Blogs vs. Hillary at the FEC
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 31st, 2007 10:44 am Conservative bloggers Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan will file a formal complaint about Hillary Clinton’s shady fundraising practices with the Federal Election Commission today.
On the heels of the Norman Hsu scandal, the Clinton campaign was rocked by questions of even more Hsu-like shakedowns in connection with a $380,000 fundraiser in New York which saw contributions ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 from cooks and dishwashers. At least one donor admitted to being an illegal immigrant. Another said she was illegally reimbursed for her contributions. Others said they felt pressured to give.
Unlike the Hsu cash, Hillary’s campaign has yet to return the bulk of this tainted money.
This complaint brings these charges into a formal FEC process. The Clinton campaign will have 15 days to respond and publicly defend itself from charges of illegal campaign fundraising.
When lefty blogger Lane Hudson filed FEC complaints against Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, the press couldn’t get enough of the story. I expect Margolis and Noonan will get similar treatment.
This is really smart on Margolis and Noonan’s part, who know the issue of Democrat corruption backwards and forwards as the authors of Caucus of Corruption. For about the time it would have taken to write a blog entry on this issue, they can demand real accountability from the Clinton campaign. I wish I’d thought of this.
![]()
Comments (1)
Trackbacks (2)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-10-31
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 31st, 2007 8:20 am
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-10-30
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 30th, 2007 8:21 am-
Why Dems are raising more money
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
Hillary Under 50% vs. Ron Paul
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 29th, 2007 11:46 pmLike Brian Faughan, I think this is a very, very big deal. From Jim Geraghty:
Pollster Scott Rasmussen just shared this fascinating observation in an interview: When you average the head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton vs. any of the Republicans, she’s always getting 46 to 49 percent against any of them.
“When we polled her against Ron Paul, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled on Ron Paul among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled among people who didn’t know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent percent of the vote.”
Paul got 38 percent against Hillary.
“In individual head-to-heads with Giuliani it’s essentially a toss up, Thompson trails a little, but they’re all close,” Rasmussen continued. “Clinton and Giuliani, in 11 polls, were within two points of 45 percent - basically ranging from 43 to 47 percent. It reminded me of Election 2004, where after Kerry won the nomination, for more than 60 days,” Kerry and Bush remained quite close to each other.
Listen to Geraghty on this. He was around in 2004. He understands the post-Bush dynamic better than anyone, where 4 points is a landslide. And this is the most compelling evidence I’ve seen that we’re back to the 50-50 divide that marked our politics from 2000-2006.
Basically, Republicans can run a stuffed animal against Hillary and still get 48% of the vote. Only worse. Ron Paul is widely despised by elements of the Republican base. A number of conservatives I know would bolt or sit on their hands if General Zod came down and made sure Ron Paul were the nominee. So what does it say he trails by 10 points? In 1996, the paleocon candidate Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire and he was the subject of a number of head to head polls against Bill Clinton. He got crushed by 25 points or more, and Clinton wasn’t even that popular at the time. And Pat Buchanan had communications skills, and a following in the conservative base.
In 2004, Kerry arose from a muddled field and evened the score with Bush almost overnight. At this point in ‘04, the named Democrat (Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc.) was losing to Bush by 10-15 points; the generic Dem by 6-7 points. The Republican field is similarly muddled this time, and not a lot of people are paying attention to the Republican race. So the Republican nominee has a good opportunity to pick up ground against Hillary post-February 5, who remains largely untested in this campaign. (Obama = $100 million audition for VP.) And she starts no better than even or up a few points against the major Republican candidates.
Hillary not breaking 50% against a guy who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve is a leading indicator of her fundamental weakness in the general election.
![]()
Comments (13)
Trackbacks (1)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-10-28
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 28th, 2007 8:18 am
![]()
Comments (1)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-10-27
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 27th, 2007 8:22 am-
List swap backlash
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
Radiohead Republicans
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 26th, 2007 6:19 pmThere just aren’t that many of them.
But there are plenty more interested in the Bible, Country music, Sportscenter, watching 24, and playing Halo 3 on their Xbox.
Meanwhile, liberals watch the Daily Show, love Radiohead (by a 6-to-1 margin over conservatives), and let’s just say I like who Stephen Colbert takes votes from.
This is all part of my deep dive into Facebook demographic data provided at by the Flyers Pro advertising engine. . I’ve just updated the spreadsheet. (See part I of this series for more.) The data looks like this:
I’ve also added another column for the percentage of people who specify an ideology (this isn’t perfect since Libertarians are excluded). This is a proxy for how interested politically you are.
The most politically jazzed up constituency are those who say they’re interested in politics (78%), followed by West Wing fans (72%), Capitol Hill staffers (69%), and Daily Show viewers (65%). The least? Those who work at Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google (in the 30s).
