website statistics

Archive for May, 2007

YouChoose… To Watch Hillary?

This past weekend, Jeff Jarvis pointed out that Hillary Clinton’s entry for the YouTube YouChoose Spotlight — help choose the campaign theme song! — has been, by no small margin, the most successful entrant. Here’s a chart generated by techPresident/TubeMogul:

techPresident, TubeMogul and PrezVid bring you this chart

[Remember: These are cumulative figures; people are not still watching past Spotlights in great numbers.]

My guess in April was that Romney was lucky to go first, but looking at the whole picture (on techPresident you can drag the scroll bar) it seems that yes, Romney did very well, but Edwards did slightly better (saying something about both their online support). Meanwhile, McCain and Kucinich got some lift but not much (saying something about both their lack thereof).

How many videos is that specifically, and how many views for each? Here’s a handy guide, presented in order of candidate particpation (numbers were accurate as of Tuesday morning):


Romney
441,504
35,594
2,615
11,754

Edwards
371,970
6,412

McCain
301,113
10,871
1,137
1,179

Kucinich
294,352
1,541
511
831

Hunter
292,253

Hillary
546,691
128,632

Huckabee
92,505

It’s no surprise that the candidate’s follow-up videos were much less-viewed than the originial, but Hillary’s sequel did much better than any of her rivals. And yet her first YouChoose video received just 18 responses, far behind the 71 responses to Romney.

Meanwhile, her actual YouTube account is entirely locked down. Where most other candidates list friends, subscribers and some even their own subscriptions, Hillary’s YouTube account has none of these: the communication is strictly one-way.

Yet her subscribers number about 3,470, second only to Obama’s approximate 5,940 (and he hasn’t participated in the YouChoose Spotlight yet). This is interesting — because it challenges the arguments made by Dana Boyd at this year’s Personal Democracy Forum that the “digital handshake” — candidate interactivity and reciprocity — is necessary for an effective online campaign.

These big numbers probably represent curiosity more than anything; and assuming that YouTube’s viewership is less politically charged than the political blogosphere, it helps to have an early presence with casual voters. She needs to keep them. After all, the other big online news for Hillary in this month’s Daily Kos straw poll was that her netroots support doubled: from 3% to 6%.

Note to Paulites: Your man trails Giuliani by ~1400 to ~1100 subscribers. Better get on that!

Update: Blog P.I. gets results! As of Thursday night, Ron has 1334 while Rudy is mired at 1452.

The Colbert Nation vs. the Ron Paul Machine or: Jimbo Wales is Blog P.I.’s Alpha Dog of the Week

Last week Stephen Colbert hosted not Ron Paul — who was on Bill Maher — but Wikipedia’s own BDFL Jimbo Wales (apologies for the ugly Comedy Central player; another prediction dashed):

Wales was a good sport about the high-profile headaches Colbert has caused, specifically for the Wikipedians maintaining the Elephant and Reality entries (both of which are still semi-protected). He was so even as Colbert not-so-subtly encouraged readers to vandalize several new pages (Oxygen, Einstein; both protected) and the entire Spanish-language edition (you could say they’ve been put on notice).

Simultaneously overtly and covertly (the show is genius à la South Park) Colbert encouraged his Nation to visit the appropriate Wikipedia pages and assert that “Librarians are hiding something.” Of course, tonight of all nights, site administrators would be watching:

Wikipedia admins prepare for Colbert Nation onslaught

Mere seconds, of course. But this time, instead of just blanking and bolting, they’ve stuck around to argue in the Talk pages, (thanks to Not Paul Begala for pointing this out):

Colbert Nation chides Wikipedia editors in Wikipedia discussion pages

Wow: Going into a Wikipedia discussion page and chiding a Wikipedia editor for taking the site policies seriously is like, well, kind of like if Wales had started telling Colbert how to do his job.

Helgers7, a legitimate Wikipedian, is clearly right (as is Colbert) that one should be skeptical about the contents of any random Wikipedia entry. And yet amusing as the whole Colbert game may be, vandalizing the site doesn’t get that point across constructively — editing with integrity does. Helgen7 gets this; Sonic Hog (whom we’ll meet in a moment) is wasting his time.

