|
The Entire Universe posted:Probably more than a few. I don't doubt the Obama campaign had some of these kinds of victory-is-certain types and the reason we're not hearing about them is that Obama won.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
The Republican campaign polling was doing the unskewing nonsense which gave them the impression that they were going to do well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
I forget what article it was, but I remember one of them mentioned how Romney's campaign was confident he was going to win since he did the best amongst the most "motivated" people surveyed (they had people rate on a scale of 1-10, looked at 7-10 I think and pretty much ignored everyone else)and due to "momentum" First off, does momentum really exist? The idea of a political campaign acting as a physical object seems kinda strange to me. I mean there can be hype and excitement, but just because it looks like you're slowly getting ahead doesn't mean it'll really continue right? I think considering the media there might be the opposite of momentum as people get bored with yesterday's news. Also ahaha, that horrible, horrible surveying technique. Holy poo poo wow. I learned not to pull that sort of crap back in high school
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:First off, does momentum really exist? The idea of a political campaign acting as a physical object seems kinda strange to me. I mean there can be hype and excitement, but just because it looks like you're slowly getting ahead doesn't mean it'll really continue right? Sure momentum exists for a political campaign, just like any group concept. Example: If you're trying to persuade your friends to go out to drinks at a bar, you do it by convincing a few of them and then telling the others that the group is going. Momentum. Now imagine that another one of your friends has already invited everyone out to drinks at a different bar - the momentum has shifted. A political campaign can act in much the same way. You particularly see this in the primaries. Indeed it is one of the basis of the main complaint about our primary system: A handful of kingmaker states like Iowa always have their primary first, and therefore have an undue impact on the election by guiding the media narrative year after year. quote:Also ahaha, that horrible, horrible surveying technique. Holy poo poo wow. I learned not to pull that sort of crap back in high school Really it just comes down to thinking that you're smarter than everyone else - a vice that is all too common. The conservatives thought that the reason they were low in the polls was because the pollsters were idiots who were making mistakes in a misguided attempt at "fairness". They were wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
waffle posted:The power of denial is great--I'm sure the Obama folks were relying on actual data in their confidence, but to be fair, I'm sure if Obama had actually been losing, many of them would have been relying on a massive underlying dislike that didn't actually exist (thankfully for them and us, it did) I think the campaign's adherence to data and results would have won the campaign regardless - were something to shift, the niagara-scale feed of data would have allowed them to either get out in front of it or mitigate it directly. It's pretty powerful to be the Google of presidential campaigns when it comes to data usage, you can tack very closely in your message to the tone of public sentiment while the other guys just try to wing it on hunches and unskewing. I would say you'd be right about, say, the Kerry campaign or the base at that time, but Obama's campaign is two for two on making the opponent's campaign look like a campaign for junior high homecoming queen. The fact that the GOP is 2 for 2 on bricking the VP pick only compounds that gap by opening another front.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I would say you'd be right about, say, the Kerry campaign or the base at that time, but Obama's campaign is two for two on making the opponent's campaign look like a campaign for junior high homecoming queen. I'm not a big fan of large chunks of his policy and negotiating skills (although the 2012 model is a huge improvement on the 2011 version), but this Obama guy really knows to run an election campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 09:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Sure momentum exists for a political campaign, just like any group concept. Example: If you're trying to persuade your friends to go out to drinks at a bar, you do it by convincing a few of them and then telling the others that the group is going. Momentum. Now imagine that another one of your friends has already invited everyone out to drinks at a different bar - the momentum has shifted. Momentum is a terrible analogy to use in politics, when they mean snow-balling. There are physical limits. For one, you can't get more than 100% of the vote. If political momentum was real, and you kept the momentum, you would what? Plow through reality and get non-existent people appearing to vote for you as your campaign metaphorically jumps the rails, flips over on its side and skids for several blocks past election day leaving the entire electorate as a chunky red smear?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
Snowballing seems like a strong term for the kind of mild motion that even the wildest campaign can bestow. We're talking about millions of people voting here, and where the winning campaign only has support of maybe 25% of the vote-eligible population. I think that the possibility of a campaign jumping the rails is rare enough that the laws of reality are safe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 10:12
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Mike Bloomberg is trying to draft Hillary Clinton into running...for mayor of New York City. I suspect Hillary would have had to stifle laughter at the suggestion. I can't think of any possible reason she would want to be mayor of NYC, and many good reasons why she woudn't want to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 12:06
