Obama Had 13 Million E-mail Addresses and Raised Half a Billion Dollars Online

Jose Antonio Vargas breaks down some monumental numbers.

13 million e-mail addresses. 

$500 million raised online.

6.5 million donations from 3 million donors with an average donation of $80.

3.2 million Facebook friends (to John McCain's 600,000).

2 million My.BarackObama.com profiles created.

One million participants in Obama's cell phone text messaging program -- this is less than the 6-8 million rumored but still massive.

400,000 volunteer blog posts written. 200,000 volunteer events created. 35,000 local and affinity groups created by supporters.

Three million volunteer phone calls made in the last four days of the election through the website without supporters having to step into a campaign headquarters.

The campaign had a full time chief technology officer in addition to a new media director. They had a full time analytics team whose job was to do nothing else but monitor site data.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

And people that realized they needed to do more...

The web resources for Obama were amazing. A supporter could click from the Obama informational website to a donation button, drop a couple of bucks, and then be led right to an action website where they could decide what kind of action they would be willing to particpate in, then enter their location information, and a list of 25 neighbors would be populated who were either independents or infrequent Democratic voters. Literally people in the same street or block. Based on the chosen contact method, a home volunteer could either call or door-knock these people. Once these people had been contacted and their responses had been uploaded, the volunteer could retrieve another 25 names.

But as technologically responsive as the campaign was to the possible, I think it really came down to a Democratic base who recognized that just voting was not going to be enough, and they were ripe for this kind of activism.

In the future, the technological part will be easy, and worth doing in any case, but just because you build it, doesn't mean they will come.

Who knows if the younger voters will hold, but if they do, 66% of those voters under 30 supported Obama, while McCain won those over 65 with 53%. Who's more comfortable with the internet?

If the internet represents the future of politics, and youth represents the future of the internet, then Republicans need to find a way to attract younger voters.

At this moment in time, the only way I see that happening, short of a total reconstruction of the Republican party, is a massive failure of the Democrats, but even that will take a minimum of eight to twelve years. And for all our sakes, I hope this is not the way goes. It's certainly not worth having 8 years of failure just to get the same old R's in power again.

So you may want to work on reconstructing the party.

Palin and Jindal are SoCons, of a very different sort, but identical on issues. Republicans need to find a way to offer a candidate that is not a SoCon, that does not pander to the SoCon base, but still garners SoCon votes. One suggestion is David Petraeus, who, unless Obama promotes him the Joint Chiefs(or maybe NATO Command) should be available for a run 2012 or 2016 at the latest. SoCons love them some war hero, and so do a lot of Americans. If he rides the middle on social issues, who cares, it's not like they ever change anyway. If they did, what would SoCons run on? Of course Petraeus is a blank slate right now, and he may not even have opinions on a lot of this stuff, because, well, a lot of it is petty and insignificant, and he's a pretty busy guy.

A fiscal conservative (but not supply-side) war hero with centrist views on social issues may be just what the Republican party needs to rebuild itself into something that doesn't outright abandon the SoCons but also doesn't make the center run away, and might attract some younger voters.

 

 

Staggering Numbers...But the margin of victory was only 8 Mil

Those technology numbers are staggering to say the least. However, with regard to impact, something doesn't quite add up.

It can't be denied that those numbers measure the increased energy. I mean really, all those kos and politico posts. Those freakin people were like the Borg. They kept getting stronger and stronger feeding on themselves.

Impact of technology on "choice". I don't see that in the margin of victory. I see jobs, race, collapse of the financial sector, the war, and the downright hatred of president bush as the 8 million difference.