Dedicated Wikipedia trolls are not that uncommon and, for good reason, Wikipedians try not to talk about them. In late 2006 administrators fought back an attempt to delete all entries related to blogs, LAist’s Tony Pierce in particular. But those vandals tend to be unregistered or IP abusers (i.e. sock puppets), whereas the aforementioned apprehended vandal/Sega aficionado Sonic Hog has actually been on the site since December 2005. Perhaps contsituting a new classification of Internet troll, Sonic Hog appears to be a resident troll of Wikipedia.

This readiness to engage in manipulative behavior online also reminds me more than a little of the Ron Paul Machine, that several thousand-strong cohort of libertarians, paleos, lefty trolls and Internet pranksters.

Surely Colbert still has the better-organized online army, and while he uses his basic cable pulpit knowingly, the Ronbots aren’t getting such explicit directions from the Paul campaign. They know to do what Colbert has to ask his fans to do: freep polls.

And what about the Wikipedia entry for Ron Paul? Since May 16, the discussion page runs to more than 24,000 words. I have to cut this off somewhere, and 24,000 is reason enough.

In conclusion, never underestimate the power of a small group of Internet users to change the results of any online power struggle. I think this was best summarized by one Digg user who has become something of a dedicated defender/reverse troll, frequently digging anti-Paul stories (including one Blog P.I. post). 1337 FTFA:

Digg's COINTELPROagent riffs on the Paulbots

There’s something to be said about those groups who can keep a good humor about themselves while also understanding where to draw the line. In that spirit, let’s return to the Wikipedia discussion pages, where Blog P.I.’s favorite Colbertian gets pwned:

Colbert Nation accuses Wikipedia editors of hiding something

In sum, it’s worth reminding oneself what and what not to take seriously. That goes double for fans of Stephen Colbert and Ron Paul.

Accept No Substitutes?

Having recently praised the GOP Bloggers/Matt Margolis online poll and more recently criticized the intense-if-undersized group of Ron Paul supporters — proving well enough that activists can imitate astroturfers, even if they’re more legitimate manipulators — an update is warranted.

So while it’s nothing like guessing Time’s Person of the Year, my expectation has born out that, upon Ron Paul’s first inclusion in the GOP Bloggers Straw Poll, this would count as another online victory for the Ronbots:

Ron Paul wins GOP Bloggers straw poll

Let us not take that poll result seriously. Rather, let us find out a bit about the people who produced that result.

Don’t forget, the GOP Bloggers poll includes a few useful crosstabs, and we horse-race journo junkies thrive on crosstabs. Most importantly, each poll participant is asked first to rate their favored candidate and then to record who else from the field would be acceptable nominees if their man fell short. Neither major party is about to go for Instant Runoff Voting, but the same concept shapes the invisible primary, and this poll gives insight into that thought process.

So let’s compare the Ron Paul Machine against the online proponents of Mitt Romney and John McCain, the two candidates racing to catch up with Giuliani, a feat Paul’s supporters contend is not an impossibility for their elderly Texas goldbug with an M.D. We will count supporters of Giuliani, F. Thompson and Gingrich as well, just because.

First up, acceptablity ratings for supporters of the candidate whose alleged “bots” are most often compared to Paul’s:

GOP Bloggers first choice: Romney

Romney’s supporters find Paul most unacceptable — putting them firmly in the mainstream camp — and however unenthusiastically, could accept F. Thompson and to a lesser degree, Huckabee (!) and Hunter (!!). With Giuliani and Gingrich it’s nearly even.

Next, the only other anti-anti-anti-torture Republican:

GOP Bloggers first choice: McCain

McCain supporters find Giuliani and F. Thompson acceptable. Paul is not the least-favored candidate; Tancredo and Gilmore are. Tancredo makes sense on the level of issues — they are surely on opposite sides of the current immigration debate. As for Gilmore, well, perhaps of those tagged “Rudy McRomney,” it’s the “Mc” fans who may have taken the greatest offense.

