Hanging out with Joe Trippi

Scoble,

Joe Trippi btw a while ago wrote an editorial where he predicted that the two-party system would give way, not just because of dissatisfaction with the two parties that we saw with the maverick candidacies of people like Perot, but because the Internet, especially through mediums like blogging, allow people to organize in non-traditional ways and bypass the barriers in traditional party building.

Here is a URL to his editorial:
The parties march toward extinction
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5591533/
“The Internet is making the two parties, as they now stand, obsolete.”

A lot of people give credit to his management of Howards Dean campaign for the first succesful use of the internet in party operations. I was involved in the Reform Party while it was still viable, though, and with as limited sucess as we had, many people don’t realize that the party mainly functioned and was organized through the Internet. Members of the national committee would discuss issues, and do party business through email groups, where others interested could participate. Major party activists would regularly come on Efnet IRC, where we had Ross Perot, Pat Choate, and others come on frequently for moderated discussions. We had a lot of success organizing the party through the Internet that would be impracticable to do through traditional means, because of lack of existing organization. Now that the
Internet is more mature, and I believe the time is even more ripe for a centrist third party than in 1992, I think Trippi’s arguments have merit.

At any rate I respect Joe Trippi a lot more than I respect Howard Dean. He was the real political brains behind the early Dean campaign and not Dean himself (who I find to be naive and in over his head politics-wise)

Brian: what you say matches what Joe told me almost word-for-word. It’s also very clear that Joe was the brains behind the blog, not Howard. Of course we already knew that, but it was good to hear it from Joe himself.

We need a 3rd party. One with the fiscal conservatism and small government that the Republicans preach (but don’t practice) and the non-craziness of the Democrats (ie, gay marriage and abortion is OK – not an insult to your God).

Oh yeah, and we can stop large hand outs to get things passed.

No presidential candidate that I see even comes close to being transparent, good-natured, and extremely intelligent… all the thing one expects from a business now days.

He says there’s no way that he can see working in American Presidential politics again.

A Benedict Arnold within his own Party, and pure acid to the other. But surely someone at DNC would take him on, now that the gadfly Dean is less vile to the Democratic Party. Or too flaky for even the Demo’s?

Still tho, the media or something like the mayday Air America might take him on. Could be a media darling, tossing out outrageous zappers here and there, to stir the Eastern Establishments all up over nothing, and provide endless Powerline and Limbaugh fodder. I say go media. Otherwise cook to foreign countries that haven’t caught onto the bubbleish nature of the hype.

Rep’s are more mad over immigration and the Miami port row, and mad that W. hasn’t carpet bombed the Middle East already. Hillary is not a shoo-in, if she is, then DNC is a shoo-out. But she will have to bend twist and flap to stay Middle-America viable, ending up ticking everybody off, esp. her base, no one will trust her. And a Hillary nomination, is secrectly a Republican wet dream.

But something Reaganish, minus the Dot.com Valley and Enronish free-market Libertarians, someone preaching a strong SEC, and strong on the war on terror and strong on the upcoming war with Iran, is what we will end up with. I don’t see Demo’s as having a prayer of a chance. Presidentialwise that is, midterm they could score some hits, as Rep’s major upset with W.’s wishy washyness.

“Oh, and he says that Republicans are far more blog savvy than the Democrats are and are spending more resources on the Internet”
In what way? The left wing blogs seem to be better at mobilizing grass roots money, manpower, and information than the prominent right wing ones IMO, and I read about 20 different ones (although about 3-1 in favor of left-wing), so is he basing that on some particular number(s)?

Howard Dean was on the Microsoft campus yesterday and had some interesting things to say about 2008 and what they were doing to recreate the democratic party. It will definitely be an interesting election. It is so much better listening to these guys in person, whether you agree or not, instead of just hearing what the press has to say or what soundbite they let you hear.

Topper,

What you’re describing is a sort of libertarianism which I don’t agree with and I don’t think the majority of Americans would support. Instead I think people see the extremes on both sides of issues of things like gay marriage and abortion; or on fiscal issues or trade or immigration issues; and want reasonable compromises. Very good compromises have been proposed but get little attention. Both sides have tried to position themselves toward the center, and have made half decent attempts but I think our politics are so fundamentally corrupt that it is impossible to rely on them for progress on these issues.

