PDA

View Full Version : What Obama did better than us




Dennis Peterson
02-07-2008, 08:35 AM
On Tuesday, Obama dominated the independent vote. He also raised $32 million in January, mostly from small individual contributions, and he's gotten over $5 million since Tuesday. How?

Read these two links:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/obama_and_paul_the_kings_of_the_web_election.php

http://techpresident.com/blog/entry/21119/is_the_obama_campaign_a_model_for_online_politics

There are commercially-available databases, built up from data on magazine subscriptions, warranty cards, supermarket purchases, etc etc. They break populations into demographic and cultural groups. From there, they can predict peoples' attitudes, based on their group.

The Obama campaign bought the databases and used them for targeted marketing. They had tailored messages for different groups. Depending on their data, they would phone, or send mail, or send someone knocking. For their supporter database, they knew who was strong, who was weak, and they followed up.

By contrast, what did we have? My meetup got a walking list from the campaign, which was just Republican voters. Free public information. They gave us a neighborhood to walk that basically wasn't walkable - it was a bit rural, houses were far apart, dogs were running loose everywhere. And a lot of these people were diehard Bush supporters. How many independents and former democrats do we have in our ranks?

After that, we picked our own neighborhoods. We picked dense upscale areas that had friendly people. But now we had no information at all. We didn't even know who was a registered voter...but we still got better results than that first time.

The national campaign should have bought those databases, hired pollsters to see which groups we would do well in, and given us lists with scripts targeted to those people. They said they didn't know what to do with all that money...well, that's what the pros do with it.

If they couldn't, we should have formed PACs capable of handling it...I don't know what the data costs, but it would have been a better use of money than projects like the blimp. I loved the blimp, I saw it in Myrtle Beach and it was downright imposing, but I don't think it really got the job done. It was an illusion of power. In a campaign, information is the real thing.

WilliamC
02-07-2008, 08:38 AM
Obama has also raised large amounts of money via bundled donations from establishment sources.

What is the main thing he did differently than Ron Paul?

He sold out to the collectivists, that's what.

Dennis Peterson
02-07-2008, 09:17 AM
If you assume that's all there is to it, you eliminate your ability to learn better for next time.

mkpdavies
02-07-2008, 09:42 AM
What did Obama do better that Ron Paul?

Sucked DEEP on CFR/NWO/Establishment cock, thus giving him full MSM coverage rights.

End of story.

Dennis Peterson
02-07-2008, 10:07 AM
Are any of you actually reading what I posted?

It's not really about Obama, a lot of campaigns do this stuff. We didn't.

If we want to take this movement beyond this election, we need to learn how to do it right, and quit whining about how unfair it all is.

The media is not going to magically start treating us better. So either give up, or learn how to be more effective.

Kregener
02-07-2008, 10:13 AM
He is a better liar.

RonPaulalways
02-07-2008, 10:29 AM
I don't know about the first poster's comments about the Obama campaign's operations and how they compared to the Paul's, but this is how I see it:

Obama has his feet firmly in the waters of the status quo, despite his talk of "change". From that he gained a large repertoire of establishment support, and therefore momentum. Due to this background support and momentum, people felt that their investment in Obama could result in him winning, and therefore were more likely to give it to him.

Meiun
02-07-2008, 10:41 AM
bullshit. Don't dwell on this self-delusionism. The fact is that Obama is a great public speaker, his wife is a powerful speaker, rallies upwards of 20,000+.

In his messages he is VERY clear about what I call the WIIFM factor, "Whats In It For Me." He delivers clearly his positions and then states how each of them affect the average person on a daily basis.

Now, I LOVE Ron Paul, and will fight for freedom in this movement until the day I die, but Ron needs to be clearer about how his POLICY affects the average person, put it in layman's terms and speak to the benefit.

Of course, the MSM helps because they love his message and have been proponents of it since early in Iowa. MSM is why Obama is going to win the nomination, but the reason they love him is because of how CRYSTAL CLEAR his positive message is.

Ron Paul's supporters, on the other hand, are vindictive, suppressive, and rude. Why? Because they can't clearly express how the policy differences of Ron Paul will make an impact on prospective voters' daily lives.

Ron's message takes a SEEKER, not a HEARER, of the message. Ron's supporters are the ones who clearly see the disparity and problems in the Neocon message. Hearer's not only don't see the problem, they don't want to acknowledge that there may be a problem... so, they automatically turn off what isn't appealing to their ears.

Sad, but true.

Dennis Peterson
02-07-2008, 10:43 AM
Then give up. If Obama wins only because he's an establishment guy, and there's nothing better we could have done, then nothing will ever change.

Or, you can look at how other campaigns organize, and see what sort of tactics we might pick up from them. Not what message, just what tactics.

I don't see why this is such a hard concept.

Everybody on this thread wants to blame the media and the establishment and anybody besides our own mistakes. That's the attitude of continual failure.

I happen to believe that freedom really is popular. If it's popular, why didn't people vote for it? Because we screwed up. That's the only attitude that can lead to future victories.

Chester Copperpot
02-07-2008, 10:43 AM
What did Obama do better that Ron Paul?

Sucked DEEP on CFR/NWO/Establishment cock, thus giving him full MSM coverage rights.

End of story.

+1

Dennis Peterson
02-07-2008, 10:45 AM
Meiun, my last post wasn't directed at you. You made some good points. We probably do need to frame the message differently.

WilliamC
02-07-2008, 10:45 AM
If you assume that's all there is to it, you eliminate your ability to learn better for next time.

