techPresident - Chris Dodd - 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.

Walk and kill

Colin Delany — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:22:05 -0500

Better get that royalty check in the mail to Huckabee...

Colin Delany
e.politics
http://www.epolitics.com

The Ron Paul Blimp

littlebier8 — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:08:07 -0500

Yeah, I saw it coming guys.

Is Randy Brinson blowing smoke?

tlsmith — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:35:23 -0500

That number seems awfuly high. I also think it is high since most people who have access to e-mail have multiple addresses, such as one for work, one for home, and one as a "spam catcher".

We're working on it

Joshua Levy — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:23:00 -0500

We're working on fixing the front-page chart -- we'll have it fixed soon.

this has been bugging me...

larethdf — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:18:55 -0500

Your Youtube chart on the front page hasn't been updated in over a month now, yet the Youtube chart page itself seems OK. Can you guys fix this so we don't have to view the full chart to get current numbers?

Shuck the Huck

Freedomfighter — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:33:26 -0500

takehikemike.com

Draft Bloomberg to Become the First Independent TechPresident!

CitizenSmith — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:13:47 -0500

If we want a Tech President we need a President that understands the importance of technology. While many of the democratic candidates are paying lip service to these ideals, none has close to the technological background of Mike Bloomberg. He would make a fantastic leader for this and many other issues, which is why we are trying to Draft Mike Bloomberg for President at UniteForMike.com

Great observation

Michael Whitney — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:57:19 -0500

I think it's key for campaigns or, really, any online fundraising drive to connect what they send out in emails with what they put on their website. It's easy for the people who do those campaigns to not connect with one another - and I think part of the variable is if campaigns test conditional content or different text and goals to different parts of the list.

What they tell non-donors could be very different from what they tell people who have already donated, which they can control through variables in the email set up.

I'm biased coming from a Dean-centric worldview, but my impression of the 2004 fundraising efforts were that there was transparency, and there was a focus on building community on the campaign blog and website, and emails were in part a vehicle to get people invested in the larger community.

My impression of this year's fundraising campaigns are that folks are encouraged to spread fundraising efforts through people they already know - instead of focusing on building a community from scratch on their own, they count on fundraising efforts expanding virally through existing social networks.

So while it's likely more effective for people to push asks to their friends, there is definitely somewhat of a disconnect between the email sphere and the website sphere.

Clinton vs. Obama fundraising e-mails

tlsmith — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:45:38 -0500

Thanks for the good article. On a similar vane, I received e-mails this week from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns trying to take advantage of the rhetoric between the two campaigns. Here are my observations on the differences between the e-mails.

Clinton's e-mail arrived in my inbox at 9:32:05 a.m. EST titled, "Dead Heat In Iowa." The e-mail mentioned that they have a goal of raising $1.25 million by the end of the week, "to ensure that we have the resources needed to win." There is no direct mention of any other Democratic challenger, just one sentince that says, "in Iowa, we're in a dead heat." The rest of the e-mail was a pretty generic fundraising appeal, personalized with my name when appropiate. The graphic is of a calendar showing "31 days left," a reference to when the Iowa caucuses will be held. Looking on her website today, there is no reference to how much was raised towards the goal, nor can I find it quickly.

Obama's e-mail arrived in my inbox at 2:03:18 p.m. EST titled, "When Hillary Attacks." The e-mail started out mentioning that Obama was now leading in a poll conducted by the Des Moines Register. The e-mail went on to mention, "less than 12 hours after the poll results were released, the Clinton campaign launched multiple frantic, baseless attacks against Barack Obama." The e-mail continued requesting, not a specific dollar goal be reached, but they get 10,000 donors within 48 hours. There were no graphics with this e-mail. When I went to Obama's web site, there was a counter showing how many people had responded to the fundraising drive. Granted, it isn't Howard Dean's bat, but it was well done. As I write this, the graphic is still there, but I don't think they've updated it since the 48 hours ended.

I just find it interesting how the campaigns are reacting differently yet similarly to the same event.

In the interest of full disclosure, I contributed to both campaigns, but I have contributed more to Obama than I have to Clinton.

Perhaps, but then

Marco Carbone — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:32:46 -0500

Perhaps, but then TechPresident writes a story on it and maybe the next one won't be as successful.

Phoniness?

Joshua Levy — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:56:54 -0500

We need to remind ourselves that the reason why Dodd, and any campaign, sends out this kind of email is to raise money. If they are successful at doing that, it is a successful email. I doubt any of the staffers are having these Salinger-esque handwringing sessions about authenticity. If they have to use spammy or gimmicky tactics raise money, they'll use them.

While we all try to determine whether we're viewing an actual email thread among staffers, the campaigns are tallying the money the emails brought in.

The problem I have with this

Marco Carbone — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:47:07 -0500

The problem I have with this email is that it insults the intelligence of the recipients by assuming they won't be able to see through the facade.

Here's a question: what if a campaign sent out an *actual* thread of emails discussing the content of a donation campaign? Would that have been more or less successful? Then again, if this happened, it would eventually lead to campaigns sending "real" internal emails and "public" internal emails, and we would end up in the same place.

I think what this fundamentally boils down to is that any campaign which tries to control their image is inherently "fake," and allowing transparency is antithetical to their desired control. Since it's true that supporters like to feel that they have an inside scoop in how the campaign operates, campaigns can choose to either be transparent, or they can put up a Potemkin village. I guess there's a third option, which is to tell supporters up front that much of the internals of the campaign is not for their eyes, and will be controlled by a small number of people.

A campaign like Ron Paul's doesn't have to worry about this sort of things (yet), because the movement is bigger than the candidate, and the actions of the supporters have so far been more newsworthy than the actions of the staffers.

Skin in the game

Josh Koenig — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:49:16 -0500

Just a little pushback. The disappointing thing continues to be how terrifically risk averse all of this stuff is. Dodd deserves credit for his immunity stuff, one of the few actually courageous moves by any candidate at any point this cycle, and one that was followed up with some interesting technology and which generated a fair amount of buzz. Well done there. It's the exception.

All the rest of the stuff is fluff. Dodd's team puts live webcams up for the internet team. Does anyone really believe the internet team is where anything central to that campaign originates from? It's a nice thing to do, as is having a Q&A with some staffers, but ultimately it doesn't impact the race, reveal anything interesting about the campaign or let people meaningfully participate. The result is that these things don't inspire support because they're effectively meaningless.

As you say "The big three" are probably more deserving of critique, and I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular. But the timidity and lameness is ubiquitious. It's really annoying.

Ron Paul's supporters are proving quite well-disposed to self-organization (contrary to what one might think of libertarian leaning types), and his campaign benefits from this because they're crazy/risky enough to generate that level of interest.

That said, social fundraising itself is nothing new, it's just been markedly absent from most other campaigns, which to me is more a sign of flaccid support or a disinterest in independence (or both) than anything else.

They also are innovating in substantive ways

Fred Gooltz — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:59:48 -0500

Yes, this open rate trick simulates a behind-the-scenes look at politics - which is what citizens want - but it should be taken in context with the things Dodd has done which authentically open up his operation, the use of live uStream video and IRC chat Q&A sessions with members of staff, for example.

Luigi points out that email efficacy is waning, a change which is seismic. So consider then that Dodd's campaign is the one that has built what I think is the most effective post-email-reliant internet outreach innovation with their VOIP to your Senator citizen whip tool. http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

By and large, successful integration of 3rd party widgets, and community networks, is what is passing for innovation this cycle - from Ron Paul's meetups achieving self-sustainability with ChipIn widgets to the use of niche online SocNets for targeted and decentralized mobilization.

Josh is right that the front runners aren't innovating in 2007 as much as Dean did in 2003, but others are trying. Which amounts to an evolution of sorts.

My sense is that the online revolution so many former Deaniacs long for is going to have to happen outside of the party structure and without a cult of personality from celebrity politicians to drive it's growth.

Which will make it more difficult and more lasting.