The Sanctuary
Society => Politics: Left, Right, and Center => Topic started by: crazzyass on October 09, 2014, 05:38:47 pm
-
Hey everyone! One reason I have been on hiatus for about a year is that I plunged more deeply into the political world as a consultant, lobbyist, staffer, what have you.
Now that I'm burnt out on that shit and ready to make money and have a life again, I'm getting more engaged back on social media and forums n shit. Anyway, I know there are tons of misconceptions about political stuff, so I figured I'd open myself to questions. I might eventually write up some guides too. Like introduction to lobbying/getting shit done, intro for people who want to run for office or staff campaigns, etc etc.
So fire away.
-
Hey everyone! One reason I have been on hiatus for about a year is that I plunged more deeply into the political world as a consultant, lobbyist, staffer, what have you.
Now that I'm burnt out on that shit and ready to make money and have a life again, I'm getting more engaged back on social media and forums n shit. Anyway, I know there are tons of misconceptions about political stuff, so I figured I'd open myself to questions. I might eventually write up some guides too. Like introduction to lobbying/getting shit done, intro for people who want to run for office or staff campaigns, etc etc.
So fire away.
While in the political world, did you ever meet anyone who seemed like they might be an evil reptilian alien bent on enslaving mankind?
-
Hey everyone! One reason I have been on hiatus for about a year is that I plunged more deeply into the political world as a consultant, lobbyist, staffer, what have you.
Now that I'm burnt out on that shit and ready to make money and have a life again, I'm getting more engaged back on social media and forums n shit. Anyway, I know there are tons of misconceptions about political stuff, so I figured I'd open myself to questions. I might eventually write up some guides too. Like introduction to lobbying/getting shit done, intro for people who want to run for office or staff campaigns, etc etc.
So fire away.
While in the political world, did you ever meet anyone who seemed like they might be an evil reptilian alien bent on enslaving mankind?
No one comes to mind immediately, no.
-
Have you ever done anything illegal or immoral during and before your political career?
Did you ever witness anything illegal or immoral during your political career?
-
Have you ever done anything illegal or immoral during and before your political career?
Did you ever witness anything illegal or immoral during your political career?
I've never done or witnessed anything illegal; that said, the law is written by politicos with loopholes in mind. So to say that nothing truly illegal happened in the sense that a court couldn't convict means nothing.
You'll have to define immoral for me to be able to answer that.
-
Could you imagine that an actual revolution which would coup the government could actually happen in modern day America?
-
Could you imagine that an actual revolution which would coup the government could actually happen in modern day America?
Unless it is led by a disgruntled military leader, such a 'revolution' would quickly be neutralized one way or another. There would have to be some sort of professional military force aiding 'the people' for it to even have a chance.
-
Could you imagine that an actual revolution which would coup the government could actually happen in modern day America?
Unless it is led by a disgruntled military leader, such a 'revolution' would quickly be neutralized one way or another. There would have to be some sort of professional military force aiding 'the people' for it to even have a chance.
What if the revolution is led by female hookers and strippers? I think they'd stand a chance
-
Could you imagine that an actual revolution which would coup the government could actually happen in modern day America?
Short answer: no. An armed or typical revolution would be put down with ease.
Longer answer: never say never.
It's important to realize that any system is composed of people, with all of the weaknesses and blindspots that entails. This includes government, the military, and our intelligence community. The continuity and function of our government is determined by less than 2,000 people: 535 Members of Congress and a handful of their aides, the President, White House and its staff, the military leadership, and a handful of influential governors and business leaders. Hell, some corporations are more complex than that.
If you can effectively exploit the vulnerabilities and blindspots of even a small fraction of these 2,000 folks, you can effectively wield power in this country. You can raise hell or get a lot of good things done; it's up to you.
Someone exploiting these vulnerabilities at a point of great national distress - war, economic depression, or some calamity - could effectively wrestle functional power away from the government, especially if combined with some armed revolution. It can happen anywhere. Kind of a scary thought, eh?
-
OMG! Crazzy is here! And I take credit for it because it was me who told him about this site!!
Crazzy crazzy how you be?
-
OMG! Crazzy is here! And I take credit for it because it was me who told him about this site!!
Crazzy crazzy how you be?
Credit is all yours, WAN. 8)
I've been good! Trying to scale back on the workload and reengage with friends and forums. How have you been?
