Scobleizer - Latest Comments in If Campaigns are conversations?

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Scott — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:50:21 -0000

Nice house Edwards is building. Just what I'd expect from a "man-of-the-people."

http://www.carolinajournal....

"The rambling structure sits in the middle of a 102-acre estate on Old Greensboro Road west of Chapel Hill. The heavily wooded site and winding driveway ensure that the home is not visible from the road. "No Trespassing" signs discourage passersby from venturing past the gate."

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Robert Scoble — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:41:58 -0000

LayZ: Howard Dean raised the most money last time around and he lost Iowa. Translation: money matters, but it doesn't matter as much as whether you can get people out to vote and it doesn't matter as much as whether your TV ads are effective.

I still remember Apple's 1984 Macintosh ad. It only ran once. You don't need a whole lot of money to totally change a campaign.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

LayZ — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:33:26 -0000

And Osama is leading in New Hampshire and he's not even declared; what's your point? And national polls show Billary leading, Osama 2nd and Edwards 3rd. So again I ask: what's your point? Are you suggesting Edwards is leading in Iowa because he's supposedly blogging? If so, that is quite a stretch. He's leading in the polls because at the moment because he's essentially been living in Iowa hoping to make himself legitimate. Osama and Billary haven't even put boots on the ground, yet

It's not going to matter if the candidates or their lackey's blog or not. What going to matter is money, and Billary and Osama can out fund raise Edwards any day of the week. They will also dominate the key demographics in the Democratic party: women and African Americans. And no amount of blogging will change that.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Robert Scoble — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:17:07 -0000

LayZ: I keep bringing it up because people here keep making the assertion that Edwards doesn't have a chance.

Howard Dean had a chance too, it's just that his ground troops and his TV advertising sucked.

If Edwards leads in the polls and then delivers TV ads that piss people off and doesn't have people on the ground who understand how to get people out to vote without pissing them off, then he'll lose too.

One other thing: Howard Dean wasn't a true blogger. We learned that on the night he lost in Iowa. It was then that I realized that Joe Trippi was blogging, not Howard Dean. That's totally different in Edwards' case.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

LayZ — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 02:46:26 -0000

@41 "LayZ: Edwards is leading in Iowa polls."

You keep bringing that up like it means something. It doesn't. Need I continue to remind you of Howard Dean? He was leading going into the Iowa caucus in 2004. Running neck and neck of Gephardt of all people. Jesus,man! Read a history book, once! The Iowa caucus is a year away. And he's not that far ahead from two candidates THAT HAVEN"T OFFICIALLY DECLARED. Thus proving my point.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Ken Camp — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:07:32 -0000

Robert @ 47:

What Emmett at 49 said.

And yes, Richardson announced on YouTube. Go to Washington for Richardson and you can watch the video.

Yes, he's also done live chats on Daily Kos.

And yes, I'm sure we'll see more of Barbara Richardson now that he's running for President.

Bill Richardson is doing more outreach than you give him credit for.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Emmett O'Connell — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:26:33 -0000

@47

Richardson was at YearlyKos, where he spoke on an energy panel and a hosted breakfast for bloggers. Not sure if that is a bloggers conference "of note" though.

But, your reference as Richardson as not being a "top three" candidate runs counter of your argument for netroots engagement. If someone is polling well right now, its because they have name recognition, that everyone has heard of them because they're:

a) on Oprah like all the time
b) a former first lady
c) a former, unsuccessful VP candidate

Implying that Richardson doesn't matter because he isn't one of those three is shallow. Its not like we haven't seen an extremely popular (Richardson was reelected with 69 percent) governor from outside the mainstream become President.

Or the netroots powered front runner.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Brent — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:51:28 -0000

what I’ve seen so far I’d probably go with McCain or Giuliani.

No Scoble, I meant conservatives, not Republicans. There is a difference you know.

I like Guliani, but I do not like that he is pro-choice. However, I would still vote for him, as I think he is most likely to be the nominee. McCain seems too phony. Anybody but Clinton or Obama (Hussein) sounds decent to me. Well...that's a stretch. Btw, was I right about Obama or what? Sorhos (the world's richest communist)is now a leading sponsor for his campaign. Yikes!

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Robert Scoble — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:16:03 -0000

Ken: cool. Did Bill Richardson visit any blogger conference of note? Edwards did. Did Bill Richardson announce his presidency on YouTube with Rocketboom running camera? Edwards did. Did Bill Richardson's wife meet with bloggers at a blogging conference? Edwards wife did. Did Richardson invite several bloggers to fly with him on his plane? Edwards did. Has Richardson done a live chat on Daily Kos? Edwards has. Does Richardson get mentioned in any of the polls as being in the top three Democratic nominees? Edwards does.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Ken Camp — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:04:55 -0000

Robert,

Do you actually believe what you write? Do you actually read your comments? If so, you'll note that I commented on your previous post about Edwards being so netroots friendly, and countered by letting you know that Governor Bill Richardson spent all last year meeting with bloggers, not on behalf of his personal campaign, but as the chair of the Democratic Governors Association. Go read Olympia Time and you'll see my how my friend Emmett countered your post. And unlike him, I won't link to you. You should stick with tech and stay out of politics until you know what you're talking about.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Robert Scoble — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:02:37 -0000

Brent: I'm traditionally an economic conservative and a social liberal. I don't know enough about the Republicans, but of what I've seen so far I'd probably go with McCain or Giuliani.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Brent — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:17:36 -0000

I was just kidding around anyway. I don't even know you, personally. But if you remember any of my previous posts here, I kind of like to stir things up.

To be honest with you, out of all of the Democrats running, I think Edwards is the best choice, although I probably won't vote for him. He does seems the least extreme to the left, however. Obama is just way out there. I'm in Illinois, and I know this guy's record. He's pretty much a socialist. Hillary is not far behind.

I love Reagan, and I hope that his son Michael would run in the future. He is a good man, just like his dad. Too bad his other son Ron, is a complete wacko.

Cheers to you though Scoble. I think this is one of your best posts in a while.

Is there any Republican that you would consider voting for these days? I'd consider voting for a Democrat such as Joe Lieberman. Just curious where you stand, for the sake of interest.

To be clear, I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican. I'm an independent, and have never voted in a primary. But I am a conservative (proudly).

I'd probably have to consider myself a Libertarian on many issues, EXCEPT abortion. I feel that it is adamantly wrong and immoral to kill an innocent child, just because you don't want to face the responsibility of being an adult who practices in sex outside of marriage.

Good day.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Robert Scoble — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:19:06 -0000

Brent: I've been a Republican more years in my life than I've been a Democrat. My picture of Ronald Reagan is still hanging in Silicon Valley's Republican Party Headquarters. So, you can never be too sure of which way I'll go. Heheh.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Brent — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:59:27 -0000

True, true, Scoble. One thing is for sure I think. Since the Internet is here to stay, and as such is a huge resource of information and media, using it as a means of spreading information (or propaganda, depending on how you view it), is only a natural occurrence. Anyway, it is interesting to ponder.

blockquote>I will talk about what I learn about Republican candidates, but so far none of them have invited me onto their campaigns.
I wouldn't hold your breath dude. Just kidding. As if you care. Come on Scoble, we know you're a big lib. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. It's a free country (so far).

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Robert Scoble — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:33:11 -0000

LayZ: Edwards is leading in Iowa polls.

PW: this isn't a blog where it's appropriate to talk about issues. It IS an appropriate place to talk about candidate's use of social media, since I'm an authority on that. And, yes, I will talk about what I learn about Republican candidates, but so far none of them have invited me onto their campaigns.

