A year? He's been building his ground-game since 2007.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
A year? He's been building his ground-game since 2007.
The Librarian
Banned
My googling has failed to turn up results.
He's been getting ready to run in terms of fundraising and advisors, but in terms of infrastructure on the ground, he really doesn't have much compared to Obama. He's entirely dependent on piggybacking off the RNC and state GOP organizations.
My googling has failed to turn up results.
This article says Republicans managed to redraw the district to be more GOP friendly and to close 140 polling places, more than half of them, in and around Omaha. Doesn't say anything about winner take all except that it failed a while ago when they first tried.
edit: In possible good news, Ben Nelson is asking the DoJ to investigate Dave Phipps, the fat piece of shit who's been behind the voter suppression efforts.
PhoenixDark
Banned
This isn't being talked about enough. You'd think republicans would have taken notes on Obama's 08 grass roots organization, which not only dominated the primaries but the general election as well. Perhaps they did takes notes, but just have the wrong candidate to utilize it, dunno. Regardless, Romney is very behind on the ground.
He's not going to outspend Obama in ads, he's going to have to run a solid REAL campaign.
No, I'm saying that Obama has a well established groundgame (the best, even) dating back all the way to 2007. Romney has no chance to compete on that level.
Invisible_Insane
Member
With what money?
Black Mamba
Member
Below the belt, Obama! Below the belt!
I really don't understand you can look at how well organized the 08 campaign was and not even take into consideration that it's going to be something they need to try and combat. I don't know if it's Romney making these calls or the goons around him, but you'd think that someone in that bunch would be smart enough to point this out.
Derp. My bad.
LegendofJoe
Member
I've been browsing this thread a lot over the last few days and it seems to me that most of you are underestimating the impact that Rove's ad blitz will likely have on the general election. It's going to be overwhelming in the areas they decide to target.
Its hard to make a grass roots campaign when you can't even make a solid platform for yourself. How can Romney expect to have people make calls for him or go door to door on his policies when he changes his own public position on almost all his policies in less then 24 hours? The reason Obama's grass roots campaign works so well is the general tone and policy of his campaign doesn't constantly morph, for the most part Obama is still running on his policies in 2008, he is just highlighted certain 'parts' of his policy that were not dominantly highlighted in the last election.
There is a reason why its so hard to beat an incumbent. Everyone knows everything already. Also negative ad blitzs have over the last few elections poisoned the well.
If race baiting and radicalism didn't affect Obama, chants of "he only added millions of jobs, not tens of millions!" isn't something to get worked up about.
Cries of "the economy" can bolster your base but people aren't going to sit there and say "shit, I've been duped, I shouldn't support Obama after all... HE'S the reason!"
Yep negative campaigns only largely affect the people you don't know, the 'alternative'. Obama has been through a constant barrage of negative cycles since the 2008 primary, and yet despite this barrage he is still doing better then Romney, not to mention Obama's campaign staff is some of the best in the business; unless a big scandal breaks or an economic collapse happens those negative ads are going to do little to really change the race. Its part of the reason the Right has been latching onto the opposite end of all the polarizing comments coming out since he got elected. They keep trying to paint him under the coat of scandal or less favor but because they keep scraping the bottom of the barrel with made up controversies nothing has really stuck outside of the Republican base of voters.
speculawyer
Member
He will certainly be slinging tons of mud. But unless he has good material, it may just fall flat. Rove has been trying to push some memes but they just have not caught on. And many of his old stand-by tricks like trotting out the gay marriage boogie-man and DADT just don't fly anymore. The demographics and views of the country are changing and Rove is just a bitter old man now that doesn't understand the current electorate because it changed.
People are fine with gays now and they are bitter about the trillions Rove helped waste in Iraq. And the financial meltdown happened on Rove's watch.
So... even less of a chance
Black Mamba
Member
Source?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
That Romney infographic is effective because it uses actual figures. Truth, yes. Context, ehhh.
Nobody cares about context in elections!
Nobody cares about context in elections!
speculawyer
Member
I don't think that infographic is accurate at least that 92.3% statistic.
So, for every 1000 jobs lost 923 were women losing jobs and only 77 of them men? That can't be right.
If that is true then less than a million jobs have been lost during the Obama administration . . . the 858,000 women and only 71,577 men = only 929577 jobs lost.
Is my math wrong or is the Romney team's math wrong?
Black Mamba
Member
From his presser today. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/11/obama-lets-call-tax-plan-the-reagan-rule/
The Librarian
Banned
Yeah I have no idea where Romney is getting that 92.3% figure from considering men have lost more jobs than women, IIRC.
Black Mamba
Member
I'm not sure where the 858k comes from unless it's adding in farm employment while the 92% only includes non-farm.