-
OMG! Crazzy is here! And I take credit for it because it was me who told him about this site!!
Crazzy crazzy how you be?
Credit is all yours, WAN. 8)
Hehe!
I've been good! Trying to scale back on the workload and reengage with friends and forums. How have you been?
I been good! Looking forward to engaging you in debates again!
-
Fuck yeah, crazzyass. I hope you end up writing some of those guides.
-
Fuck yeah, crazzyass. I hope you end up writing some of those guides.
yeah, do this crazzy
-
I'm honestly really ignorant on what being a political staffer/consultant entails so here are some general political themed questions and if they're not related to your experience feel free to ignore them/sorry in advance:
In your experience who was the smartest person involved in a political campaign? Is the actual candidate the head honcho who delegates or is there a level of being a pretty face with someone more on the ball coordinating things?
What's the ratio of idealists to cynics? I imagine that at least like interns are gung ho about the rightness of the platform and whatnot, but I mean I could imagine (at least on the state level and lower) that an entire staff may legitimately be behind what they're working for. I can, of course, imagine the opposite. What has been your experience?
Do consultants ever jump ship from election to election? If so do successful consultants ever work against an incumbent they helped get into office? If the previous two are so, is there meaningful regulation to prevent the leaking of privileged information?
What's the incentive for a staffer/consultant to really get their candidate elected? Is it just reputation like that "Consultant X has won the election for their candidate the last Y times" is good advertising, or is there some kind of direct monetary/favor bonus for working for the winning team?
-
What type of political parties were you aligned with?
-
Oh oh, one more general question: if you had to recommend a way for a person with like at most 12 hours of undivided attention to figure out how they should vote in an election how would you recommend they do it? Like what is the densest source information about a candidate's positions and arguments in defense thereof that would be accessible to a person with an undergrad education but no specific training in political science?
-
Good to see one of the better posters from Zoklet is joining us.
-
I'm honestly really ignorant on what being a political staffer/consultant entails so here are some general political themed questions and if they're not related to your experience feel free to ignore them/sorry in advance:
No worries man, these are good questions.
In your experience who was the smartest person involved in a political campaign? Is the actual candidate the head honcho who delegates or is there a level of being a pretty face with someone more on the ball coordinating things?
As with anything it can vary significantly, but generally most candidates are not good at understanding or running campaigns. The campaign manager is almost always the smartest guy affiliated with the campaign because he or she understands all of the mechanics - field, finance, communications, political, opposition research, etc - that go into winning. It just requires campaign work experience to get to this level, which most candidates don't have. Which is unfortunate, because candidates with a campaign background would be infinitely better. The campaign manager usually becomes the chief of staff in the congressional office, and remains the close adviser that the candidate generally defers to.
It's not necessarily about being smarter either, it's just that as a politician you have so much pressure and public scrutiny on you, your decision-making process can get completely fucked up. The chief of staff/campaign manager/senior adviser is able to remain independent and rational in the face of sometimes difficult decisions.
Additionally, in a campaign the role of candidate is practically a job description filling a role, just like campaign manager or communications director. 50% of it consists of doing call time, which is calling up community leaders, donors, or voters for support. It's extremely formulaic and planned. The campaign staff ideally provides briefs on each caller - who they have donated to, who they are loyal to, what they want to hear, etc. Good candidates will shut up, sit down, and call who we put in front of them. Bad ones will try to take over strategizing or do things the campaign manager should be doing - these campaigns almost always fail.
What's the ratio of idealists to cynics? I imagine that at least like interns are gung ho about the rightness of the platform and whatnot, but I mean I could imagine (at least on the state level and lower) that an entire staff may legitimately be behind what they're working for. I can, of course, imagine the opposite. What has been your experience?
It gets so murky that I'm not sure I can answer this question. At the lower levels, absolutely. People are complete idealists, and that's why they do what they do. At the higher levels, it becomes this weird mix of cynics and people sort of arguing that the ends justify the means and all of that. Plus, you never know which staff member is bought up by a certain lobby or has their own agenda. Some staffers try to use campaign connections to launch their own political careers or to build up a for-profit business. With these folks you never know if they are truly loyal to the candidate or not, and it becomes a headache trying to figure out everyone's goal. If you guess wrong, you end up sharing info with someone who leaks it or sells it. That was one reason I gave it up, honestly. I don't mind doing shady things. Hell, I have a bad ideas background. But there is no such thing as a true team in politics. Everyone is there for their own reasons and it is tiring not having any compatriots to call your own. Business and start-ups are way better than that. Everyone just wants to make money, and that unites us haha.
