specsaregood
06-24-2007, 02:56 PM
http://www.bivingsreport.com/2007/ron-paul-and-distributed-online-campaigning/
Todd Zeigler of the Bivings Report (and now employed by the Fred Thompson campaign in order to manufacture a grassroots internet campaign) has a interesting writeup about how Ron Pauls campaign is different than others.
While this was an insightful remark, "But the strategy here is also very sound: by not giving supporters much to do on his own site he maximizes the amount of noise they make in other venues. It is the perfect approach for an insurgent candidate like Paul." I think he misrepresents this as a REASON for this approach rather than a useful side-effect.
The article is worth a read/comment however. Note: in someways this article could be viewed as a fishing expedition for more ideas for free from Ron Paul supporters comments to the article.
--------------This was my comment to the article------------------
I think you give the campaign too much credit though. I don’t think the use of these 3rd party tools/sites is a result of being cash-strapped or a devious plan to make noise in other venues. The massive usage of these external sites is a direct result of this campaign being a REAL grassroots campaign. The Ron Paul campaign was completely caught offguard and unprepared to handle the massive amount of internet support. His website did not have any of these features, so supporters took it upon themselves to use these tools before the campaign ever linked or promoted them. The campaign has been playing catch-up with his supporters and are letting us –the supporters– lead the way.
I think the way in which Ron Paul’s campaign is being run is indicative of his platform and philosophy. As he said in one of the debates, “The problem with washington is that we either BAN or SUBSIDIZE everything”, Ron Paul would rather let the Free Market work things out. Why should his campaign waste the time and money to compete against the external web services that his volunteers and supporters already have chosen as acceptable tools? In many ways, what you are describing is the way he sees the role of government. The government (campaign) should not be providing services that businesses or charities can do a better job of providing.
Also, I should mention I enjoyed having Todd (the author) labeling me a "Digg Gamer" for Ron Paul in this article a few months ago:http://www.bivingsreport.com/2007/ron-paul-and-digg-2008-elections-section/
Todd Zeigler of the Bivings Report (and now employed by the Fred Thompson campaign in order to manufacture a grassroots internet campaign) has a interesting writeup about how Ron Pauls campaign is different than others.
While this was an insightful remark, "But the strategy here is also very sound: by not giving supporters much to do on his own site he maximizes the amount of noise they make in other venues. It is the perfect approach for an insurgent candidate like Paul." I think he misrepresents this as a REASON for this approach rather than a useful side-effect.
The article is worth a read/comment however. Note: in someways this article could be viewed as a fishing expedition for more ideas for free from Ron Paul supporters comments to the article.
--------------This was my comment to the article------------------
I think you give the campaign too much credit though. I don’t think the use of these 3rd party tools/sites is a result of being cash-strapped or a devious plan to make noise in other venues. The massive usage of these external sites is a direct result of this campaign being a REAL grassroots campaign. The Ron Paul campaign was completely caught offguard and unprepared to handle the massive amount of internet support. His website did not have any of these features, so supporters took it upon themselves to use these tools before the campaign ever linked or promoted them. The campaign has been playing catch-up with his supporters and are letting us –the supporters– lead the way.
I think the way in which Ron Paul’s campaign is being run is indicative of his platform and philosophy. As he said in one of the debates, “The problem with washington is that we either BAN or SUBSIDIZE everything”, Ron Paul would rather let the Free Market work things out. Why should his campaign waste the time and money to compete against the external web services that his volunteers and supporters already have chosen as acceptable tools? In many ways, what you are describing is the way he sees the role of government. The government (campaign) should not be providing services that businesses or charities can do a better job of providing.
Also, I should mention I enjoyed having Todd (the author) labeling me a "Digg Gamer" for Ron Paul in this article a few months ago:http://www.bivingsreport.com/2007/ron-paul-and-digg-2008-elections-section/