MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

As of this morning, about an hour before this post, here were the number of YouTube views for the full segment of each candidate's stint at the MoveOn.org Iraq forum:

Obama: 11,060
Edwards: 10,142
Clinton: 5,142
Richardson: 3,914
Kucinich: 2,839
Biden: 2,195
Dodd: 1,433

With numbers like these, it appears highly likely that either Obama or Edwards will "win" the forum, once the votes are counted. I wonder if Richardson will be able to sneak past Clinton for third place.

These numbers are interesting for another reason. While not exactly equivalent of a trial heat or a straw poll, the dominance of Obama and Edwards, and the surprising strength of Richardson, bears a striking similarity to the straw polls at MyDD and Dailykos. This might be evidence to support my theory from last year's BlogPac Netroots Survey:
The more frequently a netroots activist readers blogs, the less likely s/he is to have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton. While netroots activists who never read blogs have an opinion of Hillary Clinton roughly comparable to all Democrats, netroots activists who regularly read political blogs actually have an overall negative opinion of Hillary Clinton, at 45% favorable and 54% unfavorable.

Given these rather remarkable numbers, the $640,000,000 question is whether or not blog readers really are the influential, cutting edge of Democratic public opinion, or whether we are an isolated group that has little overall impact on the sentiment of the Democratic rank and file. Considering results from the recent Iowa poll, the recent Connecticut poll, and the Montana Senatorial primary (among other things), I am strongly inclined to believe that the opinions held by progressive, political blog readers eventually come to be shared by a wide percentage of the Democratic rank and file.
In the 2008 Democratic nomination process, the preferences of the progressive netroots as a whole appear to be slowly merging with the early-adopter preferences of the progressive blogosphere. If this pattern continues, and the preferences of the netroots begin to seep even further into the Democratic rank and file, it would significantly strengthen both Obama and Edwards relative to Clinton, and might even put Richardson clear of the other candidates outside the first tier.

The progressive blogosphere typically needs two things in order to effectively mold the opinion of the Democratic rank and file: a lot of time, and an established media with its attention focused elsewhere. Basically, in addition to the many indirect means we use to shape public opinion (influence on the media and activist elites), we can succeed in directly shaping opinion of the Democratic rank and file through a long, slow process of viral marketing. In this case, it is entirely possible that the excessive attention currently being given to the 2008 Democratic nomination process by all medias might actually retard our ability to influence the campaign. On the other hand, the elite pundit class is quite surprised at how quickly the campaign has turned into a three-way, and the progressive netroots are undoubtedly one of the prime factors in this development.

It actually surprises me that established media outlets have not written more about the rather significant difference between national and early state polls for the Democratic nomination and the preferences for 2008 Democratic candidates among the progressive netroots and blogosphere. Monitoring how much, or even whether, online and national Democratic opinion continue to approach one another will be a very interesting subplot throughout the nomination process.

Update: MoveOn.org member vote, overall:

Obama: 27.87
Edwards: 24.84
Kucinich: 17.18
Richardson: 12.26
Clinton: 10.70
Biden: 6.19
Dodd: 1.05

To me, the biggest surprises are the Kucinich and Biden numbers. Both are higher than I wold have expected.

Update 2: Here are the results among the hard-core members who attended house parties for the event:

Edwards: 24.56
Richardson: 20.93
Obama : 18.61
Kucinich: 15.61
Biden: 10.27
Clinton: 7.22
Dodd: 3.65

I am still surprised by the strength of Biden and Kucinich, but hey, whatever.

Tags: Blogosphere, Iraq, netroots, President 2008 (all tags)

Comments

63 Comments

Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

kudos to Obama today for standing up to the very empty rhetoric of the right. If you noticed, John McCain said today that the war in Iraq was "right, and just" and that the democrats were being reckless with the future of iraq.

Obama's reply -

What we need today is a surge in honesty," the Illinois senator said in a statement, contending that McCain was measuring progress in Iraq using "the same ideological fantasies" that led the U.S. into war (CNN)(

Bill Richardson has only 229 hits to go, before he eclipses Hillary DLClinton  (the dlc is silent)

by heyAnita 2007-04-12 06:05AM | 0 recs
by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-12 06:19AM | 0 recs
You mean after McCain's praised

Obama's position on Iraq?