|
|
|
FMguru posted:3 for 3 - don't forget the Hilary Clinton clown show orchestrated by Mark Penn which didn't know how individual primary states allocated their votes when they made their strategy. Ah, I'd missed that  I honestly think Obama's wish is that constituents place pressure against his opponents for him, and he just talks nicely and gets people mad at the GOP because they are against all the good poo poo he likes to talk about with that soaring rhetoric of his. It's a bit like the Gracchi, where when he faces a bunch of dongwrangling obstructionists in the Senate, he just goes and takes his proposals directly to the citizenry. Except that's where the similarity ends since doing that actually had power in Rome, and both the Gracchi brothers were closer to Huey Long than Obama, what with their land reforms and antagonism towards the aristocracy. Obama just seems to be waffling on everything and hoping everyone's bright enough and wary enough to crapflood their congressperson's office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Momentum is a terrible analogy to use in politics, when they mean snow-balling. This is like saying if physical momentum is real, you would break light speed and time travel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Sure momentum exists for a political campaign, just like any group concept. Example: If you're trying to persuade your friends to go out to drinks at a bar, you do it by convincing a few of them and then telling the others that the group is going. Momentum. Now imagine that another one of your friends has already invited everyone out to drinks at a different bar - the momentum has shifted. I think Newton would be puzzled as to why this is called "momentum". Actual momentum in a political sense would be more akin to "if m has lead in the past v polls, it would take an event of p magnitude to upset this lead", which is basically more idiotic pundit nonsense. Obama had lead in plenty of polls prior to the first debate, which wasn't a huge disaster or anything - just a somewhat uninspired, uninspiring performance. Certainly not an earth-shattering event - yet his polling lead quickly evaporated. Your example - which is more about "gaining" momentum - is a bad analogy, since in that situation, your friends are basically "swing voters", and actual swing voters are a tiny, tiny minority of the electorate. Nate Silver has a good piece of the fallacy of momentum in the "snowballing" sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Do you think that Obama has created the blueprint for all future Democratic presidential campaigns? He's assembled a group of people with an insane level of technical knowledge and organizational ability. If they keep the band together, it might drive more and more youth turnout as the decade moves forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Do you think that Obama has created the blueprint for all future Democratic presidential campaigns? He's assembled a group of people with an insane level of technical knowledge and organizational ability. If they keep the band together, it might drive more and more youth turnout as the decade moves forward. Part of the problem is that these mostly aren't old-time DNC people who were just ignored. Most of the major players are connected to and loyal to Obama. There's a big question of if they'd campaign for anyone else or work in any meaningful way besides some minor consulting. See: 2010, where despite some post-2008 talk of working during the midterms, OFA sent out a couple of e-mails and called it a day. Axelrod even went as far to say that this would be the last campaign he'll work on. I think he's expressed interest in joining the not-for-profit his wife runs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Do you think that Obama has created the blueprint for all future Democratic presidential campaigns? He's assembled a group of people with an insane level of technical knowledge and organizational ability. If they keep the band together, it might drive more and more youth turnout as the decade moves forward. It's not like he had a group of people with "insane" technical skills - it's just that he actually had a competent technical crew and actually understood that the advantages lie in that direction. What the campaign did isn't some groundbreaking technical achievement in general but it was/is new to politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Do you think that Obama has created the blueprint for all future Democratic presidential campaigns? He's assembled a group of people with an insane level of technical knowledge and organizational ability. If they keep the band together, it might drive more and more youth turnout as the decade moves forward. I'd argue that it wouldn't apply to just Democrats. ANY politician worth their salt should be looking at the Obama model if they want to win a Presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Kaal posted:A political campaign can act in much the same way. You particularly see this in the primaries. Indeed it is one of the basis of the main complaint about our primary system: A handful of kingmaker states like Iowa always have their primary first, and therefore have an undue impact on the election by guiding the media narrative year after year. In American politics you only see it in primaries, and that's because it only works if you have three or more options (excluding the rare credible third-party/independent candidate). A candidate gaining momentum in a primary is essentially that candidate gaining credibility as an option by virtue of other people selecting them: I'd prefer Herman Cain, but won't say I'm going to vote for him because he's so clearly going to lose, but once he seems credible I jump to him as my preferred plausible candidate. This doesn't work when you're selecting between two options. Mitt Romney was never non-credible against Barack Obama. There was no point where Romney having rising poll numbers would convince someone to abandon another candidate because Romney was suddenly seeming like a plausible option. The Romney campaign was fooling itself into thinking a non-existent phenomenon would save it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
