Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Isn't it funny (maybe not) how the roles of Republicans and Democrats have shifted over the past 30 years.   The aspects of the Republican party that attracted me to them years ago are gone, and they have subsumed by the Dems.  For example: Fiscal responsibility. A non-interventionist foreign policy. Personal rights. Republicans have failed on all of these counts.  They are profligate spenders, able to send troops to all corners of the world on a whim, and ready to turn us into a police state.  There is nothing left of the Republican party. 9:00:51 PM    Comment_ Trackback []

Interactive electoral map on the Edwards site.  If he could get the core Dem states plus North Carolina (his home state), he wins. 4:12:26 PM    Comment_ Trackback []

Money.  Nice overview of Kerry's and Edwards' views on tax policy.  Really like Edwards' detailed program. 1:41:15 PM    Comment_ Trackback []

Social Tech: Were Weblogs and RSS overhyped in Iowa?  Michael Gartenberg, quoting Scoble, concurs that weblogs didn't play a big role in influencing the electorate in Iowa.  That is true -- not enough people read weblogs (only 4% according to Michael) to have it matter in a general election.  However, I am fairly sure that it wasn't supposed to be a mass communications vehicle at all. Political parties, from the communist party in the old Soviet Union to the US's Republican and Democratic parties are composed of only ~4% of the voting population.  Republicans and Democrats have about 2 m people each (2% each of the ~105 m people that vote.  Those are the people that make it happen.  This is much different than registered Republicans and Democrats.  These are party activists.  The rest of us are only here to be influenced.  This is why Trippi and others want to get 2 m people to contribute (its the 2% that makes a party).  By contributing, they are effectively signing a pledge to vote and work for the Dean campaign. The idea that it would be possible to get a significant portion of that funding number via online sources was and is radical.  Even more radical was the idea that this online group could be formed into a more cohesive and operationally active "party" that would drive Dean to victory. However, these radical ideas haven't played out as scripted due to the critique I posted below.  Social technology is great at building insurgencies and not grabbing mainstream political power. 12:33:44 PM    Comment_ Trackback []

Age. NASA confirmed Hubble's fate over the weekend, with chief scientist John Grunsfeld saying: "This is a sad day . . . (but) the best thing for the space community."  NOTE:  It is indeed sad and hardly what is best for the space community. 10:08:39 AM    Comment_ Trackback []

Social Tech: What an Internet enabled Insurgency is good for  Internet insurgencies are great for 2 things:  the persuasion and coercion of those in power or those that want power.  These insurgencies will be really powerful when they move beyond a blind attachment to a single candidate and start to exercise their power as outsiders. A little freethinking:  It is easy to imagine the day when social tech enabled interest groups vie with states for control of the party primary system.  For example: imagine a well funded single issue group that represents a significant portion of the active voters setting up a national caucus or convention via Meet-up.  Candidates from the two established parties would be invited to run in their primary process.  Forget 2 parties.  What about a dozen? 9:33:03 AM    Comment_ Trackback []

Social Tech: Insurgency vs. Insider Power  The big loser last night in Iowa (at least to big media -- just watch the sniping in the next couple of days) was the Internet and social technology.  I think this will be due to a misread of what social tech can do and what it can't do.  It wasn't a demonstration of the failure of social tech. to create an outsider insurgency.  It was a demonstration that the power of an Internet run campaign has difficulty moving beyond an insurgency to insider political power.  Social tech is all about outsider insurgencies and not about insider power.  Why social tech works so well to create an insurgency is the following: It can connect like minded people together, regardless of geography. Fundraising is as easy as clicking a Paypal button. The group can create its own stream of unfiltered (by big media) news for its members. Members can be quickly coordinate and accomplish operations. These attributes allow the rapid creation of a powerful and wide reaching insurgency that can challenge the establishment.  It begins to fall apart when the insurgency attempts to incorporate itself into the establishment.  The reasons for this include (within the context of Iowa): Insider endorsements belie the outsider status of the insurgency. The cacophony of the insurgency's message and activities (it is a composite of its member's thinking) is confusing to those that are outside the group they are trying to influence. Insider talent will generally oppose the insurgency since it threatens their way of life. The insurgency's power and strength will be under intense scrutiny throughout its entire lifespan.  An insurgency can form around a candidate that can't bring it the distance. 8:13:15 AM    Comment_ Trackback []