Ron Paul supporters just created Paulville, an online community that takes online-to-offline activism to the extreme.
According to the website, Paulville.org's mission is to:
"Establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty..."
Both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee and his F3Coalition, now have a large base of online grassroots support to tap into; however, it's clear that there still exists a lack of control from the top, especially for Ron Paul supporters.
I'm sure Ron Paul's organization can think of better things for its supporters to do other than set up cult-like communities in rural America.
The Boston Globe is reporting that Ron Paul's loyal supporters have triggered their second "Money Bomb," and have already pulled in over $2M (as of 10:30 AM EST).
Hoping to detonate what they call a "money bomb," the supporters started fundraising at midnight Saturday and have already raised $2 million as of about 10:30 a.m. today, more than at this point on Nov. 5, according to figures they posted online. They hope to collect a total of $10 million by midnight Sunday.
Below, find short vlogs from Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Patrick Ruffini, Robert Bluey, Mary Katharine Ham, James Kotecki, Jose Antonio Vargas, Meghan McCain, Charlie Smith, and, wait for it... Chuck Norris.
UPDATE: Just realized there are 12 questions on the front page of 10 Questions, so the cutoff for getting asked is 1,165 net positive votes before midnight. I'm at +826 right now. The heat is on. Vote below.
Here's the situation. The top 10 questions right now are stacked with you-name-it left-wing cause -- net neutrality, terrorist surveillance, medical marijuana, and "is America unofficially a theocracy?" There's a real chance that the Democratic candidates who participate will not be asked a single tough question that forces them to articulate their beliefs or address an unfamiliar issue.
Early reaction to my question is 2-to-1 positive, but as of now, I need 908 1,165 new net positive votes to make the top 10 -- and likely more than that to overcome whatever negative votes that are likely to materialize in the next seven hours. I know that more than 908 1,165 people will be reading this post, so I know we can do this. It's an audacious goal -- no other question has surged this far this fast. But it's worth the 5 seconds of your time it takes to vote to make sure the candidates are forced to articulate their views on limited government.
And Democrats are not the only ones who need to answer this. In case you haven't noticed, Republicans haven't done a real good job of shrinking government when they've been in office. It's time to hold all the candidates accountable.
I'd like to re-construct how the Ron Paul campaign raised $4.3M in 24 hours.
All signs point to this being an "independent" effort driven by the Paul community, and it probably started that way, but then I saw this nugget in today's Associated Press:
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.
"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.
For those who have read Joe Trippi's, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," he notes an important turning point on the campaign was when Howard Dean, the candidate, linked his online presence with his personal campaign appearances by carrying the "bat" up on stage with him.
The "bat" was significant because it symbolized a fundraising goal that the community/campaign used on Dean's blog to show the community the progress of funds raised. Most people use a thermometer for a similar symbol and tick up the mercury as funds are raised.
Based on the nugget above provided by the Paul campaign, it appears that Ron Paul may have personally helped inspire/spread the importance of "November 5th." In other words, he was in on it from the moment he heard about it.
I like that.
What do you think? Are there more facts out there to help us piece together Ron Paul's personal involvement?
Ron Paul has "made history," raising more than $2.7 million in the past 16 hours from 21K supporters.
Via their press release:
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beat all online primary fundraising records at 4:00pm today. In 16 hours, the Ron Paul campaign brought in over $2.7 million in online contributions, making it the largest single-day online primary fundraising effort by a presidential candidate in United States election history. Approximately 21,000 Americans made online donations thus far. Today’s efforts surpassed John Kerry’s record $2.7 million online fundraising efforts two days after the 2004 Super Tuesday primaries, and Republican John McCain’s $1 million online following the New Hampshire primaries in 2000.
As of this post (5:13 PM), Paul has raised $5,668,663.00 toward his goal of $12M for the fourth-quarter.
Agree with me or not, this is the Revolution I've been talking about. This will be the campaign that "proves" the importance of an effective Internet strategy to the naysayers and changes the game.
UPDATE 10:35 PM: A note just sent out by Ron Paul's campaign:
Is it possible to comprehend what we've done today? Earth-shattering, jaw-dropping... No matter which way you phrase it, Ron Paul is for real.
Over $3,800,000 raised.
More than 35,000 total donations.
1 message - and 1 candidate - unlike any other.
Can we keep our momentum going? The most successful fundraising day ever is John Kerry's $5.7 million. And that was on the day he accepted the Democratic nomination.
Jonathan Bydlak
Fundraising Director
Ron Paul 2008
This is incredible. I wonder if other candidates -- Republican and Democratic -- are envious? Perhaps this will be the day that changed online politics forever? Time will tell. I'm optimistic.
UPDATE Nov. 6, 9:04 AM: Final results are in: Over a 24 hour period, Ron Paul raised $4.3 million online.
The Telegraph.co.uk recently released a list of the top 100 conservatives and liberals. Here are the Republican presidential candidates along with some other name of note that made the list.
