Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here's The Real Reason Nate Silver's Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough
Business Insider ^ | Nov. 10, 2012 | Joe Weisenthal

Posted on 11/10/2012 9:49:38 AM PST by nathanbedford

Obama was handily favored every single day of the race. The closest thing to a game changer (by far) was the early disastrous debate in early Ocrober. But at no point, did Romney's odds of winning hit 50%. And by the middle of October, Obama was back on the re-ascent. Sandy didn't change anything. The 47% tape didn't change anything. Benghazi didn't change anything. Paul Ryan's selection didn't change anything, and so forth. Romney didn't lose because of a glitch in his election day Get Out The Vote app, which is something a lot of folks are talking about right now.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: idiotsdidntvote4mitt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
This article and the accompanying graph ought to give pause to any pundits, armchair or otherwise, who draw conclusions from this election about what the Republican Party and the conservative movement should do.

If this article is correct, our side never had a chance and we simply never connected with the public. The experience does not tell us whether we should move to the middle or move to the right.


1 posted on 11/10/2012 9:49:43 AM PST by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Nate Silver isn’t an independent pollster, he’s part of Obama’s political machine.

He only got national prominence by “predicting” Obama would beat Hillary, because he had inside information from OFA about the primaries.

All this talk about “Nate Silver this” and “Nate Silver that” just proves how Obama was ready to seal the deal by any means necessary from the start.


2 posted on 11/10/2012 9:52:56 AM PST by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
The most damning statistic is that 2 million fewer Republicans voted for Romney than McCain.

I never thought the GOP would nominate a candidate less appealing than John McCain-I didn't think it was possible-but they managed to accomplish just that.

3 posted on 11/10/2012 9:53:24 AM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

The Leftwing media, govt handouts, and minority resentment are some of the primary reasons for the loss.

The way information is dispensed to the public must be modified.


4 posted on 11/10/2012 9:54:03 AM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Romney lost because morons vote. It’s that simple. Sadly, obamaphone-lady’s vote counts as much as yours.


5 posted on 11/10/2012 9:55:26 AM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
DemoRat GOTV --the Blue Zones of Motivation...


6 posted on 11/10/2012 9:56:52 AM PST by tflabo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

As a friend of mine who was raised in Bulgaria under Communism stated:

“Romney promised a chance at a job, Obama promised foodstamps, cellphones, easy disability and housing subsidies. Game over.”

http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/consumer-confidence-rises-to-highest-level-since-beginning-of-q4-2007/


7 posted on 11/10/2012 9:56:58 AM PST by whitedog57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

I think he should have picked Rubio for Veep, more appeal to the un-silent minority of youth and Latinos.


8 posted on 11/10/2012 9:58:51 AM PST by Rennes Templar (Be positive: America is greater than Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

This explanation makes the most sense to me. Rather than blaming the loss on Hurricane Sandy, or Chris Christie, or Project ORCA, or other fluke events…

I do think there’s a lot of problems with the campaign infrastructure of the GOP… as far as recruiting new voters goes, as well as getting them into early voting or to the polls on election days.

Messaging is a major problem, too. Though it’s hard when most of the media is complicit in colluding against Republicans. And I suspect what’s far more damaging than the negative punditry by the news commentariat, is the fact that the media can decide at any time to quite simply block Republican candidates from having an effective voice at all.


9 posted on 11/10/2012 10:02:17 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44

Silver is a shill.


10 posted on 11/10/2012 10:04:02 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
the only lesson here is to start attacking your opponent early and hard and destroy them before they even get stated. it's not that complicated but the GOP failed to do that even though they had an easy target
11 posted on 11/10/2012 10:05:17 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Right. I love Paul Ryan but his appeal to the unconverted was minimal at best. A congressman has never even won a state-wide vote and can’t even guarantee to bring along his own state. I was puzzled and concerned at the choice and thought Romney blew an opportunity. Again Ryan is more than aok in my book just not right as vp choice.


12 posted on 11/10/2012 10:06:10 AM PST by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

The really funny thing about the whole Nate Silver thing is that what he is doing is really not complicated or difficult....it IS however novel. No one really weighted pollsters in their averages the way he did.

All you have to do is throw all the polls in an algebraic equation and weight each pollster based on history, polling method (auto vs live call), percent of cell phones included, fundamentals like economic conditions, what he calls “house effect” which in my opinion is the strongest, and whatever else he deems appropriate.

If you lay out this equation and multiply each poll (X, Y, Z, etc) with a .5, .75, .9 etc based on their history, house effect, etc, you get a really accurate average.

