-We will finish the 50 state Ning hqs and make them live this month. Pull old group information down from Huckpac.com and integrate new hqs into website.
-Begin to push www.IsupportMarcoRubio.com
-Begin to push Defend Marriage petition
-Continue to build online donor file.
-Online advertising
And a few more tricks up our sleeves...
I like it. The reviews have been less than positive but the game has some incredible stuff in it.
First, the firefight sequences are very good. Enemy AI is constantly moving and it's easy to lose track of your own fireteam in the heat of battle. Especially when you are busy trying to apply a field dressing to yourself (if you don't, you will bleed out).
You never hear the bullet that kills you is true in this game. I have dropped dead from one shot from somewhere up close and from sniper rounds from across the battlefield, never hearing the bullet or seeing the shooter.
In a firefight you often find yourself running for cover and relying on a few simple commands to keep yourself and your fireteam alive. I have also wasted tons of ammo on treelines and buildings trying to waste one enemy AI (though at the time it seemed a lot more were firing at me).
The mission maps are another strong point to the game. They are open world (meaning not a linear plot with lots of cut scenes (BIA: Hells highway you had too many of these!)with a variety of objectives and plenty in between. The terrain graphics aren't stunning but I never read a story about a battle where the soldiers recounting it were marveling at azure blue waters. It's gritty and confusing. I haven't mastered using the tactical map functionality yet so thank goodness for the direction flags.
I will have more to write later but if you are looking for a great shooter to tide you over until the new Modern Warfare or Ghost Recon I believe this game will fit the bill.
The latest email from David Cameron:
"From Bournemouth to Brighton, the conference season rolls on. Next week, the Labour Party will meet for its annual conference. I expect Gordon Brown's speech will be stuffed full of statistics about how he's saving the world. But here are the facts which really matter in Britain today.
This country is in the worst mess it's been in for a generation. Unemployment is rising and youth unemployment is at its highest level since records began. Violent crime has increased by 70 per cent under Labour and there are more than 100 serious knife crimes every day. The poor are getting poorer, social mobility has stalled, and four in ten children are leaving primary school unable to read, write and add up properly.
And while all this is happening, the Government is borrowing money at a rate of around £6,000 every second. That's something to think about when Gordon Brown delivers his speech. Last year, Gordon's conference speech lasted 58 minutes. If he speaks for as long this year, we'll have wracked up about another £20 million of debt in the same time.
These are the facts and this is the record of twelve years of spin, irresponsibility and top-down state control. And increasingly, it's clear: if you want to see a real long-term plan for change in this country, and a Party with the guts and the determination to see this crisis through, you'll have to wait for our conference in Manchester in two week's time."
Why I like Conservative Party emails:
1. They are short and to the point.
2. They anticipate events, they don't react.
3. They are conversational.
4. Finally there is always one salient point that you come home with: this time it's about how much debt Labour will accrue while listening to Gordon Brown.
The RNC, NRSC and NRCC could learn a trick or two from these guys. Not every email needs to be a fundraising email and the rare time you do a non-fundraising email it doesn't need to be a video. Videos get watched but they leave us only with impressions of what is going on. Conversations have lasting meaning and are more likely to move us down along the track to get more involved.
From the Atlantic:
Item: Mitt Romney arrives in DC for a week of fundraising, think tank consulting, and values voter courting.
QB: Some Romney allies are hopeful that Romney will run, (if he does run) as a can-do pragmatist who has experience working with both sides of the aisle... and some long-time Romney aides have begun to admit that the run-to-the-right strategy in 2008 didn't work.
We aren't quite there yet but that day is coming.
The Economist technology quarterly came out this week with a great article about the rise of drones on the battlefield. You can find the article here.
Bill Clinton did a pretty great thing taking on the mission to free the two American journalists being held by North Korea.
And people seem to agree. Check out this Twitter feed.
Much teeth-gnashing in certain segments of the blogosphere this morning over the "importance" of organization and money in the 2012 GOP primary. It's clear that these bloggers believe that these are the most important things when it comes to running for President.
And during the 1980s and 1990s that might have been true, but 2012 will prove otherwise. The 2012 race will be about ideas and the rise of individuals and their personal networks. Money and organization are always important to spreading ideas and reaching voters but if they were the most important thing, Mitt Romney would have won the GOP nomination in a walk.
The DC media which handicaps every aspect of the run and does much to shape it, doesn't see this yet. They are still framing the race through an older lens. So Mitt Romney looks tough to beat today. But if you look back, starting I would submit in 2004 with Howard Dean, we have seen glimpses of what the future holds in terms of politics and frankly for the Mitt Romney's of the world.
Howard Dean's contribution was online fundraising to an extent but I believe his greatest contribution and the one that shaped much of what Obama did online, was his reliance on a devolved campaign infrastructure built on the strengths and weaknesses of outside groups locally organized. The campaign gave the football to its supporters and they ran downfield with it calling many of their own plays. In Iowa this strategy finally backfired on Dean.
Barack Obama's team, took Dean to the next level. They brought the groups within the campaign structure so they could harness the energy these groups created and carefully direct their actions. They provided tools to their supporters justlike Dean but each tool had a purpose in their overall strategy. The effort was grassroots in its breadth but conventionally top-down in its direction. A perfect blend and I suspect something that is hard to replicate.
So what will 2012's evolution be? The one that is the difference maker for the next winning presidential campaign? And is it something that can be bought and paid for?
In my opinion, the campaign that most effectively harnesses individuals and leverages their personal networks not as financial bundlers but as spokespersons for their ideas will win.
With social media being ubiquitous now and even moreso in 2012, it's these influentials and their networks that will carry the day. Very localized groups will still be there in the mix and very important, but you will see these online influentials rise in importance to campaigns, existing wholly outside of a traditional campaign structure, their strength derived from their use of social media platofrms like Twitter and Facebook.
And really that is a back to the future moment for politics. These new influentials are the old precinct workers of early 20th century neighborhood politics. This time around though, with the help of technology, their precincts are national and interconnected; with viral communication tools at the push of a button.
Mark my words, @socialmediamaven's network of friends that he shares his political views with multiple times a day for FREE between now and Jan 1 2011, is more important in terms of actual votes come Iowa Caucus Day than a $500,000 bundler for Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, etc who helps fund a micro-targeted GOTV plan for the Des Moines area...
So while I enjoy a good money and organization story every now and then, I worry and think about more how to reach these new influentials where they eat and sleep...on the strength of my clients ideas not their warchests...
News accounts like this NY Times one, are suggesting that Twitter seems to be part of fuel which is powering protests and organizing in Iran. Its unclear whether or not it is having a real impact on ground. Lets assume the NYT is right.
Twitter was going to schedule a maintenance session tonight. They postponed it on account of the widespread use of the medium in Iran. Did they clear that change of plans with the Obama administration? Should they have to? And if they did, it would seem to suggest a more defined Obama position on events in Iran, wouldn't it?
UPDATE: And here is the answer....