Oh I don't deny that Ron Paul's campaign should be better organized, but I honestly don't think that is the primary problem Ron Paul faces either.

Obama is on the same side as the establishment, Ron Paul isn't.

That is the significant difference.

Not mailing lists, not databases, not even charisma.

Obama is on the side of the collectivists.

Ron Paul is on the side of the individual.

That's the only reason Obama gets his message out better than Ron Paul.

Meiun
02-07-2008, 10:52 AM
An absolute WIN in Iowa or New Hampshire would've made a big difference. I saw and felt the momentum. Where we fell short is still a mystery to me.

MrZach
02-07-2008, 10:55 AM
On Tuesday, Obama dominated the independent vote. He also raised $32 million in January, mostly from small individual contributions, and he's gotten over $5 million since Tuesday. How?

Read these two links:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/obama_and_paul_the_kings_of_the_web_election.php

http://techpresident.com/blog/entry/21119/is_the_obama_campaign_a_model_for_online_politics

There are commercially-available databases, built up from data on magazine subscriptions, warranty cards, supermarket purchases, etc etc. They break populations into demographic and cultural groups. From there, they can predict peoples' attitudes, based on their group.

The Obama campaign bought the databases and used them for targeted marketing. They had tailored messages for different groups. Depending on their data, they would phone, or send mail, or send someone knocking. For their supporter database, they knew who was strong, who was weak, and they followed up.

By contrast, what did we have? My meetup got a walking list from the campaign, which was just Republican voters. Free public information. They gave us a neighborhood to walk that basically wasn't walkable - it was a bit rural, houses were far apart, dogs were running loose everywhere. And a lot of these people were diehard Bush supporters. How many independents and former democrats do we have in our ranks?

After that, we picked our own neighborhoods. We picked dense upscale areas that had friendly people. But now we had no information at all. We didn't even know who was a registered voter...but we still got better results than that first time.

The national campaign should have bought those databases, hired pollsters to see which groups we would do well in, and given us lists with scripts targeted to those people. They said they didn't know what to do with all that money...well, that's what the pros do with it.

If they couldn't, we should have formed PACs capable of handling it...I don't know what the data costs, but it would have been a better use of money than projects like the blimp. I loved the blimp, I saw it in Myrtle Beach and it was downright imposing, but I don't think it really got the job done. It was an illusion of power. In a campaign, information is the real thing.

I've been saying for a LONG time that Ron Paul needs to use targeted marketing and BUY DATABASES. The RP campaign needs to realize this is 2008, not 1978, and there are new and more sophisticated ways to campaign. *wink*

noztnac
02-07-2008, 11:04 AM
bullshit. Don't dwell on this self-delusionism. The fact is that Obama is a great public speaker, his wife is a powerful speaker, rallies upwards of 20,000+.

In his messages he is VERY clear about what I call the WIIFM factor, "Whats In It For Me." He delivers clearly his positions and then states how each of them affect the average person on a daily basis.

Now, I LOVE Ron Paul, and will fight for freedom in this movement until the day I die, but Ron needs to be clearer about how his POLICY affects the average person, put it in layman's terms and speak to the benefit.

Of course, the MSM helps because they love his message and have been proponents of it since early in Iowa. MSM is why Obama is going to win the nomination, but the reason they love him is because of how CRYSTAL CLEAR his positive message is.

Ron Paul's supporters, on the other hand, are vindictive, suppressive, and rude. Why? Because they can't clearly express how the policy differences of Ron Paul will make an impact on prospective voters' daily lives.

Ron's message takes a SEEKER, not a HEARER, of the message. Ron's supporters are the ones who clearly see the disparity and problems in the Neocon message. Hearer's not only don't see the problem, they don't want to acknowledge that there may be a problem... so, they automatically turn off what isn't appealing to their ears.

Sad, but true.

I have not heard one Obama speech that is specific on anything. I am not "crystal clear" on anything Obama plans to do. I would say he does exactly the opposite. He is vague as hell and lets people imagine what they want to hear.

noztnac
02-07-2008, 11:05 AM
The media blackout is largely responsible for Ron Paul's weak showing. What little coverage he did get in the beginning was mostly negative. Then nothing.

SolusSLX
02-07-2008, 11:24 AM
Indeed Obama did much better because he is an insider, that's a given. But it is not the only reason, there are other reasons that other campaigns are more effective, such as the use of databases and voter targeting and such. The point is that we look into using these other ideas that have some impact on effectiveness, instead of simply blaming the others' effectiveness on their being insiders.

JosephTheLibertarian
02-07-2008, 11:46 AM
If you assume that's all there is to it, you eliminate your ability to learn better for next time.

That IS all there is to it. Rememer McCain? He was and still is broke, the MSM pushed him to frontrunner position in a calculated way.

Dennis Peterson
02-07-2008, 02:41 PM
Granted the media is not on our side. All the more reason to use the most effective tools available. We didn't do that.

tamor
02-07-2008, 02:43 PM
Many many people hate Hillary -- that's how

terryhamel
02-08-2008, 07:08 AM
It's simply repetition which gets numbers. The media talks about Obama and excludes Ron. People go for what they know.

The ones that know Ron are the ones seeking it or who have been touched by those seeking it. That takes effort.

People just turn on the TV and hear Obama. That is effortless.

Mathematically, Ron's message takes far more effort and energy to reach ears than Obama's because of the delivery method. It's a sad fact most people don't care about the content of the message, only how often they hear it. The more they hear, the more it must be true. Recall Hitler said this too.

Underlying this is WHY Ron's message is not being delivered on the MSM. I refer you back to an earlier post colorfully describing who colludes with the MSM.