Comments on: presidential blogging II

By: DB

DB — Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:51:32 +0000

After a while, doesn't Edwards have to start registering in the polls? Less than 5% everywhere for much longer and it won't matter how much money he has. Meanwhile Dean has an army of (admitedly unfunded) supporters organized in every major city in every state. There are get-out-the-word events and house party fundraisers all over the USA. True, at $50 a person it will take a long time to catch up to the well-financed candidates, but wouldn't you rather be involved in a campaign that feels like that - where regular working-people-Democrats, not living off lawyer salaries (sorry Larry) get together to spread the word, throw whatever money they can in the hat, and feel some campaign ownership? It might not win but it feels more, well, American, than $2,000-a-plate hot dog meals with the President. At least it makes me feel better to be American.
Still, I like Edwards and could support him, but am pulling hard for Dean, not for what it says about the net, but for what it could say about the possibility of efficient, grassroots campaigns when they can rally behind a candidate who is his own best advertisement once the message gets to the people.

By: Harrison Brace

Harrison Brace — Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:51:52 +0000

Hey, thanks for the mention about Cruising For Dean. I've created a category for it on my site that aggregate all the posts. It's http://blogs.salon.com/0002599/categories/cruisingForDean/index.html

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:11:01 +0000

We haven't elected a Northern Democrat president in over 40 years. This is because the Democrats cannot take the White House unless they carry the South, and Southerners do not support Northern Democrats. This is why it is presumed Dean cannot win.

By: Matt Haughey

Matt Haughey — Sat, 21 Jun 2003 03:07:51 +0000

There is an Edwards 2004 blog, but it's being done by one of his fans, not the campaign. I suspect they'd be happy to have it that way than be done themselves directly.

By: Adina Levin

Adina Levin — Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:35:26 +0000

I'm no pro at election politics.

But I hear the "unelectable" term coming mostly from people working with other Democratic presidential candidates.

The sources have a bias; they're trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By: AKMA

AKMA — Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:33:56 +0000

Most important, congratulations on your impending transition to paternity, and best wishes to mother and child as they effect that transition while you stand by saying helpful things like, “Push!” and “Breathe!”

I don’t doubt that Seth is right — but money and votes can be influenced by buzz, and buzz grows more readily upward from the grass roots than downward from an orchestrated plan (downward-flowing buzz is more appropriately called hype). The populist strategy that Prof. Lessig proposes would cost little, would communicate (as he points out) valid contrasts between Edwards and Bush, and would be much more liable to generate buzz. That doesn’t seem to be what Edwards wants.

By: Net Cop

Net Cop — Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:32:34 +0000

Two things to know about the net campaigns right now:

1. The MoveOn.org primary is a ballot box capable of being easily stuffed: you can register with as many free email accounts or server in-boxes as you want. I have registered three times using different addresses. Not exactly a "clean election."

2. Similarly, MeetUp.com is an even more open system where the quick and easy registration process allows you to make up a phony email address since it requires no "send back" confirmation email. It simply logs each "new person" who enters any email address as a new member. There isn't even a rudimentary confirmation process. Anybody could sit there for hours and log hundreds of new phony members.

I'm not saying none of this is valuable. It clearly does have real value, but understand what activists do with time on their hands...

By: Kim Benabib

Kim Benabib — Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:15:22 +0000

If Dean does not get the nomination, as I suspect he will not, that should not be taken as a repudiation of the Net Roots strategy overall. It will simply put it in proper persepctive as one of a number of factors that candidates must have in campaigns these days.

On Edwards, I think there is something to be said for his strategy because so many of the primary voters are not yet engaged. Remember that this is the activist's moment. The generalist's moment comes in January 04. Also, Dean is getting a lot of former Green support and others upset about the war. That is fueling the sense of passion and heat right now. I don't think that is either sustainable, or transferable to the more general Dem primary audience that will tune in 3 weeks before polling day.

By: Kevin Thurman

Kevin Thurman — Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:55:05 +0000

I agree with you about Edwards' strategy. It would not be hurt by bottom up movement and a more complete internet strategy. In fact follwing Gary Hart's exit from the race I spoke with them and after a decent intial conversation and sending some material, they never called us back.

A complete disinterest in moving into the blogosphere is not the reason, but instead a complete disinterest in doing anythign outside of their "plan" The real problem with that is that their plan assumes that the oxygen aren't already sucked up by other people in the race. You don't have to win, just get in the game. But Edwards and co refused.

They lost me ... who else will they lose.

By: Timothy R. Phillips

Timothy R. Phillips — Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:42:22 +0000

Mazel Tov on the upcoming birth. I hope it goes safely for mother and child.

I am furious at the Democrats because their party promoted, and their President signed, the Copyright Term Extension Act. I am furious at the Republicans because their party promoted, and their President zealously (and successfully) defended the CTEA. Under these conditions some of the independent candidates look attractive. But I have yet to hear any candidate propose a repeal of the CTEA or, as an alternative, a copyright build-down according to which the copyrights in works of authors dying between, say, 2020 and 2040 would all expire on January 1st, 2091, while the copyrights of all authors dying after 2040 would have a duration of life+50 years; and corporate copyrights would be reduced over the same period, year-by-year. I can imagine Ralph Nader making such a proposal, though so far as I know he hasn't done so yet. So what candidate is worthy of the votes of those who love the public domain ? So far it seems we must content ourselves with seeking the least unworthy.