I love the politics at play here. Senator McCain, if you praise me again, I'm gonna go after you!"

by david mizner 2007-04-12 07:07AM | 0 recs
you continue to play games against Obama

and misrepresent his positions on Iraq.

Obama wants out of Iraq.
He has a bill to get us out the way he thinks it should be done. Obama's Iraq War De-escalation Act, January 2007.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-12 07:43AM | 0 recs
And, let's take a stroll through Bagdad.

Holding McCain's comments about the Iraq war debate as anything but disassociated from reality is incredulous.

by fisheye 2007-04-12 07:54AM | 0 recs
Let's remember that this

was not a general debate but a debate about Iraq--perceived among many progressives to be Obama's greatest strength and Edwards's greatest weakness. Edwards was close, and I'll be interested to see what the numbers are when the topic is health care or other ecomonic issues.

by david mizner 2007-04-12 07:04AM | 0 recs
Most progressive don't know Edwards'

extensive war-hawking record.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-12 07:55AM | 0 recs
Edwards won among those at house parties.

The highest-information MoveOn members voted Edwards #1.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-12 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards won among those at house parties.

By highest information you mean to say those at house parties.

by Obama08 2007-04-12 08:41AM | 0 recs
As Chris described them...

..."the hard-core members who attended house parties for the event."

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-12 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards won among those at house parties.

They were the ones at house parties, that doesn't mean they were highest info.  I couldn't attend one at all, so I watched them later.

by yitbos96bb 2007-04-12 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings
The media is married to their opinions unless blasted away from it.  They have had the mindset for a year that Hillary would be our nominee no matter what.  That we are in love with Clinton.
The fact that we are balking at this storyline upsets them.  for one, they cannot imagine why.  So, they have it in their collective minds that we are just a bunch of 20 year olds in our parents basement being difficult.  They still have not caught on that we are of all ages from 20 - 80.  We are across economic lines and are a varied population.
If we can keep pounding this fact at them, they will eventually have to see we are the base.  We are the ones who vote.  We are the ones who want change.  We don't want politics as usual.  We are the ones who contribute to campaigns that blew the minds of the msm when the numbers were tallied on the 31st.  The under 100.00. crowd.
by vwcat 2007-04-12 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

The traditional media, whether print, audio or video, also miss the most glaring feature of all these polls: two-thirds of those being polled consistently prefer someone other than Hillary. Those two-thirds will eventually coalesce around a Democratic candidate--either Obama or Edwards, by my guess--and when they do, the traditional media will once again look foolish for not correctly interpreting the mood of the Democrats, and many independents, going into this election.

by grayslady 2007-04-12 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

Given that these are counts of people who chose to find and view a video a simpler explanation would be that a small, selected audience have watched the candidate they support. Hence the relatively high numbers for Kucinich and the low numbers overall.

by souvarine 2007-04-12 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

When will the vote total be completed and released to the public.

by BDM 2007-04-12 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

This is a repeat of Connecticut, the low information voters backing Clinton and the high information voters splitting Edwards/Obama.

Obama outpolled Clinton in higher-income groups. But Clinton won support from 52% of voters with household income under $40,000, compared with 26% for Obama and 16% for Edwards. Though Obama ran even with Clinton among college graduates, Clinton did better among less-educated voters.

I hope Democratic voters are happy with nominee Hillary 'John Kerry' Clinton.

by Matt Stoller 2007-04-12 06:23AM | 0 recs
Hillary as Kerry?

That is a stretch ... a big one.

Hillary is a fighter.  Kerry ran a soft campaign.  You can bet Hillary won't be swift boated.  Obama on the other hand?  Who knows what unused opposition research lurks out there on him.

by dpANDREWS 2007-04-12 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary as Kerry?

"You can bet Hillary won't be swift boated.  Obama on the other hand?"

Dude, don't even start.  Obama has been attacked time after time since his campaign has started.  They attack with crap for ammo because it's all they have.  On top of that, every time he gets attacked, he responds within the next day or two, leaving his attackers quiet and stumped.  Obama will not be swift boated, that's a fact.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-04-12 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary as Kerry?