Many bloggers have already started to replicate this method and the funny thing is, you can almost reverse engineer some if his model since he posts the weights in bars right there on his blog. Of course he could be BSing those published weights to maintain the proprietary nature of this model but maybe not.

All I did this year is average the polls and threw out Rasmussen and Gallup (for reasons posted many time before), gave automated polls a < 1 weight, internet polls a < 1 weight and threw out any polls with no history. With that pretty crude method, I was able to call Obama +1.8% and 290 (and possibly 303) for Obama in the electoral college.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2955102/posts?page=117#117

I didn’t see Florida at all, the one I missed. I’m not sure how Silver saw that one but next time around, I hope to have fun building a better model of my own.


13 posted on 11/10/2012 10:09:03 AM PST by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
The most damning statistic is that 2 million fewer Republicans voted for Romney than McCain. I never thought the GOP would nominate a candidate less appealing than John McCain-I didn't think it was possible-but they managed to accomplish just that.

It's damning but not for the reasons you cite. It's damning because it is obvious Republican vote elimination.

14 posted on 11/10/2012 10:10:10 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paul51
Bingo!

If you look at the graph you will see that as the summer progressed and the attacks by Obama against Romney went largely unanswered,the linesseparated and Obama increased his lead. So, I agree with your assessment.

You might recall that this is exactly what Dick Morris did before the 96 election to the Republicans so that by the time Bob Dole got the nomination and some money,he never had a chance either.

My view is that the Republicans should get on the radio now as the cheapest place from which to snipe and relentlessly attack the Obama administration and, working up to the midterm elections in 2014, Harry Reid and the Minority Leader of the house and demonize them for a welcome change. Although we will not have the media echoing these charges so that the landscape will not look like 2008 in which the whole world was blaming George Bush for everything since original sin, at least we may have a fighting chance.

When I deplore is the tendency among the conservatives on these threads no less than from the Republican establishment to advance their worldview from the results of this election. We need real data and we do not have any yet, at least not much to tell us why we could not get out the vote. This graph tells us that there was not any vote to get out but it does not tell us why and my surmise about unanswered attacks in the summer is only that.

Above all, we must maintain open minds and not let ideology drive us in the wrong direction. I want the answer to be that we should move to the right but I want that answer to come from real data and not from some talking head.


15 posted on 11/10/2012 10:16:11 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

We don’t need to change a damn thing about what we believe.

What we need is for a healthy chunk of the MSM to be neutral.
Those of you who think mainstream media is dead are prema-
ture by a long way. We don’t need another FOX or more talk
radio. If our big money entities would take over a couple of
major papers and one established TV network with the idea
that news (political and otherwise) will truly played down the
middle then we will have a fair shot at winning because our
ideas are better. The liberals can never be counted on to be
fair. The self-righteous bastards just aren’t built that way.


16 posted on 11/10/2012 10:19:04 AM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
“I never thought the GOP would nominate a candidate less appealing than John McCain-I didn't think it was possible-but they managed to accomplish just that.”

Romney and GOPe stomped on the conservative base, took away any input from them at the national convention and from conventions in the future, and the conservative base stomped back and left the presidential line blank on the ballot. I watched that convention process from beginning to end and knew Romney, Sununu, Romeny’s lawyer and national chairman (GOPe) had shot themselves in the heart.

17 posted on 11/10/2012 10:19:53 AM PST by Marcella (“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer

There are 4 swing states, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio. Thats it. The notion that Romney was going to win Wisconsin, Iowa etc was ridiculous. Republicans have not been a majority party since Reagan and may never be again. the other side has a bigger pool of votes and when the pubbies cave to amnesty there will be no contested states. 10 million new democrat voters have that effect in National elections. Republicans will still be able to win the house for a while because of the number of votes that the dems pull from urban precincts but that will go away as well. Call me a glass 1/32 full kind of guy but the takers, committed marxists and vaginacentric voters outnumber us.


18 posted on 11/10/2012 10:20:43 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: paul51

Bingo. We ran another damned “gentleman” campaign. Makes me sick. We need people who run scorched-earth against the dems and expose them for what they truly are - communist totalitarians who want a very weak US vulnerable to our enemies. Dems in the 40s and 50s were serious commie-fighters and led the good fight. Dems of the 40s and 50s would be fighting today’s Dems as the communist enemies they really are.


19 posted on 11/10/2012 10:20:54 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Agreed. The indices that average the polls capture bigger samples and take into account the outliers on both sides. They have proven themselves in two cycles now. Accepting or discounting polls based on anecdotal accounts of yard signs, bumper stickers and crowd attendance has proven to be unreliable as well.

Look, like many things in life, several foctors played into the results. The media likes to talk about the electorate as a monolith that made a singular decision. The reality is a combnination of reasons. If anything, Silver shows that Americans have a hard time firing incumbents; however, you can't discount some lack of enthusiasm for Romney as a possible reason in some voters mind. Fraud, bad GOTV etc all play into this on the margins as well...

20 posted on 11/10/2012 10:22:52 AM PST by IFly4Him
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer

ps: NH is gone so the R’s will have to figure out a way to win Colorado or find a lefty Ross Perot to run. Barring that or a big ass war I don’t expect to see another republican POTUS in my lifetime. I am old though so the glass is still 1/32 full.


21 posted on 11/10/2012 10:24:44 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer

All you need is excel with a monte carlo plug-in
http://www3.wabash.edu/econometrics/EconometricsBook/Basic%20Tools/ExcelAddIns/MCSim.htm


22 posted on 11/10/2012 10:27:09 AM PST by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer
Jack, I have been remiss in not publicly complimenting you on the accuracy and professionalism of your posts throughout the campaign. I also have a confession, I dismissed the implications of your findings not because I did not believe they were accurate but because I did not think they were predictive. In other words, I got stuck on what people like Morris and Barone were saying concerning the weighting of the polls etc. and that comported with my prejudices which were the effect that people thought the way I thought and would not suffer their country to be destroyed before their eyes, much less destroy it by their own hands.

One of the reasons why I posted this article about Nate Silver is to demonstrate how treacherous it is for one to ignore people like you and believe our own worldview, which is precisely what I did.

There is a lesson to be learned. Before we decide in which direction to go to win the next election and save the country (assuming there is something left to be saved and something of liberty too), convinced of our virtue, demanding that we turn right, insisting that the election was stolen, blaming the candidate, even blaming the weather, we should turn to people like you and get some hard data and we should interpret that data as dispassionately as human nature will permit.

I do not assume that is easy, Michael Barone got it wrong, but there is no other way.


23 posted on 11/10/2012 10:28:18 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

YEP....as much as Newt has flaws...he IS a FIGHTER...


24 posted on 11/10/2012 10:30:33 AM PST by goodnesswins (What has happened to America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Granite State isn’t gone but it sure is prone to wipeouts now - both ways. All this talk about appealing to the 47% and latinos or minorities isn’t the answer either - we don’t have enough of either to make a hill of beans. I do think going over the fiscal cliff and letting the tax cuts expire etc. is a start. If people are paying taxes and working and have a stake in the success of the economy these fluffy issues like women’s health and gay marriage won’t stack up to bread and butter issues. The Bush tax cuts gave too many people an opportunity to be fly speck issue voters.


25 posted on 11/10/2012 10:35:25 AM PST by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wny

Romney lost because he never had a chance. And Santorum, Gingrich, Reagan or George Washington would have lost, too. The takers outnumber the makers, the democrats will steal what they cannot win legitimately, the education system produced a mass of stupid selfish sheep, the media covers up the fraud, attacks the conservative, and brainwashes the sheep.

This combination has now been perfected and is unbreakable. It was a nice Republic while it lasted.


26 posted on 11/10/2012 10:35:52 AM PST by henkster (If you let them do it to you, you got yourself to blame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
"Messaging is a major problem, too."

Because of the Citizens United decisions private citizens have great latitude in spending money to advocate for political change.

Every day and night the MSM gives free advertising to the Democrat Party. That message is only countered right before an election. The message is sent in an endless stream of annoying anti-Democrat commercials (or worse anti-Republican commercials during the primaries) that people quickly turn away from. Also the message is now sent days, and sometimes weeks, after millions have already voted early.

If we really want to change hearts and minds, maybe groups should spend money throughout the months and years between elections. The message should be a generally upbeat one comparing the relative economic success of states like Texas versus states like California. Lots of facts laced in with a little philosophy.

If the MSM is going to consistently lie for the Democrats, it seems to make more sense to send out a consistent and countervailing message of truths in favor of conservatism, rather than a last minute data dump of vitriol and anger.

27 posted on 11/10/2012 10:43:53 AM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Eh, this seems like small-thinking.

If Conservatives were serious about getting the message out, they’d start proactively thinking up and exploring ways to decentralize TV/telecommunications/others and the FCC, in order to bust up the media conglomerate cartels and give the American people real media choices.


28 posted on 11/10/2012 10:55:57 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer

So, how does the turn out model work on election night when <120 m votes have been counted , if it’s based on “2008 model” when 130 m votes were cast? I understand how it can predict 100% Obama vote in certain Cleveland or Philadelphia precincts, but how does it predict St. Lucie county 140% turnout?