And here is Paul’s ostensible nemesis, the guy whose base yours all belongs to, whose moderate (and even libertarian) backers are probably in ur base killing your doodz right this very minute:

GOP Bloggers first choice: Giuliani

Giuliani supporters find the most candidates acceptable*, taking extreme exceptions only to Paul, T. Thompson and comparatively so to McCain, while ranking F. Thompson and Romney as highly acceptable. That Giuliani supporters are rating Paul lowest is rather dog-bites-man, but worth pointing out.

The man who isn’t (yet) there:

GOP Bloggers first choice: Fred Thompson

*Among delcared candidates, that is. Thompson supporters, so far, actually rate the most candidates acceptable: six vs. five. Only Paul and McCain earn their sincere disregard; T. Thompson, Gilmore and Brownback, as usual, can take a hike.

Now, let’s give Gingrich his due, because otherwise it would be Duncan Hunter, and even though Hunter is declared where Gingrich is not, Gingrich increasingly says he will announce (which would prove this prediction wrong) — and ultimately, Gingrich’s name ID with GOP primary voters would turn Romney green (let alone Duncan Hunter):

GOP Bloggers first choice: Gingrich

Gingrich supporters neatly line up with F. Thompson backers, both showing telltale signs of the “almost anyone else will do” sentiment, and approving of precisely the same candidates. Sounds to me like their supporters’ combined votes are a good representation of engaged but uncommitted online GOP Internet users.

Now, without the Beltway media and MSM churning, I wouldn’t have even included McCain: his fans number less than 100 (at the time of publication) out of nearly 11K recorded. While Paul, F. Thompson and Romney have appear to have formidable online bases, and Giuliani and Gingrich have their fans, the rest received too few votes to count in this post. Apologies again to Hunter and to Huckabee fans, who at least were not beaten by “(none).”

Still, the most interesting finding of all (besides FDT’s across-the-board acceptability) is this:

GOP Bloggers first choice: Paul

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ron Paul supporters like nobody less than Giuliani — for whom most observers called that debate based on his response to Paul’s “blowback” comments, even as the Ronbots contended that the very same exchange proved Ron Paul the obvious winner.

Unlike supporters of the realistic (and popular, arguably faddish and maybe unrealistic) candidates, Ron Paul supporters apparently would not vote for any other GOP candidate in the Republican primary — though intriguingly, a minority would consider Tancredo.

I submit this as fair evidence that Ron Paul’s online base of support is not drawn from actual Republican party primary voters. Activists for every other candidate have their fallbacks, nemeses and frenemies, but no other group is so far outside the mainstream as the activists for Ron Paul.

Maybe Ron Paul is the GOP vanguard. More likely, his support measures something besides the current Republican mood.

Inside the Ron Paul Machine II: On the Assembly Line

In yesterday’s installment, I demonstrated how it took Ron Paul’s supporters a few hours to start making an impact on the May GOP Bloggers straw poll — fair evidence, I think, that his supporters are not quite as legion, or representative, as they’d have everyone (not least themselves) believe.

So where are they meeting to plan their onslaught? A few days back, one frustrated Digg user identified ten such sites, noting that Paul’s Diggers were organizing in such a way that violates Digg’s Terms of Service (thereby qualifying Paul’s support as “manufactured,” not that I expect it to forestall complaints in the comment section).

One site he didn’t count was the Congressman Ron Paul for President 2008 group at Facebook, but it too qualifies as the planning site for yet another [potenti] TOS violation. Specifically, the Wall — a constantly updated comment stream — for this group is a veritable assembly line of votes for online polls testing the Republican field.

And of course their latest obsession is the aforementioned GOP Bloggers poll. I would say don’t miss this comment, but alas, it’s since been deleted:

Ron Paul Facebook user requests script to game GOP Bloggers poll

To be fair, two subsequent Facebookers recoiled in horror, (correctly) concerned that someone such as yours truly would find it, and the commenter agreed to remove it (note: this is from the archive, hence the wideness):

Ron Paul Facebook users fear bad press

Telling that this Paul supporter’s first instinct was to suspect that the poll was rigged, isn’t it?

