Posted on 11/09/2012 4:02:56 PM PST by Kaslin
Mitt Romney's top campaign aides conducted a conference call with conservative journalists this afternoon, during which they assessed the damage from Tuesday's electoral loss. The participants included campaign manager Matt Rhoades, political director Rich Beeson, polling director Neil Newhouse and digital director Zac Moffatt. A few notes from the call:
Matt Rhoades, on the overall race: "No campaign is perfect, and we certainly made our share of mistakes." On Paul Ryan: "He has come away from this race with a very bright future before him."
Rich Beeson, on the campaign's strategy: "We won independents and held the base. We thought that would be a winning combination." Given the heavily Democratic electorate, it was not. On Boston's computerized 'ORCA' ground game tracking system: "This was the first time we'd ever done anything like [ORCA] on that grand a scale. We got data from 91% of precincts across the country," he said, noting that the program will help Republicans track and predict voting behavior in the future. As for reports that the system crashed on election day, Beeson conceded that there were significant technical issues: "There were glitches in the system, I don't want to gloss over that. We were able to beta test it, but not at the volume of data we needed." He said the program thought it had been hacked, which triggered a laborious process of rebooting the whole system with new passwords.
Neil Newhouse, on the outcome: "It didn't end up like we'd hoped for and expected (more on the "expected" part later). [The Obama campaign] ran a very small campaign in a very big way." Newhouse said the opposition effectively targeted specific demos in their coalition, using contraceptives, DREAM Act waivers, and student loan policies to entice key elements of their base to show up and vote. They "pretty damn well succeeded" at turning out their voters, he concluded. As an example, Newhouse pointed out that in Ohio, 160,000 more African Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008. Obama's margin of victory in the state was roughly 100,000. On the other hand, "we had fewer white voters turn out [nationwide] in this election than in 2008. The question we have to ask ourselves is 'how did that happen?'"
Newhouse, on Romney's strengths: In exit polling, voters were asked about four metrics of leadership. Romney beat Obama on the questions of (a) which candidate has a positive vision for the country, (b) which candidate shares "my values," and (c) which candidate is a "strong leader." Despite batting .750, Romney got crushed by approximately 60 points on the question of which candidate "cares about people like me." This suggests that the Obama campaign's early "kill Romney" approach -- painting the former governor and CEO as an out-of-touch, uber-wealthy, outsourcing robber barron -- worked. It also suggests that personal connection and relatability are now more important factors in national elections than experience or accomplishment. Newhouse added that the right track/wrong track statistics tightened by 48 net points from November of 2011 through election day, which helped boost the president's approval rating to non-fatal levels.
Newhouse, on the effects of Hurricane Sandy: "It was not determinative. It was a factor, it was not the factor. But it hit the pause button on our campaign and our messaging for about four or five days, and it gave Obama the opportunity to look presidential." Newhouse said exit polling indicated that about three percent of the electorate said Sandy was the most important factor (!) in their presidential choice, and that many of them made up minds in the last few days of the campaign.
Question and answer period:
The Washington Examiner's Michael Barone asked whether the birth control attacks were effective. The campaign brain trust said that HHS' contraception move was narrowly targeted at a segment of the population -- young unmarried women, whom Obama carried by 38 points on Tuesday. Romney's advisers said Team Obama knew exactly what they were doing by running the unseemly "first time" ad; they recognized they'd face blowback from some elements of the population, but thought it was worth it on balance, in order to appeal to young women.
PJTV's Roger Simon asked about Romney's bruising loss among Hispanic voters. The entire Romney team acknowledged that this was a big problem, and that Republicans need to think hard about how to reverse this trend. Part of the issue, Beeson said, was that Obama's campaign spent heavily on brutally negative ads against Romney for many months over the late spring and summer, before Romney had the resources to fight back. "By that time, [Hispanic voters] were already predisposed against us," he said. Romney's advisers also mentioned that the attack ads Obama ran on Spanish language radio and television were far "meaner, tougher and over-the-top" than "any attacks they leveled against us in English." This battle played out intensely, but off the mainstream media's radar.