People who specify “Politics” as an interest in are 53-25% liberal over conservative as compared to a 9 point liberal lead on the Facebook network.
But Britney Spears fans are 49% to 26% liberal.
If you find this data fascinating and want to help build on it, log into Facebook, go to this page (note: you can only get stats as a Facebook member), and plug in what ever common interest (movie, TV show, pastime, whatever) in the keyword field. Jot down four data points, starting with the number of people who match that interest overall, and the numbers that appear when you tick off the Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative checkboxes. Then post it in the comments.
Could Facebook be the greatest microtargeting engine ever built?
![]()
Comments (7)
Trackbacks (6)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-10-26
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 26th, 2007 8:25 am
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
The Early Adopter Effect
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 26th, 2007 2:28 amTo work in the online political world is to be swimming in a sea of data — but to be without the kind of real, hard data that pollsters and strategists rely on to drive the overall campaign.
What do I mean by this? TechPresident has plenty of data. They have MySpace charts, Hitwise traffic, Evenful demands. Well yeah. But we all know by now that YouTube views doesn’t equal votes. And we really don’t know the demographic that are driving supporters of certain candidates to be more active. Why do Democrats seem to give money online at 2 or 3 times the rate of Republicans? People try to argue stuff like, Democrats have an edge with young voters. But that’s deeply unsatisfying. Young people aren’t 2 to 3 times more Democratic than older people. They’re maybe 10 points moreso. And even so, Ron Paul supporters show how dedicated minorities can leapfrog a far more numerous majority.
As a practitioner of online politics for almost a decade, I can tell you that we are flying blind as far as real demographic and survey data goes. The demographic data that comes from panels like ComScore, Nielsen, and Compete was designed to be usable for large eCommerce sites with millions of unique visitors a month. I wouldn’t trust their demographic breakdowns as far as I could throw them for a Presidential campaign site that gets hundreds of thousands of uniques a month.
Now, the campaigns themselves should have a pretty good handle on who their people are — if they take the step of matching their supporter list to the voter file. But there is no comparative data with rival campaigns. Online polling — the scientific kind — is still in its infancy. You can’t field a poll and ask who’s going to Obama’s site vs. who’s going to Clinton’s site cost effectively. You can’t get the answers to the questions that ComScore or Nielsen won’t give you.
Facebook is on the verge of showing us a better way. Through the pro version of their Flyers self-serve advertising platform, they’ve given us a way to grab precise demographic counts on their membership, including ideology. These aren’t samples, but their entire universe. This was meant to be used for ad targeting, but it is also a powerful data mining tool. I was first turned on to this by Stephen Taylor and iStrategyLabs.
Out of idle curiosity, I started running an ideological breakdown of Facebook users by age, starting at Facebook’s minimum age of 14 and working my way up. The spreadsheet is here so you can follow along.
It was after I started reached the mid-20s that I stumbled upon something that may help quantify the early adopter bias. High school and college users were pretty consistently about 4-8 points more liberal than conservative. That’s sort of where you’d expect them to be given the 18-29 year old vote. And Facebook’s market penetration with this cohort is such that this is likely to be a highly representative sample of Americans that age.
But the older you got, through users in their 20s, the more liberal the user base became. It was inexorable. Each year, liberals picked up a couple of points on conservatives. My fellow 29-year olds on Facebook are +25.3% liberal. The 20-year old bracket is +4.5% liberal.
Given how stable the numbers were for college/high school users, with much higher numbers, this seemed unlikely to suggest an actual demographic shift in Generation Y.
But something else was going on. As liberals were picking up steam, the number of Facebook users were getting progressively smaller with each age cohort.
It makes perfect sense when you think about it. These users represent early adopters who never used Facebook in college. The people who joined Facebook since it opened up, or finagled a way into it before then using a stray alumni .edu address like I did.
This is pretty strong evidence of a liberal/early adopter correlation. Non-college Facebook users in their late twenties are two to one liberal where their college age counterparts are pretty closely matched.
That two-to-one ratio probably correlates with usage of other high-end web services and even traffic to the candidate sites themselves. It also gives quantifiable backing to the idea that Republicans stand to gain as the universe is widened entering the general election, as I’ve long suspected.
This is why it’s idiotic to extrapolate popularity from online metrics. If it’s (still) mainly the early adopters using the tools, then those early adopters can look dramatically different than the voting population without it portending doom.
