techPresident - meetup - Comments

"Ron Paul's use of Meetup....."

Tex MacRae — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:35:08 -0400

How ridiculous. Ron Paul doesn't "use" MeetUp. He barely knows what it is. We - the Ron Paul Revolution - use MeetUp.

No one has MeetUps but Ron Paul. Why do you suppose that is?

I just went and looked at the biggest Huckabee MeetUp. Out of 50 members, 38 have attended ZERO events. The entire MeetUp has had:
Meetups: 15 so far

SC_Huckabee_08 (Group Organizer)

Member since: September 4, 2007

Location: Fort Mill, SC

Last visited: Past few days

Meetups attended: 1

"Mike Huckabee in the Carolinas Meetup Organizer"

Wayne Wilkinson (Assistant Organizer)

Member since: September 4, 2007

Location: Fort Mill, SC

Last visited: Past few days

Meetups attended: 6

Title: Campaign Coordinator w/Republican Sportshooters

Contrast that with the largest Ron Paul MeetUp: Members: 890
Meetups: 48 so far. With a 5 star rating. You know about that, surely.

You know what MeetUps are about. I'm really having a hard time fathoming the point of this post.

Yes, but that barely counts.

Zephyr Teachout — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:35:24 -0400

Yes, but that barely counts. One icon out of six is not direction, its more like a sticker. I would be shocked if it turned out many people found their way there through that instead of the front page exhortation.

Meetup icon

Chris Maiorana — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:14:48 -0400

There is a Huckabee Meetup icon on the front page bottom right corner.

Ron Paul Rules...

rtester — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:16:59 -0400

...Period! Now, if we could just get the mainstream media to figure it out... They seem to be a bit lost on this one:)

meetup charts

RPmaniac — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:34:02 -0400

To the editors
Thank you so much for putting these charts on, it's good for people to see just how much support Dr. Paul really has,so much of the mainstream media is constantly shoving their bias opinion down every ones throat,showing these numbers will wake people up to what is really going on, THE REVOLUTION !!

Ron Paul rules MeetUp

Tex MacRae — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:18:28 -0400

Those charts are pretty funny.

See some Ron Paul MeetUps in action.

Great post, Patrick

Micah L. Sifry — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:44:57 -0400

I think you sum up the current state of play pretty well. As Andrew and I wrote for the Politico a week ago:

The presidential campaigns just aren’t giving their supporters, or the wider public, very much to do or talk about. Yes, most of the campaigns are embracing the bells and whistles of the social Web.

Every presidential candidate has a blog and a presence on the major social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook. Many of them have created platforms where their supporters can create their own mini-campaign on the candidate’s behalf, with tools for raising money, organizing events and writing their own blog posts.

But if you look for bottom-up dynamism on these sites — the kind that gave the Howard Dean campaign its energy in 2003 — you won’t find it. The official campaign blogs are written by the equivalent of digital press secretaries.

While the blog posts written by grass-roots supporters may show some spontaneity and genuine passion, all the campaigns — even Obama’s, which has the largest base of grass-roots supporters — keep those tightly under wraps.

None of the campaign websites devote consistent space on their home pages to independent efforts on the candidate’s behalf; every inch of their online real estate is devoted to pushing their message, as opposed to trusting others to spread that for them.

It’s obviously still early to draw final conclusions about the Net and the 2008 presidential campaign. But the way things are going right now, it looks as though the whole field — not just the Republicans — has retreated from the high-water mark of bold online politicking set by Dean last cycle.

They’re all playing it safe, using the new tools of the Web at a fraction of their real capacity.

As for what Tex says about the Ron Paul movement, I think he's got a point too. Whether you agree with Paul or not, it's clear that he's putting forward a set of ideas that stand apart from the Republican pack, and that are galvanizing an activist base. From that energy flows action and innovation (though most of what the Paul-ites are doing is making good use of the existing tools of the social web, like Meetup and YouTube and the social network hubs, as opposed to innovating). Maybe the evident lack of energy on and around the sites of the major candidates has more to do with their failure to ignite passionate supporters around a unifying message, than the degree of control the campaigns are exercising through their web-based efforts.

I have mixed thoughts on this.

Freedomfighter — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:07:03 -0400

I have mixed thoughts on this. I hope the bloggers here will chime on this posting. The fact is Dean was boosted as an activist movement and his website reflects that. Activists are more geared to promoting ideas or representing a group of people as opposed to candidate campaigns which focus more on donors and voters in specific time frame. Activists do not require a time frame. Candidate campaigns, however, focus on specific time frames and must target specific groups. The approach is automatically going to be different.

Patrick is right about the political use of the internet seems to have slipped but that is because things have not really geared up yet. See the following link to an animation from American Solutions which will have big event next week.

http://americansolutions.advomation.com/animation/

An example of a donor site is Club for Growth which has all the activity he desires in a website, but it really does not draw a lot of traffic.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org

Activists groups, such as the following, thrive on attention and issues and are not constrained by donors or candidates.

http://www.veteransformedicalmarijuana.org/

http://www.downsizedc.org/

http://www.mpp.org/

… then there is Rush Limbaugh who downplays the internet, but uses it quite well on his site below. He effectively uses the internet. You can find statistics on how many listeners he has but the big question is how many pay to listen to him over the internet?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

Innovation

Tex MacRae — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:52 -0400

You're a smart guy, Patrick, but as long as you persist in misunderstanding the nature of internet innovation, we're just going to run right over you "web 2.0" strategists. You're looking up at some stodgy old suited fatcats and their corporate campaign staffs and wondering why they don't innovate? It's absurdly funny and a little pathetic.

People innovate when they see an unfulfilled need. Now, you, as a war supporting neocon, aren't going to like this - but the need that Dean fulfilled was for a candidate willing to speak out against the war. That's what drew people in swarms to Dean. He was the only one willing to even feebly represent that voiceless and ignored constituency which was vilified and marginalized in their own country. Of course, he was a fatally flawed vessel for their hopes and he imploded under the pressure.

Now, we have Ron Paul. Don't you wish someone would make a video like this about Rudy or Mitt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFy--JHgYIw

You won't admit it, but you do. I've seen you guys try to coopt the Revolution language that RP supporters made their own. David All signs his emails "Revolution." You write lame posts about "The summer it started to happen" all the while looking up instead of out, where ideas galvanize real people to action. Innovation is the same whether it's done on the web to reclaim freedom or to invent a way to light a dark room. It's a response to an unfulfilled need. When enough people band together to advance their ideas, you have a "revolution." It has nothing to do with stupid Jumpcut websites millionaires graciously allow the peasants to use in their behalf, or pretty icons on a website. Look to Thomas Paine, pamphleteer for freedom or Paul Revere yelling from horseback.

Regardless of the communication medium - and that's what the web is, a means of communication - true revolutionaries have a real message. It's the message that matters, not the medium. When your candidates can deliver a real message enough people care about, people will innovate in their behalf.

In the meantime, go back to looking up. We have a revolution to fight.

Maybe 2008 isn't the cycle for innovating

Luigi Montanez — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:13:41 -0400

I agree with your premise that there just isn't much innovation this cycle, but maybe that's just fine. The rapid innovation and adoption of new technologies that occurred from 2003 to 2006 was staggering. Maybe 2008 is about clamping down best practices, refining strategies, and using the technology out there in the most effective way. Innovation always happens in waves after all.

I noticed that you just couldn't resist the petty cheap shot against Howard Dean in there. I'll try to be the better partisan, so here's to hoping that your side innovates this cycle by becoming a bunch of Republican Preditors.

Leftmost Bit

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