The Candidates:
#1 Rudy Giuliani
#9 John McCain
#10 Mitt Romney
#11 Mike Huckabee
#58 Fred Thompson
#97 Ron Paul
Names of Note:
#3 Matt Drudge (props to internet journalism)
# 21 George Bush
#26 James Dobson
#47 Joe Liberman (also made #47 on the liberal list)
#71 Chuck Norris
#85 Clarence Thomas (why so low?)
Liberal Listings of note:
#8 Arnold Schwarzenegger
#23 Colin Powell
#62 Jerome Armstrong (co host of the poplar DomeNation with our own David All)
Some thoughts:
The liberal side had more actors and musicians than the conservative side
Barack Obama, his wife and his media strategist all made the cut
A lot of Bloggers made the cut on both sides of the proverbial aisle
Quite a few news anchors are on each list
From all this I gather that in order to be influential one needs to... run for public office, be a news anchor, be an actor or become a blogging phenom :-)
Founder and CEO of the conservative website redstate.com who also blogs on his personal site erickerickson.org, entitled Confessions of a Political Junkie, and on Georgia politics at peachpundit.com. A Republican political consultant and self-described “recovering lawyerâ€.
At just 32, Erickson epitomises the new power of the internet. A small-government fiscal and social conservative based in the south, he taps into and influences the Republican “base†that the GOP’s 2008 candidates are courting. Only started blogging in 2003.
Bear with me, this might cut a little close to the bone.
When I first came to Washington, DC, I roomed with a former top communicator at The White House who had just finished up a major position overseas. He was 31 and I was 23.
After talking with me about what I hoped to accomplish he gave me some free advice which I'll paraphrase, "Before you came to Washington, 50 percent of the people in this city hated you simply because you were a Republican. Of the remaining 50 percent, 25 percent of the people you will come to know will hate you because of something you'll say, do, or become. The other 25 percent is on your side. Understand that basic premise and you'll do just fine."
I've always thought of that advice as I've made my journey as an aggressive communicator in the House, Senate, and on the campaign trail. I've recently found his advice to ring true in the blogosphere and in the daily struggle of running a small business. In other words, that piece of advice seems to provide comfort in just about every facet of political life - where competition meets you at every corner.
These past few days have been reminders of that reality.
Two individuals who I have considered friends and colleagues whether they have or not, Erick Erickson and Michael Turk, have posted public mantras on why, essentially, "David All" is an over-zealous self-promoter with only one goal in mind: his own.
They rhetorically kick over just about every sand castle I've built over the past year. And they question my allegiance to the Republican Party. Another Redstate contributor has said as much via email and I'm sure others will surface publicly or privately.
Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has the full story and weighs in calling the ban of Paul's supporters to question regardless of ideological differences:
It's their community, of course, and they set the rules. However, this doesn't hurt Paul's credibility as much as it does Redstate's. While Paul's supporters tend towards the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.
I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.
I agree with Captain Ed. Generally, Republicans need to welcome Ron Paul (and all others willing to wear a Republican banner) to the debate and the discussion. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, we need him to actively endorse and support the winner so that his supporters will use their energy to defeat Hillary.
Personally, I recognize that Paul's support is very, very real, especially in the politics + tech sphere. He is the people-powered Howard Dean candidate of 2008 which I've been saying we need to "prove" the importance of an effective Internet strategy. He is that Revolution.
UPDATE 1:34 PM: Mike Krempasky, one of the co-founders of Redstate, points out in the comments of this thread that the ban was not a "blanket ban" as Captain Ed and I read it to be.
Semantics and interpretation are important, so here's the text of the entire Redstate post for you to decide for yourself:
Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.
Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.
Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.
P.S. Comments to this post are closed. Complaints may be directed to the contact form.
UPDATE 8:11 PM: OK, I'll respond. Redstate's Erick Erickson has drafted a 1,600 word argument against me, personally and professionally, on the premise that I'm a tech and PR guy, not an ideologue. Therefore, I should keep the blogging to the rest of the field.
This sums it up:
I think David is using our story to get himself some attention as a professional tech consultant on the right. David can ride our news into media punditry if he wants, he's good at it, but I think he needs to get a better grasp on the issues and ideology coming before the technology before going to Wired, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. The tech is just a tool in the strategic battle ground. Losing focus on the cause because of being enamored by the technology, is going to put David in bed with the holders of the coolest tech toy, whether that's Vis Numar on the left or the Ron Paul Stormfront advertisers on the fringe right, not the best ideas.
Sheesh. That's a lot of finger pointing.
I shouldn't have to, but let me explain why Redstate's actions were newsworthy on their own merits: Redstate has become iconic in many ways, especially on Capitol Hill. For many, including Democrats and PR professionals, it represents the "conservative blogosphere." Accurate or not, the brand has strength among influential people.
Erick understands and perpetuates the influence Redstate wields among politicos. In fact, as Erick told the National Journal for a cover story on blogs, “When [Democratic Senator Dick Durbin] wanted to reach out to the Right online, he came to RedState to do it.â€
Reporters read blogs. Reporters that cover the tech + politics beat read TechRepublican. They also read TechPresident where my post was picked up this morning. All of the reporters I spoke with today also told me that dozens of Ron Paul supporters had personally emailed them yesterday to urge them to write about Redstate's comments policy. I didn't ask, but they probably read the Politico's story on Redstate's comments policy yesterday.
In short, news is news. And this was news, my friend.
And please read my post again from this morning. I never called to question Redstate's authority to set its own comment parameters to better regulate its community. (In fact, after reading some of the comments left on the blog, I understand why they needed to enforce some sort of policy to keep it above water.)
I simply blogged about Captain Ed's response to the comment ban and then agreed with Ed that this could dig in to the credibility of Redstate rather than that of Paul and that Redstate should have found a better balance to establish an appropriate comments policy.
I consider a few of the contributors to Redstate friends, and others colleagues. We've disagreed before. We disagree today. We probably will again another day. That's just the way it goes in the arena of ideas.
UPDATE 9 PM: Last update on this thread, on Ron Paul being a Republican, I asked him that question specifically during an episode of DomeNation. Agree with him or not, you can view his response at the three-minute mark:
This is the result of just three emails sent by the Obama campaign. It's more than Mike Huckabee raised last quarter. It's probably more than any Republican raised online last quarter with the exception of Ron Paul.
Think about that. One email. $650,000.
Imagine what their nominee will do to us with the entire weight of the online Democratic Party behind them. I'm thinking $1 to $2 million an email.
Each email is the equivalent two or three fundraising dinners. Each of which probably require hundreds of man hours to produce. That's only for of one email, not the three that have been sent this week. One email that probably took someone an hour or two write, that took a few hours to get approved, that took another hour or two to be formatted and sent. (And "stripped down" email is even more efficient.)
All because they were able to build up a huge list in the hundreds of thousands using proven list-building techniques that, to some degree, can be duplicated by anyone.
At the end of Q2, the campaign claimed 235,000 BarackObama.com members. Given his astronomic traffic the first half of the year, the fact that they incredibly claimed more donors than online supporters, and growth since then, I have to think the mail universe they're sending to is closer to 500,000.
So I'm going to guess their metrics for this campaign look like this:
500,000 emails sent175,000 opened the message40,000 clicked through20% conversion rate8,000 donors @ $80 per donation = $640,000
But as successful as Barack has been online, not all their campaigns have been this successful. Their end of quarter campaign, for instance.
Comparing this blog post with their fundraising graphic, Obama picked up 9,439 contributions in the last three days of the quarter, having sent an email each of those days. Assuming $80 a contribution (the going rate for Democratic online contributions, at least according to John Edwards's ActBlue page), that's just shy of $750,000. Or $250,000 an email.
How did they more than double their fundraising performance per email?
First, the message of this campaign is a lot stronger. It opened up on Tuesday with an email from BO himself called "Hillary's money." They're going negative on Hillary. That's attention grabbing.
Second, the goal is audacious but ultimately realistic. $2.1 million sounds like a lot. Unless you know you can count on at least $500,000 an email and show measurable progress towards the goal through a live counter. In 2004, Joe Trippi talked about the $100 Revolution -- 2 million people giving 100 bucks to match President Bush. That probably struck a lot of folks as pie-in-the-sky. $2.1 million is doable. Set big goals you can realistically achieve with a short but powerful burst of activity.
Third, the message of the end-of-quarter campaign was so weak by comparison. It was basically: we're 34/35ths of the way there -- help put us over the top. That's not inspiring. That tells people they're not needed because they're so close anyway, they're just a statistic and someone else will fill the gap. Even though 10,000 new donors is a lot. They would have been better off resetting the counter to zero.
How much does the stripped down format help? Probably only at the margins. It probably means your message gets read more, but arguably the point is not to get people to read. It's to get people to click. The first time they tried stripped-down email was in the end of quarter campaign and it probably didn't help much. Message matters more.
This is all part of a pattern of experimentation that is vital in every campaign. The Obama team probably saw they weren't getting the results they were used to getting in previous quarter-ending efforts, so they tried something different, using real dollars and starting the counter at zero.
Ron Paul's campaign in the second quarter was everything its supporters so fervently claimed: distributed and supporter-driven. They raised $2.4 million. In the third quarter, they used technique to boost that return dramatically, putting a live fundraising counter on their homepage. That raised $5.1 million. Technique and gathering momentum doubled the return. And now, in the ultimate test of whether radical transparency and audacious goals can transform fundraising, they're looking to leapfrog the frontrunners with a $12 million goal.
The lesson here is get in the game. Always try new stuff. Do bold audacious things to first build your list and then monetize it. Try everything at least once, but don't get distracted by the shiny new Web 2.0 toys. Socnets still can't raise what email can. And realize that the Web is more than just a medium for getting your message across. It's a medium for moving people and money.
Recent comments
1 day 15 hours ago
2 days 10 hours ago
3 days 1 hour ago
3 days 3 hours ago
3 days 9 hours ago
3 days 9 hours ago
3 days 11 hours ago
3 days 13 hours ago
4 days 7 hours ago
5 days 4 hours ago