|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:What I'm hearing is basically that he is a pre-2004 version of Democratic party polling whose methodology and assumptions are vastly outdated. That, plus a healthy dose of absolutely repulsive personality traits. He comes off as mean-spirited and entitled. e: comes along bort posted:e: turns out he was responsible for those Bing vs. Google ads too. You know, that search engine you had to google to find out what it is. You have absolutely made my week by cluing me in on this. No wonder Bing's ads are so unbelievably awful and off-putting. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Nov 11, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Yeah, but he's not any more physically or personally repulsive than Rove, who is also just disturbing to watch and listen to as a human being. Of course there are plenty of physically repulsive human beings who are great people, but Rove's only redeeming characteristic is that he won elections for his party. They never would have let him in the house without it. I love that line in Boogieman: The Lee Atwater Story (I've watched the full version probably 50 times) where, I think,
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Even for TNR that's pretty thin gruel. Buncha halfassed speculation with quotes the usual coterie of "unnamed staffers". Whoop diddly fuckin' doo. The best part was hiding the inconvenient fact that Warren already endorsed Clinton (as well as a counterargument discounting the endorsement) in a footnote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Yeah, but he's not any more physically or personally repulsive than Rove, who is also just disturbing to watch and listen to as a human being. Yeah, well, I think part of the difference is, one would hope that Karl Rove would be personally repulsive. It just wouldn't fit his image as a Republican pollster if he was anything but a smug, self-important, sociopathic prick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
In his book All Too Human, Snuffleupagus quoted someone describing Yeltsin as something like a boiled potato with a dollop of sour cream on his head. I forget exactly, but, anyway, that's how I think of Rove.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Penn was a pollster who somehow gladhanded his way into becoming Clinton's chief strategist - despite the fact that the was, y'know, a loving pollster and had no experience actually running campaigns. Pollsters are supposed to be neutral deliverers of unbiased information, and really shouldn't have decision-making influence, and Penn was a wonderful example of why: every time he got into an argument with another Clinton aide, he'd miraculously be able to produce polling that showed that he was right and the other guy was wrong. Convenient! His most famous act was not knowing how individual states awarded delegates so he'd do things like put a ton of resources into making sure Clinton finished a strong second in a state that awarded its delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Penn seemed to run his strategy based on capturing the narrative from week to week, unlike the Obama people, who ran their strategy based on getting the greatest number of delegates. Penn also bailed on the campaign at a critical time to do a promotional tour (!) for his Microtrends* book. He arranged to be paid an enormous (possibly record-breaking) sum for his "work" (almost all of Clinton's post-campaign debt was owed to him). His consulting firm had a big sideline in running union-busting campaigns. And so on. Everything that was graceless and stupid and hamhanded about Clinton's campaign could be traced directly to him. Remember when she suddenly started showing up at dive bars and chugging shots and beer? That was typical Penn, as was the not-so-veiled racism that her campaign traded in towards the end (although Bill had a hand in that, too). The fact that Clinton gave this obvious quack the critical decisionmaking authority in her campaign and stuck with him even as the campaign augered into the ground is, quite frankly, the #1 concern I have about her as a candidate and a President. What the hell does that say about her judgment? *His big claim to fame as a pollster was his ability to identify key groups in every electorate, the control of which would determine the election, which gave us endless navalgazing about "NASCAR Dads" and "Security Moms", and has since been revealed to be phlogiston-level pseudoscience, even by the low standards of polling analysis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Yeah, but he's not any more physically or personally repulsive than Rove, who is also just disturbing to watch and listen to as a human being. Of course there are plenty of physically repulsive human beings who are great people, but Rove's only redeeming characteristic is that he won elections for his party. They never would have let him in the house without it. At least in Atwater's defense he experienced a touch of deathbead contrition, but I guess cancer will do that to ya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Penn also bailed on the campaign at a critical time to do a promotional tour (!) for his Microtrends* book. I had heard he was fired for covertly shilling for a Colombian free trade deal that Clinton was publicly against. It might have been a mixture of both things, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
ChampRamp posted:To add to everyone, I would suggest just reading Game Change (or the parts about Clinton). It's been a while since I've read Game Change and like most everyone else I only remember the McCain stuff and some early Obama vs. Hilaryland stuff that makes the Clintons seem as villainous as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