This is unfounded.  Regardless of my Edwards partisanship, I'll tell you that since Obama has never been a target in a serious race, the opp research that can and will be done on him has barely scratched the surface.  

by Peter from WI 2007-04-13 06:49AM | 0 recs
moving voters away from the familiar takes time

Except in this case there is much more time to try to move to the progressive candidates those who would reflexively vote for Clinton because of her familiarity.

Kerry, btw, would have been a great President.

by Curt Matlock 2007-04-12 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: John Kerry

I gave over a thousand dollars to John Kerry in 2004.  He should have been President.  

In 2006, John Kerry and Russ Feingold introduced the Kerry-Feingold bill that would have had us out of Iraq by this summer.  Hilary Clinton voted against it (as did Barack Obama).  

In my personal view, it is a compliment to call her "John Kerry," a compliment that Hilary Clinton does not deserve.  

John Kerry fought against the Vietnam war as part of the antiwar movement and is fighting against the Iraq War.  He's a good man and a great Democrat.

by littafi 2007-04-12 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: John Kerry

Agreed.  He's a good man and a good Democrat.  

But he ran a shitty campaign.

by Peter from WI 2007-04-13 06:50AM | 0 recs
Matt-This low info voter thing bugs me

I get it, Hillary is not your favorite, so you can't imagine why anyone would vote for her.  That's fine, flame away at Hillary or even the people here who wade in to support her, but stop the general dismissive "low information-low education, high information-high education nonsense.  It doesn't take high income or college a degree to feel good or bad or nothing for a given candidate.  There are plenty of low info, low education voters who don't support Hillary, not because they know anymore about the other candidates, but because she isn't who they want.  Yes there are some who are supporting Hillary based on Bill, but there are also those who are supporting Obama based on his love fest in the media. Maybe just maybe what they've heard or seen from all three of the main candidates still leaves then thinking that Hillary is the one for them, that's okay too.  

by Kingstongirl 2007-04-12 09:52AM | 0 recs
I still say Edwards is underestimated.

I think there is much more to come, the debates may take these numbers in a whole different direction.

Edwards announces a whole new "Tour to unveil New Rural Recovery Agenda"    Monday in Nashville.

Another issue to come to the table.

by dk2 2007-04-12 06:31AM | 0 recs
Edwards is a different candidate this time around.

He is tougher and more determined I think.  I agree with you that he is underestimated.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-04-12 06:46AM | 0 recs
This is very interesting

Votes by MoveOn members who attended House Parties:

Edwards          24.56%
Richardson      20.93
Obama            18.61
Kucinich          15.61
Biden              10.27
Clinton               7.22
Dodd                3.65

In the same way that Edwards is crushing the other two in Iowa among likely voters, Edwards does best here, among the active activists. It seems the more active and knowledgeable you are, the more likely you are to support Edwards.

by david mizner 2007-04-12 07:23AM | 0 recs
This also confirms that MoveOne.org

... members that were paying the closest attention were most strongly attracted to the "complete withdrawal" position set forth by both Edwards and Richardson ... between them, they received 45%+ of the support of those who attended MoveOne.org parties.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-12 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: This is very interesting

It is amazing how Richardson pops out with people discussing the forum. Listening alone on Air America, I could zone in on candidates I liked and not pay much attention to others. At a house party you hear it all AND you discuss it. So then you get polled and vote according to the actual stands vs the popularity contest.

by Carolyn in Baltimore 2007-04-12 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: This is very interesting

Except that just because one didn't attend a house party doesn't mean they aren't an activist.  People work and have families and can't always make those kind of events.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-04-12 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: This is very interesting

Really?

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-12 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I still say Edwards is underestimated.

THats the thing about debates, they could move anyone in either direction.  Look at 2004 after Bush's performance in the first debate... or 2000 after Bush performed better than the ultra low expectations set for him by the press and Gore's sighing which swung some support to W.  They could help JRE and Obama or Hurt them both.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-04-12 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I still say Edwards is underestimated.

Democrats care about rural voters?