Most campaign sites are probably getting visitorship in the tens of thousands of visitors per day, if that. That’s still within the early adopter universe. As politics online becomes more mainstream, the Democrats’ potential for growth is considerably constrained. Actual online engagement among people who are fully comfortable with the medium (the Millenials) is no worse than the D/R split in voting. That’s still a problem for Republicans given our challenging numbers with 18-29 voters, but the problem then becomes merged with the electoral one rather than being compounded by online-specific trends. As the popularity of the tools grows and the Millenials go mainstream, the 2-to-1 split Democrats have counted on could be a thing of the past.
There are a couple of other interesting angles to this that I’d like to explore.
First, gender. The gender gap among the (again, highly representative) college age cohort is huge. Men are +2.3% conservative. Women are +13.7% liberal, a 16-point spread. Women are also 54.5% of the self-identifying universe (the guys are probably off playing video games).
That holds with Facebookers aged 23 to 29. You see the same 16 point gender gap, but the numbers are more liberal. The actual representation of men and women narrows somewhat, with women at 51.4% of the universe.
With the over-30 crowd, we start to see a nearly 50-50 spread of men and women. But the gender gap narrows dramatically, with a +8% liberal bias in women 30 to 34, a +1.4% bias in women 35 to 39, and women over 40 on Facebook are +7.4% more conservative than their male counterparts (I’ll concede that this is a fairly small universe — just 330,000 Facebookers over 40).
Having been around politics for a little bit, I can tell you this is not reflective of overall trends. The gender gap still exists with 30- and 40-something voters. But the fact that it disappears on Facebook is reflective of something else — the early adopter gap.
Hypothesizing off the stereotype that early adopters tend to be male, interested in technology, and liberal, you start to see how this plays out. (Look at the blogosphere. It skews heavily male.) In the age groups with fewer Facebook users, early adopting men displace general interest men who are likely to be 8 or 10 points more conservative than their female counterparts.
Another oddity in the data is that the pro-liberal trend doesn’t continue forever. In the early thirties, Facebook users start getting more conservative despite some being uber-early adopters. But that doesn’t invalidate the thesis. Remember that most polls show that conservatives enjoy a 3 to 2 edge over liberals in the general electorate, so we have to start picking up somewhere. What we can draw from the Facebook data is that the future electorate is less moderate (28% vs. 49% among actual voters) and that liberal=Democrat and conservative=Republican to a far greater degree than in the current electorate.
Naturally, there is only limited data when it comes to voters outside the 18-29 age group. Only 1.6 million Americans older than me are even on Facebook. But I’ll be enjoying watching the Facebook Flyers data set grow, and will run another set of numbers in a few weeks to see my thesis of later adopters being more conservative is actually playing out.
For Republicans, this gives us quantifiable data for the first time showing where to concentrate our online efforts. Our comparative advantage is not in dominating the existing social networks, but to do things that expand the universe, and to get people on the edges of the process to engage (it’s not all that different than what Hillary has done to transcend the netroots). This sounds like liberal election strategy, but for our purposes, it forms the outlines of a conservative insurgent strategy to retake the Web.
![]()
Comments (1)
Trackbacks (7)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
Information Gaps on the Right
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 24th, 2007 1:34 amMemeorandum’s Leaderboard just went up. I think this can inform the lively discussion on how conservatives get information that Joe Carter and Soren Dayton are currently engaged in.
The Leaderboard is an interesting metric. It’s not about popularity, or even actual reach. It’s about who provides original information that then becomes fodder for commentary. So Daily Kos is way down on the list. The Politico (Martin, Smith, Simon, Allen, etc.) and the Atlantic (home of Ambinder and Andrew Sullivan) are very high, along with the big newspapers.
Looking at the list, I can identify two information flow problems for the right, neither of which have to do with “blogs” as commonly understood:
- The “leans left” character of the information behemoths at the top — the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the AP.
- The lack of “feeder” blogs that act as a source for original research, breaking news, and reporting (the TPM network, Think Progress).
It seems kind of old fashioned to keep harping on the tyranny of the mainstream media, especially as a blogger. No, it’s nowhere near as bad as it used to be. But the agenda-setting power of old media remains huge. As a re-elect staffer, I can tell you it was palpable and everywhere in 2004, especially in the spring and summer months when they tried to keep Bush down with an Iraq/jobs narrative. Nothing expressed this power better than ABC’s then-dominant The Note (e.g. of “Kerry’s race to lose,” “Halperin Memo” fame), which rarely if ever made reference to blogs, rued Drudge, and waxed poetic on the iron lock the media had on the news cycle, in which New York Times would set the agenda for the cables and for that evening’s news.
To be fair, they vastly overestimated the power of a dying system. Rathergate was a real punch in the gut. And that fall’s coverage was primarily horserace-driven, so they couldn’t ignore the Bush lead.
In 2006, the media narrative about GOP scandal, etc. was also very powerful, but you can’t say they made it up out of whole cloth. Still, does anyone believe the coverage would have been as ferocious had Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Fortney Stark, and Bill Jefferson been the protagonists?
In 2008, the media’s decision to cover the Democrats at a 2:1 or 3:2 ratio over the Republicans is also agenda-setting, and has arguably had real consequences for fundraising. Their decision to cover Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as “celebrity”-candidates is important, especially when Rudy Giuliani and John McCain had similar claim to “celebrity” status based on their wide appeal. This media interest has meant that Clinton and Obama have had real success raising money online.
And the Bobby Jindal story is also a litmus test. The fact that an Illinois state senator with few accomplishments got fawning coverage when he first ran, while the younger Jindal’s storied accomplishments and unique narrative are A17 news speaks volumes.
“Conservative media” is downstream media — talk radio, talking heads, columnists, opinion sites, blogs. Liberal media is upstream media — print, some TV, and high-level “feeder” blogs like TPM and ThinkProgress that do their own reporting and frame narratives. This equation means that conservative voices are represented, but only after liberals get the first crack. This anecdote from Soren speaks volumes:
I was at a recent panel, not at FRC, where a Republican asked a reporter why the reporter didn’t write about the conservative perspective on the S-CHIP bill. The reporter responded that he never heard that perspective. His friends were almost all liberal and they talked about the lefty argument. He had a couple of libertarian friends who told him the libertarian argument. No one ever told him the conservative-populist argument.
Conservatives can get their message across through dedicated channels, but it’s always going to be the “alternative” viewpoint. About 50% of Memeorandum is mainstream “news.” About 30% is partisan — split pretty evenly between left and right. The rest is the long tail. Holding our own in that 30% doesn’t matter much if the other 50% leans left and dominates the narrative.
Iraq is illustrative of this emergency. The fact that we have to scrounge for change between the pillows to send guys like Jeff Emanuel to do real reporting in Iraq is a disgrace. There should be a standing $10 million annual investment to fund 50 embeds in Iraq at a time, who can not only churn out readable 900-word pieces but can also do video from the front, including when the guns go off. All this original reporting should be aggregated on a dedicated channel like Politico, ThinkProgress, or OfftheBus. There should be a partnership with Fox News to provide video in places mainstream reporters won’t go.
The lack of such an infrastructure is not for lack of interest. Lots of bloggers have been over to Iraq, a commitment which makes the professional activists in the leftosphere look like dilettantes. Guys like Jeff, Bill Roggio, and Michael Yon have been the advance guard for this stuff. But nothing little has been done to institutionalize their work, to create counter-memes by controlling the upstream information flow through a system for nurturing these upstart war reporters. The failure to develop an effective counter-narrative out of Iraq is reflective of the “conservative message machine” and its reluctance to think outside the box.
Every movement or media phenomenon starts with amateurs improvising. But at some point it has to be professionalized if it’s going to be sustained and grow. The new progressive movement started with guys like Atrios, who then got picked up by Media Matters. Dozens of lefty bloggers are employed by the new lefty infrastructure. As far as I know, Erick Erickson at Red State, and possibly my Townhall co-bloggers MKH and Matt Lewis, are the only ones employed full time by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Blog Division, who aren’t primarily journalists and as such have real freedom of action.
The Left also seems to be developing a lead in powerful feeders mechanisms that do little more than tee up information for other blogs. ThinkProgress provides a valuable service to the left by leveraging a full-time research staff to be the first to report and frame up news stories. Their content is rarely witty and original and isn’t meant to be. It’s just meant to provide context and a prod for others to cover these stories. The research backing also means they do the legwork to connect the dots in ways that bloggers rarely do. If John McCain says something today, they’re all about telling you what he said about the same thing in March, what he said in 2003, what he said in 1999, and so on.
Republicans have research operations as sophisticated if not more. The challenge is that they’re tied up on campaigns, the RNC, Congressional leadership, think tanks, etc. They can only release information that supports their message on any given day. Or they’re focused on long term policy studies, not day-to-day political battles. To the extent they’re “official,” they’re also seen as less credible. If any of these operations could release the majority of their work product on a blog, it would be incredibly powerful. But they’re prevented from doing so, for institutional reasons.
If someone has $2 million to throw around on Rush Limbaugh’s letter, then someone has a few million to spend on a blogger-journalists to investigate Democratic corruption or on a sustained project to get out different storylines about Iraq or to set up an open-source research operation to more closely bracket the coverage. And it doesn’t have to be done through any existing institution, with all its offline encumbrances. The Politico, already at #4 on Memeorandum, shows the power of doing it as a startup.



















