techPresident - blog entry - Comments

....and it is about f*cking time!

Freedomfighter — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:24:08 -0400

The browser is ULTRA kewl and is great for organizing and keeping up with the Party, the GOP, the Great Optimistic Party! = )

Unless your a donor.............

Freedomfighter — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:00:34 -0400

"reporting that sub-$200 contributions to the Obama campaign surged in June; those fairly low-dollar donations have made up 65% of his total $52 million haul. About a third of McCain's fundraising came in chunks of $200 or less"

Those numbers seem so believable but if you ever been a bigger donor to such campaigns, you know the campaign is massaging the numbers.

Uh, duh!

Freedomfighter — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:49:58 -0400

"The poll, which captured the answers of a self-selected 13% of conference attendees offered another nugget: while 40% of respondents describe themselves as "liberal," 47% identify as "progressive." There was not a single person who called themselves "conservative;" "

Why was this poll conducted at all? Campaign for America's Future is far off to the left and isn't Netroots Nation a left wing organization anyway? Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy!

Anyone changing their minds

mac11 — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:20:03 -0400

Anyone changing their minds over Obama over this episode is overreacting (or perhaps a troll who really supports another candidate).

First of all, Obama himself had nothing to do with it. Even if you think his people screwed up, مسجات you should still give him a chance to try to rectify the situation.

Secondly, we don't know all of the information or the facts, so you are jumping to conclusions.

Third, choosing a candidate based on how they chose who runs their Myspace profile is just about the most random way to pick a candidate possible.

wonderful article

Freedomfighter — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:21:08 -0400

I think you put it quite aptly. There is a difference in the way the Obama campaign and Moveon converged to grow a movement compared to other attempts to use micro-targeting. They started early and piled it on. When they wanted an event, they sent emails to those most likely to read the email and attend. The result is a bunch of identical minded people showing up, who could be encouraged to donate without any criticism of why they were meeting. That works well, until the people attending realize they were caught up in a form of impulse buying habit and not getting anything out of it.
Micro-targeting has great potential for a true supporter base, but it does have serious drawbacks if there is not a lot offline connection.

Innovative is relative

Nancy Scola — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:35:18 -0400

Point taken, but when the starting point is having people write letters to party HQ to compete for a slot testifying in person before the platform committee, than opening it up at all is indeed shiny and new. Who should ultimately be crafting a party's platform is great question. But my sense from talking to people involved in the process is that the GOP policy committee was motivated by the useful idea of seeing what's bubbling up in the public realm; as I always say, openness is tricky, but the alternative isn't so great -- the last thing we want is where our elected leaders and their surrogates lag behind and become more closed off from the rest of the world than they already are.

Is it just me...

davidfarrar — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:04:04 -0400

..or is the "new and innovated" GOPPlatform2008.com platform crudely designed and really doesn't allow for any kind of deliberative groupware advancement towards a unified set of political goals? I suspect the only thing innovative is the RNC attempting anything along these lines in the first place.

Secondly, call me old fashion, but shouldn't establishing the political platform of the party be limited to registered Republicans? Here again, I see party officials buying into the concept that the RNC should follow the political agenda of the day rather than leading the public on important issues of the day.

Lastly, allowing the general public access to the formation of the party's political platform doesn't seem to be a very effective way of solidifying its political base to me.

If the RNC would like some helpful suggestions, they should start now and redesign this effort for the 2012 convention and limit access to ONLY registered Republicans.

ex animo
davidfarrar
The National Online Party

Url of the viral video module for Paltalk

vanksen — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:00:04 -0400

Go on http://www.news3online.com to play the prank on your friends ;)

Thanks Dave- It was a wild

technosailor — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:04:51 -0400

Thanks Dave-

It was a wild week and the events surrounding myself and Culberson allowed me to, among other things, understand that what we're doing with blogging is not filling dead space.

Appreciate the mention and the solid write up.

What You Failed To Remark On...

ChrisM — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:31:29 -0400

Is this gem from Karl:

"Democrats don't have the same large volunteer pool the GOP does with its Federated GOP Women, College and Young Republicans, and local party committees. In the primaries, Mr. Obama instead moved hordes of volunteers from state to state. It was a brilliant tactic, but Nov. 4 is different. The volunteers adequate for primaries held over five months will simply not be enough to compete in 51 separate elections (all 50 states plus the District of Columbia) all on one day."

- Karl Rove, July 10, WSJ "Barack's Brilliant Ground Game"

This may be the biggest set of wishful thinking this election cycle since Sam Brownback's campaign paid for buses prior to the Iowa Straw Poll.

www.junctionpool.blogspot.com

Many missing the real issue

Andrew Wright — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:01:22 -0400

Any discussion about which platforms are acceptable for MoC communications and which aren't shouldn't be the issue. As long as that's what's being discussed, speech loses. This shouldn't be a "franking" issue. I'm not sure what taxpayer resources are being used to sent a message on Twitter. MoCs should be trusted to use communications technology as they wish, and they assume the risks involved if they mess up. Citizens should be trusted to be able to distinguish ads from content. These regulations treat MoCs and citizens like children, with the Rules Committee as the overprotective parent. Not to mention that MoCs don't forfeit their first amendment rights when physically on Capitol grounds.

Sunlight is harming its reputation...

justin@justinhamilton.org — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:31:32 -0400

Sunlight is helping to perpetuate the myth that Congressional Democrats are trying to quell free speech and it is a great disservice to the organization.

I never would've though I'd seen the day when the Sunlight Foundation became a de facto propaganda outlet for GOP hacks.

A good analysis of the situation --what dems are doing, how the GOP is manipulating the facts (they seem to have a history of this over the last few years, don't they?), was written by one of this sites editors, Nancy Scola, over at the Huffington Post.

OBAMA STORIES

christine — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:52:02 -0400

Hello!

I just wanted to draw your attention to a website-- www.obamatracker.com
Obamatracker posts dozens of stories regarding Barack Obama daily, from all different news organizations. We currently have over 3,000 stories, and we're only adding more as they come! It's a great resource for finding out anything about Obama.

Thanks for posting this!

Freedomfighter — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:40:52 -0400

Contrary to what people think, the Obama campaign is censoring postings and unsubscribing from their email lists, the negative commentators.

Ralph Nader slams Obama flip-flop flapping

Freedomfighter — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:18:46 -0400

The FISA issue is crippling Obama and now it has reached the Nader campaign.

As soon as Democrats get close to power, they do away with civil liberties or other troublesome issues. It is their preferred tactic, just like the war. Activists say, "Bush lied! Thousands died!", ignoring the Democrats who voted for the war. Was this not the whole purpose of pushing for Obama? For change? To get away from such hypocrisy? So what does Obama do on:

Telecom immunity?

Gun control?

Death penalty?

Campaign finance?

Faith-based funding?

Hypocrisy.

So here is where people are going:
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/07/07/what-to-do-now/