Do consultants ever jump ship from election to election? If so do successful consultants ever work against an incumbent they helped get into office? If the previous two are so, is there meaningful regulation to prevent the leaking of privileged information?
Oh yeah, it definitely happens. First off, most consultants juggle multiple races. If we are imagining political staff as a hierarchy, your consultants are above regular staff. They charge more, and they have multiple candidates they work for because they are good enough to churn out work really quickly. Of course, most consultants are partisan, meaning they only work for one side. The best ones truly work for anyone as long as the money is green, though.
With staff, as in people employed directly by the campaign and not contracted out, jumping ship is much more rare, but it happens, mostly on the same side. A top communications director might be asked by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to switch campaigns if one is struggling with their messaging.
Consultants, being gun for hires, sometimes end up facing former clients, especially in primary battles. As far as leaking information or using it, any campaign manager worth their salary ensures everyone that touches the campaign signs a non-disclosure agreement. Even then, there is a weird honor among thieves. There are certain unspoken rules of the game that everyone generally adheres to. The folks that don't adhere ( often the best ones, if we are being honest) are regarded with respect and fear and as outsiders a little bit. They are often the types that double as lobbyists, which I did for a bit. Again, not much appetite for it long-term.
What's the incentive for a staffer/consultant to really get their candidate elected? Is it just reputation like that "Consultant X has won the election for their candidate the last Y times" is good advertising, or is there some kind of direct monetary/favor bonus for working for the winning team?
Weirdly enough, losses don't necessarily hurt staff/consultants' reputations as people know how fickle politics can be. You generally know if a staffer did a good job or not. For instance, if I'm hiring a field director or communications director for a campaign, and I see that their numbers or news coverage was fantastic but their candidate still lost, I don't really hold that against them.
So in a weird way, winning is more for social standing than career purposes. I can have a 6-campaign losing streak and still get hired, but I won't be able to talk shit about that really smug asshole from the Clinton campaign that is always a dick to me. Does that make sense? I know it's fucking weird, but it's another reason I wasn't into it.
Others, like myself, enjoy the influence that comes from having an elected official that owes you one. I still take their phone calls and give them advice, and if there is a bill or something I really don't like, I can call them up and lean on them pretty hard. It's a perk for sure.
For concretely, most consultants and managers have a "win bonus" written into their contracts, equivalent to a couple of months worth of salary or so. The candidate wins, you get an extra $10K or so. It helps with the loyalty thing quite a bit, making it pretty expensive for an opposing campaign to buy someone off.
-
What type of political parties were you aligned with?
I worked exclusively for Democratic candidates, but I often did primaries or jungle generals where I had to face off against other Democrats, which I hated. Split up resources and messaging and staff and everything.
-
Oh oh, one more general question: if you had to recommend a way for a person with like at most 12 hours of undivided attention to figure out how they should vote in an election how would you recommend they do it? Like what is the densest source information about a candidate's positions and arguments in defense thereof that would be accessible to a person with an undergrad education but no specific training in political science?
Honestly? Look up their campaign disclosures. See which political action committees donated heavily to their campaign and you'll pretty much know how they're gonna vote. The American Petroleum Institute and its subsidiaries put $25,000 into some dude's campaign? He's not gonna be voting in favor of climate protections any time soon. This reality cuts across party lines. The Democrats and Republicans that are considered "independents" or "moderates" are usually people that happen to be taking money from groups not typically associated with their party. They sound super righteous and independent-minded in the media, but honestly they tend to be money whores more than the rest of their colleagues, that's all.
So yeah, if you have 12 hours, go to your state's election site or FEC.gov for federal candidates and see who their PACs are.
opensecrets.org is a place that catalogs some of this info for federal candidates. You can search their donors by industry and other criteria and figure out who they are loyal to as a result. Great resource.
-
Good to see one of the better posters from Zoklet is joining us.
Thanks, man. It's good to see you're here, as well. I wasn't sure if you'd made it.