And of course me being a downright conspiracy theorist...i swear republican money went into Bahrock Stars campaign in the beginning so that hillary could be beaten back. Whether that came in over the internet or not well, i guess we'll never know.

keep denying the truth and we will fail

 Keep blaming the loss to the economy and we will fail for the next 8 years. Of course the economy had a major impact, but I'm sure he would have won anyway. People, specially young people, are plainly sick and tired of negative politics, social conservatives forcing their religious views on everybody, pro versus anti-american rhetoric, and an illegal war that had no connection to 9/11. And while you may think that 7%  in the popular vote is not a large margin, consider this: it is the largest margin in 20 years, and when you exclude white men over 30, we are well into double digit margins --- a majority only with white men will never again be enough to win an election when the other groups are overwhelmingly favoring the other candidate. And all this happened with a black man whose last name sounds like Osama, whose middle name is Hussein, and whose father is a muslim from Kenya. If somebody would have told me this would be possible even 6 years ago, I would have dismiss it. Same man, same intelligence, preparation and eloquence but white with an anglo name, and this would have been a popular vote landslide of historical proportions.

A minor quibble

There couldn't be a white guy with Obama's background. and qualifications because Barack Obama is a product of a unique set of circumstances.

The obstacles he overcame to get where he is today would have been considered impossible odds five short years ago, when we had never heard of him.  He is a Black man with a funny and borderline offensive name, raised by a single white mother, and he went to grade school in Indonesia, the world's most populous Moslem country.  No way he could be president!

Obama's journey to the pinnacle of American society, and the determination it took to make it, are what shaped him, and the barriers he had to overcome would not have affected a white candidate of similar ability.

you are right but you are missing my point

 Repak: my point is simple, considering the odds against him in this still prejudiced society, the 7% points was a huge margin. 

You left some facts out

Obama's campaign also benefited from the huge demographic changes in the U.S. and from a MSM that seem to give Obama nothing but positive stories.

It is easy to sell the Obama image when the MSM is helping the Democrats sell it.  Of course, the MSM has now set the ground rules that criticism of Obama will not be tolerated.

Of course the Republicans were not helped by having a candidate who is too stupid to realize that open borders and unlimited immigration will eliminate any conservative political power in the U.S. If you want less government spending and lower taxes, you cannot support open borders, unlimited immigration, or amnesty.

I felt that way too for a while

 but then I got the impression that the MSM decided not to be used this time to spread innuendo and that is a positive development. McCain could have benefited from that as well (media loved him in the past). But instead he kept ignoring the important issues while focusing on silly kind of immature arguments like Ayers and Obama's "associations". He could  have been the ticket offering wisdom and experience but I guess he killed that argument wen he picked Ms. Pallin, not exactly a high caliber candidate...

wall street wanted either romney or hillary

but they knew romney wouldn't win, so they dumped tons of money at Hillary.

They further dumped money at Obama, but mostly to win the influence game once it was clear that their friends wouldn't be winning.

GOTV gets you a 5% 'in the margin' difference

Those technology numbers are staggering to say the least. However, with regard to impact, something doesn't quite add up.

It can't be denied that those numbers measure the increased energy. I mean really, all those kos and politico posts. Those freakin people were like the Borg. They kept getting stronger and stronger feeding on themselves.

Impact of technology on "choice". I don't see that in the margin of victory. I see jobs, race, collapse of the financial sector, the war, and the downright hatred of president bush as the 8 million difference.

You are right and wrong at the same time.

Issues, views and events drive people's thinking which drives their action. ... BUT ... what do they DO with that action? That's the question.  Good campaigns 'milk' this for maximum effect.

The technology was able to maximize the benefit of these swings via a web 2.0 enable GOTV. GOTV of the traditional sort is calling, block-walking and face-to-face engagement. It doesnt do more than 5% of the vote in the margin. That is, you call 100 people and *maybe* you will get 5 people who werent going to vote for your guy to actually vote - maybe they would have stayed home, out of 100 calls, at most 5 will change. Sounds small? Not when many many races are decided on less than that. Not when O's hefty win could have been a razor thin if the GOP was on a par wrt GOTV.

GOP was superior in GOTV in 2002 in Colorado, but in 2008 the Dems did better. Check the results.

If GOTV gets you a 5% 'in the margin' difference, then those tens of millions of contacts was "only" worth maybe 1-2 million votes. One way to detect this is to see if a different set of people showed up at the polls and/or who the switchers were... well we know for a fact there was a HUGE Obama advantage among the young ... which just so happens to correlate with the ones amenable to this web-enabled campaign.  More study would be needed on how much they gained from this, but the metrics cited speak for themselves in terms of how much was DONE.

