website statistics

Archive for the 'Ron Paul' Category

Attention Ron Paul Supporters: Patrick Ruffini is Not Your Friend!

Ron Paul’s fan base shares something thing in common with supporters of previous long shot candidates: a starry-eyed belief that their candidate is just on the brink of breaking through into the popular consciousness, ready to make the leap to becoming a contender.

Thanks to ornery Texans like Ross Perot and anti-war doctors like Howard Dean, I can see why Paul’s supporters might think he has a chance. And nobody’s been feeding that perception more than Patrick Ruffini.

As he wrote about you in late August:

Ron Paul Will Place Second at Ames … You heard it here first.

Last night, after the results came in, it was:

Also, Ron Paul finished fifth.

And it’s not the first time he’s burned you like this. On the first of July, he wrote:

My surprise prediction on the Republican side: Ron Paul will raise at least $4 million.

But later that week it was:

Ron Paul’s Fundraising Disappoints

Sorry, Paulbots — Ruffini isn’t doing you any favors. His projections might have made you feel good over the past month or so, but the hangover is worse. Heck, last night Paul finished behind Tancredo — with Tommy Thompson nipping at his heels. What happened? Maybe your enthusiasm raised expectations a little too much, and maybe Ruffini helped set those expectations among Washington insiders.

As for Ruffini, hey, he’s just making the kind of bold predictions that Beltway pundits love: You’re a genius if you’re right, and no one remembers if you’re wrong. The problem for you Paul supporters is that he’s been doing it at your expense.

Of course, I’m not your friend either (disclosure), so make of this what you will.

Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood II: CFRed and the Globalist Conspiracy

Earlier this month, Blog P.I. tracked a multi-monikered Internet troll whose sole enjoyment in life appears to derive from supplying blog comment sections with underwhelming arguments against Fred Thompson (disclosure).

I promised then to look a little closer at the identity of this dedicated anti-Fredhead, and while I later thought I had thought the better of it, Christopher Caldwell’s piece in the most recent New York Times Magazine afforded me the opportunity to re-rethink that decision.

And so this post exists… in three interminable parts. I don’t often use the below-the-fold feature on WordPress, but this post won’t appeal to everyone, and I don’t want it to get in everyone’s way. But if you’re game, then follow me…

Continue reading ‘Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood II: CFRed and the Globalist Conspiracy’

Has the Ron Paul Machine Given Up on Digg?

Over the past couple weeks, I’ve noticed fewer and fewer Ron Paul-related stories on the front page of Digg. Maybe Kevin Rose had the monkeys tweak the algorithm a little more? Nah, more likely they were out drinking beers.

To test my anecdotal observation that the Paulite obsession with Digg had subsided, I searched the site for “Paul” — “Ron Paul” is barely possible; Digg’s search function has never recovered from an “upgrade” from earlier this year — going back one week’s time.

Sure enough, just two stories involving Ron Paul had been made “popular” — with enough Diggs and comments to warrant front-paging — in the past week. As of 11:00 p.m. EDT, at 12 stories per page, by my count that’s 204 stories mentioning “Paul” (though some, admittedly, were about Paul Reubens’ latest comeback) that went absolutely nowhere.

The second-most popular was a Wired feature story about “how a fringe politician took over the web,” with 833 diggs. As if to prove the point, the only other popular story was about the congressman’s “Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act,” with some 1749 diggs.

And that was last Thursday. Compared to the cornucopia of Ron Paul stories following his breakout second debate, this is nothing. Where has the movement gone?

Fear not: the Paulites haven’t gone away, they’ve only shifted their focus. But the Paul Machine never really loved Digg. You could say they never really dugg it. Their participation was always contingent on making a point, and whether it’s done Paul any good or not, trust me, it has been duly noted.

Meantime, I’ll be digging yet another story about the iPhone.

Note: Standard FDT disclosure; as usual, all observations are my own.

P.S. AOAMO? Ugh. That’ll never work.

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.

Games Ron Paul Supporters Play

At what point does the online support for libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul do his candidacy more harm than good? That is, when does his obviously devoted online fan base start to turn off uncommitted voters, rather than provide an example to follow? I think we might just be getting to that point.

In few communities has the outsize influence of the Ronbots (borrowing more from “Romneybot” than “Rahmbot” here) been felt more than fast-rising social news website Digg. Digg is a prize target for manipulators — getting listed on the front page all but guarantees a tidal wave of traffic headed toward the submitted link. After repeated revisions to the algorithm, it apparently remains no less vulnerable.

Paul supporters have been moving stories onto the front page for a couple weeks now, and while I found it curious and somewhat amusing, Diggers are quirky and I didn’t find it illegitimate or overly distracting — that is, until this morning.

Check out the top five stories, as of about 7:30 Eastern time:

Ron Paul's outsize Digg support

Those top three are not quite all the same story, but they are certainly variations on a theme. Note also the separation in digg totals with the next two, non-Paul submissions. And considering Paul’s negligible support in meatspace, one gets the distinct impression that the system has been gamed.

Others have suggested that his online support is manufactured. I don’t think that’s the case. Click through the headlines (here, here and here), take a look at the comments and the digging (voting) histories of the users submitting them (here, here and here). They may all be acting in concert, but there’s no reason to believe these are not legitimate members — two of the three submitters signed up last summer.

But even if they are acting sincerely, this is simply not what the vast majority of users go to to Digg for. The website is at its best when it provides variety. Forerunner Slashdot has codified this as “The Omelette,” but Digg manages to create this organically. Most of the time.

To cherry pick just one comment out of the third story, here is user 9Digits throwing up his hands:

I’m an anti-war Republican, and I still find your candidate’s campaign to be goddamn annoying. If these are the type of supporters he’s got, there’s not a chance in hell I’ll vote for him.

This follows the Ronbots’ success in compelling ABC News to add their candidate to an online poll. That doesn’t bother me so much, except as ABC knew well, the poll was about to be freeped. But it also follows Charles Johnson’s decision to delist Paul from his online poll at Little Green Footballs. To whatever degree ABC News has an obligation to create a level playing field, even one that they know will be gamed, Johnson has less of one.

And yet that still says more about the general uselessness of online polls than about Paul’s supporters. Is the backlash unfair? Perhaps it would be, if they didn’t seem so prone to the same kind of vitriol that sometimes still causes trouble for their counterparts on the left.

If Paul’s supporters are willing to take the effort to game online communities not already predisposed to isolationist libertarianism they should be willing to accept the consequences. That certainly means their own ostracism — but it also risks creating the impression that Paul’s support is manufactured. And especially in politics, people don’t like being played.