-
I would be wary of OP and take what he says with a grain of salt as his identity has not been verified yet.
-
I would be wary of OP and take what he says with a grain of salt as his identity has not been verified yet.
Yeah, I don't really plan on verifying anything anytime soon for anonymity's sake, but I'm sure some people recognize my overly analytical and dry posting style. Like this post.
-
Seeing as like 90% of people never realized there was a second "z" in crazzy's handle, and that his posting style fits almost perfectly, I have to say I'm pretty well convinced.
-
Seeing as like 90% of people never realized there was a second "z" in crazzy's handle, and that his posting style fits almost perfectly, I have to say I'm pretty well convinced.
Thanks for noticing the extra z, bae. ;)
Also, of all the posters someone was gonna imitate, I would have to be the most boring. 10+ pages of bitching at Obbe or Darkhunter about how it's not okay to hate black people is all that you really get to do as crazzy. Sorry folks.
-
Why would I consent to my own enslavement by voting?
-
Why would I consent to my own enslavement by voting?
Hell if I know, but that attitude is particularly helpful if you are more likely to vote for the other guy.
Also, something that should be distinguished is that voting alone isn't enough to change the political process. But you'd be shocked how much of an impact even one person getting active can have on local political systems. You can influence primaries and really change the general election line-ups, which is what you're complaining about in the first place. Don't underestimate your value as a citizen.
-
Seeing as like 90% of people never realized there was a second "z" in crazzy's handle, and that his posting style fits almost perfectly, I have to say I'm pretty well convinced.
Thanks for noticing the extra z, bae. ;)
Also, of all the posters someone was gonna imitate, I would have to be the most boring. 10+ pages of bitching at Obbe or Darkhunter about how it's not okay to hate black people is all that you really get to do as crazzy. Sorry folks.
wtf, I'm not racist.
-
I'm racist as fuck. Human race thinking they have shit under control. What a laugh!
-
Seeing as like 90% of people never realized there was a second "z" in crazzy's handle, and that his posting style fits almost perfectly, I have to say I'm pretty well convinced.
Thanks for noticing the extra z, bae. ;)
Also, of all the posters someone was gonna imitate, I would have to be the most boring. 10+ pages of bitching at Obbe or Darkhunter about how it's not okay to hate black people is all that you really get to do as crazzy. Sorry folks.
wtf, I'm not racist.
lol I should have specified that our disagreements were more metaphysical.
-
Seeing as like 90% of people never realized there was a second "z" in crazzy's handle, and that his posting style fits almost perfectly, I have to say I'm pretty well convinced.
Thanks for noticing the extra z, bae. ;)
Also, of all the posters someone was gonna imitate, I would have to be the most boring. 10+ pages of bitching at Obbe or Darkhunter about how it's not okay to hate black people is all that you really get to do as crazzy. Sorry folks.
I would like to hear your reasoning on why it is not ok to hate black people. The way I see it, Obbe and Darkhunter have the RIGHT to dislike whoever they want, and for whatever reason they want. And this is because it is their brain and their thoughts, which they should have full and complete dominion over. If their brain tells them, "I don't like the way black people look and act", then guess what? They have the RIGHT to feel that way.
You crazzyass might be an anti-racist, or at least someone who doesn't hate black people, it is all well and good, however I don't think you should be allowed to impose your brand of morality on someone else.
-
I would like to hear your reasoning on why it is not ok to hate black people. The way I see it, Obbe and Darkhunter have the RIGHT to dislike whoever they want, and for whatever reason they want. And this is because it is their brain and their thoughts, which they should have full and complete dominion over. If their brain tells them, "I don't like the way black people look and act", then guess what? They have the RIGHT to feel that way.
You crazzyass might be an anti-racist, or at least someone who doesn't hate black people, it is all well and good, however I don't think you should be allowed to impose your brand of morality on someone else.
anti-racists are some of the most retarded mental slaves that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
-
Nice to see you, crazy.
Do the people, including the candidate, involved in campaigns believe in what they are doing? Or is it merely a job and the only real goal is winning the race?
What are the biggest technical problems faced in during a campaign? Obama's campaign got a lot of coverage for being so web2.0/data-mining savvy whereas his opponent was doing it the old way and the opponent got his ass handed to him. Is information bandwidth (both among the campaign staff and the supporters/voters) a big thing?