ehhh nevermind
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This doesn't work when you're selecting between two options. Mitt Romney was never non-credible against Barack Obama. There was no point where Romney having rising poll numbers would convince someone to abandon another candidate because Romney was suddenly seeming like a plausible option. The Romney campaign was fooling itself into thinking a non-existent phenomenon would save it. Sure it works. When Mitt Romney was heading into the debates, his campaign was struggling and it was pollsters were starting to strongly turn against him. Because there was serious doubt as to his ability to win, he was bleeding volunteers and financial donators, who didn't want to back a dark horse. But after a strong showing in the first debate, the GOP had regained its momentum and could go back to the well for more support. Just because the GOP believed something, and lost, doesn't make their every campaign idea wrong. If it makes it easier, think of the thing as a cart race. You build up momentum on your cart to keep it going over the humps, when the other cart might stop and folks might just quit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
In this week's episode of As The New York State Senate Turns, former Democratic majority leader Malcolm Smith, who was deposed by the predecessor to the Independent Democratic Caucus for being too liberal, has joined the Independent Democratic Caucus. It looks like the IDC is going to keep Skelos as majority leader in exchange for functional control over the body. So Cuomo's going to get his "Republican" Senate and continue his bipartisanship type things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I'd argue that it wouldn't apply to just Democrats. ANY politician worth their salt should be looking at the Obama model if they want to win a Presidential election. One qualification I'd have with this, while agreeing that any candidate that completely ignores the Obama model is acting foolishly, is that we don't know yet if the Obama model needs an Obama in it to work. In other words, I don't think it's yet clear whether a candidate who doesn't have the same/similar personal charisma and campaigning skills of the Big O himself would be able to use the same model as successfully, or indeed at all. This is parallel to what Joementum said about not yet knowing whether the Obama coalition will persist, or is too Obama-centric to continue to function in 2014/16.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:In American politics you only see it in primaries, and that's because it only works if you have three or more options (excluding the rare credible third-party/independent candidate). A candidate gaining momentum in a primary is essentially that candidate gaining credibility as an option by virtue of other people selecting them: I'd prefer Herman Cain, but won't say I'm going to vote for him because he's so clearly going to lose, but once he seems credible I jump to him as my preferred plausible candidate. This exact phenomenon happened in the 2008 Democratic Primaries to Obama. Before Iowa, Obama had only a sliver of the African American vote in polling. After Iowa showed that he could win and be a viable candidate, he then had a majority of African American voters as well as a much bigger chunk of the other voters than he'd had, because of voters that tended to prefer him but did not see him as viable. Iowa, then South Carolina, established him as viable. It's not exactly analogous to a general election though, because in our current polarized electorate it's unlikely that many people identified as Democrats would switch to Romney whether he was seen as viable or not. It's more an issue of enthusiasm and increased intention to vote and turnout among the same group of voters as a result of events like debates, rather than anyone jumping camps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Could someone that's better informed than me on Michael Bloomberg tell me why he isn't running for NYC mayor again? I was trying to find the reasoning with a quick google, but couldn't quickly. Is it a term limit thing? An age thing? Or is it possibly a presidential candidate thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
ACatch22 posted:Could someone that's better informed than me on Michael Bloomberg tell me why he isn't running for NYC mayor again? I was trying to find the reasoning with a quick google, but couldn't quickly. Is it a term limit thing? An age thing? Or is it possibly a presidential candidate thing? Current term limit for NYC mayor is 3 terms of 4 years each. That means he'll be out January 1, 2014
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Is there any chance at a presidential run? I know he's an independent at 70 (making him 74 in 2016), but has there been any indication of whether or not he is interested?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
ACatch22 posted:Is there any chance at a presidential run? I know he's an independent at 70 (making him 74 in 2016), but has there been any indication of whether or not he is interested? He openly flirted with the race in 2008 and a little in 2012, but never too seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
ACatch22 posted:Is there any chance at a presidential run? I know he's an independent at 70 (making him 74 in 2016), but has there been any indication of whether or not he is interested? He's probably more interested in Governor I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:He openly flirted with the race in 2008 and a little in 2012, but never too seriously. Isn't it some law of the Universe that a mayor of New York will never make a good presidential candidate? The Lindsay-Giuliani Law or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
monoceros4 posted:Isn't it some law of the Universe that a mayor of New York will never make a good presidential candidate? The Lindsay-Giuliani Law or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Basically, though the fact that a lot of them get considered in the first place would have to be corollary. Why? Is the machine behind NYC mayoral kingmaking corrupt enough that anybody who wins wouldn't survive a presidential run because of the resulting skeletons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Why? Is the machine behind NYC mayoral kingmaking corrupt enough that anybody who wins wouldn't survive a presidential run because of the resulting skeletons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Why? Is the machine behind NYC mayoral kingmaking corrupt enough that anybody who wins wouldn't survive a presidential run because of the resulting skeletons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
Anybody remember "Obama can't get the nomination/win, no sitting senator has won since Kennedy"? And then both candidates were Senators? And then we elected a black president?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
I'm not sure 44 is a big enough sample size to make any real predictions on who can and can't become President (except that the barrier for a black president is much lower than the barrier for a poor president).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Because "Mayor of an important city" isn't one of the four places you can launch a successful Presidential campaign from. Governor, Senator, VP, General of a winning war - that's it. I don't doubt for a second that mayors of NYC, LA, and Chicago could take a credible swing at a presidential run. It would take a magic combination of levels of charisma that haven't been seen since Obama's 2004 DNC speech, and a bit of luck with the right urban issues at the right time (and implementing the right solutions), but I would place them on "importance" or visibility level as a rank and file House member. With executive experience, to boot. Also, I'd assume a House member given enough years seniority and the right profile and committee assignments/chairmanships could make a run, too. Dick Gephardt was the frontrunner for much of the 2004 nomination, and remember the "Draft Paul Ryan" sentiments before he became the VP nom? Also, it's going be hard to find any 21st century war that can be "won" for a General to run on. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Most Governor's offices can easily operate without the actual Governor being present, same with most other state-wide state level elected offices (ATtorney General, Secretary of State, etc...). Congresscritters can easily multi-task because their constituent service offices in their districts still operate, and they'll come back for votes where they're absolutely necessary. A mayor of a huge rear end city like NYC...there's only one Mayor and poo poo tends to get hosed up when you pawn it off to a Deputy Mayor such as Goldsmith and the snow storm a few years back. Could Bloomberg make it? Sure. But he'd need some perfect timing like Perot got to actually have a realistic shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
dinoputz posted:I don't doubt for a second that mayors of NYC, LA, and Chicago could take a credible swing at a presidential run. It would take a magic combination of levels of charisma that haven't been seen since Obama's 2004 DNC speech, and a bit of luck with the right urban issues at the right time (and implementing the right solutions), but I would place them on "importance" or visibility level as a rank and file House member. With executive experience, to boot. quote:Also, I'd assume a House member given enough years seniority and the right profile and committee assignments/chairmanships could make a run, too. Dick Gephardt was the frontrunner for much of the 2004 nomination, and remember the "Draft Paul Ryan" sentiments before he became the VP nom? quote:Also, it's going be hard to find any 21st century war that can be "won" for a General to run on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
FMguru posted:And yet, not a single mayor has been a major party candidate in 200 years (without passing through the gateway of Senator/Governor/VP). The historical record is quite clear. Bloomberg, Emmanuel, Villaragosa - all will have to run for statewide office to set up a shot at the White House (or serve as VP). Giuliani had the highest profile imaginable for a US mayor in 08, and his campaign was a fiasco. Eh, the modern primary system has only existed for 40 years, and in those 40 years you've had two New York City mayors, one from each party, take a plausible run at the nomination, as well as a bunch of assorted House members. The reasons Giuliani lost had little to do with his lack of political standing, he just didn't run a great campaign and had a very poor set of results come for his candidacy in the early contests he was not seriously contesting. I do think there is a high bar of entry for those who have never been elected statewide, but I don't see how "Giuliani was only the frontrunner for awhile and didn't actually win the nomination" makes it an absolute bar per se.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:11
|
|
|
To quote Honest Joe Biden: "Rudy Giuliani's campaign is a noun, a verb, and 9/11." Look at Corey Booker, he's got serious potential to ascend to a higher office, and the Democratic party is certainly grooming him for the ability to do so. I hope he stays true to himself and remains in Newark for a while yet, however. Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Secretary of Defense Cory Booker will personally lay down suppressing fire at Firebase Charlie in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:28
|
|
