Cross-posted on e.politics
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's supporters sure know how to make the media/industrial complex take notice: they've learned to speak the language of political professionals, which is money. By bringing in more cash in a single day than any other online political fundraising effort — $6 million — they've given their candidate the means to get his message across through advertising and paid organizing, which for better or worse is how our political system measures a candidate's viability. The challenge now is for his campaign and his supporters to win the hearts and minds of the many rather than the wallets and passion of a few.
Why do I say few? Wired's Threat Level has some great statistics about Paul's haul: 58,000 people contributed, with a median donation of $50 and an average donation of $103 (the handful of very large donors no doubt skew the mean as usual). As a percentage of the U.S. population, that's a tiny group, only .0001933% of the country according to my math (58,000 divided by 300 million). A niche audience indeed! But a group that now has the means to put its message out over television, radio and in print in addition to the 'net. Let this be an example to ANY marginalized group in society that wants the mainstream political system to pay attention: organize online, and start raising money. (Though according to Glenn Greenwald, Paul along with Edwards and Huckabee still aren't getting the recognition they deserve for reasons that reveal profound biases in our political system.)
For more on the Ron Paul movement, be sure to check out the the excellent Josh Harkinson profile of Paul supporters in Mother Jones. While some like Paul himself have been involved in Republican or Libertarian politics in the past, many have considered themselves political outsiders until this point. It's a tribute to the dogged consistency of Paul's beliefs that so many have devoted themselves to working for him — in some cases quitting jobs to do it. One fascinating observation: Harkinson notes the connection between the clarity and logic of computer programming and the internal consistency of much of libertarian theory, something that helps to explain why the tech world has been such a hotbed of libertarianism since the beginnings of the web.
Of course I like the article in part because he brings up a point similar to one made in these very pages:
Paul's revolution is a conservative one, by his own account — and thus all the more noteworthy for Democrats, who until now comfortably assumed that progressive bloggers, YouTubers, and ex-Deaniacs would give them, and only them, an edge online.
Note that some of us have talked about the political neutrality of online technology for quite some time, and more recently have specifically warned Dems not to get complacent. I must quibble with one minor piece of Harkinson's introduction, though, in which he describes Paul as having "improbably become an Internet sensation." Improbable? Only if you're not that familiar with the history of online activism — a candidate like Ron Paul is an online natural. Still, that's a minor issue with an otherwise excellent article. Follow-up question: what's the next political niche group to find its voice and roar?
– cpd
Ironically, I had to answer a simple math problem in order to register on this blog.
It wouldn't let me be off by a factor of one hundred, either.
If Paul's donors are comparable in number to Obama's, and, as has been observed, Paul's base defies easy political categorization, then perhaps "niche" is no longer the best term.
1. You seem to imply that only those who have donated to the Ron Paul campaign are likely to vote for him in an election. In every campaign, there is a pyramid -- volunteers, at the top, are fewest in number, then donors, then plain supporters, who are most numerous. So your math, correct or incorrect, is irrelevant. Ron Paul has an order of magnitude more supporters than those who have donated.
2. Ron Paul's online support has nothing to do with the "clarity and logic of computer programming and the internal consistency of so much of libertarian theory." The internet is a vehicle for free communication -- that's the reason. People who could not otherwise network with one another can do it via the net. The members of my meetup group are not computer-types -- they are moms, pops, students. Consistency in and of itself does not spark a movement -- it's a consistency of the kind people are craving -- peaceful, reasoned, responsible.
Perhaps we ought not talk in tautologies - "Niche support is niche support is niche support." Niche is an inaccurate word however. There's no such thing as a broad niche, and Ron Paul has broad support.
In fact Dr. Paul has a broad base of donors...the broadest of any candidate (if not the richest base of donors). Each of the Democrats has a base of support of an even smaller town (even if that town is in a nicer area).
You are absolutely correct that a small number of people can change the world.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" - Margaret Mead
Avery J. Knapp Jr., M.D.
The numbers you use here are pretty meaningless if not placed in the context of Paul's competitors. The article would have been much more informative had you included numbers for Romney, Guiliani, et al.; or, posted numbers for past campaigns; or, statitics on what percentage of voters typically make contributions in contested primary races.
I agree with your premise that the internet is a powerful forum for uniting people with the same interest. I think what is unique about Ron Paul is his (or at least his message's) ability to actually turn this in to cash and action.
Your math is wrong - its .019% not .00019%. When you consider that Paul has received 104,000 unique donors so far in Q4 and that 20% of the population can't donate as they are under 18 and therefore illegal for them, it jumps to .043% of the voting-age population donated to Paul. When you consider that roughly a third of America is Republican, and nearly all of Paul's donors are registered Republican (now) it jumps to .13% of Republicans donated to Paul. In other words, 1 in 1000 Republicans donated to Ron Paul. While this may not seem like much, Paul has had the lowest per-donor average compared to any other candidate and this trend will continue in Q4. One might say Paul has the BROADEST base of donor support.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-small-donors-love...
Paul has an estimated Q4 104,000 unique donors, compared to Obama's Q3 93,000 unique donors (the other candidates' Q4 numbers aren't out yet)...I wouldn't say Obama's donors are a "niche" or "few" although I guess compared to Paul's they are.
While Paul supporters may be more passionate than Obama supporters (and be therefore more likely to donate), that's because there is no other candidate similar to Paul (a Constitutionalist) and there are quite a few candidates who need to split hairs with Obama on the issues to differentiate themselves [Hillary, Edwards, most of the Democratic field].
Avery J. Knapp Jr., M.D.
print
email
delicious
digg
technorati
Um, well, sure, not that it affects my actual point
Believe me, divide 58,000 by 300,000,000 and you get .00019 -- a damn small number. Yep, I forgot about that whole adjust-by-two-columns thing when it comes to percentages (math is well known to be hard).
We can have fun with division all day long here, but my point is that the number of people contributing to Ron Paul on his best day is about the population of the tiny county in East Texas in which I grew up. Niche support is niche support is niche support. Nothing wrong with that, because very few people in this country contribute anything at all to the political process. What I'm getting at is that Ron Paul's supporters show what you can do if you can motivate even a relatively small number of people to act.
Colin Delany
e.politics
http://www.epolitics.com