Snakes on a Plane 2: Ron Paul
I’ve had it with this motherfucking Ron Paul in this motherfucking election.
Ron Paul’s supporters are everywhere. I recently spotted this one at the Griffith Observatory above Los Angeles:
There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about this car or its slogans, but it’s indicative of the dozens and dozens of small but loving Ron Paul support signs I’ve seen over the past year. I’ve seen more support for Ron Paul in real life than I have for all the other candidates combined (I’m not entirely clear why), and that’s not even counting his online phenomenon which completely blows the other candidates out of the water.
The problem is, Ron Paul is Snakes on a Plane.
During the run-up to Snakes on a Plane, everyone was shocked by the amount of excitement and support the film had garnered online. Running Snakes on a Blog, I had a unique perspective on the actual number of people involved and could have told you that the buzz was being created by a relatively small number of extremely vocal, web-savvy people. The media focused on the fact that there was excitement, not on the number of people who were creating it. When the movie was actually released, the ticket sales were disappointing. The people who were excited about the film all went to see it, but that didn’t lead to dramatically improved sales among the general population. A small, vocal community doesn’t always transfer into general, real world results.
Ron Paul’s support appears to be similar.
Ron Paul’s supporters are, like Snakes on a Plane supporters, very web savvy and very vocal. They also appear to be very few in number (also like Snakes on a Plane supporters). With the exception of a recent bump in a few states, his numbers over the last year have lingered in the one to three percent range across the country. His people can sure as hell draw attention to themselves, and they can make some noise, but they aren’t numerous. Ron Paul raised $5 million on a single day, but he’s still not causing a major stir in the polls… this has all the hallmarks of being another cause that is unable to transfer its online enthusiasm into real world results.
Like Snakes on a Plane supporters after its Hollywood premiere, I expect that there’s going to be a lot of disappointment among Ron Paul supporters after the first few primaries. The excitement online just doesn’t necessarily translate into real world success and there’s no indication that Ron Paul is going to shake Snakes on a Plane syndrome.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
http://paulcash.slact.net/
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
This reasoning is getting a little dated. Don’t the actual dollars or the amount of people Ron Paul attracts in person of any consequence? The only ones who aren’t for real are the old-fashioned telephone polling methods and the media who have their heads in the sand.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
The poll numbers are moving upward strongly, and even Zogby expects Ron Paul to do well in NH, but there are numerous reasons why he could be under-represented in the polls. Not the least of which is many voters, myself included, would never show up in a “Republican likely voter” poll. However, I reregistered Republican and will be voting for Paul in the primary. If young voters cast off conventional wisdom and actually show up at the polls, that will also have a major effect that is not represented in the polling data.
Sure, it’s an uphill battle, but not as steep a hill as many would have you believe.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Ron Paul will do better than 5% (probably between 5% and 10%) in New Hampshire, but New Hampshire will be his best performance. The “live free or die” attitude gives him a chance of garnering a little bit of support there, but it’s going to be his high water mark.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Also, people who are doing poorly in traditional ranking systems always claim that the ranking systems are flawed. Radio stations have always claimed that. Snakes on a Plane was tracking poorly and the supporters argued that they numbers weren’t accurate. Traditional ranking systems are more accurate than people give them credit for.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
This early in the process, all the polling data is BS. That’s why so many people polling from 1%-5% about this time have become president.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Oh God, I know. I keep seeing this stuff everywhere. The worst thing is how disrespectful his supporters are. The bathroom at Billy Goat, for instance, is further defiled with giant Ron Paul graffiti. Do they think that people are going to base their votes on bathroom graffiti?
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Ron Paul isn’t like Snakes on a Plane, or else he wouldn’t be getting money in fundraising. The political equivalent of Snakes on a Plane in this cycle is Gore or Kucinich. Either one can drum up a significant fanbase, but nobody wants to actually, really support them. Ron Paul on the other hand has strong fundraising already.
That’s the difference between Ron Paul and Snakes on a Plane. Everyone liked to talk about Snakes on a Plane, but nobody really wanted to give money to them.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Bathroom graffiti! I’m totally voting for the next candidate that I see extolled on the bathroom wall. This could be a whole new type of campaign. I like it.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
You just said: “There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about this car or its slogans, but it’s indicative of the dozens and dozens of small but loving Ron Paul support signs I’ve seen over the past year. I’ve seen more support for Ron Paul in real life than I have for all the other candidates combined (I’m not entirely clear why), and that’s not even counting his online phenomenon which completely blows the other candidates out of the water.”