In 2004, here in WI, Edwards did very, very well in amping up Democratic primary vote in rural areas, if only because he showed up.  Democrats do OK when we actually talk to rural voters about their things.  

Just like in southern states, local Democrats do OK because they're there on the ground, national Democrats can do well when they actually speak to rural voters.

This is a badass thing for John Edwards to be leading on (again).

by Peter from WI 2007-04-13 06:53AM | 0 recs
Obama and Fox

made a quick diary on this (at work now) but appears Obama is back on Fox:

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/04/ 11/obama-appears-on-fncs-air/

by okamichan13 2007-04-12 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Fox

tHIS IS A PRESS GAGGLE WITH MANY REPORTERS ASKING HIM QUESTIONS INCLUDING fOX.

This is not a Fox INTERVIEW.

by BDM 2007-04-12 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Fox

Spinning won't help your candidate.

UPDATE: The Obama interview occurred with a group of reporters asking questions, one of whom was from FNC

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-12 01:22PM | 0 recs
The Limits of the Early Adoption Hypothesis

You are probably correct that netroots participants are early adopters.  They are trendsetters because they are so invested in politics that it is worth their while to acquire information early.

With respect to Hillary Clinton that means that the early adoption effects will be limited.  Average primary voters are already better informed than the average American.  Primary voters have a lot of information about Hillary Clinton.  Many of them will have made up their mind.

Having said that in a three or four way race with additional minor candidates, it does not take that much movement to catch up with Hillary.  She is definitely in her, in fact she has peaked already a couple of months ago.  Her numbers will continue to go down.

The question is whether she will be able to hold on to enough support to win.  If I had to bet my life right now then it would be on Hillary for the primary.  Having said that, Obama and Edwards have an excellent chance and Richards is not out of the game.

In my opinion, Hillary's nomination would be bad for Democrats because she will unite the disintegrating Republican coalition.  

Clinton's nomination would also be bad for Democracy.  Does America really need to be governed 24 years by two families?

by Hellmut 2007-04-12 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The Limits of the Early Adoption Hypothesis

If you look at early primary polls she does not fare so well.

She is behind in IA and SC and does not have a huge lead in NH (6) PTS.

IF SHE LOSSES MANY OF THESE EARLY STATES THE DYNAMICS OF THE RACE CHANGES.

I think it is much more important to look at the polls for the early primary states and not the national polls.

by BDM 2007-04-12 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: The Limits of the Early Adoption Hypothesis

And in the latest NH poll that I saw with a tracking figure on the previopus results from the pollster, her lead shrank dramatically. It had a high MOE (4.5%), so that with a 6% lead, the bottom end of her whisker plot overlaps with the top end of both Obama and Edwards whisker plots.

Now, overlapping whisker plots do not necessarily mean a statistical tie, because its likely that if Hillary's number is unrepresentively high, the population would in fact be distributed among multiple rivals and not just located in just one.

But it is indicative that, with many active party supporters in NH accustomed to starting to pay attention to Presidential campaigns in the spring and summer of the previous year, her support drops as people pay closer attention to what she is saying.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-12 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: The Limits of the Early Adoption Hypothesis

Correction: Hillary leads in the most recent SC poll. Check Pollster.com or electioncentral.tpmcafe.com

by meliou2 2007-04-12 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: The Limits of the Early Adoption Hypothesis

If Hillary loses one primary or caucus, she's done.  The inevitability myth around her crumbles, and she hemorrhages support.

The other candidates have the luxury of finishing first, second, or third in the First Four before going into Super Duper Tuesday.

by Peter from WI 2007-04-13 07:16AM | 0 recs
Rank and file

The local Democratic clubs and legislative districts vote to endorse or not endorse a candidate.

by mrobinsong 2007-04-12 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Rank and file

That varies state by state.