There was a money and GOTV advantage for the dems and I see it locally in election returns. A staggering 80% early voting for the Democrats in some precincts in our area in Texas.

Obama was a fundamentally weak candidate on many ways - too left-wing extreme, too inexeperienced, wrong and out-of-step on issues, pushing for job-killing proposals and unpopular amnesty. In a traditional head-to-head matchup that didnt have the backdrop of events in financial sector, he would have been killed. Obama was able to make up for his weaknesses by having a biased media on his side and an effective campaign that blunted those issues.

Without Obama's big money advantage and web 2.0 technology and better GOTV/activism, and WITH an agressive GOP campaign that exposed his weaknesses, he could have been beaten. We will never know, but we do know that good vs bad campaigns can make a difference. We'll have to learn from O's campaign, because it will be the template for how to do it in the future for both sides.

 

 

Impressive Numbers

Patrick,

Impressive numbers indeed and there is much to learn regarding the new methodologies Obama employed raising campaign funds.  However, it is fair to ask, would a conservative or republican candidate be willing to setup a website with zero checks that does not ensure the legality of the donation?  Would they be willing to setup a site with no checks to ensure it is not from a foreign source?  Will they allow donations from pre-paid credit cards with zero traceability? Would it accept donations from sources that you have no way of verifying? 

For the love of Pete, even the New York Times recognized the problems associated with Obama's Internet fund raising and the high propensity for fraud and illegal donations. The truth is, the Obama campaign will take any donation legal or not and beg for forgiveness after the fact.

For the record, McCain did not accept internet donations that were not  verfiable online, on the spot.   Would that have made a difference, unlikely.  But, just because Obama won, it does not mean that someone should not be taking a real hard look at all of the donations Obama recieved over the internet and hold him accountable for all of the money raised that is not verifiable as being legal.

Unless we are all working on the same level, it will never be a fair contest as we cannot expect that the other side will play by the rules on their own.  As Reagan said, "Trust but verify".

 

are you really that naive?

dpeterson:

 did you not read the papers for the last 8 years. No party is clean of illegal donations, huge conflict of interests (do I need to remind you that Cheney's Halliburton's Iraq contract was a no-bid contract), lying through their teeth during campaigns , etc etc --- is all bad. Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. All these people get to power, get corrupted, get rich, and leave the country wondering what happened and fighting with each other about silly social issues while they are raping the economy and enriching their corporate friends. Dont know if Obama will turn out that way, but power corrupts so it would not surprise me.

No I am not that naive

It is obvious to me that you are either a liberal or a conspiracy theorist. So, I will make this simple for you.

Have you heard of a concept call checks and balances?  It is a tried and true concept that has been used pretty sucessfully over the past 232 years.  Not perfect, but its better than any other system in the world. The concept is that each side will keep each other honest by verifying each is following the rules.  This may be new to you.  Perhaps you should read up on it.  There are books in the library that you can check out and take all the time you need.

I'd be willing to bet you have it all figured out as to who killed President Kennedy and what is going on in area 51?  Won't you tell us all about it?

are you for real?????

first of all I'm neither but then I dont really like labels- they are oversimplifications by small minded people or those who like to manipulate others. I'm an independent. My point is simple. Politicians are in bed with corporations. That's how we got to the Wall Street Mess we are in. AND this includes both reps and dems but right now the ones with the worst record are the reps (sorry). Check out the credit default swap mess that caused the collapse of the banks, and the Enron loophole. Take your time...it is a little complicated. Oh and BTW: you are right there are checks and balances...I write you a check and you increase my balance...:)

Credit Default Swap

I have a firm understanding of the entire financial crisis including the default credit swap derivitives. I have spend  months studying this issue at great length.  The underlying problem is the implicit gaurantee the Federal Govt made (from the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) to gaurantee Freddie and Fannie even though they recieved countless warnings that they were in trouble.  Its all on record and even on video.  

