet is any reliable gauge, this is not far-fetched). Given those figures, Paul can continue to lag in the polls (though I do not believe he will) and still win the nomination. Let's face it... the deck, (which now includes a huge number of very excited, formerly disillusioned non-voters), is heavily stacked in his favor.

In addition, you forgot to mention the fact that their are potentially TWELVE CANDIDATES in the GOP field. Given the fact that ELEVEN of them are PRO-WAR and at least FIVE of them will probably have the money to persevere through the primaries, THE PRO-WAR VOTE WILL SPLIT! This will allow someone like Dr. Paul to rise to the head of the class almost entirely on the basis of his uniqueness as a candidate, since the pro-war GOP voters will be divided into at least 5 or 6 other candidates. Thus, Dr. Paul could conceivably win the primary with less than 30% of the vote. Then, once he has the nomination, the Neo-cons will be forced to support him in order to keep Hillary out of the oval office. Moreover, with no other major candidates offering a consistent opposition to abortion, the pro-life vote will flock to the Paul corner like the salmon of Cappostrano.

Moving on, let's not forget that anyone who faces off against Hillary (the likely Democrat nominee) starts with about 45% of the vote based upon her polarizing public profile. With Paul's uncanny ability to amass huge amounts of support on very scanty mainstream media coverage, imagine what he will be able to do in a National Election! And consider the advantage he has over every major Democrat: HE DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE WAR. The fact that the Democrat nominee will have to assume a hawkish posture, while the GOP nominee argues consistenly for immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a combination that spells success for Ron Paul. Rather than relying on the WEALTHIEST ONE PERCENT, Dr. Paul will benefit from the support of the ANGRIEST SEVENTY PERCENT who want this war to end and want it to end NOW! Call this a "niche candidacy" if you will, but when 70% of the American people say that a particular "niche" is the issue of the decade, a "niche candidacy" is precisely what the doctor ordered... Dr. Paul, that is.

Thanks for your time.

PS - I didn't catch your alternative prediction as to the GOP Standard Bearer in 2008. Hey, maybe Ann Coulter will run.

Ron Paul CAN win the nomination!

rtester — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:04:26 -0400

I find it so amazing how many people dismiss Ron Paul's chances so easily. Well, we are all entitled to our opinion.....so here's mine: Yes, Ron Paul CAN win the Republican nomination, and here's my reasoning to back it up. The American public is fed up, disgusted, and very concerned with the federal government and the way things are going in our country today. They are tired of empty promises and rhetoric from career politicians. They are tired of having their lives run by a bunch of bureaucrats, special interest groups, and powerful corporations in Washington, DC. They are looking to take their country back, restore America to the great nation it once was, and to regain their freedoms which have slowly been eroded away over the last 100 years.

Many folks don't normally vote. Why is that? From personal experience, I think it's because they are fed up but they don't feel like voting for the lesser of two evils will change anything. Well, Ron Paul is different. He is a true, humble statesman with incredible integrity and principles. He has intelligent, practical, and common-sense solutions for all of our problems, and the word is getting out! People realize he's different when they hear his message. They believe that supporting him CAN make a difference, and therefore they are thrilled to do so! They are rallying around him in droves. It's not just an internet phenomenon. Look around you!

Ron Paul represents what America is all about, and his freedom message is bringing Americans together again all over the country, instead of dividing us like all the other political rhetoric we hear. I think we are witnessing a new revolution in American history--it's called the RON PAUL REVOLUTION! That's why I believe he can win the nomination and become the next president! Everyone who dismiss his chances and write him off now.....well, they are entitled to their opinion, but I think they are going to be very surprised at how things play out over the next year.

Doomed? An old Catch 22 that the web can fix

bcmiller — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:45:13 -0400

It used to be the case that the media could deny us the selection process and give us a false choice in the election process. The saying was something like vote your heart in the primary and the lesser of the two evils in the election.

This doesn't have to be the case anymore. Ron Paul is not a niche candidate. He is standing on the shoulders of the founders and other great men in our history. You sited Goldwater as an example against Ron Paul. Dr.Paul has a voting record that Goldwater would envy and he is against the war in Iraq, where Goldwater wanted to fight harder to end the Vietnam war and not withdraw. Kusinich is promising the moon and the stars but we can't afford them. He is a believer and a straight shooter but he doesn't have history and the constitution on his side.

Peace, Freedom, Liberty, Sound Money, No IRS, removing the incentives that promote the scapegoating of illegal immigrants and the Government out of our wallet; off of our backs; and out of our bedrooms.

These are not niche issues.

www.ronpaul2008.com

What a bunch of morons!

crmarble — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:30:59 -0400

If the Republicans drop out of the YouTube/CNN debate, they'll only be hurting themselves in an election in which they are at a disadvantage. If they think that Republicans won't watch it, or else that all the questions are liberal, then they're not paying any attention at all to the new political landscape of this country.

As a democrat-leaning voter, I want the Democrats to win. But I also want to see what the Republicans have to say about different issues so that I know what it would be like to have one of them as President if the country decides to elect another Republican. And the perfect format for really seeing what they're made of is the YouTube questioning.

The political affiliation of YouTubers

Arlen — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:22:50 -0400

Haha, as somebody who has put up plenty of liberal videos up on YouTube, I can confirm that yes, there are an awful lot of conservative YouTubers who are not afraid to leave comments on things.

Seriously, I really haven't noticed a hugely disproportionate difference between the number of liberals and the number of conservatives on YouTube... I really haven't seen evidence that one is far and away more present than the other.

As a side note, who wants to join me in predicting that the Republican debate will get more video question submissions than the Democratic debate did? The Dem one attracted 2989 submissions. The GOP one already has 149 entries and they only opened it up on Tuesday. And they have until September. Now that people saw how neat the Dem one is, there are sure to be plenty more people uploading videos for the Republican one, although I'm not sure about whether or not this would be an indication of there necessarily being more people on YouTube who are Republican than Democrat-- probably more an indication of the greater exposure this format has attracted.

Also as an aside, I'm willing to bet that a significant chunk of the questions submitted are submitted by people who aren't YouTube users. That is, people who signed up for an account just so they could participate but haven't been active on YouTube before, for instance the Reverend who asked the gay marriage question in the Democratic debate only signed up for an account after a member of his congregation heard about the debate and thought it'd be a good opportunity. The majority of question-askers are undoubtedly regular YouTube users, but there's probably also a substantial chunk of submitters that are using the site for the first time.

Check out my political blog, TheDailyBackground.com

Howard Dean

xita321 — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:31:33 -0400

Howard Dean would have been the party nominee and probably would have won if not for that total meltdown he had that made him look completely crazy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc

No one wants a nut with their finger on the nuclear button.

Making a prediction that Ron Paul won't get the nomination doesn't make you look bold or insightful. He's a 7-1 underdog to get the party nomination . .. but that's up from more than 100-1 a few weeks ago (according to sportsbook.com).

http://www.sportsbook.com/betting/2008+Presidential+Election-betting-odd...

A much more interesting article would be "Why the Revolution is Real" with a more bold prediction touching on distributed, decentralized networks and how this election cycle will be the one that changed American Politics forever.

Doomed or not, I'm working my butt off for him

JiveDadson — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:14:47 -0400

One thing that gives me hope is the fact that the phenomenal support he is getting all began with the May 15th debate. It was people watching TV, not cruising the internet who got it started. It's easy to verify that Dr. Paul had very little support online prior to May 15th. Then on the 16th, the charts take a hockey puck shaped turn. In four weeks, he's gone from 2000 subscribers on YouTube to almost 17,000. Mitt Romney has gone from 2000 to 2280. The others have not done so well. I looked at the YouTube home pages for about 100 of those subscribers. They are real people, and they are not kids.

Best regards,
Jive

American Idol meets American Candidate

Micah L. Sifry — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:56:12 -0400

David--

Very cool idea. What I like about it is there's nothing stopping them from trying this except their own imagination and whoever is doing handling their mobile SMS strategy. Speaking of which, do any of the Repubs have a mobile SMS strategy?

I'm sure the first person who does this will be sneered at...the same way the establishment sneered at Jerry Brown when he started mentioning his 1-800 number during the Democratic debates of 1991-92. Needless to say, he raised a huge amount of small (no >$100) donations that way and stayed in the race far longer than any other D...and by the end of that cycle everyone had an 800-number.

Micah

Well, you can vote

Nancy Scola — Tue, 15 May 2007 11:15:43 -0400

Just so as not to give anyone the wrong idea about the sorry state of democracy in DC, you can definitely vote for a nominee/President. It might not count for darn much of anything, but that's of course the case in a lot of U.S. states.

Comments not intended for a specific issue position

Raven Brooks — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:20:16 -0500

My comments were not intended to say anything about McCain's position on the war. He is welcome to his position and I definitely think that for the purposes of discussion any bias towards candidates is best kept to a minimum.

But one simply cannot consider something like branding in a vacuum. David suggests that the branding a color choice are a strong point of the site. Completely putting aside my political beliefs and looking at it objectively I can say they are not.

I get that he wants to be distinctive and therefore the standard color pallet of red, white, and blue wasn't chosen.

But given current political events and very specific graphical choices made on the site (The black American flag is a perfect example) it says all the wrong things about him and I'd consider it a weakness of the site.

Speaking strictly as a professional (one of the many things I do is web design) if I were consulting with McCain on this site and he said that he wanted to be distinctive, to carry his reputation as a maverick onto the web, and to appear strong on national security there is no way I would have recommended something like this.

As I said before there are things worth praising on the site, but the branding and color choice are not one of them and I stand by that opinion not as someone who loves politics but as a professional.

Let's leave the political judgments for elsewhere

Micah L. Sifry — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:35:16 -0500

Raven--

I know it's going to be impossible to evaluate candidate websites without regard to politics, but I think we would all benefit if we agree to set aside our personal political disagreements on this site. Obviously you don't like McCain's position on the Iraq War...and I can imagine other readers conversely don't like the positions of some of the other candidates too. But there's no way to settle that argument, and I'd really prefer if people used other sites that are all about political debate for these kinds of comments.

Micah

Branding & Design

Raven Brooks — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:59:23 -0500

McCain may be trying to brand himself as "cool" and "hip" but a) I'm not sure if it is possible for someone who will be 72 in 2008 to do that and b) using black, white and grey as a color pallet does not make you cool and hip. The guy isn't Steve Jobs.

For point A I could buy someone younger like Giuliani or Romney trying to brand themselves as cool, but not someone McCain's age.

Point B, to me what makes you cool and hip isn't the color pallet, it is what you do. As a prime example of a candidate who is doing an impressive job of branding himself as cool just take a look at Obama's site. It isn't the blue and white it is the fact that he's using almost every cutting edge web technology available (or at least trying) and he's reaching a much younger and tech savvy audience because of it. Edwards is doing some of the same things as well.

The color pallet should convey emotions to web site readers. The first thing that struck me with McCain's site wasn't "hawk" or "serious" or "tough on national security" it was as the commenter above noted "grim", "death" and "mourning". Things like the black American flag completely drive that home and I think that's terrible branding for him. It feels like I'm going to a funeral, not trying to get excited about a candidate. The short message of what it says is "Vote for me, and we'll have 4 more years of funerals and body bags coming home from Iraq."

There are things I like about this site, but his branding is definitely not one of the things I'd put in the good column.

Re: Website

David All — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:36:53 -0500

Tobin -

I've had another person email me that same comment. Actually, this individual was a little peeved that they took the color out of the American flag.

I think that they're trying to use the black and white as a "branding" element, a way to cut the clutter, and give something for people to talk about.

In the world of special effects and zing, it's a way to bring it back to the simple times. And that's saying something worth sharing with our friends.

David