Our state party constitution here prohibits endorsement by a party unit in a contested partisan primary.  And we do not have Democratic clubs - we have county parties.  I'm sure other states are like that as well.

by Peter from WI 2007-04-13 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

Considering John Edwards pointed response(refutation) to kos' front page piece asserting that Richardson was the only advocate of full withdrawal, and the increasing prominance of candidate posts on the netroots blogs, it is apparent that the wider Democratic audience is being influenced by a rebound effect of the netroots bouncing off the leadership and candidates. Clearly, if the candidates frame their arguments in consideration of the nitpicking and intense netroots scrutiny and fund raising fickleness, gives the netroots a transitive top down influence on greater blogosphere and Democratic electorate. I can only see this paradigm accelerating, as the internet becomes the prefered vehicle of political diologue and participation.

What worries me is that the netroot blog proprietors will succumb to the same partisan or (intrapartisan) manipulation techniques of the msm. Some mechanism to safeguard the "pile on" effect of front page floggings and the subversive reverberations of unpronounced candidate biases by hatchet, in order to maintain a high standard of netroot integrity.

by fisheye 2007-04-12 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

I'm regularly surprised by the amount of people who like Biden. He's similar to Hillary, though. Once you explain to Biden supporters that he has a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth, that he was one of the main supporters of the odious 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, and the reason there is such a term as the "Biden Shot," their support cools rather quickly.

by clarkent 2007-04-12 07:08AM | 0 recs
Relevence?

This should have been a poll on the merits of this particular Iraq policy dialogue. What place does the bankruptcy bill have in guaging performance in the MoveOn "Iraq War" forum? I thought Bidon and Richardson should have been on top of this poll allthough neither are my pick for nominee for unrelated issues.

by fisheye 2007-04-12 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Relevence?

I just meant in general.

by clarkent 2007-04-12 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

He's one of the more serious and thoughtful Dems when it comes to foreign policy, so that's always going to count for something.  It's a shame you have no choice but to buy the complete package, that's all.

by Steve M 2007-04-12 07:20AM | 0 recs
Yes, but his answer on Iraq was strong.

I would expect that the results of the poll on his positions in the other two issues - Energy Independence and Health Care - will not be so strong. This forum was his strong suit, and he achieved 10% among those who watched the MoveOn forum at a house party. Meanwhile, among those who watched the forum at a house party, Edwards received 24%+ and Richardson 20%+.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-12 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings
It is obvious to me that the results of the MoveOn polls reflect anything but an objective analysis of the candidates presentations. I did not vote for my preferred candidate because he was simply overwhelmed by the command of foreign policy competence and priorities of more experienced and proven actors in this field of candidates. In the specific context of this particular Iraq dialogue, the results reflect nothing to me but a popularity contest.
The fact that at least one (Obama) candidate posted a link on the front page of his campaign web site, for his supporters to go vote at MoveOn. diminishes my faith in this process to validate the candidates policies strictly on the merits, issue by issue.
by fisheye 2007-04-12 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

I like to think people are at least somewhat rational, and I don't think I would have agreed with you had I not looked at some of the comments posted to each candidate's MoveOn presentation on their respective YouTube page. Pretty ridiculous all the way around.

Sample quote:

dear breeze, you must BELIEVE in your heart that Barack is electable and WILL be the President.If you believe that he has the power to raise our country up then, stand up and march with me and thousands of other grassroots obama supporters who believe in him because he believes in us and knows that he cannot win this election without us. as he ways, ordinary people coming together can do extraordinary things.BELIEVE and FIGHT for him!

If I ever say anything like that about John Edwards or any other candidate, please shoot me!

by clarkent 2007-04-12 07:28AM | 0 recs
DENIAL ( and these are the PRO not the Anti)

(I don't believe in murder, but if I did,)

Edwards Supporters Comments:

HELP SPREAD THIS VIDEO -- to help it climb the YouTube ratings and be seen by others: give it 5 stars, make it a favorite, comment, and forward to friends!

I actually think the strongest ticket possible is EDWARDS/BIDEN - think about it. You get North and South, and you get your pretty face who has great domestic plans and the shrewd statesman running your foreign policy. Seriously, there is no better pair IMHO.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Did you see John Edwards debate Cheney? He was strong, relentless and brilliant. On November 14, 2005, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he expressed regret for his vote supporting the Iraq War in 2002, and discussed three solutions for success in the conflict. See Wikipedia for the full story.

If Democrats don't nominate Edwards for President in 08 they don't deserve to win.