Follow the money, where did Freddie and Fannie contributions go?  To Democrats and lots of it!  You can make the argument that the entire industry was drunk riding the bubble and that would be true.  But the bottom line is, NONE of this would have happened if the Freddie and Fannie had been provided oversight (and there is lots of documentation on how Republicans and the President tried to inject oversite into Freddie and Fannie but were blocked by Democrats).  Further, none of this would have happened if the govt had not provided an implicit gaurentee to back Freddie and Fannie.  Hell, with this gaurentee, why not take high degree of risk.  Funny thing is, they promised to back them no matter how screwed up they were and you know what, they did!

 

If you really spent months studying this

and yet came to the conclusion that the problem are the implicit guarantees on Fannie and Freddie I'm afraid you wasted your time. You need to study harder.

Fannie and Freddie have problems but they are not the reason behind the current crisis. A burst real estate bubble is and Fannie and Freddie are not the reason for that.

 

Last comment on this subject

Freddie and Fannie were the fuel behind the housing bubble.  Good golly man, who the hell do you think was buying the trillions of dollars of mortgages?  Freddie and Fannie due to the lowering of their standards for buying mortgages, the community reinvestment act, HUD policy, and Federal Reserve Policy.  This is decribed very well by Jason Lewis in the link I provided below. 

This was just another failed govt intervention. This is why we must rally conservatives and Republicans under the united cause of LIMITED GOVT as this site is attempting to do.  Lets get to work!

tinyurl.com/56vdme

Correct- it was a failed govt intervention

Freddie and Fannie due to the lowering of their standards for buying mortgages, the community reinvestment act, HUD policy, and Federal Reserve Policy.  This is decribed very well by Jason Lewis in the link I provided below. 

This was just another failed govt intervention. 

This is 100% correct.

I dont think the lib trolls will 'get it' however. They are too busy trying to pin the tail on the elephant rather than look at real cause and effect.

And dittos on this as well: "This is why we must rally conservatives and Republicans under the united cause of LIMITED GOVT as this site is attempting to do.  Lets get to work!"

I think we are starting to see some spine, as the auto bailout move ran aground.

I'm sorry

but you just don't know what you are talking about.

I suggest you start reading good conservative economists, like the guys at Marginal Revolution.

here's the deal. politicians respond to power

and obama's campaign has shown that there is a new power on the scene. (lamont's too, for that matter).

We may see less corruption and more transparency, if only because the creative class that supported Obama won't have it any other way...

Obama's just one step toward a better system.

Foolish lib conspiracy theory talking points

Cheney's Halliburton's Iraq contract

Cheney had no ties to Halliburton since 2000. Just another conspiracy theory from the lying liars who gave us the "Bush lied" lie. I am sorry you wasted your brain believing and spouting stupid lies.

Dont know if Obama will turn out that way,

Wonder no more, as he's already crossed the "power corrupts" threshold: Tony Rezko.

I can count. and I can make money

off of your delusions.

money's good right?

nepotism and corruption make for easy bets!

and all the money goes to fighting back...

but hell, shoot, you got me. there was absolutely no connection between what is best for Goldmann Sachs and the bailout. Shoot, cry me a river. I miss Bear Stearns.

what's with the hostility?

 hey Freedoms whatever:

cant you just make a rational argument?

do you really think is a coincidence that Cheney severed ties with Halliburton exactly during the 2000  presidential election and walked out with over 30 million dollars?  he then continued to receive "deferred"  payments even during the Iraq war. What did Obama get from Rezko: a house? talk about wasting your time spouting stupid lies...

but most importantly: I cant believe that after the disaster of the last 8 years, complete with an invented war,  indicted and convicted senators from both parties, anybody would believe that either party is free of corruption. and BTW:  Stop disrespecting God, people. That is what you do when you attach him to a political cause or party!

Monks

Hillary's web site also didn't accept obviously fake donations, apparently. They get their questionable foreign money the old-fashioned way.

 

Say, remember the last debate? I seem to be the only person who noticed that BHO got flustered after he was called on his associations. A video of that could be useful, so I posted a request for such a video to FreeRepublic. All I wanted was someone to get that one 20 second slice, and I even included directions.

 

It got 200+ views, but no one took the time out to make such a video.

 

A similar video of McCain getting flustered at the same debate got thousands of Diggs and over 500,000 views on Youtube.

 

Perhaps the problem goes a bit deeper than simply who's got the better website.

 

P.S. See also this. That was posted here and at FR. When I posted it at FR it was deleted immediately.

Would they?

However, it is fair to ask, would a conservative or republican candidate be willing to setup a website with zero checks that does not ensure the legality of the donation? Would they be willing to setup a site with no checks to ensure it is not from a foreign source? Will they allow donations from pre-paid credit cards with zero traceability? Would it accept donations from sources that you have no way of verifying? 

Yes!  Are you kidding?

Read the newspapers

The New York Times says different.  A reporter tried to use fake cards, prepaid cards, cards from over seas.  McCain's web site would not accept the charge.  Obama's did.  Sorry.  Do a little research, I'm not doing it for you!

Now, go to the Daily KOS where you belong.

Not McCain, but someone else

Just like McCain didn't play the Reverend Wright card, I think McCain also wouldn't allow that kind of potential for fraud.  This is not to say that another, more ruthless, Republican candidate wouldn't.  I'm not saying that it would have helped him win, but I also don't think it's that big of a deal, and I won't be screaming outrage when some Republican does it in the future.

It was a total package

Charismatic candidate v. increasingly grumpy old guy.

Overwhelming organizational superiority v.... Not even a pathetic attempt at organization.

George W. Bush

Most important, money.  And that money in small amounts from individuals represents more votes per dollar than equivalent corporate donations.

Obama got bang for the buck and set a new standard for just about everything.   How did the GOP miss making the transition from the mailiing list champs to such a disorganized rabble when it comes to the Internet?  Obama got there first and staked out a pretty good claim to the territory.

It's going to take someone young and reasonably aware of modern youth culture to reinvigorate the GOP, and it won't be Sarah Palin, whose intellectual deficiencies are embarrassing and won't stand up to much scrutiny.  And on top of that it's going to take a huge investment in Internet outreach, coupled with imaginative leadership.

Goldwater had the creative class, and the strategists

you need to find strategists like Gen'l Clark, and fast.

But I'd work on wooing the creative class back to your side, first. They provide the money, and they provide the manpower (disadvantaged dems are likely to be busy putting food on the table)

We have strategists - Newt for one

and let me suck up once again to the great Patrick Ruffini and mention NextRight for two. ;-)

As for the creative conservative class, first the paleo-ons split on Iraq war, then the consrevatives rioted against the RINO McCain, and then the urban elite cons took umbrage over Palin. We need a "come to Reagan" moment for them, back in the GOP revival big-tent.

The conservative movement is brimming with ideas, thoughts, and 'here's what we need to do' agenda items.  It is outmanned in the creative class segment electorally but thats a whole other matter.

The REAL problem is this: Running a "maverick" who dissed his own party many a time is NOT a recipe for success UNLESS he has his own independent power base of many people. McCain did NOT have that. All McCain had was a friendly media who abandoned him the second he turned into the GOP nominee. He then represented the party that the media wants to bring down. And he didnt get the moderate votes, even though you'd think the mods would prefer him to leftwinger Obama.

In short, McCain didnt have the connection/alignment to the Newt-type strategy thinking or the conservative base roots to tap and to build upon.

 

With all due respect

There has to be a conservative blog equivalent for Godwin's Law, except now it's Ronald Reagan.  Once you mention him as a symbol of what the party needs, you qualify for it.

Reagan is dead and the world he lived in is long gone.  There cannot be any more "Dutch" Reagans because the country that made him what he was no longer exists, the Cold War is over, and pining for an idealized Norman Rockwell America is a political dead end.

Someone young, say, say under fifty, is what the GOP needs.  I can't think of any names offhand.  Sarah Palin is not that person, so the sooner she drops out of the rearview the better, to make room for someone who speaks the language. 

 

We can win?

So let me get this straight, if we just had a better registration drive and more fund raising on the Internet we could have kept control and continued spending public money like water?  Way cool!

Party on!

Well, take that, all you fiscal conservatives who think that being corrupt and incompetent was our problem!  Ha!

RE: Obama Had 13 Million E-mail Addresses and Raised Half a Bill

Socialist Liberal Barak Hussain Obama learned in Chicago how to play the Black Race Card and avoid playing by the rules.  McCain played by all the rules...while the One...who is the Socialist Liberal Barak Hussain Obama played by the Black Race Card.  The election had nothing to do with the color of his skin, and that was a problem for him.  He was not smart enough to be president let alone hold any office where he would have to make important decisions.  With the help of Socialist, Liberals, and the Social Liberal Media Beast he was lifted up as if he were a god and not a man.  He now has a big problem that his Black Race Card will not be able to help him with, he is no god and I believe the GOD of our Fathers will see to it that the world will know it.  All People forget, the Declaration of Independence was between GOD and One People, it was not between All People.  The Truth is not in Mr. Obama or any of his supporters, if it was, then he would not be the first black or mulotto president.  I feel sorry for his children and how they (and other black children) are being raised to believe that the Black Race Card will get them what they want in life.

Justice Is Blind and So Should Be the Color of Our Skin.  Red, Yellow, Black and White We Are Precious in His Sight, Jesus Loves Americans, and the Children of the World.
 

Hooray Racism!

Seriously, can the mods take stuff like this off the site?  It's not helping with the image problem.

it may not be helping

but you are ;-)

They keep the lib trolls here

why censor allegations that Obama played the race card? Like that's news we should censor? What statement was racist, offensive or wrong?

And btw please explain the horrible offensiveness of this statement, I am really curious.

Red, Yellow, Black and White We Are Precious in His Sight, Jesus Loves Americans, and the Children of the World.

and there is the image the world has of republicans

Pearson whatever:

 

 mixing God with hate--very nice--just what Christianity preaches..... scary weird stuff. Tell me what is it like to have tunnel vision and live in such a small world? go away!!! you are destroying the party!

Jose Antonio Vargas breaks

Jose Antonio Vargas breaks down some monumental numbers.

Monumental numbers, indeed, but as a former GOP county EC member, those numbers say "voter intensity" to me (over two contributions of $80 each per contributor?), the kind of intensity I saw in 1994 when Clinton outraged the citizenry.

Chances are very good the intensity will shift back our way soon. Get to work, Patrick!

 

 

 

 

What tipped these numbers?

Can we plot these numbers staring from late January 2007 up until election day?  I'd like to see the trends that show us when the numbers really started to increase.  I'd expect that to be a few weeks after sealing the Democratic primary, but from what I have read the technology the campaign used was already in place as of early Fall 2007.  That as crucial because you needed the skyscraper built as you were signing up new leases on the space.  Once you had the tech foundation, adding more floors was easy.

The technology is something we can replicate.  Obama himself is a candidate in his own league.  Watching him in Illinois for the last 5 years has been a stunning rise from relative nobody to superstar.

Forecasting the burnout effect, the more and more that Team Obama floats more of the same with its Clintonian nominees to fill the cabinet the more I see opportunities to flip the Obama lists.

DP

The New York Times says different.  A reporter tried to use fake cards, prepaid cards, cards from over seas.  McCain's web site would not accept the charge.  Obama's did. 

Did you read your own question?

You asked, "Would they be willing". Now where I come from, that's a question in future tense, not a statement in past tense.

And the answer, if the Republican candidate chose to forego public financing and these were the rules of fundraising, is that YES, the Republican candidate WOULD do exactly that.

Do you think a Republican would intentionally disadvantage themselves financially if they didn't have to, for fear of getting small foreign donations with no strings attached?

Yeah, right.

 

$500-million is good, but middle-America will do better

Of course, the issue is not the amount, but who is empowered by that sum. As far as I can see, Obama, a single person, has been empowered by that sum.  In further looking over Obama's web activities, I see a shocking absence of him using his web-presence to empower those who contributed, only himself. Some things never change it seems.

When middle-America speaks, $500-million will be considered a trifling amount if instead of empowering the few, it can be used to empower middle-America itself.  All we need is a political party designed to give its members their voices, allow them to speak and to be heard.

           ex animo

 Operation Rednet  

           davidfarrar

 

It's probably a waste of time

It's probably a waste of time to respond to what's obviously spam, but the comment about Obama's online presence only empowering him is ridiculous.  While the money he collected was obviously very important, a huge portion of his online presence was designed to help people create their own meet-ups, find other people in the area with whom they shared ideas, train organizers, etc.  Unlike previous campaigns, Democrat and Republican, Obama's had a serious emphasis on bottom-up organizing, which is precisely the "middle class empowering" you're talking about.

So, next time quit spamming and actually contribute to the discussion rather than trying to drive traffic to your site.

Obama was "Dean for America" on steroids

But the "steroids" was more or less a more authentically progressive Barack Obama with untouchable fundraising potential. Obama was raising money for Demcoratic contenders for the House and Senate in the period of September and October of 2004 because he wasn't even running his race in Illinois.  He had already locked up the victory.

Once elected, Obama immediately turned to securing important committee assignments, but the best thing he did was get right back on the fund raising trail to solocit donations to his PAC.  He then used that PAC to raise money to defend incumbants from his party and raise money for House and Senate challengers.

You'll find most of Howard Dean's techie brains working for Obama right after the 2004 election.

I think the general public can lay claim to the arguments that Obama was really a once in a lifetime candidate, but the serious poltical observers ought to see how his ground game was just better and likely is something that can be replicated.

money quote - infrastructure can be replicated

I think the general public can lay claim to the arguments that Obama was really a once in a lifetime candidate, but the serious poltical observers ought to see how his ground game was just better and likely is something that can be replicated.

The 'money' quote in more ways than one.  This technology is not complicated, right? How can we make a technology platform for the GOP for all campaigns? How should we tie things in?

Infrastructure can be replicated, and it would be wise to build the general platform technologies to serve more than one campaign at a time.

 

You are a liberal, Obama supporter, spamming on a

conservative web site and you call me "spamming?" I can sure you, I post here almost exclusively, and I do so under my own name, Mr. or Ms. Crazy-forever or whoever you are.

However, much of what you say is true:

"a huge portion of his online presence was designed to help people create their own meet-ups, find other people in the area with whom they shared ideas, train organizers, etc."

But all of these meet-ups groups, trained organizers and such are not going to become a voice unto themselves. They will be controlled by Obama or his surrogates. You don't hear Obama calling for your voices to be heard, as a group. You hear him asking for your voice, your opinion. Obama is not going to allow his 13-million strong email addresses to become an independent voice, independent from his.  Your voices will be that of Obama's, trying to cloak himself behind those 13-million email addresses.

If you don't believe me, try to speak as a people on an issue that is not supported by Obama and see just how far your voices are heard.

Lastly, Operation Rednet  isn't a hyperlink to a website. I haven't actually gotten around to drawing one up on this issue yet. But if you would like to go to my website to get a better idea of what I am talking about, please go to The National Online Party.

Frankly, cz4ever, I hope I am wrong. If Pres. Obama does intend to create an authentic, independent Peoples' voice out of his online organization, you will find me one of his stanchest allies in this regard. To this end, please tell me exactly where you feel your voice is presently being heard the loudest and I will look into that particular structure and we can develop this issue further for the common good of all.

One last point; since undisputed testimony is the closest we here can ever get to the truth, should you or any other liberal Obama supporter presently trolling this site fail to respond to my challenge, my statement on this matter shall be considered the truth.

Although it's probably a waste of time; I await your reply.

           ex animo

 Operation Rednet  

           davidfarrar

 

Replicated but not duplicated

but the serious poltical observers ought to see how his ground game was just better and likely is something that can be replicated.

I agree that the strategy, tactics, and technology can be replicated, but absent a motivated electorate, I don't think it can be duplicated.

Republicans have to get mad or excited, and only serious legislation around social issues or a massive failure of Obama's policies are going to motivate Republicans. If, by 2010, the country is moving in the right direction economically, and the Democrats haven't outlawed guns, mandated abortions, or pass laws forcing Republicans into same sex marriages (Republicans seem prefer closets to nuptials), that kind of motivation is unlikely.

You can build it, but that doesn't mean they'll come.

Obama's socialism will be the motivation

The entire Democrat agenda is centered around various ways in which Govt meddling - which has NOT worked - will 'fix' this or that mythical problem (like global warming etc). This is a "grow the Government" socialistic approach, not a "grow the economy" support-market-economy approach.

Glenn Beck had an Obama supporter on this morning, doing his quizzes. This woman did not even know what the bill of rights was. Could not name a SINGLE right. She came here apparently 5 years ago from Mexico. They were debating whether this Obama voter was even a citizen, who knows who ACORN got signed up.

There is stunning ignorance behind a broad swath of Obama voters and supporter. Huge levels of ignorance about who he is and what he really will do. They WILL notice when the Democrats cap-and-trade plans kill off energy companies and raise electric rates, put healthcare mandates on business that will make them stop hiring, when their attacks on CEOs and business boomerang and when their tax hikes hurt investment and stop new business formation. They WILL notice if we have a 4-year jobless low-growth economy.

As that gets exposed, and the ignorant Obama voters learn th ehard way of how mistaken the socialistic policies of the Democrats are, the motivation to get rid of Obama will inevitably arise.

 

maybe Mr. Freedoms but...

 at least it wont be as bad as the shit sandwich the likes of you and all the hugely ignorant Bush supporters served us for the last eight years (you may recall a certain british newspaper whose headline in post election day 2004 read: "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb? ")!

it will take 20 years before we can get the taste out of our mouths!!! I mean seriously how Bush got elected twice is a mystery to me. Forest Gump would have been a better choice. 

 

Delusional

Glenn Beck had an Obama supporter on this morning, doing his quizzes. This woman did not even know what the bill of rights was. Could not name a SINGLE right.

Anecdotal drivel, I can answer probably more Constitution questions than 99% of the electorate, (ask Jon) including Republicans, and I supported Obama. The education level of Obama supporters was higher, not lower, than the educational level of McCain supporters. That's not to say that Obama supporters were actually smarter, and it certainly doesn't mean they are right, but it completely dispels the myth you have delusioned yourself with.

There are a lot of very uninformed, or ill-informed people in this country, on both sides of the ideological divide, I won't tell you that the McCain voter was ignorant racist trailer trash (because they weren't) and you don't try to pass that drivel of Obama supporters being dumber than McCain supporters.

Or you could just keep telling yourself this stuff, and you'll never figure out why you lost.

 

 

Known unknowns

6.5 million donations from 3 million donors with an average donation of $80

 

There is literally no way of knowing how many donors Obama had. It's technically possible that he had one single donor making all 6.5 million donations. The Obama data system was set up specifically not to answer questions like that.

 

Well..

 I was a flusher who worked Lake County, Indiana election day.  Before I showed up, an army of canvasers had found every last registered voter there and found out who was planning to vote Obama.  100%.  If you were registered we found you.  Through the sec state we had a list of who had voted early and who hadn't voted and we found those people and got them a ride if they need it.  When my team was done in Lake County, every last person who was registered to vote and indicated they were going to vote Obama was found and brought to the polls.

What I'd be curious about is even if you replicate the technology to do this, the ethos and spirit of it is so communitarian it seems unlikely to me that conservative people would do this.  I dunno, I'm not a conservative, but as someone involved in the Obama campaign when the Republican convention seemed so confused about what community organizing is I knew you were dead right there.  Is that something you can change or is just in conservative DNA to be repelled by this sort of thing?