And it's accurate. See my post above. Men lost their jobs first, then female. It makes sense that men get hurt more first in this recession (though I didn't think to such a lopsided effect).
the funny thing is a lot (if not most) of those female job losses occurred in public employment, especially stuff like teachers. Thanks to Republican legislatures and governors cutting back on spending. Obama is to blame for Republican led states firing female workers.
Look up to my post.
Would love the Obama camp to dig that data out.
But there is less to this stat than meets the eye. First of all, why start in January? Obama, after all took office on January 20. If you start the data in February, then the overall job loss is just 16,000 jobs—while women lost 484,000 jobs. (We should note that in a previous column we said that, by picking January, the RNC was using a relative common measure of job growth during a presidency.)
How could women lose more jobs than the overall total? It’s a function of the dates one picks. In fact, the picture becomes clearer if you start running the data from the date the recession began — December 2007. With that starting point, the total decline in jobs was just over 5 million, with women accounting for nearly 1.8 million of those jobs.
Now look what happens when we just look at the past year, March 2011 to March 2012. Men gained nearly 1.9 million jobs while women gained 635,000 jobs.
In other words, men did lose more jobs in the recession. Now that the economy is growing again, men are recovering jobs at a faster pace than women. In fact, the latest employment report shows that male participation in the work force was up 14,000 while female participation fell 177,000, in part because women tend to work in retail or government jobs (such as teaching), which have been cut in recent months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hurting-women/2012/04/09/gIQAGz3q6S_blog.htmlHow could women lose more jobs than the overall total? It’s a function of the dates one picks. In fact, the picture becomes clearer if you start running the data from the date the recession began — December 2007. With that starting point, the total decline in jobs was just over 5 million, with women accounting for nearly 1.8 million of those jobs.
Now look what happens when we just look at the past year, March 2011 to March 2012. Men gained nearly 1.9 million jobs while women gained 635,000 jobs.
In other words, men did lose more jobs in the recession. Now that the economy is growing again, men are recovering jobs at a faster pace than women. In fact, the latest employment report shows that male participation in the work force was up 14,000 while female participation fell 177,000, in part because women tend to work in retail or government jobs (such as teaching), which have been cut in recent months.
And:
Gary Burtless, a labor market expert with the Brookings Institution, explained the gender disparity.
"I think males were disproportionately hurt by employment losses in manufacturing and especially construction, which is particularly male-dominated. A lot of job losses in those two industries had already occurred before Obama took office," he said. "Industries where women are more likely to be employed – education, health, the government – fared better in terms of job loss. In fact, health and education employment continued to grow in the recession and in the subsequent recovery. Government employment only began to fall after the private economy (and private employment) began growing again."
Betsey Stevenson, a business and public policy professor at Princeton University, also pointed out that "in every recession men’s job loss occurs first and most, with unemployment rates for men being more cyclical than those of women’s."
She added that many of women's job losses have been government jobs -- teachers and civil servants -- which have been slower to come back because they require greater government spending.
So have Obama's policies been especially bad for women?
Said Stevenson: "I don’t think you could point to a single piece of evidence that the pattern of job loss: men first then women, is due to the president’s policies. It’s a historical pattern that has held in previous recessions."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-campaign-says-women-were-hit-hard-job-losse/"I think males were disproportionately hurt by employment losses in manufacturing and especially construction, which is particularly male-dominated. A lot of job losses in those two industries had already occurred before Obama took office," he said. "Industries where women are more likely to be employed – education, health, the government – fared better in terms of job loss. In fact, health and education employment continued to grow in the recession and in the subsequent recovery. Government employment only began to fall after the private economy (and private employment) began growing again."
Betsey Stevenson, a business and public policy professor at Princeton University, also pointed out that "in every recession men’s job loss occurs first and most, with unemployment rates for men being more cyclical than those of women’s."
She added that many of women's job losses have been government jobs -- teachers and civil servants -- which have been slower to come back because they require greater government spending.
So have Obama's policies been especially bad for women?
Said Stevenson: "I don’t think you could point to a single piece of evidence that the pattern of job loss: men first then women, is due to the president’s policies. It’s a historical pattern that has held in previous recessions."
Actual job losses for the full recession:
And if you count all those jobs lost beginning in 2007, women account for just 39.7 percent of the total.
Ah, yes. Yeah. Outside the economy, there are few alternatives on which he can focus. He'd certainly lose on social issues. Foreign policy is rarely material. And to the extent it would influences voters, Obama's been largely lauded. He could concentrate on the PPACA or fiscal issues. But outside an insular House primary, they'll not resonate with the general electorate. Also, it should be wildly amusing to witness Romney contort in his defense of Massachusetts' healthcare reform while attacking the PPACA.