-
Nice to see you, crazy.
Do the people, including the candidate, involved in campaigns believe in what they are doing? Or is it merely a job and the only real goal is winning the race?
Like with anything, it really depends. There are a few trends, though.
The professional political consultant class that is housed in Washington, DC tends to be pretty far removed from their work, emotionally. At least overtly so. Some are passionate and compartmentalize this in order to be effective, others are psychopathic sharks. They tend to consult mostly on congressional races and they do so for races across the country. Party affiliation seems to have little effect on this, though interestingly enough the GOP operatives I've met always seem more competent than the Democratic ones. This coming from a Democrat.
Other consultants are more geographic based, and these tend to be more genuine/believe in what they are doing. So a guy that has done every race in a given state or city for the past 20 years probably really cares about the area, or at the very least enjoys dominating it specifically. Someone with that level of experience that chooses to not go to DC probably is particularly affectionate for their home. I trust these guys a lot more than DC operatives; on the other hand, they are sometimes less skilled than DC operatives.
If in doubt, hire a DC consultant and a local consultant. The extra oversight doesn't hurt with this, either.
What are the biggest technical problems faced in during a campaign? Obama's campaign got a lot of coverage for being so web2.0/data-mining savvy whereas his opponent was doing it the old way and the opponent got his ass handed to him. Is information bandwidth (both among the campaign staff and the supporters/voters) a big thing?
Every campaign since the dawn of campaigns is really trying to accomplish only one thing: ensure that 50% + 1 of the people voting in the election will be voting for its candidate. Everything comes back to that.
So in Obama's case specifically, and Democrats a bit more broadly, the typical electorate make-up is not super favorable: older, white males voting don't give us a great shot at winning. So they had to change the electoral make-up: young, minority, and unmarried female voters were determined to be the best bet. From here, the campaign created means to convince these voters to not only want to vote for Obama, but to actually vote for Obama.
For younger voters, this mean web 2.0 and mobile apps. People keep shitting on Romney for not being on the same level with these tools and, while he could have done some things better, that wasn't his main problem.
Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.
-
Perhaps I'm just more aware of this as an adult, but do you feel like the general political climate has gotten more heated and divisive since the mid 2000's or so? People seem more set in their ways and affiliations, and in general seem to lack the ability to have a civil debate. Has this changed your job at all?
-
Hey everyone! One reason I have been on hiatus for about a year is that I plunged more deeply into the political world as a consultant, lobbyist, staffer, what have you.
Now that I'm burnt out on that shit and ready to make money and have a life again, I'm getting more engaged back on social media and forums n shit. Anyway, I know there are tons of misconceptions about political stuff, so I figured I'd open myself to questions. I might eventually write up some guides too. Like introduction to lobbying/getting shit done, intro for people who want to run for office or staff campaigns, etc etc.
So fire away.
While in the political world, did you ever meet anyone who seemed like they might be an evil reptilian alien bent on enslaving mankind?
He probably met a few Jews.
-
Perhaps I'm just more aware of this as an adult, but do you feel like the general political climate has gotten more heated and divisive since the mid 2000's or so? People seem more set in their ways and affiliations, and in general seem to lack the ability to have a civil debate. Has this changed your job at all?
Yes and no. On one hand, some academic studies show an uptick in polarization among voters. By other, more anecdotal measures, I think it is overblown.
The mechanics of winning a campaign are fairly static over the decades; what changes are the variables. For instance, persuadability is the measure of how likely someone can be persuaded to vote for your candidate. In recent years, persuadability has definitely dropped, which is driving the partisan polarization.
But from a campaign perspective, higher persuadability means more communications contacts are needed to convert 'em. So more door knocks, more mailers, more TV, etc. Polarization makes races more expensive, then, but not necessarily more difficult. If your candidate has a weak financial base, it may be more difficult to get elected, though
So when you see record price tags for campaigns in recent years, polarization - and Citizens United - are mostly to blame for that.
-
Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.