In any case, I’m sure this won’t result in too much bad press. Not this instance, at any rate. But this is just one Ron Paul forum, and one that merely requires Facebook membership to view. And even here, Paul’s supporters are well aware that poll hosts will view their organized effort as illegitimate:

Ron Paul Facebook user warns against being identified by referring IP

What’s sad about this is a) Paul’s supporters are not going out and trying to convert more supporters through reason and debate, and b) they have no sense of humor. First they try to overwhelm others’ communities, and retaliate with subsequent e-mail swarms when their man gets knocked.

So far at least, it’s a hollow movement. The Paul Machine certainly compares unfavorably with, say, the Deaniacs of 2003. They got organized to blog and MeetUp and demonstrate, rather than merely agitate. Ron Paul does have honest supporters at Reason’s Hit and Run and a few other libertarian blogs, but his movement fares badly in comparison with Mitt Romney’s online volunteers as well. Sure, the so-called Romneybots can be annoying at times, but at least they’re reaching out to other conservative constituencies and trying to engage the uncommitted. Not to mention, I’m sure their ranks are filled out by, you know, actual Republicans.

Meanwhile, the assembly line rolls on, only slightly less amusing than Lucy and Ethel’s:

Ron Paul Facebook users keep up the swarm

A lot has changed, indeed. For instance, he has now sailed past Romney and is within 900 votes of Fred Thompson. Truly, it will be a stunning victory. But history will probably mark this as the biggest contest Ron Paul won in the 2008 race.

P.S. This poll, however, will likely go down as Paul’s most unanimous victory.

Inside the Ron Paul Machine I: Slow But Steady Wins the Race?

Earlier today, the GOP Bloggers GOP Straw Poll for May went live. Yes, it’s a little late, but it still beats the Pajamas Media poll, especially for including Candidate Acceptability, sorting by voters’ inbound link and offering lefty trolls a chance to identify themselves. (It’s modeled after the old Ruffini poll, which explains a lot.) I still think unscientific web polls should be taken with a pinch of salt, but if you’re going to offer one, this is the way to do it.

In recent polls, Gingrich and Giuliani duked it out for the lead for a few months, only to be decisively overtaken once Fred Thompson was added to the mix. Now for the first time, Ron Paul is being tested against the field. Gee, what do you think will happen?

Here’s what the top tier looked like early this afternoon, after the first thousand or so votes (when I was still on my PC at work):

GOP Bloggers May Straw Poll (before)

And here’s what it looks like this evening, about 9 hours later (from my temporary iBook):

GOP Bloggers May Straw Poll (after)

The Ron Paul online effort may be effective, but it does take them a few hours to get organized. And they still face an uphill fight against Fred Thompson’s (presumably more organic) fanbase. But organized they are, so don’t count them out yet.

For my next post: the Ron Paul Machine at work.

Playing Hard to Get in Touch With

Sometime after I posted about my frustrations with Giuliani’s half-hearted Internet campaign, I realized the above headline is the one I should have used. Luckily, a friend and fellow web-watcher brought it to my attention that I’d missed one other example of the campaign’s mixed signals:

Rudy Giuliani MySpace account

The official Giuliani MySpace profile can be found on MySpace’s 2008-themed Impact Channel. But if you want to see the full Giuliani profile, you’ll have to send a request and wait until they get around to adding you.

Except here’s the catch: They won’t add you. I just sent a friend request a little while ago, but my friend first attempted some weeks ago. Still nothing. Not to mention, every other listed candidate is putting their MySpace page to use.

Only Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo seem to have decided against having a presence on MySpace (or just haven’t got around to it yet), and so they are not among the listed. [Update: Nope, they're here and here, respectively. Even if the Impact Channel rotates the featured candidates, it's still ridiculous they show all but two at any given time.]

Giuliani’s folks can’t seem to decide whether they’re going to use this medium or not. And maybe I’m stretching the analogy too far, but isn’t equivocation what got Rudy in trouble in that first debate?

At Least it Pays the Bills

In today’s Politico, analyst Roger Simon throws water on the media-invented boomlet for potential presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg. He makes a few smart observations, the best of which explains why self-funding his campaign may actually be an impediment to building a base of support:

[W]hen voters give you money, they often protect their investment by voting for you. When you finance your own campaign, you don’t build that base of support.