If you want to talk about issues, I'd recommend RedState.com for right-wing issues and DailyKos or MyDD for left wing issues.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

PW — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:43:24 -0000

I'm a little tired of the pro-Edwards-all-the-time bias of this blog too. Besides, whatever happened to weighing a candidate based on his/her stand on the issues, rather than judging his/her mode of delivery and communication? Will you also laud just as strongly someone at the other end of the political spectrum who embraces the latest & greatest social media tools?

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

LayZ — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:42:27 -0000

security is right. Osama and Billary really have no pressing need to "have a conversation". There message is getting out just fine with the MSM picking up on it. Yea, both of them used their web sites to announce "exploratory campaigns", but that was no different than putting out a press release. Until these guys see the traditional avenues failing them in polling well and getting traction, they aren't going to lose too much sleep over not "having a conversation". Edwards is getting overshadowed and drowned out by Osama and Billary so, he has to try something different to stay noticed.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

security — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:24:18 -0000

Their Campaign Political Strategists basically decides what routes they should take?

The more likely a candidate is to win - the more traditional and safer the strategies.

It appears that the 'somewhat less likely to win' candidates must employ creative options to attract New voters, disenchanted voters or more open-minded voters.

They also are somewhat less financed in the beginning - and are less likely to be profiled heavily in the powerful tradional media (unless something tragic happens).

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Brent — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:04:11 -0000

Obama is a sick and twisted freak who loves killing babies. Ever seen a photo of a partial birth abortion? It's enough to make a grown man cry. Obama is a huge supporter of infanticide. Oh yeah, Bill Clinton vetoed banning this, didn't he? Where does Hillary stand, since she never actually answers any questions?

I haven't seen a single candidate thus far, that I would even consider voting for. Perhaps Newt? Michael Reagan? That would be the only two conservatives who might actually plan to run. Libs suck dude.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Benny — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:37:52 -0000

David D: some of us are more comfortable with aliases. It's good to read you are transparent, but at the same time, you are trying to get revenues for your company, whereas some of us just blog.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

David Dalka — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:05:49 -0000

Robert,

How do you explain them printing off blog posts instead of joining the conversation.

How do you explain none of them not using a last name with an individual email? There is a lack of engagement necessary for me to give the credit you're giving and that, to me at least, is engaging with real blog posts, not throwing "blog parties".

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Robert P. — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:03:25 -0000

Robert:
Sorry, according to that story, you support Obama, all you techies. Looks like you have no choice.
http://www.mercurynews.com/...

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Benny — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:07:11 -0000

Robert - “Oh, and Edwards says he won’t accept money from any PAC. So there.”

You might want to do a little research on “Emily’s List” and see if that changes your mind.

Regardless, saying “no pac money” is only possible because he’s willing to dump millions ($6million in the last campaign) of his own money into his campaign. Now, a reasonable person has to wonder why on earth these folks would put $6,000,000 of their own money into this. They would have to be either 1) completely power hungry, 2) believe they will get back more $ than they put into it, or 3) a combination of the above. Its pure folly to think its “to make a better world”.

I'm guessing the poster is a male. Emily's List seeks to endorse women candidates. Mrs. Clinton has already gotten their endorsement for this reason alone.

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

teknologist — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:56:06 -0000

Robert - "Oh, and Edwards says he won’t accept money from any PAC. So there."

You might want to do a little research on "Emily's List" and see if that changes your mind.

Regardless, saying "no pac money" is only possible because he's willing to dump millions ($6million in the last campaign) of his own money into his campaign. Now, a reasonable person has to wonder why on earth these folks would put $6,000,000 of their own money into this. They would have to be either 1) completely power hungry, 2) believe they will get back more $ than they put into it, or 3) a combination of the above. Its pure folly to think its "to make a better world".

Re: If Campaigns are conversations?

Dario Salvelli — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:43:16 -0000

In France Segolène Royal use Second Life:

http://www.dariosalvelli.co...