And to think the Romney campaign skewed their internals to account for 2004 voter demographics because they thought the 2008 map was a fluke. They seriously believed going into election night that they weren't only going to win, but win big. Something like this:
Red for DEMS, blue for GOP (I know, I know):
(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=0&pv_p=0&ev_p=0&AL=2;9;6&AK=2;3;5&AZ=2;11;5&AR=2;6;6&CA=1;55;6&CO=2;9;5&CT=1;7;5&DE=1;3;5&DC=1;3;9&FL=2;29;4&GA=2;16;5&HI=1;4;7&ID=2;4;6&IL=1;20;5&IN=2;11;5&IA=2;6;5&KS=2;6;5&KY=2;8;6&LA=2;8;5&MD=1;10;6&MA=1;11;6&MI=1;16;5&MN=1;10;5&MS=2;6;5&MO=2;10;5&MT=2;3;5&NV=1;6;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=1;14;5&NM=1;5;5&NY=1;29;6&NC=2;15;5&ND=2;3;5&OH=2;18;5&OK=2;7;6&OR=1;7;5&PA=2;20;5&RI=1;4;6&SC=2;9;5&SD=2;3;5&TN=2;11;5&TX=2;38;5&UT=2;6;7&VT=1;3;6&VA=2;13;5&WA=1;12;5&WV=2;5;6&WI=2;10;5&WY=2;3;6&ME=1;2;5&ME1=1;1;5&ME2=1;1;5&NE=2;2;5&NE1=2;1;5&NE2=2;1;5&NE3=2;1;6)
Romney.Ryan: 315 Electoral Votes
Obama/Biden: 223 Electoral Voted
They were expecting a 1988 and got a reverse 2004 instead. Must have sucked. They were so confident in their operation they (famously) didn't draft a concession speech in advance. Even the Obama people were surprised in the effectiveness of their turnout operation when the results actually came in.
-
Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.
And to think the Romney campaign skewed their internals to account for 2004 voter demographics because they thought the 2008 map was a fluke. They seriously believed going into election night that they weren't only going to win, but win big. Something like this:
Red for DEMS, blue for GOP (I know, I know):
(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=0&pv_p=0&ev_p=0&AL=2;9;6&AK=2;3;5&AZ=2;11;5&AR=2;6;6&CA=1;55;6&CO=2;9;5&CT=1;7;5&DE=1;3;5&DC=1;3;9&FL=2;29;4&GA=2;16;5&HI=1;4;7&ID=2;4;6&IL=1;20;5&IN=2;11;5&IA=2;6;5&KS=2;6;5&KY=2;8;6&LA=2;8;5&MD=1;10;6&MA=1;11;6&MI=1;16;5&MN=1;10;5&MS=2;6;5&MO=2;10;5&MT=2;3;5&NV=1;6;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=1;14;5&NM=1;5;5&NY=1;29;6&NC=2;15;5&ND=2;3;5&OH=2;18;5&OK=2;7;6&OR=1;7;5&PA=2;20;5&RI=1;4;6&SC=2;9;5&SD=2;3;5&TN=2;11;5&TX=2;38;5&UT=2;6;7&VT=1;3;6&VA=2;13;5&WA=1;12;5&WV=2;5;6&WI=2;10;5&WY=2;3;6&ME=1;2;5&ME1=1;1;5&ME2=1;1;5&NE=2;2;5&NE1=2;1;5&NE2=2;1;5&NE3=2;1;6)
Romney.Ryan: 315 Electoral Votes
Obama/Biden: 223 Electoral Voted
They were expecting a 1988 and got a reverse 2004 instead. Must have sucked. They were so confident in their operation they (famously) didn't draft a concession speech in advance. Even the Obama people were surprised in the effectiveness of their turnout operation when the results actually came in.
Ohhh yeah, they fucked it up big time with their modeling/polling. That was their biggest failure probably, not the tech side.
Even if they tired to account for it, I don't think they would have taken Ohio. Pennsylvania and Florida were better bets and, even then, not quite enough to make it happen.
-
Ohhh yeah, they fucked it up big time with their modeling/polling. That was their biggest failure probably, not the tech side.
Even if they tired to account for it, I don't think they would have taken Ohio. Pennsylvania and Florida were better bets and, even then, not quite enough to make it happen.
I have a hard time seeing a scenario where the GOP wins Pennsylvania but not Ohio. The demographics just don't add up considering if the GOP wins Pennsylvania they are probably winning the national vote by several points. I just don't see them taking Pennsylvania unless it's a landslide.
