AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (9 comments)

  1. Translation: While Obama’s team was using intelligence in their game the GOP was off on another witch hunt, this time poll conspiracies.

    :-)

    1. What “intelligence?” The Obama campaign simply used the tried and true tactics of lying, promising gifts it can’t deliver, and using the Mainstream Media to spin. And they barely won. Romney’s campaign worked – he won all the debates and even the Democrats were beginning to think they would lose big.

  2. For a dose of perspective, consider this: the big-brained “quants” at Long Term Capital Management thought they had it all figured out too. So did the alchemists who sold us on the notion that they could take high-risk mortgages and “slice & dice” them into triple-A rated investments.

    It’s easy for us mere mortals to be impressed with the efforts of such types, but at the end of the day they’re trying to assign numbers to social behavior–to PEOPLE, who often don’t behave as they say or even think they will.

    Whether these quants have the answer or just another VERY expensive opinion is a matter of pure speculation at this point. Seems like high-level tail chasing to me, but there is a possibility that there’s something to it. But what can’t be denied is that more people thought Obama would make a better President than Romney. It really is that simple.

    1. re: ” more people thought Obama would make a better President than Romney. It really is that simple.”

      and that’s what the polls were saying – but The GOP instead of focusing on the data – chose to, first – claim there was a “conspiracy” among pollsters and then claimed that ALL pollsters were using a wrong turn-out model and that Romney was really ahead and would win easily.

      The GOP and it’s ideologue supporters have gotten themselves into believing what they wish to believe – until the elections proved what folly that was.

      If the GOP had focused on the same demographics that the Dems focused us and done their own targeted turn-out efforts.. they might have won.

      so they basically shot themselves in the foot screwing around with their little self-constructed worlds of what they liked to believe rather than looking at realities.

      Of course this is the same GOP that thinks they can win over Blacks and Hispanics and others by “explaining” to them GOP “principles” instead of actually seeking to represent the interests of the minorities also.

      Blacks and Hispanics tend to be family-oriented with conservative values but the GOP can’t get past the fact that they’re not white guys.

      The GOP needs to 1. deal with realities – and face the facts and 2. – accept the reality that minorities are a
      growing demographic and winning without them is going
      to get harder and harder.

      1. Actually what the polls are saying is people are buying promises even as they see they can’t be delivered. Just what does “the GOP is supposed to represent the interests of the minorities” mean anyway? Is the GOP supposed to ignore the “illegal” in illegal immigration the way the Democrats do?

  3. Ian Campbell

    If this is true then Romney came alot closer than the figures suggest. Shows what it takes to win these days. And they were up against a smart team. Won’t be so easy next time.

  4. wrong. romney lost because the GOP made every minority in this country feel uncomfortable with the things you allowed to be said.

    … and you saw what happened.

    A ground game can only enhance fundamentals.

  5. Claybourne R

    All this data crunching is interesting from a technical standpoint. However, all it illustrates, to me at least, is that appeals that work in retail advertising also works in politics. This acknowledgement should be recognized as a very sobering realization.
    Barnum ( of Bailey fame) would be pleased indeed. Meanwhile, the country slips further.

  6. Republicans blew it big time when they pissed off the Ron Paul supporters who gained control of many operations at the local level. Instead of letting Dr. Paul have his say they pushed out his crowd and needed to redeploy resources in areas that already should have had enough to help get a better turnout.

    Of course, the ground support is not all that important when you compare it to the candidate. Few could get excited about Mitt because he was a man without principle or anything in the way of charisma that would help generate excitement. He lost the election when he made Obama look like the peace candidate by talking up war in Iran and an increase in military spending at a time when the US has no nation capable of opposing it on the battlefield. Instead of attacking on the civil liberties issue he argued that Obama had not gone far enough and portrayed himself as the bigger police state candidate. Frankly, the Democrats could not have handpicked a much better opponent for their man.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content