I asked about the October "expand the map" strategy, which demonstrably failed. Was the campaign engaging in a deliberate head-fake by pretending that Pennsylvania, Minnesota and other states were in play -- or did they actually believe they had their core path locked up (through Virginia, Florida, Colorado, etc), and thus had the luxury of expansion? I also wondered aloud which scenario would be worse (misdirection vs. bad intel). The Romney brain trust seemed to side-step the heart of my inquiry, instead focusing on the Pennsylvania aspect. Newhouse: "The decision was not made lightly to expand the map. In order for us to go into PA, we had to have every other friggen' thing in the campaign fully funded. We went to everyone to make sure they were fully funded before we went into Pennsylvania. Every other need was met before we did that. The guys on the ground in PA, including our polling guys, were very encouraging. Our numbers were positive there. As it turns out, it was relatively close, but it wasn't as close as other target states." Beeson: "The Obama campaign saw the same numbers we did. They clearly saw it closing. We wanted to wait as long as we could to prevent them from getting that Philadelphia machine fired up in time."
These analyses make sense, but only within the context of the campaign truly believing that they were safe in other crucial must-have states -- a cataclysmically wrong assumption. When I stopped by Romney headquarters in Boston back in September, Newhouse said his team was anticipating a D+3 electorate in November. This seemed entirely reasonable to me, based on evidence from 2004, 2008 and 2010, but it turned out to be incorrect. The actual electorate this year was D+6. Post-election news reports reveal that Mitt Romney was "shell-shocked" by his loss, an outcome that can only be explained by shockingly flawed internal polling. Was that polling predicated on a D+3 model? If so, that would explain the huge disconnect between Boston's expectations and the final results. I'll reiterate that although the D+3 model seemed sensible on its face, it was the campaign pollsters' job to figure out if their assumptions comported with reality. In retrospect, their failure to do so looms very, very large.
Finally, Joel Pollak from Breitbart asked if the campaign's gurus felt like they'd let down the American people, particularly Romney's supporters. The takeaway line from a relatively broad answer to this (admittedly tough) question came from Neil Newhouse: "There's a sense that we let Mitt Romney down." If the candidate truly expected to be delivering a victory speech on Tuesday night, even as he was in the process of losing the popular vote by two percentage points and the electoral college by a wider margin, Newhouse's assertion isn't too far off.
UPDATE - Here is Jen Rubin's WaPo write-up of the same call.
“He said the program thought it had been hacked, which triggered a laborious process of rebooting the whole system with new passwords.”
My connections in the intelligence community seriously believe that this was a possibility.
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
We still don’t know what Mitt’s politics are, or why he invested so many years of his life and 55 million personal dollars to become president.
We do know that Mitt is a political disaster, in 20 years of running for office, and breaking spending records in every race, Mitt has a single victory to his name.
Mitt served a single term as Governor, destroyed the state party, was forced to give up his hope of reelection, and left office with 34% approval, and turning the office over to the democrats ever since.
Without even looking into his long political history, didn’t his losing to the unfunded Huckabee and the old man McCain reveal how weak he is?
Therein lies the truth.
His campaign was ‘I’m not Obama!’ Puhlease!
Was Romney allowed to invest some of his own money early on in the campaign? If so, why didn’t he? Another thing - the primaries go on way too long. That gave the other side a head start on their negative ads while Romney was still running to win the nomination and then had to wait for funding and financing to come in. His ads were too milquetoast and needed to hit harder on obama. Like McCain, they played the nice guy bit - never once attacking his policies. Sure, they would have called him a racist, but they were calling him that anyway. So, he should have rolled the dice and played the game. Even if it didn’t work - at least he could have put up more of a fight.
I’m sick of these GOPE types running our campaigns. They suck at it and we do nothing but lose with their misinformation. Romney was playing for the independent votes only - his “reaching across the aisle” meme was a losing strategy just as it was with McCain. Heck, it was probably McCain who told him to use that.
The campaign shut out the conservatives at the convention, as well as Ron Paul voters. Do you think this went unnoticed? No, it didn’t. Where was Newt? Either Newt or Sarah would have been far better key note speakers than Christie - who only patted himself on the back.
I’m going to be honest - I almost didn’t go vote on election day. I felt something so wrong, but went out of hoping to defeat obama. I could have stayed home and had the same outcome.
You let the entire country down. Jokers.
That would be 'his first time' because he's got a couple of other women out there pregnant, and no one knows where he is.
A low blow, sure, but making it real!
That sort of thing will happen to people who imagine they are really running for president ~ you attract just all sorts of nasty characters.
[He said the program thought it had been hacked, which triggered a laborious process of rebooting the whole system with new passwords. ]
Hmmmmm.
Wreckless stupidity. The republican party has -- for decades -- the best voter precinct database ever seen. You fools relied on untested technology instead of feet on the ground. Stupid, lazy, incompetent suits.
But the GOPe told us to get on board because he was the most electable! He would appeal to the moderates and independents not like those stale conservatives.
Rich Beeson, on the campaign’s strategy: “We won independents and held the base.
_________________________________
NOT! The base said FURINO!
Yes Ansell-———but it was his turn.
Whose turn will it be next time Christie?
I’d tell you to do that to yourself, but as Clint pointed out, that’s just not possible.
“There’s a Sense That We Let Mitt Romney Down”
I recommend these guys commit suicide at once to make up for their disgrace. That would have the added benefit of making sure they never manage any campaign again and remove some GOP-e candy a**es permanently.
The biggest trouble with the Primary is that New Hampshire and Iowa start it, Both voted Democrat and New Hampshire allows Crossovers, In other words we have Democrats picking our candidates.
Now I know that others can win after the New hampshire primary, but it gives the Dems poick a head start that is hard to beat.
Republicans have to refuse to participate in the New Hampshire primary.
Mitt Romney did exactly what McCain did. Both of them made the deliberate decision not to use the ammunition they had. McCain refused to point out the glaring holes in the Obama resume. Romney did not even attempt to explore the nefarious role Obama played in the slaughter of those Americans in Benghazi. They gave Obama the presidency.
I fear that both Parties are leading us to the same place. America is not intended to any longer to be a super power. In my view all of these people are traitors.
A good op-ed on your point. Link to entire article at the bottom.
Deja Vu All Over Again- Another “can’t lose” moderate...loses
“...Lord insists we need more “New Reagans” — people of all backgrounds, all races, all religions — who are well-versed in conservatism.
And where did Marco Rubio, now hailed by the Republican establishment as a 2016 favorite, come from? Not from the RINO establishment. It backed Charlie “Tan-in-a-Can” Crist and fought Rubio tooth and nail. It was the Tea Party and Constitutional Conservative movement that gave birth to Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, etc.
There are flawed candidates, to be sure, among those backed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. RINOs point to Sharon Angle and Richard Mourdock, for example, forgetting that no one wins 100 percent of their slate. Until the afternoon of election day, when the unions started busing in voters from places unknown, Angle was in fact leading Harry Reid handily.
And one inappropriate and/or misconstrued remark by Mourdock (and a crackpot third-party candidate) helped cook his campaign.
It’s not the conservatives who need to go away. It’s the RINO establishment that should make themselves scarce. Once again, a mushy centrist — who supposedly would appeal to wide swaths of the electorate — lost in a race that should have been a slamdunk.
And in this existential showdown between liberty and tyranny, Mitt Romney could not even attract the same number of voters as... John McCain. Constitutional conservatives, Tea Party conservatives, and fiscal conservatives don’t need to retreat. The RINO country club set needs to cede control to the true heart of the party. And if they refuse to cede power, we will defeat them as we have time and time again.”
Link:http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/11/deja-vu-all-over-again-another-cant.html
"There were glitches in the system, I don't want to gloss over that. We were able to beta test it, but not at the volume of data we needed."
As I said on another thread early this morning, these types of failures happen for one of two reasons. One of the reasons I noted was the failure to test a system at peak load to ensure availability.
Looks like I was right.
I also said that an improperly designed system which did not take into account peak usage periods, nor an engineered capability to bring online additional capacity quickly, as needed could appear as though it had been hacked.
The appearance that the system was hacked is entirely due to a design failure in which an over-burdened system fails to respond.
As noted in the article, they did not test with the volume of data (peak performance) that they expected.
Systems Analysis and Design 101 would've taught them that's exactly what they should've done before going live. Anyone who's spent 25 years in Information Technology designing highly available, reliable and scalable infrastructures across banking, finance, insurance, legal advertising and automotive industries would say the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.