I’m not sure I’d agree with Trippi that the Republicans are going to end up with a candidate to the right of George W Bush. Its true that the Republican base is dissatisfied with him, but it would be more over fiscal issues, since Bush has allowed the budget to bloat. I don’t think the constituency of the Republican part which is against abortion or gay marriage will really be dissatisfied. Most Republicans against abortion for instance aren’t the extremists they have the image of being, most are just against third trimester abortions and support things like parental notification. I think they are also satisfied with Bush’s push for faith-based initiatives. Most states have passed ballot initiatives against gay marriage, so I’m not sure how that will be an issue to rile anyone up. I’m sure if Condoleeza Rice would be game, the Republican Party would nominate her, though I know she isn’t considering it. She is not what you would call right of the President.

Joe Trippi tends to be a little wild-eyed and more enthusiastic about the Internet’s capabilities to turn the political world upside down than I am. Already politicians are adapting and finding that with a little payola they can get the big political blogs to put out their message for them — unfortunately it’s turning out to not exactly be the “power to the people” aesthetic that Trippi gets excited about.

Republicans got into the blogging game earlier and were quoted by the mainstream press more often because the liberal-leaning editors felt they needed to balance the views, but I don’t subscribe to the theory that conservative bloggers are more “savvy”. Look at http://www.HuffingtonPost.com, it’s liberal bloggers galore over there. On the right-wing Internet landscape, Drudge is a big star, but he is really not a blogger, as we know the blogging format to be.

Republicans got into the blogging game earlier and were quoted by the mainstream press more often because the liberal-leaning editors felt they needed to balance the views, but I don’t subscribe to the theory that conservative bloggers are more “savvy”. On the right-wing Internet landscape, Drudge is a big star, but he is really not a blogger, as we know the blogging format to be.

President Hillary was predicted in 1999 by my Friend Liz of Naxos, who has never been wrong, even though I thought she was crazy most of the time (and probably is – crazy but right). She’s a nice lady from New Zealand , a multiple PHD archaeologist who lives on the greek island of Naxos (http://www.naxosnet.com)

Guess it gives her perspective, but like I say, she’s never wrong when calling an election, and I’ve known her a long time….In any case, it should be a passionate election season, probably starting soon….

My simple predictions:

1) Hillary will not be the Democratic Candidate in ’08. She has huge negative numbers, and not just with Republicans. It doesn’t even matter why – it’s just the way it is.

2) McCain will not be the Republican candidate. There’s a huge amount of anger against him on the Republican side, over McCain/Feingold *cough* reform *cough*.

3) If I’m wrong, and one of those two gets on the ticket of their party, watch them lose for the same reason Kerry did – Senators simply don’t get elected President. It’s too easy for the other side to make them out as a flip-flopper, based solely on the normal workings of the Senate (you try to explain, in public, 6 or 10 votes that look contradictory, but make sense based on whcih amendments were or were not attached). For the same reason, Frist won’t make it very far, nor will any of the other senators, of either party. If we get a really weird Senator vs. Senator race, this all goes in the wash, of course. But it would surprise me, a lot.

4) That leaves governors. The strongest Democratic ones (does not mean they’ll get the nod) would be Warner and Richardson. On the Republican side, that leaves Romney and Allen (yes, he’s a Senator, but he was a governor first). I’m sure there are darker horse possibilities (Bredesen of Tennessee, and Erlich of Maryland, for instance).

One thing I’m very sure of – other than Allen, I doubt that any sitting Senator will win election. Nor will anyone with only Senate experience (Edwards).

It is true that many conservatives have abandoned Bush and the entire Republican party. He is a domestic Socialist, signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill which stomped all over the first amendment.

When the Republicans got back into “power” one would think they would return to the policies of Ronald Reagan. That has not happened.

For 2008:

1) To vote for a Democrat – an act of treason.
2) To vote for a Republican – wrong.
3) It’s third-party time. The U.S. Constitution party or Libertarian party is the only smart choice.

4) Hillary will run unchallenged for the 2008 ticket. To challenge her is to become the next Vince Foster.

The so-called “Hillary’s negatives” have been brought up many times before. When she was running for the New York senate seat, people called her a “carpetbagger”; they said she was this, she was that. Guess what, the lady did her homework, worked the precincts, convinced her base and then some. Many of her opponents have a tendency to underestimate her, which simply juices her up. Pat Buchanan, the arch-conservative, has on many occasions said Hillary has “got this thing (Democratic nomination) locked up in 2008″. Bush Jr. used the word “formidable” to describe Hillary. They know what they are talking about.