Out of 52 Comments, those were the most pro.

You were saying?

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-12 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

I think Ned Lamont was sort of the acid test for whether the netroots is out of step with the Democratic Party as a whole, which is to say, we're really not.

While we have some disparate interest groups within the Democratic coalition, there's sort of a common thread of pragmatism that keeps us on the same page.  There's never going to be the kind of widespread Hillary-hate that you see on the blogs, but I won't at all be surprised if the mainstream Democratic consensus comes to resemble the blog position on her electability and her views on the war.  Progressives have had a pretty good batting average of late.

by Steve M 2007-04-12 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

Having watched in one of the MoveOn groups where people were far less informed or political than here, I am not surprised that Biden got a few votes. He came across as a smart "Daddy who knows the score" figure. No gaffes -- reassuringly presidential. Some people just want to stop being embarrassed.

by janinsanfran 2007-04-12 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

He did give a list of the four largest Muslim nations that missed Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt ... so he kind of batted 0 for 4 on that, but obviously he meant largest Muslim nations in the immediate vicinity of Iraq, and he wanted to avoid saying Syria.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-12 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

Re: "the preferences of the progressive netroots as a whole appear to be slowly merging with the early-adopter preferences of the progressive blogosphere," pardon my lack of knowledge, but what is the difference between the progressive netroots and the progressive blogosphere?

I thought they were synonymous.

by HeartlandDem 2007-04-12 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

Uhm, like MoveOn.org and ActBlue?

That is, not all progressive netroots action takes place in the blogosphere. The progressive blogosphere is an important part of the whole, but its not the whole ball of wax.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-12 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

Is the data from the BlogPac netroots survey available anywhere?

by aaronetc 2007-04-12 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

Someone needs to pay more attention to the differences in rankings from house parties. Were they people who supported different candidates from the get-go or were they more focused on listening and discussing? I was tuned in to Edwards' and Richardsons clear message on the internets. It would be interesting to see if everybody was as focused on this event vs their general impressions of candidates.........

by Carolyn in Baltimore 2007-04-12 09:19AM | 0 recs
CAUTION TO SPINMEISTERS

Those touting the "HOUSE PARTIES" as if that's more important than the REAL results are setting yourselves up for a huge disappointment.

I attended no House Party this time around and I can guarantee you that I am one of the most hard core MoveOn.org Members, more than many here. I have been actively involved with this group for years. Please stay away from stating opinions as fact. Why?

Well, it's simple. When we get results like these and our candidate is not on top, we may be tempted to attempt to rationalize the failure on his or her part. I see this most with the supporters of one specific candidate , but everyone does it.

This is not healthy because instead of using the results as an opportunity to help your candidate, you end up hurting them by keeping yourself in denial and not taking the steps needed to actually help your candidate.

I saw this happen during the 1Q Fundraising Reports where some were in denial and started making up excuses for why their candidate did not raise as much money or have as many donors as they claimed he/she would have before the numbers came out ,and I am seeing it again.

You guys are not helping your candidate.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-12 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: CAUTION TO SPINMEISTERS

Ignoring the opinions of those who actually showed up is also a mistake.  Those people actually saw the videos, and actually voted on what they saw.  I'll bet that a lot of non-attendee voters didn't watch the videos, turning the results into a popularity contest about name recognition.

Bill Richardson did very well, despite trailing Edwards on style points.  Hillary and Obama did not.  I wasn't surprised by how weaselly Hillary was, but I was shocked by Obama's timidity.  He was not eloquent this time because his answers lacked substance.

by NM Ward Chair 2007-04-12 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: CAUTION TO SPINMEISTERS

It's a matter of statistics.

by Peter from WI 2007-04-13 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

You are "surprised" about Kucinich's result? Don't you mean "disappointed" or perhaps, "pissed?" And you didn't have to add Biden to divert the object of your "surprise."  

by notaboomer 2007-04-12 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: MoveOn.org Iraq Forum YouTube Rankings

When any of the other candidates say they'll join the International Criminal Court with as much confidence as Kucinich did, their numbers might be surprising too.

by audi100quattro 2007-04-12 04:29PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads