techPresident - joe trippi - Comments

http://www.widecircles.com

johnsmith5082 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:01:57 -0400

We are all watching a parallel university,they made a number of creative students.Always welcome for your advertisement.
-----------------------------------
johnsmith
Highly relevant, efficient advertising to forum, blog, wiki and other types of web sites. Drive large number of visitors to your website and build quality links.
http://www.widecircles.com

He messed it twice...

abanks06 — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:18:57 -0400

Fucking Gary Hart...

Ron Paul

marksstc — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:58:03 -0400

It's easy to be sarcastically dismissive of Ron Paul; sarcasm though, is a poor substitute for debate. Make no mistake -- Ron Paul is not delusional. He admits he's not going to win the GOP nomination. But he's campaigning to continue educating people about the need for constitutional government, individual liberty, sound money, and a sane foreign policy. If you actually listened to his recent video message, he says the campaign is about ideas, not about him.

Must be difficult for most people to accept a politician who's not simply in it for personal power.

Mark Smith

John Edwards should give his list to LabourStart

Eric Lee — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:02:08 -0500

Edwards is the closest thing to a labor candidate in this race, so if we're talking about giving away tens of thousands of email addresses, LabourStart would be happy to receive them. (LabourStart is the news and campaigning website of the international trade union movement.)

LabourStart: Where trade unionists start their day on the net.
http://www.labourstart.org

Hear hear! You should rant

Zephyr Teachout — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:51:01 -0500

Hear hear!

You should rant more. Great stuff.

It's also within the nature of Web 2.0

Jonathan Trenn — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:58:35 -0400

It seems that a healthy combination of what Alan and Michael is taking place here. The very nature of Web 2.0 is openness.

The GOP is usually more organized, more disciplined, more top down. For whatever reason, the powers that be when it comes to implementing a Web 2.0 effort strongly resist letting go of the message. No surprise there. That doesn't mesh with what Web 2.0 is about, so it fails.

And a result of the GOP being in control of the White House and the both Houses of Congress for the majority of the past eight years, has been an insurgent and activist left, reading to move forward regardless of official party structure. The momentum was already their.

I'd also add that two more things. In my discussions with vendors in the internet strategy space, I've found that if they have political leanings, it is more often to the left than right.

And lastly, in 2004, we had several Democratic candidates running, each with internet efforts. OK, they were rudimentary, but they were there. On the GOP side, we had just one, the president. That means that entering 2008, there were that many more campaign vets from the Dem side that now been able to discard those training wheels and move forward. Not so on the GOP side. The depth of experience may have been the same, but there were just more people on the Democratic side that had experience, connections, and understanding of social media.

www.digitalstreetjournal.com

Deflating the hype

Erik Ose — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:32:29 -0400

Colin, right on. The NYT piece was sloppy, and you called it out nicely by providing some of the context Adam Nagourney's reporting lacked. Re the previous comment on this post, an op-ed I wrote for The Hill yesterday (John Edwards Needs a Netroots Reboot) similarly deflates the hype that Edwards is still the e-candidate to beat, using hard numbers to back up the story. A longer version, also discussing what Obama's doing right with his online strategy, is posted at The Latest Outrage.

What do numbers mean?

cfinnie — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:23:39 -0400

I'm not convinced that who you hire and how much you spend equates to a better web presence. The Clinton campaign has managed to spend a lot for the most content-free site in the race. Any positions on issues you do manage to dig out are usually in either long, boring speech transcripts or in videos that may or may not pertain to the information you want. Most are pretty fluffy rather than substantive.

I was also amused that you claim Edwards is getting less "buzz" online based on one vague story that states Clinton and Obama are getting more, but gives no figures. In short, a statement worthy of the NYT.

I'm not backing Edwards, and am as tired as anybody of the celebrity status accorded Joe Trippi. When Edwards hired him, I posted on a DFA list that it was the kiss of death for the campaign. I haven't changed that opinion.

I know it's popular to credit Trippi with Dean's rise. But those of us who supported Dean know that all Joe did was to help us spread the word about a better candidate than any in the field now. Here I'll disagree with McLuhan. The message is the message, and Dean had one. Trippi did his part to help spread it. But Dean was right. Only we really had the power to create the grass/netroots swell that we did. And that was only because we really believed in Dean. Not because of the great online tools.

I did think the Soprano-spoof video was worth the money Clinton undoubtedly spent on it. She's also getting a lot of MSM coverage, which doesn't hurt the attention she gets online. And Obama is getting the benefit of the enthusiasm some bright, young, creative folks have for him--as his paid efforts online, while better than Clinton's, do not match the charisma of the candidate. I give his team points for a good tagline and logo--and at least some issues text.

I'd say that these factors have more to do with how much online buzz they're getting--whatever those numbers may actually be--not how much money they have put in to it.

Trippi is still ahead of America

cfinnie — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:23:24 -0400

Someday, Joe Trippi will be right. But, as history shows, it's rarely during the campaign he's working on.

The Internet enabled Howard Dean to be a viable candidate. It did not make him a winner. And I contend that the reason it enabled his high profile and fundraising totals was not because of the tool, but the campaign and candidate. When I first went to the Dean campaign site, I was amazed at what I read there. There was no political parsing. I didn't see calculation and hype. I saw open, honest opinions and I was hooked. So that was the first tool I saw the campaign use. But it was the message that did it, not the tool. When I first saw Dean, he said "only you have the power..." Then campaign then provided the tools and the structure to back that up. So the tools proved the commitment. But they were not the winning message, just the medium.

As the earlier comment points out, blogs are impacting the MSM. But their media reach is still a fraction of Faux Noise. With that big an echo chamber, even the lack of message can be overcome. That's why the Republicans are not worried.

I wish I shared his optimism

Dan Ancona — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:50:04 -0400

My feeling is that - if us lefty internet organizer types are hugely and uproariously successful over the next year or so - at most something like a quarter or maybe a third of the electorate is going to be directly impacted by the independent internet media, except maybe for the occasional wild viral hit. There's still a LOT of voters out there watching Fox, and between known site traffic numbers and the last Pew, we know that a lot of folks getting news online are getting it from MSM sites.

Sure, the 'sphere is having a somewhat increasing role in shaping how the MSM covers stuff - and arguably in exposing hilariously brash acts of hypocrisy like O'Reilly's latest stunts - but we've still got a long way to go from where I'm sitting.

The Forest Through the Trees

Sarah Granger — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:23:29 -0400

I think that a lot of people feel that Dean's campaign failed in making it to the home stretch, so they looked at the online success as an anomaly and went back to aiming for high dollar donors. Bush won, so they just bowed down thinking they weren't worthy of competing with Rove and the Republican fundraising machine. I've had several exchanges where I'd mention the success of the Dean campaign at raising money online and the response I'd get was "yeah, but he didn't win."

Some of these people are experienced fundraisers, so they want to use time tested strategies they know work. Even the most tech savvy of the old school fundraisers, who understand the value of investing in online resources, still don't necessarily grok how to do it right or that a little additional risk could pay off. They weren't direct participants of the phenomenon, so they can't see the forest through the trees. I think we still need more of these people - who the candidates may be more comfortable trusting - to be pitching and selling the online strategies like Trippi did with Dean. And you're right that they could be doing more to turn the conversations with supporters into meaningful relationships. There's a significant learning curve involved, but there's still time.

Check the numbers

Jon Garfunkel — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:03:45 -0400

Zack-- I suggest you first check the numbers. With $9m from 70, donors, Edwards's Q2 fundraising has beaten Dean's 2003-Q2 numbers of $7.5m from 70,000 donors.

The problem is that Obama's fundraising are four times Dean's: $32.5m from 158,000 donors. Yes, the average Obama contribution is 56% higher than Edwards's, but it's still an earthbound $200.

Clearly people are giving without the bat. Perhaps it is the "bat" itself that was a gimmick? (Edwards has used Ann Coulter's slime attacks as his own fundraising gimmick.) But you have to conceded that small-dollar, online fundraising is that special anymore. Everyone's doing it.

Jon

Will we be incorporated?

cfinnie — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:09:06 -0400

A lot of traditional campaign managers seem to think it will work to just "incorporate" grassroots donors into their strategy. They do not understand how empowering it was to know that we could make a difference--not just be incorporated.

I've suggested to many people that there's one sure way to get true campaign finance reform enacted--become the funders. We showed we could do that in the Dean campaign. But, if we really want to see it work, we can't give up. And we haven't.

Some see the Dean campaign as a fluke. It would be if we hadn't kept going. But we did. We got Jerry McNerney elected. We got other candidates elected. And we financed those campaigns.

We need to keep doing it, and keep winning. Only then will political advisers see grassroots donors and volunteers as a viable force on our own, and not just a small demographic to be incorporated into a corner of their main strategy.

Barack versus the Campaign Obama

DANIELLECLARKE — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:23:31 -0400

As i said at your other site there is a difference in Barack Obama and his staffers. Barack i do believe will show this as time goes by. However, the staffers have proven to me to only be about getting personal success for themselves. yes i have heard many see this as their chance to be a part of a major organization. They are seeking careers and have a desire to be major players in the campaign and more than likely, more when Barack is elected. However, i feel barack is trusting them a little too much and they have shown themselves to make mistakes. Myself i seek Barack to win to save my two boys from feeling obliged to be in a STUPID WAR. I know how i felt when i joined the USMC during the vietnam war. I also know my concern is for everyone, who was like me at that age, who joined thinking in their hearts they are doing the right thing.

As for us grassroots workers i know we have a lot of power, but we don't seek it to hurt but to help and we do it unselfishly. We don't seek careeers. We have it in our hearts to make real changes in this world. And yes we have the power to bring the campaign to a halt, if we so decided, but that is the furthest thing from our minds and thoughts.

Those, who are in it for the careers, will learn and grow and many will have their hearts broken. I feel sorry for them. I do know Barack can see this fact of them seeking careers, while we grassroots people do it because of our hearts.

Whatever happens we will know we did our best to make changes and our hearts will have grown. Those who seek careers may suffer heart attacks.

Life is about building that spiritual bank account. You can't take it with you and as jesus says it is only the riches of your heart that you can bring with you to the next world.

My heart really has grown to understand the pain so many have set themselves up for. Myself i will just keep doing what i always do. I know Barack is the same. Here is a blog i wrote that is an analysis of a critics article of Brack not being a Old time Democrat. Which to me is a great thing.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CrSB

"""I MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE STAFFERS FOR THE CAMPAIGN BUT I DEFINATELY UNDERSTAND BARACK OBAMA - CHICAGO COLUMNIST ATTACKS BARACK OBAMA"""
By Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet - May 24th, 2007 at 9:02 am EDT

A Possible reason

Alan Rosenblatt — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:22:22 -0400

Zack, could it be that with the emerging confidence in the internet's ability to facilitate both raising money and extending the life of the campaign even with little money, that the candidates don't feel as pressured as they might have before to raise all that money now?

Consider the legs the Ron Paul campaign has with limited dollars and low poll standings. He is being heard loudly over the din, regardless.

As we discussed a few months back with Seth Godin, you can raise money in order to give your supporters a megaphone or you can just give them a megaphone.

Either that, or the internet strategy has been coopted by those who don't get it. hmmmmmm

Alan Rosenblatt
Executive Director, Internet Advocacy Center
AKA DrDigiPol (drdigipol.com)