ProjectVirginia

Romney to Tea Partiers: Don’t Run As Third Party Candidates

Chris — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:52:33 +0000

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) praised the Tea Party movement and then asked them not to run as third party candidates in the general elections. Romney explained, “if a conservative tea party candidate runs in a general election, that would siphon votes away from a Republican candidate, and ‘divide and fail is the result.’” Romney asks Tea Partiers to run in the primaries but if they lose they should back the Republican candidate. Third party candidates traditionally don’t pose serious threats to win general elections.

Arizona tea party movement making McCain and Hayworth work for vot

Chris — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:33:11 +0000

Re-posted Examiner.com

By: Ford O’Connell

The battle for the GOP Arizona Senate nomination could be one of the fiercest Republican primary battles of 2010.

There are three announced candidates vying for the Arizona Senate GOP nomination, with conventional political wisdom viewing this race as a two-way battle between incumbent Sen. John McCain and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

Last week, the leaders of Arizona’s four largest tea party organizations (Tucson Tea Party, Greater Phoenix Tea Party, Flagstaff Tea Party and Mojave Tea Party) issued a joint press release outlining their unified decision to not endorse a candidate in the Arizona Senate GOP primary. There are more than 30 tea party-affiliated organizations operating in the Grand Canyon State.

According to Kelly Townsend, organizer of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party, “It is not appropriate to make an endorsement in this race at the drop of a hat, as some other groups are doing.”

Robert Mayer, co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party, took it a step further: “Both McCain and Hayworth’s records during their many years in Washington leave much to be desired…It is their job to…fight for our votes.”

Given the recent drubbing that the tea party movement has taken in the mainstream media, one could argue that the publically unified stance of Arizona’s four largest tea party organizations is a shrewd political move that could keep their issues at the forefront of the debate, perhaps even more effectively than if they field a candidate from within their own ranks. Here’s why:

No strong candidate on the Democratic side has yet appeared – former Bell Gardens (California) mayor Rudy Garcia is the only candidate to have announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination. While the independent nature of Arizona voters is well documented, it would take something close to extraordinary for “self-described” independent voters in the Grand Canyon State to play a deciding role in this race come November should the Democrats field a subpar candidate and Arizona registered Republican voters elect to tow the party line. Remember, most Arizona voters value immigration reform over healthcare reform and John McCain and George Bush easily coasted to victory in the last two Presidential contests in Arizona. Although immigration reform is not a tea party specific issue, it weighs heavily on the minds of Arizona voters. Sen. McCain has at times been criticized as being soft on this issue.

When you factor in the date of this year’s Arizona Republican Primary – August 24 – one begins to surmise that if Arizona tea partiers want to truly bring about greater adherence to their stated principles of “limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility” within the Grand Canyon State and in Washington, they are best served, this year, by working within the two-party system, not outside of it. Unlike the well-known Sen. McCain or former Congressman Hayworth, a unknown come-from behind tea party challenger, even if he or she won the primary, would have a much tougher time building name recognition and winning in the general election.

By publicly shying away from endorsing McCain or Hayworth in a unified fashion and working within the two-party system (at least for now), Arizona tea partiers are better positioned to hold both candidates accountable. According to published reports, this tactic appears to be paying dividends – Sen. McCain has been forced to defend his Senate record of supporting the government bailouts of the financial sector, and Hayworth has had to fend off criticism of his ties to former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The Importance Of An Online Discussion

Chris — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:41:45 +0000

Brian Kirwin of Bearing Drift recently wrote a blog post entitled, “Fees aren’t taxes.” The post took an aggressive stance on taxes but I don’t want to talk about topic but rather the way Kirwin has dealt with the criticism.

One of the great parts of the blogging is the comment section. I love seeing comments after I write a blog post. First, it lets me know people are actually reading. Second, it gives me the opportunity to engage with my readers.

However, if you are condescending and insulting when engaging commenters you almost guarantee that person won’t be reading your blog again. You also make yourself look uneducated on the issue. Brian Kirwin is bordering on this with the way he has responded to the comments on his article. Kirwin wrote an article that he knew would get a lot of criticism, he finished the article, “Now….fire away.” Yet when people contradict what he says, he begins to insult them, saying things like, “Wally, congratulations for getting passed Eighth Grade.”

If you can’t handle the criticism, either don’t write controversial content or turn off your comments because there are always going to be people who don’t agree with what you say. Participate in the public debate and maybe a commenter will give you a different perspective on the issue that you had never thought about.

–Chris Walling, Political Editor

The Elusive Follower/Following Twitter Ratio

Chris — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:17:14 +0000

I seem to be agreeing with Wesley Donehue a lot lately. His latest post “Claire McCaskill’s Twitter Arrogance” addresses an issue I was considering writing about. The optimal Twitter followers/following ratio is a topic that many have weighed in on. Some say that your followers should always be 5% more than those you’re following, some say only follow people you care about, and some say you should only follow people with “influence.” There are dozens of theories on what your ratio should be.

Donehue correctly points out that people who only follow a select group of people come off as “arrogant.” This holds especially true for politicians, such as Sen. McCaskill (D-MO), who is only following one person, despite being followed by 36,691 people. Besides appearing “arrogant,” McCaskill demonstrates that she does not understand the technology.

Twitter is supposed to be a two way conversation, not someone preaching about themselves, Donehue explains, “A politico who is not following people is like that jerk at a party who has to be the center of attention, who only talks about his/her self, and who could give a damn about other people.”

I don’t think that there is one optimal ratio on Twitter. Clearly, candidates don’t want to be following 1,000 people, while only accumulating 15 followers. But the reverse is also bad. I also don’t buy into the theory of only following “influential” tweeps on Twitter. If a candidate’s goal is to spread his/her message and connect with constituents, following a famous politico doesn’t accomplish this. Those people are unlikely to pass along the content and they probably aren’t concerned about your campaign. However, a Twitter user with 500 followers (all of them living within your district) is a lot more likely to retweet your message to fellow voters and get involved in a productive conversation.

To go further, determining a person’s “influence” on Twitter is extremely difficult. There are websites that attempt to this but none of them are perfect. So that means that a person’s influence most likely comes from their name. This comes back to an important point about social media in politics. Any constituent can become an important activist to a campaign regardless of name, age or sex.

So, candidates ought to refollow people who follow them because engaging a lot of local users will end up benefiting your Twitter campaign more than a select few politicians will.

–Chris Walling, Political Editor

When Staff Tweets, Who’s Talking?

Chris — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:56:46 +0000

Now that the Internet and social media are an important aspects people’s lives, it was only a matter of time before opposition research took to the Internet. However, opposition research doesn’t stop with the candidate, it is also applies to their staff. If you are employed by or directly connected to a campaign everything you say online can be used against the candidate. Just as companies are doing, campaigns must sit down with their staff and setup guidelines for Internet use.

Cut Congress’s pay, keep them at home

Chris — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:51:56 +0000

Great editorial article from Washington Examiner. The article highlights Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick’s (D-AZ) bill that would cut Congress’s salary by 5%. While this bill would show the American people that Congressmen are serious about fiscal responsibility in these hard economic times, I have a hard time believing it will pass because it directly influences their pockets.

The article also proposes that the House of Representatives eliminate the rule requiring members to vote from the House floor. In the age of technology voting remotely from a member’s home district is simple. Of course, there would need to be certain security procedures put into place but with the use of video technology it is definitely do able. The article explains, “Letting representatives vote from their home district offices would put them back among the people they are supposed to represent. And keeping them closer would make it easier for voters to keep a close eye on them and harder for special interests to get to them.”

However, if Congressmen were to live permanently in their district and only travel to Washington for important business, it would force an enormous change in the way the House does business. With Congressmen spending less time in Washington it would mean meetings, committee discussions, etc. would have to be done through videoconferencing. While these are all possible, it is hard to believe the House of Representatives would completely alter the way it does business.

What If A Conservative Said “Obama Couldn’t Sell Watermelons?”

Chris — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:57:41 +0000

Title is from AllahPundit

Twitter and Politics: Friends or Foes?

Chris — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:43:51 +0000

Frank Reed poses this question and I think that it is pretty clear that politicians, especially candidates, must be on Twitter. Reed explains that while Twitter may be a good communication tool, it may also be too easy for politicians to say something damaging. However, this is a problem that can be applied to almost every aspect of politician’s life. Politicians must constantly watch what they say on and offline. Some of the most damaging material happens when politicians are caught on camera talking to reporters. In the current digital age, a cell phone video can go viral about as quickly as a tweet can. Politicians can’t afford to pass up the opportunity to connect with constituents and spread their message on Twitter, especially as traditional media continues to struggle. But just like anything they do it has to be calculated. To quote Wesley Donehue, “Twitter Is Not A Toy.”

–Chris Walling, Political Editor

Community Oppo Research

Chris — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:18:13 +0000

This is an interesting and innovative way to do opposition research. Level The Playing Field 2010 has started wikimeg.com to help dig up dirt on California Republican Meg Whitman. Wikimeg.com will act as a central location for users to submit their information about Whitman. Opposition research has largely been a covert operation, done behind closed doors. However, wikimeg.com opens the process to anyone with a working email address.

Communal online research may provide the left with several “nuggets” of information to attack Whitman with but it may also discredit all of the claims on the website. Creditability online is extremely difficult to achieve, especially when it comes from largely unknown sources. This is definitely a new way and innovative tool for political campaigns but I think that the negatives are going to outweigh the positives in the end.

Update from techPresident

-Chris Walling, Political Editor

White House Tweeting To Spread President’s Message

Chris — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:16:58 +0000

This is not a new thing for the White House and its press corp. They have been using Twitter to spread the President Obama’s message since he took office. However, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has just begun tweeting – joining in early February. This administration has embraced social media and the Internet as a major news outlet. This should not have shocked anyone who watched Obama’s campaign masterfully use the Internet in 2008.