Wisconsin is more doable but still I think it would be a fluke if they won it without winning Ohio first. Consider that Bush Jr. came within a point of winning Wisconsin in 2004, but Pennsylvania was still out of reach.
-
Ohhh yeah, they fucked it up big time with their modeling/polling. That was their biggest failure probably, not the tech side.
Even if they tired to account for it, I don't think they would have taken Ohio. Pennsylvania and Florida were better bets and, even then, not quite enough to make it happen.
I have a hard time seeing a scenario where the GOP wins Pennsylvania but not Ohio. The demographics just don't add up considering if the GOP wins Pennsylvania they are probably winning the national vote by several points. I just don't see them taking Pennsylvania unless it's a landslide.
Wisconsin is more doable but still I think it would be a fluke if they won it without winning Ohio first. Consider that Bush Jr. came within a point of winning Wisconsin in 2004, but Pennsylvania was still out of reach.
In a generic election I would agree with you, but the Obama camp did such a good job framing the auto bailout in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that I feel like he had more of an inherent advantage there than in Pennsylvania. And the kind of affinity the bailout created - the kind where you are sort of indebted to the president for your continued livelihood - makes the voters' persuadability extremely low, meaning Romney would be less of a threat there unless he really pumped the money in. Pennsylvania was a bit more open to persuasion in 2012.
-
In a generic election I would agree with you, but the Obama camp did such a good job framing the auto bailout in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that I feel like he had more of an inherent advantage there than in Pennsylvania. And the kind of affinity the bailout created - the kind where you are sort of indebted to the president for your continued livelihood - makes the voters' persuadability extremely low, meaning Romney would be less of a threat there unless he really pumped the money in. Pennsylvania was a bit more open to persuasion in 2012.
I guess 2012 could be the exception but I just think that Pennsylvania is fools gold for Republicans for the time being. They always float it as a place where they could "expand the map" but always lose by big margins.
Not to nitpick, but even with the factors you mentioned Ohio was still much closer then Pennsylvania was it not? I just don't see how even with said factors Pennsylvania is a "better bet" for Romney than Ohio/Wisconsin. Don't get get me wrong there was a bit of a panic on the Democratic side about Pennsylvania in October because Romney hadn't been defined there yet, but it turned out to be hot air. IIRC Ohio was the second closest state in the Union next to Florida on election night, so isn't it still more plausible that Romney wins Ohio (still losing the election, mind you) then Pennsylvania in some huge upset?
-
Nice to see you, crazy.
Do the people, including the candidate, involved in campaigns believe in what they are doing? Or is it merely a job and the only real goal is winning the race?
Like with anything, it really depends. There are a few trends, though.
The professional political consultant class that is housed in Washington, DC tends to be pretty far removed from their work, emotionally. At least overtly so. Some are passionate and compartmentalize this in order to be effective, others are psychopathic sharks. They tend to consult mostly on congressional races and they do so for races across the country. Party affiliation seems to have little effect on this, though interestingly enough the GOP operatives I've met always seem more competent than the Democratic ones. This coming from a Democrat.
Other consultants are more geographic based, and these tend to be more genuine/believe in what they are doing. So a guy that has done every race in a given state or city for the past 20 years probably really cares about the area, or at the very least enjoys dominating it specifically. Someone with that level of experience that chooses to not go to DC probably is particularly affectionate for their home. I trust these guys a lot more than DC operatives; on the other hand, they are sometimes less skilled than DC operatives.
If in doubt, hire a DC consultant and a local consultant. The extra oversight doesn't hurt with this, either.
What are the biggest technical problems faced in during a campaign? Obama's campaign got a lot of coverage for being so web2.0/data-mining savvy whereas his opponent was doing it the old way and the opponent got his ass handed to him. Is information bandwidth (both among the campaign staff and the supporters/voters) a big thing?
Every campaign since the dawn of campaigns is really trying to accomplish only one thing: ensure that 50% + 1 of the people voting in the election will be voting for its candidate. Everything comes back to that.
So in Obama's case specifically, and Democrats a bit more broadly, the typical electorate make-up is not super favorable: older, white males voting don't give us a great shot at winning. So they had to change the electoral make-up: young, minority, and unmarried female voters were determined to be the best bet. From here, the campaign created means to convince these voters to not only want to vote for Obama, but to actually vote for Obama.