So what else do you need to know?
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
The rest of the piece talks about what else I need to know, it’s whether, unlike with Snakes on a Plane, this rush of support is going to translate to actual results when it comes to the main event. I suspect that it won’t.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
The main difference (and problem with your comparison) is that the Movie sucked!!! This minimized word of mouth (real buzz). Ron Paul on the other hand is the friggin ‘300′ of this election and those who check out the buzz actually end up donating and joining meetups.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Janissary,
Good point. Ron Paul has a well-received message and it is demonstrated by:
1) donations – breaking records no less and being able to inspire a grass roots, no small feat
2) large numbers of people physically joining together for him (at least 4000 as reported at Reason http://www.reason.com/news/show/123454.html and many many others )
3) increase in polling
4) raising the level of intellectual discussion in the debates – the mishap that exposed Rudy’s ignorance. No other candidate seemed capable of coming up with the same obvious fact that Ron Paul did simply by reading government reports
5) Stirring known pundits to dismiss him as a ‘kook’, and their associating his supporters as terrorists. Clearly they’re concerned he has a real chance of winning. If its “so clear he won’t win” – why waste the breath?
Why not spend the time debating him on the issues rather than dismissing him?
At the very least find something else to report on re: Ron Paul – saying Ron Paul couldn’t possibly win is getting old fast.
[.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Jeez, when was this written……today! Dude, you should get a more current playbook.
[.]
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:40 am
I tried this, I got called names.
I didn’t say he couldn’t win, I said he WOULDN’T win. I also didn’t say I didn’t want him to win.
[.]
November 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 am
I had a hard time finding a lot of name calling, and when there was name calling, it was pretty mild.
Maybe I missed something, but do you mind quoting that “name calling?”
[.]
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 am
Let’s look at the “Snakes on a Plane” stakeholders, what they anticipated pre-SoaP, and what they were left with post-SoaP.
First, the SoaP producers, New Line. Insiders were in agreement that this film would be lucky to open at all before the “extremely vocal, web-savvy people” stirred the pot. Certainly, a summer (albeit late summer) opening wasn’t planned. And at $33 million, the film wasn’t cheap. But the film took in $62 million worldwide, not including DVD, cable, etc. Not a bad return on an investment that was on a fast-track to straight to video.
Second, there’s SoaP’s “extremely vocal, web-savvy people.” Prior to SoaP, they were happily doing whatever they felt like doing: surfing the web, creating websites, making snark and wearing cool shoes. Then, things coalesced around a quirky title and a potentially campy movie (”an instant classic!” they hoped). None of them made any money, though at least one of them got a free trip to the premiere. As for the film? Ehh, a bit of a disappointment, they all thought. And now? They’ve all moved on, and SoaP is a fun reminiscence.
Third, the media. These fine folks would have to cover actual news if there weren’t stories like SoaP. It had all the makings of a news distraction. Great title, rabid though not necessarily quantifiable fan base, and a producer happy to get all the free publicity. The media, though, cannot simply build something up without then tearing it down. And when SoaP didn’t come in at the lofty numbers that were predicted, the media were more than happy to savage the film, savage the “savvy people,” and as a result, exonerate themselves.
And the final stakeholder… the general public. They, for the most part, could care less about the film before it opened, while it was open, and after it left theaters.
And so let’s compare.
First, there’s Ron Paul. Insiders were in agreement that this candidate would be lucky to get any votes at all before the “extremely vocal, web-savvy people” stirred the pot. Certainly, a run at winning New Hampshire wasn’t planned. What could Ron Paul expect? A decent return on an investment, as the Ron Paul (and libertarian) stock will most-assuredly rise. The presidency? Probably as good a chance of winning as SoaP had to win the Oscar.
Second, there’s Ron Paul’s “extremely vocal, web-savvy people.” Prior to Ron Paul, they were happy doing whatever they felt like doing: surfing the web, creating websites, making snark and wearing cool shoes. Then, things coalesced around a quirky candidate with a potentially shocking stance on the war (“out of Iraq!” they hoped). None of them made any money, though a few might get a trip to Minneapolis. As for the candidate himself? Ehh, a bit of a disappointment, they’ll all probably think. And in 2009? They’ll all move on, and Ron Paul will be a fun reminiscence.
Third, the media. These fine folks would have to cover actual news if there weren’t stories like Ron Paul. It has all the makings of a news distraction. Quirky fringe candidate, rabid though not necessarily quantifiable fan base, and a candidate happy to get all the free publicity. The media, though, cannot simply build up a candidate without tearing him down. I anticipate that, when Ron Paul’s numbers don’t’ come in as high as predicted, the media will happily savage his campaign, savvy the “savvy people,” and as a result, exonerate themselves.
And the final stakeholder… the general public. They, for the most part, could care less about Ron Paul now, will not care about him through the primary season, and won’t care about him in 2009.
[.]
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
i believe you mean “snakeholders.”
[.]
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
“I suspect you know little.”
“Wow you are really brainwashed.”
“you sure are gullible!”
“too lazy”
[.]
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Out of 23 comments (that weren’t yours), that’s all (and sorry, but by internet “name calling” standards, they seem pretty lame)?
Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much. ;)
[.]
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Ha, fair enough, I acknowledge I’ve seen (and been called) far worse.
I still don’t think Ron Paul has a chance of doing even moderately well in the primaries. His ultimate base of support (those who lean libertarian) is just too small. Despite his anti-abortion position, he’s not going to win over the social conservatives without adopting a host of new positions on things that run counter to his stated beliefs. Despite his anti-war and pro civil liberties stances, his rather stark positions on a lot of economic issues is going to doom him with most liberals (for example, he’s anti-OSHA).
I just don’t see who’s going to make up this supposed groundswell that’s going to win him any state in the primaries.
[.]
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Zogby anlyst Fritz Wenzel was quoted as saying Ron Paul’s timing is “almost perfect” at 6 to 8 weeks before the primaries for moving from the back to the front. I realize that jonesreport.com is probably not an unbiased source, but the Zogby organization is not exactly a bunch of Ron Paul shills either, so if he’s being accurately quoted, I think it’s an important viewpoint.
Most movements in history are started by only about 5% of the population. This movement has several things going for it:
* 40% of “conservatives” were against the war as recently as a month ago, and I don’t believe that number would have “improved” for the Republicans in the last month. Ron Paul is the ONLY anti-war Republican (and in reality, other than Kucinich, he’s the only anti-war candidate — and he’s got WAY more chance of being elected than Kucinich). The other 60% is spread across a lot of candidates.
* I’ve been arguing for years with left-wingers and right-wingers that they cannot expect to be able to violate the Constitution when they’re in power, but expect the other side not to do the same. I’ve been amazed at the number of people on both sides that are starting to come to the same conclusion. Once you realize that, Ron Paul is the only candidate you can vote for.
* I received a “Service Temporarily Unavailable” when I tried to access your social conservatives link, but what I’m seeing is a lot of those guys are also realizing they not obeying the Constitution is hurting them as much as it’s helping them. Enforcing “Jesus at gunpoint” is not working, and it has a huge number of bad side-effects. Plus, I think the warmongering Christian coalition’s hypocrisy is starting to divide those guys, and the coalition is falling apart.
Certainly, it’s not going to be an easy battle, but many, like myself, believe this is the last chance in our lifetimes to have a shot at “re-constitutionalizing” the Federal government. That’s why passions run so deep in our camp.
[.]
November 24th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I worked for Howard Dean in 2003. It’s the exact damn thing. Lot’s of buzz, lots of extremely self-righteous and loud supporters, lot’s of online cash, lots of excitement, and I seriously doubt, a lot of support at the polls. Good analysis, Snakes on a Blog guy.
[.]
August 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
He got over 1 million votes in the primary. He raised more moneyin the final quarter of 2007 then any other republican candidate. He holds the record for most money raised online in a single day (dem or repub). Still think the movement is a small # of people? Revolutions are long-term projects. We’re just getting srarted. Campaign For Liberty!
[.]
August 7th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I love it
[.]