Twitter users can follow developments from a number of younger, top conservatives using that medium (@patrick ruffini, @mindyfinn, @davidall, etc.), but Washington Post reporter Chris Cilliza, aka "The Fix" is providing a play-by-play at @thehyperfix too. I'm also following @lukesser as well.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 30, 2009 09:03 AM | Email ThisLike, for example, watching the vote live on CSPAN right now.
I believe the Republicans are learning a lesson from the Obama campaign and have big plans for soliciting $funds next time around. They're realizing that POWER is in the E-Mail address book. :)
I hope they aren't learning that lesson. It's a myth. Those things had a tremendously tiny impact on the Presidential race. What made the difference in 2008, as in all years, is having a good candidate and message and presenting it through "broadcast" media: newspapers and television and broadcast Internet (videos, news stories, and so on). Social networking surely fattened his campaign wallet a wee bit, but not enough to make a difference in the race.
As to Steele ... I saw Luke Esser on CSPAN, he was wearing a Steele sticker. But jk, my reasons for liking Steele have almost nothing to do with his race or region. It's surely good for the GOP to have a non-white-male face from the "North," but it is much more important to have someone who has good leadership, organizational, and speaking skills. And Steele is the best I've seen so far in all those traits.
Dawson would be great-as 2nd in command. It is time that the Rs show that there ARE black conservatives out there. Why should the Ds get 90%+ of ANY group (the Rs shouldn't either, by-the-way).
Posted by: Enigmafan420 on January 30, 2009 12:26 PMOn a more serious note, Steele is an excellent choice. Good job, now stop f***ing up the economy.
A bit of an oxymoron isn't it...after recent ass-kickin. I think the Dems 'schooled' the world on 'big time politics'. Just sayin. :)
Posted by: Duffman on January 30, 2009 01:53 PMI'm surprised the GOP elected Steele, I would have thought you would have gone with the racist "Magic Negro" guy.
Yes, proving once again you do not even begin to understand the people you villify.
Dem's paved the way, GOP now playing catchup...typical.
In what way? The only nonstandard similarity I see between them is that they are both black, and no, unlike Democrats, we don't consider skin color to be of primary significance. Steele would be where he is regardless of his skin color. I hope you don't think the same could be said of Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111201084.html
In 2006 Steele and Robert Ehrlich bussed black workers in from Philadelphia to hand out fliers in inner-city Baltimore that claimed to be "Democratic Sample Ballots". Along with photos of black Democratic leaders and names of Democratic candidates for local office, the "sample ballot" had boxes checked in red bearing Steele and Ehrlich's names. The names were NOT marked as Republican candidates.
This seems like a really underhanded attempt to con inner city black voters who intended to vote Democratic. Sure, you can say that people should know the names of their candidates before going to vote. But I'd still prefer to see national party leaders show at least some smattering of campaign ethics. Steele fails that test.
No flames, please, about how some of the Democrats are no better. I'm not defending them. I'm just pointing out that Steele's past behavior is nothing to be proud of.
There's no evidence of any kind that Steele had anything to do with ordering or condoning the flyers. Let's try to stick to the facts, please.
Haha, he clearly had ulterior motives when he sent it out to everyone under the sun. He was scum and pretty much forced out of the race due to this indecent. You telling me there's not the slightest hint of racism? Why was he forced out then? Why not stay and take the party leadership by storm? =P
The only nonstandard similarity I see between them is that they are both black,
I didn't bring up his race at all, how very RNC of you to play the race card. They're both rookies, only elected position Steele has held was a Lt. Governor position. Now he's the Chairman of the RNC, a very powerful position for someone of such limited elected experience.
So Pudge, do you still think McCain holds traditional conservative positions? Or did that fly out the window with his major loss on election night?
Does it really, pudge? Chip dropped out before balloting even began. We have no idea if he would have won.
But congrats on Steele. It'll be great PR to see a black man running the party -- i.e., Rove's big tent -- and the other traits in him that are more important will hopefully help your party find its roots and strengths after Bush.
Your analysis regarding Obama's online fundraising is slightly ridiculous, however. Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions? Clearly Obama ran the better campaign, but certainly the advertising advantage and a strong, strong focus on grassroots helped as well (see: North Carolina, North Dakota, Indiana, Florida, Ohio). And it's obvious to recognize how inter-related "running a good campaign" and "having a ton of money" are.
So if you're hoping Steele won't recognize that... Well, Obama set the stage for future fundraising. Any RNC chair would recognize that. Small donations, online, and repeated. (The social networking aspect of Obama's site? Not nearly as transformative as the millions of repeat donors sub-$300.)
Posted by: John Jensen on January 30, 2009 05:02 PMHe was scum ...
I was not referring to your characterization of Saltsman -- though I see no reason to call him racist -- but your idiotic belief that Saltsman would be elected chair of the RNC.
I didn't bring up his race at all
I never said you did. I asked.
how very RNC of you to play the race card
You're lying. Again. On both counts: I did not play the race card, and neither did the RNC.
They're both rookies, only elected position Steele has held was a Lt. Governor position. Now he's the Chairman of the RNC, a very powerful position for someone of such limited elected experience.
Incorrect. So now I see your claim about copying Obama is borne out of your own ignorance.
In fact, Steele has precisely the kind of experience you expect for someone in this position. He was a county party chair and active on many campaigns. Then he became his state party's chair. Then he became the chair of GOPAC, one of the most important national Republican PACs.
You really think the fact that he has only been elected to one government position means he is a rookie, and that this shows they are copying from Obama?
I mean, honestly, you are either just really dumb about this stuff, or you're just (*cough*) trying to cover your tracks, because you WERE talking about race, and now you're just inventing some other similarity to pretend you were talking about. In fact, Steele is the first chair of the RNC to have held any elected government position in about six years. Most RNC chairs in recent years have never held elected government positions, though there have been some notable ex-governors.
So Pudge, do you still think McCain holds traditional conservative positions? Or did that fly out the window with his major loss on election night?
If you really think I would change my positions on such things because Obama won, then you really have no clue about me.
Your analysis regarding Obama's online fundraising is slightly ridiculous, however.
Howso? I notice you don't explain how my analysis is ridiculous. You seem to be arguing as though I had said online fundraising did not contribute significantly to Obama's campaign. I didn't argue that at all; my contention is that social networking did not.
... the advertising advantage and a strong, strong focus on grassroots helped as well
Sure. But very little of that had to do with online social networking. Most of it just had to do with excitement about Obama himself. We saw a huge flurry of Facebook posts, text messages, twitter thingys, and so on about Obama. But this did little more than feed into the echo chamber. To preach to the choir. Very few people were exposed to this and caused by it to donate money or do anything; much more often, people were exposed to Obama through "broadcast" media (on- and off-line) and went online to find out where they could send money or show up to volunteer, and all that can be done without social networking.
Social networking primarily serves, for big-media stuff like this, just for cheerleading purposes. For things that are not well-publicized, social networking can really help spread the word and get people involved. But that's just not the case with major party Presidential campaigns.
On the other hand, Howard Dean was aided by social networking FAR more than Obama, because Dean didn't get the media exposure (at first) that Obama did, and he needed the social networking to get his message out.
And it's obvious to recognize how inter-related "running a good campaign" and "having a ton of money" are.
Sure. But it is not easy to see how social networking significantly increases money for a major campaign.
Well, Obama set the stage for future fundraising.
Not through social networking, no. Twitter and Facebook and the rest did not contribute significantly to Obama's purse, directly or indirectly.
(The social networking aspect of Obama's site? Not nearly as transformative as the millions of repeat donors sub-$300.)
I think it's your analysis that has concluded that Twitter and Facebook were the "big deals." It was definitely online donations, repeat ones, for small amounts.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 30, 2009 06:55 PMNot to mention his ILLEGAL donors no one bothered (pardon my incredulous snort) to notice or investigate.
Search: "Obama illegal donors" ... produces 3,860,000 hits.
Hope!
Change!
2010!
I concluded no such thing.
You are apparently confusing "social networking" with "online donations." They are not the same thing. Twitter and Facebook had no major impact on his online donations, or anything else in his campaign.
Pretty sure we agree on that. Here's what I said:
(The social networking aspect of Obama's site? Not nearly as transformative as the millions of repeat donors sub-$300.)
I am agreeing that the online donations were the big deal. The social networking aspects? I doubt it made a large impact. This would be the takeaway from Obama's online strategy -- as I said earlier: Small donations, online, and repeated.
I think we both interpreted Duffman's comments differently. He said there's power in the e-mail address book. It sounds like you thought he was discussing social networks, I thought he was talking about Obama's mailing list and being able to raise millions with a few emails from David Plouffe.
The MyBO site itself may not have sealed the campaign but it did connect a lot of people who may not otherwise volunteer with the campaign.
Obama's website in the general may not have changed the game. But it did for the primary. Obama beat Clinton because he had a strong online donation base, plain and simple. She had all the big money donors. But donations weren't a big a priority for McCain in the general, of course, since he was publicly funded.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 30, 2009 11:55 PMThey make the rules for us, but not them.
Jezzzz
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 31, 2009 06:42 AMJoe Biden said it is patriotic to pay your taxes. But these high ranking Democrats haven't been paying their taxes...
But don't question their patriotism!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 31, 2009 06:58 AMMaybe I am misreading your comment, but it sounded to me like you were saying that I was saying that the social networking had a significant impact.
I think we both interpreted Duffman's comments differently.
I was responding to the explicit context in which he wrote it, which was about Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.