For younger voters, this mean web 2.0 and mobile apps. People keep shitting on Romney for not being on the same level with these tools and, while he could have done some things better, that wasn't his main problem.
Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.
Thanks for the info man. I can't wrap my head around the meat of the process (candidates, districts) but I'm fascinated in the campaign machine itself - allocation of resources, strategy, etc. This sheds a lot of light on that.
-
Why are they called GOP?
Gullible Old Pricks?
-
Why are they called GOP?
Gullible Old Pricks?
Grand Old Party. The "official" (original) name of the Republicans.
-
Why are they called GOP?
Gullible Old Pricks?
Grand Old Party. The "official" (original) name of the Republicans.
You can't make this shit up
-
In a generic election I would agree with you, but the Obama camp did such a good job framing the auto bailout in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that I feel like he had more of an inherent advantage there than in Pennsylvania. And the kind of affinity the bailout created - the kind where you are sort of indebted to the president for your continued livelihood - makes the voters' persuadability extremely low, meaning Romney would be less of a threat there unless he really pumped the money in. Pennsylvania was a bit more open to persuasion in 2012.
I guess 2012 could be the exception but I just think that Pennsylvania is fools gold for Republicans for the time being. They always float it as a place where they could "expand the map" but always lose by big margins.
Not to nitpick, but even with the factors you mentioned Ohio was still much closer then Pennsylvania was it not? I just don't see how even with said factors Pennsylvania is a "better bet" for Romney than Ohio/Wisconsin. Don't get get me wrong there was a bit of a panic on the Democratic side about Pennsylvania in October because Romney hadn't been defined there yet, but it turned out to be hot air. IIRC Ohio was the second closest state in the Union next to Florida on election night, so isn't it still more plausible that Romney wins Ohio (still losing the election, mind you) then Pennsylvania in some huge upset?
I definitely see why Ohio seemed like more of a swing state due to the closer margin on election day, but that number doesn't always signify how safe or unsafe a given state is. There are three factors that determine the election - voter persuadability, affinity, and likelihood to vote. Most of what I or others do involves quantifying these qualities and devising strategies to move them in a favorable direction.
Persuadability - how easy/hard is it to convince a voter to change their vote
Affinity/Support - which way the voter is leaning already. Usually measured on a 1 - 5 scale, with 1 being Strong Support and 5 being Strong Opposition. Some campaigns use 10 point scales or more complicated algorithms for this. Local campaigns can get away with a 5 point scale.
Likelihood - how often does this person turn out to vote? This is determined by looking at their voting record. Voting in 3 out of 3 past elections would make you highly likely, 2 out of 3 likely, and 1 out of 3 sporadic. It gets more complicated when factoring in mid-terms and the like, but that's irrelevant for now.
Anyway, I'm saying all of that to make this point: a state is more favorable with a) 52-47 support split and b) extremely low persuadability than it is with a) 60-40 support split and b) extremely high persuadability.
After those two are pushed as far as possible, your GOTV operation ensures that any issues with your supporters' likelihood to vote are irrelevant. Door knocks and phone calls aid with pushing their likelihood way up.
In 2012, Ohio had a) pretty narrow supporter split in favor of Obama, b) low persuadability, and c) a way better field/GOTV operation that Pennsylvania since it is "the" swing state and Obama had invested heavily there years in advance.
By that analysis, PA was more up for grabs than OH by quite a bit.
Put more simply: it would cost far less money to persuade 10% of Pennsylvanians than it would 2% of Ohioans.
Edit follow-up: it was about a 150,000 vote margin, I think, and those 150,000 votes were extremely secure; moreso than the margin of voters in PA, if that makes sense. Looking just at how small the margin is can be deceptive; think Karl Rove insisting that the Romney campaign had plenty of room to win Ohio when all the other analysts were just like "...yeah no." The likelihood of the votes and the partisanship of the voters was much higher than the folks Romney was counting on to cancel them out at the district/precinct level.
-
Thanks for the info man. I can't wrap my head around the meat of the process (candidates, districts) but I'm fascinated in the campaign machine itself - allocation of resources, strategy, etc. This sheds a lot of light on that.
No problem. The strategic side of it is definitely what attracted my attention. You should keep reading up on this stuff, and feel free to ask more questions anytime. I might get around to writing up some guides if work ever calms down.