And while I tend to agree with the overall point of his column — Bloomberg is too smart to blow a billion dollars on a hopeless candidacy — it does contain this bit of unmitigated silliness:

We have elected people from all kinds of professions to the presidency. George Washington was a surveyor, Abraham Lincoln was a rail-splitter, Andrew Johnson was a tailor, Harry Truman was a haberdasher, Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer and Ronald Reagan was an actor. But we have never elected a mayor.

Say what? Simon deliberately cites early, pre-political vocations by these former presidents and, tongue presumably in cheek, compares them favorably to Bloomberg’s current place of employment, Manhattan’s City Hall. Except Washington also was a wartime general, Lincoln was a lawyer and member of the House, Johnson was a member of the House, Senate and a governor before becoming Vice President, Truman was a farmer, judge and senator, and both Carter and Reagan were both governors.

Simon is correct that a mayor has never been elected president, though that is the highest public office attained by Giuliani as well. Citing Bloomberg’s pre-political career, as a businessman, would keep the symmetry, although it surely doesn’t sound as goofy as “rail-splitter” or “haberdasher.”

On the other hand, it would put Bloomberg in the company of Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. Not exactly exalted company — which might have been a slightly better argument, without the contrived goofiness of reducing presidential employment histories to caricatures.

Playing Hard to Get

As I wrote a couple months ago, I quite like the Rudy Giuliani campaign websiteit’s much better than, say, the John McCain official site. In particular, they got a couple things very right about providing tools for supporters. However, two other aspects of the web operation have been bothering me.

First, and most importantly, I can’t seem to get on their e-mail list. When you visit their site, the first thing you’ll usually see is a splash page. This doesn’t thrill me, but I can accept its utility for… yes, building an e-mail list. But I have filled this form out at least three times in recent weeks, to no avail:

Rudy Giuliani e-mail sign-up form

I have tried signing up from different computers in different locations, entering addresses from the District, Arlington and Oregon. Nada, zip, zilch. What gives? Something is up with the database software managing their contact information, I presume. I’ve been going about signing up for e-mails from the Big Six and some of the others, but so far only the Giuliani campaign has kept me in the dark.

This reminds me a bit of my trouble getting approved for McCainSpace. I was eventually added, on the third try, but it’s not worth the trouble in any case.

And speaking of ill-implemented innovations, what pray tell, is going on with Giuliani’s Twitter account?

Rudy Giuliani Twitter account

I tried to add Giuliani as a Twitter friend several weeks ago, but nothing has changed. Moreover, it seems odd to be on Twitter but keep the updates private. I tried adding Giuliani again this past weekend, only to be informed that I had already submitted the request.

I’m guessing the campaign has a test post or two on Twitter, but are keeping it on hold until they’re ready to start using it. Compare with Mitt Romney, whose camp has either not yet claimed his account (Twitter has reserved the 2008 candidates’ names for them) or has simply decided it isn’t worth the effort. If the Giuliani campaign has in fact decided against Twittering, that’s perfectly fine, but quit teasing!

From a technical standpoint, these are obviously separate issues, but potential supporters who want to interact with the Giuliani campaign online are still getting the same mixed message.

Update: Blog P.I., with an an assist by techPresident, gets results! Or perhaps the third time really is a charm:

Dear William,

Welcome to the Team Rudy weekly wrap up email. This email will give you a snap shot of what Rudy’s been doing in the past week and all of the latest news from the campaign. I hope you enjoy it.

Sincerely,
DuHaime
Michael DuHaime
Campaign Manager
Rudy Giluiani Presidential Committee

“Sincerely, Duhaime”? Sort of like Morrissey or Liberace with the one-name moniker that’s a last name? If so, intriguing: first names are much more common (Beck, Madonna, Oprah, Cher, Penn, Teller).

Actually, I think what’s more likely is Gmail couldn’t load a signature image so displayed meta information instead. Just guessing, though. Maybe it’s more like a Van Halen-type thing.

The Good Fight: On The Google Bombing Campaign of 2008

When it comes to monkeying around with Google search results, MyDD is the undisputed leader in the political blogosphere. In a comment thread there yesterday, the appropriately-monikered Monkey in Chief is already thinking ahead to the bombing campaign of 2008:

Considering that there is a lag before Google’s index will be updated, it’s likely prudent to start the 2008 Presidential Gooblebomb once the Republican nominee is known.

I wonder if an early round targeted at all the candidates (except maybe Ron Paul should link to sites what emphasize his opposition to the war) wouldn’t be of value. The only downside to starting early is that it gives the other side more time to respond.

An advantage of an early start is that Google may be getting tired of having their algorithm gamed and reduce the influence of a sudden spike of links. In this case, starting early would be an advantage.

As a defensive measure, we should reverse good Googlebomb the Democratic nominee with links to official and favorable websites once the Democratic nominee is known.

These are questions the underdog online Republican activists should be asking themselves as well. The Google wars rage on, and as every strategist knows, fighting the last campaign is rarely enough.

The Chief is correct about Google’s displeasure with overt efforts to “optimize” its search engine: Google bombs for “miserable failure” (George W. Bush), “waffles” (John Kerry) and “greatest living American” (Stephen Colbert) have all been defused, though news coverage of each remains.

So a gradual effort would make sense. But which sites do you choose? Will the strategic decisions of mid-2007 hold up in late 2008? Might Google step in and make an editorial judgment again anyway?

That’s why I’m intrigued by the reverse-Google bomb; not only is a preventive strategy wise, I presume the Oracle of Mountain View is unlikely to step in and demote a positive website — so the chances of the effort being wasted are much lower. Even if one goes the negative route, it still makes sense to match search terms with a website that actually contains those terms. The aforementioned trio of Google bombs were easy to identify because they were so obviously contrived. That said, an ongoing effort to associate John McCain’s name with negative coverage appears to be failing, at least so far.

Websites to avoid include the candidate’s Wikipedia entry and official site, which are already likely to be near the top. News stories are also risky, as a news organization could move the location of a particular story at any time, for any reason, without warning.

So what kind of site should the positive-bombers select? Here’s an idea: The participants should set up a brand new advocacy blog for that candidate, to which they can link the candidate’s name when blogging at their own sites. Not only will the new entry rise to the top, but if the blog is well-maintained, it will generate multiple entries that will rise to the top of the results as well.

Most SEO guides advise that the best recipe for success is to create content that people want to click on, link to and read. That should apply here, too. Don’t muck up the results — create the results you want people to find.

The Google wars probably will never end. But this is one way to neutralize the damage.

George W. Bush Fears Bill Clinton

The headline is meant to catch your attention — but seriously, 42 and his conduct in the White House explains more about how 43 runs the White House than any other force in all of modern history and politics. Rove admires Clinton’s skill and has studied the mistakes Clinton made.

Obviously, one thing that consumed Clinton at all times was investigations. Just like this administration, they fought them off, stalled and blamed them on partisan witch hunts. The one that got them was the independent prosecutor, Ken Starr.

Doesn’t it make sense that Bush, who’s already been burnt by a special prosecutor named Patrick Fitzgerald, would want to keep in place an Attorney General who actually tried to get a sick man to overrule his acting AG?

Talk about loyalty. With Gonzales at the helm, why would anyone worry about Justice investigating the White House? But, an independent AG — and who knows what the White House may be able to get through this Senate now — might appoint a special prosecutor to deal with one of the 100 or so scandals that afflict this administration. And toss aside the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation for the moment as a necessary pain to help distract the media from the scandal until the 2004 election was over.

A Senate no-confidence ote might be enough to bring down Gonzo if there are 65-plus votes, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the White House begs their allies in the Senate to save them on this one.

George W. Bush does, after all, fear Bill Clinton’s fate.

5/20 update:

A footnote: Speculation in Washington legal circles is that President Bush has been reluctant to get rid of Gonzales for fear that Senate Democrats would not confirm his successor without a commitment to name a special prosecutor in the U.S. attorneys case.

Thanks for making me look smart, Bob.