Couple things. Hillary will run. Democrats have no one else. The rest are pretenders. The left wing press, media and Hollywood are setting it up for the czarina.
The Republicans better advertising some governors – right now!
I like the Constitution or Liberatarian Party idea, but a three party system will not work. Think about it. A president elected with a 36% to 33% to 31% majority will not be able to keep over 60% of the population civil. Heck, the Democrats can’t put the country first now.
The Democrats would have to be killed off as a political party and the Republicans will be the new socialist-lites that the Democrats abandoned for the communist side.
The Constitution Party or Libertarians would need to fill the void.
In order for this to happen, the Republicans must start winning in landslides in BLUE (Republican) states and the Democrats losing in many RED (Democrat) states.
If you remember, the liberal press and media swapped the colors given to the states for the parites during the Carter presidential race. I just changed it back to where it belongs.

I think that Joe Trippi is wise to get out of politics. He seems to see things through blue-colored glasses a bit more than is healthy for someone in his line of work. Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee, not unless the Democrats are even dumber than I think they are. She’s not electable. As shown in recent polls 51% of people say they wouldn’t vote for her “no matter what”, and frankly, the Republicans would have to nominate Satan himself before I’d even give her a first thought, much less a second one (Ok, that’s over the top, but you get what I mean).

The Republicans will probably not nominate someone to the right of GW, although that wouldn’t be hard, but they will nominate someone interested in national security, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility. Social views won’t be much of a factor, as long as those three points are met. This is particularly true if Bush gets a third justice sometime in the next 3 years.

However, one thing I do agree with Trippi on is that we may be close to the end of the two party system in America. I think that if the Democrats don’t take back at least one of the Senate, House, or White House by 2008 that the party will fragment between the Kossacks and what used to be known as “Southern Democrats” (strong on national defense, more socially liberal than Republicans).

Oh, and as an aside…if you can’t make a decision about a political candidate or a judge/justice without thinking about the a-word, then you need to go out and buy a clue, and if you’re holding a political office, you need to resign, because you’re trapped in the 1980s. As much as the left-wingers fear it, and right-wingers dream of it, Roe v. Wade is never going away. There will be times when it will be expanded, and other times when it will be reigned in some, but the basic decision is not going to be overturned. Not without a dramatic realignment of American views and of the Court. There’s far too much “stare decisis” for the Court to overturn it, unless it’s a slam-dunk decision (at least 7-2, probably, which would require three more Scallia’s on the court…not gonna happen).

I think that Joe Trippi is wise to get out of politics. He seems to see things through blue-colored glasses a bit more than is healthy for someone in his line of work. Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee, not unless the Democrats are even dumber than I think they are. She’s not electable. As shown in recent polls 51% of people say they wouldn’t vote for her “no matter what”, and frankly, the Republicans would have to nominate Satan himself before I’d even give her a first thought, much less a second one (Ok, that’s over the top, but you get what I mean).

The Republicans will probably not nominate someone to the right of GW, although that wouldn’t be hard, but they will nominate someone interested in national security, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility. Social views won’t be much of a factor, as long as those three points are met. This is particularly true if Bush gets a third justice sometime in the next 3 years.

However, one thing I do agree with Trippi on is that we may be close to the end of the two party system in America. I think that if the Democrats don’t take back at least one of the Senate, House, or White House by 2008 that the party will fragment between the Kossacks and what used to be known as “Southern Democrats” (strong on national defense, more socially liberal than Republicans).

Oh, and as an aside…if you can’t make a decision about a political candidate or a judge/justice without thinking about the a-word, then you need to go out and buy a clue, and if you’re holding a political office, you need to resign, because you’re trapped in the 1980s. As much as the left-wingers fear it, and right-wingers dream of it, Roe v. Wade is never going away. There will be times when it will be expanded, and other times when it will be reigned in some, but the basic decision is not going to be overturned. Not without a dramatic realignment of American views and of the Court. There’s far too much “stare decisis” for the Court to overturn it, unless it’s a slam-dunk decision (at least 7-2, probably, which would require three more Scallia’s on the court…not gonna happen).

Train your 2 french words about presidential led by women

-> http://iblog.typepad.com/iblog/2006/02/le_sicle_des_.html

I think Trippi’s comment about Republicans being more blog savvy is just as much a comment on the GOP’s outreach to bloggers behind the scenes as the actual blogs Republicans have produced. Regarding the campaign blogs themselves, I think Democrats have done a better job of embracing the spirit of the blog phenomenon – allowing comments, creating lots of open threads for discusson, etc. But it can definitely be argued that Republican blogs have been more effective because they are very focused and on message. There is no wasted motion.

all Drudge does is post news links.. He doesn’t even comment on this. So, I’m always nonplussed why people think of him as some commentator, blogger, or opinionmaker..much less try to smack a political label on him. If anything, he’s merely an opportunist. He saw a great story with the Lewinsky scandal and made himself a name off it it. I’d be willing to be that if he found a similar scandal when GWH Bush was in office, he would have done he same.

And I can only pray the Dems keep Dean as the party chair and push for Billary to be the nominee. It will show how completely out of touch they are with mainstream America. Can they continue to be that dumb and politically tone deaf.

And Trippi is being delusional if he thinks a 3rd party will ever become viable. Now will the Dems morph into another party? Possibly. But we will continue to have a two party system.. at least on the national level.

Dmad,

I agree that its hard now to see how a third party can form that will become viable. But its also obvious that the public has been wanting an alternative and have been alienated from existing politics; when the Reform Party still hadn’t fallen apart there was public interest and support at least as show in polls and petitions, despite relatively poor showing at election time. I think its also obvious that any movement for reform or an alternative to what has been the status quo has to happen outside the two existing party machines, which are corrupt.

My idea has always been if existing members of both parties would jump ship at once then there can be a viable movement. In fact this is how new viable parties have always started in American history. I also strongly disagree with the accepted idea that the reason that third parties can’t do well is a winner-take-all system. If you study the 19th century electoral dynamics were completely different than they are today, for many reasons (–after every so often the two parties would collapse, and a host of new parties would compete, before the country stabilized on two parties again–and this is only talking about the national level; the state and local level always had more parties). I think if not for many factors which make our politics corrupt, the Republican and Democratic parties would have collapsed years ago.

Many Republicans are talking about how the Democrats are on the verge of collapsing, because there is discontent with the weakness of the leadership and tension some of the more left-wing positions taken by those who are vocal. But the Republican party is just as much divided–the only thing that is keeping them together is the fact that they hold on to the Presidency, which is keeping dissenters relatively quiet. Those in power in the Republican party are trying to frame the party as a capitalist/internationalist free-trade party, marginalizing the many Republicans who disagree, and others who have disagreed with the abandonment of many of the principles in the 1994 Republican revolution. As soon as there is no longer a Republican president, the GOP will look as much in dissaray as the Democrats do to many today.

Watch what happens if Hillary Clinton wins. Yes a lot of people hate her, but I bet you Republicans will not have any good candidates. The Republican slate in 2008 will probably look like the Democratic slate in 2004–a bunch of losers. They will probably pick the candidate they guess has the best chance of winning, as the Democrats picked Kerry, and how in 2000 both parties picked Bush (president’s son) and Gore (vice president). Except this time they’ll have depleted options. And Hillary will win for the same reason Bush did, because she will be competing against losers.

Something has to give way in our political system, there will be a mess.

To me too its hard to see how at this point any third party movement can take shape and be viable. But Joe Trippi is absolutely right when he says the Internet is making some independent movement more practicable. At any rate, something I think will happen, I think everyone involved in politics sees that the two parties as they are can’t continue as they are. And you can’t always assume things will be the same.

Don’t you agree?

Chris, the Democrats ARE that dumb. Hillary will be the nominee. #14 Dave highlighted why she will be.
The Republicans just need a GOOD LOOKING conservative governor to run and they win – no contest.
The best looking candidate has won every election since television. Review the pictures of the candidates and you tell me I’m wrong.
UNLESS a recession/depression hits in 2007, the Republicans keep the White House.
If the economy tanks – which I predict it will – then the Czarina takes over, AND she never leaves office. The Democrats are not going to trust the vote any longer – like all good communists finally stop.

all Drudge does is post news links.. He doesn’t even comment on this. So, I’m always nonplussed why people think of him as some commentator, blogger, or opinionmaker

I am guessing you aren’t in the news biz. News selection is a form of commentary unto itself, he dominates the daily paper selection coverage, he controls the national agenda and he can MAKE or SINK films just by linking to various stories. Don’t underestimate his power. Gushy tripeish blogger comments are not needed. He’s the National Editor-in-Chief. And I’d sell a kidney to help him.

Joe Trippi – IT Conversations
http://tinyurl.com/h3rkt