The last couple of pages have mentioned most of the terrible names in political polling/strategy, but I'm not going to let Pat Caddell escape this time. He is also not good at his alleged profession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The fact that Clinton gave this obvious quack the critical decisionmaking authority in her campaign and stuck with him even as the campaign augered into the ground is, quite frankly, the #1 concern I have about her as a candidate and a President. What the hell does that say about her judgment? The Clintons are exactly like George W Bush in that they reward loyalty above all else, and it's loving unnerving how much they still command. If you've ever met someone who's worked for them in any capacity who hasn't subsequently run afoul and been cast into outer darkness, cult-like devotion's about the only way to describe it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The last couple of pages have mentioned most of the terrible names in political polling/strategy, but I'm not going to let Pat Caddell escape this time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Mark Penn's finest moment: excuse me, EXCUSE ME!!! This is fantastic, especially since Trippi is attacking Clinton/defending Obama, and Axelrod just has to sit there looking good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The last couple of pages have mentioned most of the terrible names in political polling/strategy, but I'm not going to let Pat Caddell escape this time. Oh my goodness, how have I not heard of this guy? quote:He has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992. He also worked for Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff in 2010. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
If you turn on Fox News and the person talking is a "Democratic Strategist", there's a better than average chance you're gazing upon The Caddell. And he's probably saying that Democrats would win if they were more like Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Well, he might be technically right on that - they just wouldn't be Democrats anymore. (the party's rightward creep in recent decades notwithstanding)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:In his book All Too Human, Snuffleupagus quoted someone describing Yeltsin as something like a boiled potato with a dollop of sour cream on his head. This just reminded me of my favorite Boris Yeltsin story: quote:He also relayed how Boris Yeltsin's late-night drinking during a visit to Washington in 1995 nearly created an international incident. The Russian president was staying at Blair House, the government guest quarters. Late at night, Clinton told Branch, Secret Service agents found Yeltsin clad only in his underwear, standing alone on Pennsylvania Avenue and trying to hail a cab. He wanted a pizza, he told them, his words slurring. On the topic of the thread, who do people think the most likely Democratic nominee would be if Hillary decides not to run? Would it just be Joe Biden almost by default?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Maybe not by default but he'd be in the best position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Would it just be Joe Biden almost by default? Definitely not by default, but he would be a major candidate. If Hillary doesn't run then Cuomo and Gillibrand get to come off the bench.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If Hillary doesn't run then Cuomo and Gillibrand get to come off the bench. I was under the impression that'd be an either/or proposition since they'd both be fighting over Clinton's fundraising rolodex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Definitely not by default, but he would be a major candidate. If Hillary doesn't run then Cuomo and Gillibrand get to come off the bench. As a former New Yorker, all three make me queasy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
I don't like Biden on a number of policy points, but I've been a Biden fan since forever because he's just so Goddamn likable. The media have never let up on him, but I often wonder if, given the springboard of the Vice-Presidency, he might be a much more serious contender than people think. His goofy little league coach thing probably charms a lot more people than it turns off in today's political world. He also really does have a fantastic mind for foreign policy, something that goes unnoticed in the constant ridicule. He's not always right, but, man, you get him started on political dynamics in the Middle East or something and he'll blow your socks off. Then again, I thought (not hoped, just thought) Rick Perry was capable of sweeping the 2012 primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I was under the impression that'd be an either/or proposition since they'd both be fighting over Clinton's fundraising rolodex. They do both dip into the same money pool as the Clinton Machine Bill and Hillary, and it's entirely likely some agreement on which of them makes a serious run would be brokered ahead of time in the interests of not distracting from what will (hopefully) turn out to be another GOP primary implosion, but so too they both might decide to fight it out for that sweet, sweet fundraising. Of course, this far out and with Hillary still the odds-on favorite we're essentially trying to read tea leaves before the kettle's even been filled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If you turn on Fox News and the person talking is a "Democratic Strategist", there's a better than average chance you're gazing upon The Caddell. *Type II are Blue Dogs like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, conservative Democrats who undercut their party at every opportunity, and Type III is the scary black guy wearing aviator shades and a dashiki who talks about "reparations" that they wheel out on slow news days).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Type III is the scary black guy wearing aviator shades and a dashiki who talks about "reparations" that they wheel out on slow news days).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:I don't like Biden on a number of policy points, but I've been a Biden fan since forever because he's just so Goddamn likable. The media have never let up on him, but I often wonder if, given the springboard of the Vice-Presidency, he might be a much more serious contender than people think. His goofy little league coach thing probably charms a lot more people than it turns off in today's political world. He also really does have a fantastic mind for foreign policy, something that goes unnoticed in the constant ridicule. He's not always right, but, man, you get him started on political dynamics in the Middle East or something and he'll blow your socks off. Here's why I'm practically all in on Biden '16's chances: folksy, likable bullshit artist shtick equals Iowa/South Carolina Winner to a T.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Also, and I know this is controversial, I think the country is finally ready for an older, white, male President. Don't quote me on that, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:He's also just kind of smarmy, fat, self-promoting consultant teat-feeder, but the kind who doesn't win. Well, okay, I know he's basically two coin-flips away from being a failure. I guess I wonder if he is competent and his skill got Bush from a close loss to a tie/close win or if he's just incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If you turn on Fox News and the person talking is a "Democratic Strategist", there's a better than average chance you're gazing upon The Caddell. Not too be horribly shallow as well but it's kinda funny that the conservatives on Fox News are all good looking women like Andrea Tantaros and Jedediah Bila and the "liberals" are hideous old dudes such as Caddell and Bob Beckel Edit: Also despite being ostensibly liberal they have awful views on about everything The SituAsian fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Campaigns have certain roles, in the Clinton Machine you had your personalities, the Clintons, your glad-handing, flesh-pressing, horsetrading operatives like Terry McAuliffe, you have your policy wonks and you have your pollsters. Mark Penn was essentially the Clinton's pollster and consultant. His major idea was Microtargetting, trying to assess the sentiments of highly narrow, key groups (i.e. "Soccer moms", "Nascar dads") which Mark Penn felt to be crucial demographics and opinion mediators for the general electorate. Microtargetting, or whatever you want to call it, is here to stay and was a major linchpin of the Obama campaigns to which much of their success is attributed. But as the Obama campaigns used it, it's not just identifying subgroups and saying "this is the Soccer Mom election" as some kind of tea leaf reading on which group they should shoot for to win, it's tailoring various appeals very specifically to these subgroups and even specifically to individuals to maximize the yield of appeals to that person to contribute, volunteer, or just register and get out there and vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Microtargetting, or whatever you want to call it, is here to stay and was a major linchpin of the Obama campaigns to which much of their success is attributed. But as the Obama campaigns used it, it's not just identifying subgroups and saying "this is the Soccer Mom election" as some kind of tea leaf reading on which group they should shoot for to win, it's tailoring various appeals very specifically to these subgroups and even specifically to individuals to maximize the yield of appeals to that person to contribute, volunteer, or just register and get out there and vote. Obama's crew sliced and diced the electorate and customer-targeted a thousand different approaches to a thousand different groups, and carefully watched the feedback and adjusted their targeting to match. Very different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
FMguru posted:This is true. But that wasn't what Penn was doing - he argued that there was a critical group out there that determined elections and candidates should identify that group and build their campaigns around appealing to that group, and so you get NASCAR Moms and Security Dads. One election, one critical group, and the identification of that group was basically pulled out of thin air. I'll defend Penn's approach for a minute: he's wrong in 2013 and maybe 2008 when you could already use Excel to slice a lot of data up into a thousand segments and ID the exact proportions of NASCAR fans to soccer moms, cross reference them and send them targeted mailers for less money than just mailing everybody to start with. Take him back to the '90's and this same approach would've been well ahead of the curve. A lot of political consulting pre Nate Silver-induced spreadsheets looks like blind men trying to feel out an elephant, but it's not entirely fair to use hindsight this way. Additionally, this is the also same industry where Dick Morris still makes money, so it's not like he's got a high bar to clear there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:They do both dip into the same money pool as the Clinton Machine Bill and Hillary, and it's entirely likely some agreement on which of them makes a serious run would be brokered ahead of time in the interests of not distracting from what will (hopefully) turn out to be another GOP primary implosion, but so too they both might decide to fight it out for that sweet, sweet fundraising. Of course, this far out and with Hillary still the odds-on favorite we're essentially trying to read tea leaves before the kettle's even been filled. Yeah a quiet agreement between Biden and Clinton to run a civil primary where one person bows out and backs the winner as soon as the results start to swing one way or the other would make the GOP primary fantastically entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Start the "Warren 2016" speculation I don't see Warren running, I don't think there's a hope in hell that she runs unless something big happens in the next year and a half... but I have to admit that at least part of the reason I feel that way is that I want her to stick around and continue being my Senator (yes, my Senator, all mine, you can't have her). She's one of the very rare cases where I think she would be better off being a Senator and advocating for the issues she so clearly cares about than being President and having to lose focus on those issues because Eastern Europe exploded or what have you. This may be wishful thinking on my part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
I would take Warren any day of the week over Clinton, might be nice to have Democrats acting before the third way again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Warren would be yet another Senator who didn't even finish a full term and who would be bullied by Congress because she has no ties or experience there (if she even wins at all).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Warren would be yet another Senator who didn't even finish a full term and who would be bullied by Congress because she has no ties or experience there (if she even wins at all). Yet another = One of two in the last 60+ years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yet another = One of two in the last 60+ years. Technically, she'd be the third ex-Senator post-WWII to become President who didn't finish their first Senate term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Today in Joe Biden calling people, here's a recording of a Joe Biden conversation with one of the original Rosie the Riveters, who he's inviting to the White House.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Today in Joe Biden calling people, here's a recording of a Joe Biden conversation with one of the original Rosie the Riveters, who he's inviting to the White House. Did he congratulate her on being elected mayor of Boston?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 02:20
|
|