It must be an especially virulent manifestation of the sunken costs fallacy. Otherwise, there's no explanation for such abominably irrational behavior.
Yeah. Given the chasm separating Romney/GOP and the broader Hispanic electorate, it behooves him minimize the salience of the issue. He's already disadvantaged, and further alienating Hispanics would amplify that. Also, Obama can emphasize Romney's positions, but his ability to propel the narrative is circumscribed by the media. As the intermediaries, they retain inordinate influence on the narrative. And if Romney were to choose an Hispanic running mate, the media would incessantly cover his disconnect with Hispanics. And that would only prime voters thereby compounding the problem.
PhoenixDark
Banned
He's playing fuzzy math based on the dates used to track things
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hurting-women/2012/04/09/gIQAGz3q6S_blog.html
edit: Ghal beat me
Black Mamba
Member
God damn it. Acknowledge me. I was first. I deserve the gold sticker.
speculawyer
Member
So basically Romney is telling us that Obama cut back on government spending (teachers and government administrators) that dis-proportionally hurt women.
So is Romney promising to hire lots of teachers and government administrators? Well if that is your plan, Mitt, why not just say it? That probably will help you with women.
So is Romney promising to hire lots of teachers and government administrators? Well if that is your plan, Mitt, why not just say it? That probably will help you with women.
Black Mamba
Member
No, Romney is saying that Obama's policies have cut a lot of jobs for women. He doesn't want to get into real specifics.
The Librarian
Banned
That's basically Romney's entire campaign strategy. He's said he could have to cut entire departments from the government, and then admitted he won't specify which ones, so that his opponent has nothing to argue against. Specifics are not Romney's friend.
speculawyer
Member
I was just being a bit sarcastic. I think this statistic gamesmanship the Romney team pulled left him open to attack. Someone should actually determine the number of women teachers & other government workers and ask the Romney team if they are promising to hire them all back . . . and if not, then why does he think that statistic helps him?
It truly was. His campaign organization was superlative. And it's especially impressive given his lack of experience in administering a national campaign. Moreover, it's one of the primary reasons I've been a bit more bullish on his prospects this cycle than the fundamentals suggest.
Additionally, one of the more innovative techniques, which Rick Perry has also used, employed a few social scientists who helped his campaign incorporate the turnout literature into their strategy. The results were appreciable.
No one died when Clinton lied.
speculawyer
Member
And the same with taxes . . . he says he will cut taxes but eliminate loopholes . . . but he never specifies what loopholes he plans on eliminating.
And if the "loophole" is something like the mortgage interest deduction, that will disproportionally hurt the lower & middle class because deduction already has a cap on it that stops rich people from being able to deduct massive amounts.
Something something Vince Foster.
So he's running the Sharron Angle style campaign then?
Not that bad, but he is pathological liar so far on the campaign trail. As to my post:
He got specific once, and it bit him. So he's not going to do so again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ou-which-ones/2012/03/26/gIQAAbIdcS_blog.html
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I don't think that comment is unfair or strange, as far as I remember Obama has said that there are some redundancies that could be remedied by having different departments rolled into others.
Yes he has. He's also made many proposals to back that up.
But Romney in that quote is being very specific: he said he's eliminate a department in a past campaign, and his opponent ran against that and won. Therefore, he will not specify what his proposals imply for government cuts in this campaign. This is important, because he's endorsed a plan that will necessitate enormous cuts to government. But he won't say what, so as to not give his opponent ammo.
It's quite the admission.
Edit: this is neat.
http://www.barackobama.com/buffett-rule
NEVER!
Holy shit, check out the chart on this page:
http://dailykos.com/story/2012/04/11/1082476/-Obama-leads-Romney-by-landslide-numbers
http://dailykos.com/story/2012/04/11/1082476/-Obama-leads-Romney-by-landslide-numbers
My state is such a sack of shit
. Rural Nebraska if full of backwards assholes that will do anything to suppress the Democrat vote out of Omaha. It really riled their feathers when Omaha gave a vote to Obama. I would not be surprised at all if they manage to force the change through.And less than 12h later, there's already an issue ad ready to roll. They probably shot this weeks ago knowing that they'd raise the issue, never expecting Mitt's team to fumble it so badly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OICGcVHdI78
This election is going to be amazing!
My state is such a sack of shit
Being your neighbor in Iowa I have to laugh because there is no way Nebraska does not turn blue in Omaha again. As much as the backwards asses in predominately white country areas think.
If anything more voters have come in since 2008. You can't suppress what makes up the majority of that city LOL
I have been telling you guys for months, Obama was just waiting on the Election to start and working on his infrastructure. Now that the time has come his warchest is open and operations are a go. Being able to turn out ads in hours and having the email and web presence he does is going to make Romney shit
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked