Replies

I think the real damning thing is the GOP GOTV incompetence. Do some google searches on the Obama campaign GOTV methods. They had people by the thousands at malls, outside movie theaters, along strip malls, college campuses, parks, etc etc in not just swing states but very targeted swing counties registering people to vote and persuading them with whatever liberal BS they had in their GOTV manuals.

On top of that, they had massive databases of people in specific neighborhoods and counties that never voted before. They didn’t just reinforce their base and try to persuade independents, they CREATED new voters by comparing registration rolls to other databases of eligible but non-registered citizens, getting them on the phone or knocking on their door, quickly analyzing what issue is most important to that person, checking their manual and immediately spouting the talking point that would appeal to that issue....bam, another new dem voter.

Rest assured, liberal policies and issues did not win this election IMO since policy elections are usually wave elections like the 2010 rejection of obamacare. This was a get out the vote election plain and simple and their design and machine put Romney’s outfit to shame.

I think the real damning thing is the GOP GOTV incompetence.

Romney ran as the super-manager who knew how to get things done.

From his convention to his ground game, his whole general election campaign was mismanaged.

If this really was a get out the vote election, you suggest the Democrats contrived a blend of technology and human contact which was unbelievably effective, even though Obama was 9-10 million votes short of is 2008 effort. I say it was unbelievably effective because considering his record and the state of the economy it is unbelievable that he could get any voters out at all.

I think the technology part is relatively simple to duplicate and it is Romney's failure that as a CEO he failed to test drive the technology sold to him by his consultants. But the interesting component, the human side, is the most difficult to organize and manage.

I suspect, but I do not know, that this was accomplished along primarily racial and gender lines. In other words, blacks got out the black vote, Hispanics got the Hispanic vote, coeds got out the college vote etc. My guess is that the Obama operation sought to bind the potential voter to the campaign not by talking so much about the issues but by group identity. The whole idea was that the potential voter gains peer acceptance by joining and conforming to the group. Considering the kind of voters Obama sought, this was a fruitful enterprise. It is easy to see black with black bonding in concentrated ghetto areas but one can also understand the interaction in the University towns.

This process of peer acceptance does away almost entirely with the need to be right on the issues, one need merely recite a few shibboleths and the issue is foreclosed. The bonding is not intellectual and rational but emotional and can easily be irrational.

This is purest speculation on my part but I think it would go a long way toward explaining the otherwise inexplicable to the conservative mind.

What do you think?

If this really was a get out the vote election, you suggest the Democrats contrived a blend of technology and human contact which was unbelievably effective, even though Obama was 9-10 million votes short of is 2008 effort. I say it was unbelievably effective because considering his record and the state of the economy it is unbelievable that he could get any voters out at all.

I think the technology part is relatively simple to duplicate and it is Romney's failure that as a CEO he failed to test drive the technology sold to him by his consultants. But the interesting component, the human side, is the most difficult to organize and manage.

I suspect, but I do not know, that this was accomplished along primarily racial and gender lines. In other words, blacks got out the black vote, Hispanics got the Hispanic vote, coeds got out the college vote etc. My guess is that the Obama operation sought to bind the potential voter to the campaign not by talking so much about the issues but by group identity. The whole idea was that the potential voter gains peer acceptance by joining and conforming to the group. Considering the kind of voters Obama sought, this was a fruitful enterprise. It is easy to see black with black bonding in concentrated ghetto areas but one can also understand the interaction in the University towns.

This process of peer acceptance does away almost entirely with the need to be right on the issues, one need merely recite a few shibboleths and the issue is foreclosed. The bonding is not intellectual and rational but emotional and can easily be irrational.

This is purest speculation on my part but I think it would go a long way toward explaining the otherwise inexplicable to the conservative mind.

What do you think?

that’s fatastic information. How do you know all this?