foofighter20x
06-19-2007, 02:41 PM
He posted an email (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/underestimating.html) from one of his readers:
A young reader argues that the media still doesn't get it:
I'm a passionate Ron Paul supporter, as are very many people approximately my age. I don't have a landline telephone, I’m not a registered Republican and I get practically all of my news from “alternative” resources (such as your blog). People like me are not on the pollsters’ radar. As some in the political analysis field have begun to suspect, traditional polling methods are blind to technology driven structural changes in political participation/awareness. Assuming the online support translates into real efforts to get out the vote, Dr. Paul is a stealthy but real contender.
Another thing worth noting is, I belong to a Ron Paul group on Face Book, the college-networking site. The membership rate of growth has been astounding; I joined a few weeks ago when we numbered a little over 2,000; now we're at 12,000 and climbing. I can tell you with confidence that Face Book has been the central hub of the Ron Paul online Blitz with outgrowths and initiatives such as students4paul.com and Republican Caucus Storm. Here’s a small example of how serious we are:
The largest Barack Obama group on Face Book has over 300,000 members. Ron Paul’s 12,000 sound like small potatoes in comparison…at first glance. Our group just finished meeting a $12,008 fundraising goal within 5 days of its inception (the deadline was 6/30). 5 days. Obama's group of 300K also has a fundraiser and has raised $17,000 — since the founding of the group! That's well over 90 days. Publicly displayed records show that Obama's group had about 700 contributors (which is a .2% participation rate). Ron Paul's group has approx 12,300 members at present and met our target with 155 contributors (1% participation rate). The average donation was $50. Remember, we're all college students or recently graduated. Mathematically speaking, Dr. Paul’s group raised money at a rate of 20 cents per person, per day to meet its goal, while Obama’s group can only muster .06 cents (6/100ths of a cent) pp. pd. Mathematically, Ron Paul’s supporters are 333 times more passionate (in terms of dollars donated) about their candidate than Obama’s. This is because Obama's appeal is mostly superficial.
Additionally, there is a significant difference in the quality and substance of political discussion between the respective membership populations. Paul’s supporters come from all over the political landscape and are almost universally intelligent; I’ve gotten into debates over economic methodology and arguments over a priori epistemology, discussed the economic incidence of a national sales tax based on elasticity of demand, the noxious history of central banking, and speculation on what a non-interventionist foreign policy would mean for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Amazingly, there is no discernable “group-think”, only independent minds’ coming together under the banner of liberty. By contrast, Obama’s message boards are populated with regurgitations of his website boilerplate, swipes at other candidates and gushing screeds about how great he is, (admittedly, we have some of that too), how much “hope” he inspires, how he’ll “change” things, because he’s the “future” and various other platitudinal, saccharine adulations. (oh, and “buttsecks"). Also, even with his celebrity and exposure, Obama’s group is bleeding members by the day, while we’ve been growing healthily.
So in closing Andrew, I believe Ron Paul is a major Dark Horse. With 70% of the public against propping up the clusterf**k of Iraq (one of if not the top issue in America), he’s the only Republican on the same page. You and I know that all it takes is a small group of impassioned individuals to change the world.
Whatever the merits and demerits of Ron Paul's candidacy, it has revived interest in many conservative ideas in ways not seen in any other candidacies. We may be about to enter a liberal age. So it's good to see someone keeping the torch alight for the next generation.
A young reader argues that the media still doesn't get it:
I'm a passionate Ron Paul supporter, as are very many people approximately my age. I don't have a landline telephone, I’m not a registered Republican and I get practically all of my news from “alternative” resources (such as your blog). People like me are not on the pollsters’ radar. As some in the political analysis field have begun to suspect, traditional polling methods are blind to technology driven structural changes in political participation/awareness. Assuming the online support translates into real efforts to get out the vote, Dr. Paul is a stealthy but real contender.
Another thing worth noting is, I belong to a Ron Paul group on Face Book, the college-networking site. The membership rate of growth has been astounding; I joined a few weeks ago when we numbered a little over 2,000; now we're at 12,000 and climbing. I can tell you with confidence that Face Book has been the central hub of the Ron Paul online Blitz with outgrowths and initiatives such as students4paul.com and Republican Caucus Storm. Here’s a small example of how serious we are:
The largest Barack Obama group on Face Book has over 300,000 members. Ron Paul’s 12,000 sound like small potatoes in comparison…at first glance. Our group just finished meeting a $12,008 fundraising goal within 5 days of its inception (the deadline was 6/30). 5 days. Obama's group of 300K also has a fundraiser and has raised $17,000 — since the founding of the group! That's well over 90 days. Publicly displayed records show that Obama's group had about 700 contributors (which is a .2% participation rate). Ron Paul's group has approx 12,300 members at present and met our target with 155 contributors (1% participation rate). The average donation was $50. Remember, we're all college students or recently graduated. Mathematically speaking, Dr. Paul’s group raised money at a rate of 20 cents per person, per day to meet its goal, while Obama’s group can only muster .06 cents (6/100ths of a cent) pp. pd. Mathematically, Ron Paul’s supporters are 333 times more passionate (in terms of dollars donated) about their candidate than Obama’s. This is because Obama's appeal is mostly superficial.
Additionally, there is a significant difference in the quality and substance of political discussion between the respective membership populations. Paul’s supporters come from all over the political landscape and are almost universally intelligent; I’ve gotten into debates over economic methodology and arguments over a priori epistemology, discussed the economic incidence of a national sales tax based on elasticity of demand, the noxious history of central banking, and speculation on what a non-interventionist foreign policy would mean for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Amazingly, there is no discernable “group-think”, only independent minds’ coming together under the banner of liberty. By contrast, Obama’s message boards are populated with regurgitations of his website boilerplate, swipes at other candidates and gushing screeds about how great he is, (admittedly, we have some of that too), how much “hope” he inspires, how he’ll “change” things, because he’s the “future” and various other platitudinal, saccharine adulations. (oh, and “buttsecks"). Also, even with his celebrity and exposure, Obama’s group is bleeding members by the day, while we’ve been growing healthily.
So in closing Andrew, I believe Ron Paul is a major Dark Horse. With 70% of the public against propping up the clusterf**k of Iraq (one of if not the top issue in America), he’s the only Republican on the same page. You and I know that all it takes is a small group of impassioned individuals to change the world.
Whatever the merits and demerits of Ron Paul's candidacy, it has revived interest in many conservative ideas in ways not seen in any other candidacies. We may be about to enter a liberal age. So it's good to see someone keeping the torch alight for the next generation.