29 posted on 11/10/2012 10:56:29 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

“I think he should have picked Rubio for Veep, more appeal to the un-silent minority of youth and Latinos.”

Many hereon squealed like stuck pigs at the mere mention of the idea.


30 posted on 11/10/2012 11:01:34 AM PST by Magic Fingers (Political correctness mutates in order to remain virulent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

We lost because:

A) the Leftist/Socialist apparatus in America controls messaging

B) our institutions have been redefined and corrupted by the Leftist/Socialist messaging apparatus, undermining their moral authority

C) as a result of the loss of moral authority of our institutions, the American citizenry has ceased to be American in thinking. Many are no longer independent, self-reliant, liberty-embracing. They have become dependent, averse to personal responsibility, willing to trade freedom for security

D) the Republican Party has sacrificed its soul by adjusting to the change in the playing field created by A, B, and C.


31 posted on 11/10/2012 11:02:00 AM PST by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paul51

Yep. Part of the program needs to be to shoot down their
rising stars like Coumo, Booker, and Van Holland(?)....
...a homo for Coumo......a hooker for Booker .....and something
that rhymes with Van Holland. Of course there needs to be
a twist to these scandals because they are considered resume en-
hancers in Ratworld.


32 posted on 11/10/2012 11:02:24 AM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

To be honest, I was furious with so many people like Morris, drudge, Rasmussen, Barone etc but finally with a week or 2 to go, let it all go as it was too late.

Had the campaign and activists like many at FR realized that the Romney momentum was a mirage or that demographics were against from the very beginning back in the spring, the GOTV operations and the base activists would have been working lie bees on Meth to get this election.

But everyone had their blinders on but really, who can blame them. They had so-called professional pundits like Morris, Barone and half of Fox telling them all is well, Romney has it in the bag with the first debate momentum.

When I finally got the balls to post my predictions based on my own view of the 2010 census and the equation I put together, I got kicked in the b**ls by a ton of freepers and I knew I would. I admit my cowardice but I’ve posted things that went against the conventional, conservative memes before and being the pariah in a place you find solace and like-minded views really sucks.


33 posted on 11/10/2012 11:04:31 AM PST by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Yours is the only comment associated with this thread that makes sense. Won’t matter what we do, we are going to lose every time.

It means America is no longer America.


34 posted on 11/10/2012 11:07:59 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Newt would not have won either.


35 posted on 11/10/2012 11:09:13 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer
If you ever come up with a program for the stock market I would be grateful it you would let me be among the first to know. :-)


36 posted on 11/10/2012 11:12:25 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, Romney was probably the best possible candidate the GOP could run and the campaign was by conventional wisdom run as well as it could be run. It just fell short. Campaign finance rules made it hard for Romney to go after Obama in the summer because all the money was spent winning the primaries. Romney promised fishing poles, Obama gave away fish. The GOP has cruised on the idea that Democrats won’t turn out on Election Day. They were sorely wrong. Likely voters and registered voters are becoming the same category and the GOP isn’t winning that category.


37 posted on 11/10/2012 11:12:51 AM PST by garbanzo (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

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.


38 posted on 11/10/2012 11:23:36 AM PST by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Haha being an armchair analyst is one thing, using real money is a different animal. That’s a pond I wouldn’t dare jump in. If I did have more money than I knew what to do with, I’d sure be shorting gold right now out to 18 months if possible.


39 posted on 11/10/2012 11:28:25 AM PST by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer
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.

40 posted on 11/10/2012 11:37:44 AM PST by Tau Food (Praise God. Trust God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Can not see how with all the VOTER FRAUD that is being told (In Fla and PA) the article, as you say “our side never had a chance”.

141 percent voter turn out in 1 district in Fla and 90-99 percent voter turn out in Phila...

I am staying with the “We Won” but the GOP has no balls to stand up and claim it (except Allen West)!


41 posted on 11/10/2012 11:39:36 AM PST by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Absurd.
Just because Nate Silver was right about the outcome, does not mean his percentage chance of victory was accurate. Romney lost by less than 320,000 votes in 4 swing states. Given that 46% of those exit polled said Obama’s response (as endorsed by Chris Christie before that ‘response ‘actually happened) to Hurricane Sandy was a “major factor” is determining their vote, and those people broke 2:1 for Obama, and 15% of those said Sandy was “the most important factor” and they broke 4:1, Sandy was indeed a MAJOR factor that could easily have reversed 70,000 votes in each swing state. Numerically, it may have moved double that number. Without Sandy, and with a ravenous media pushing Obama hard over Benghazi (instead of covering for him, as with CBS, or lying for him, as with Candy Crowley), this election could easily have been Romnney’s. Certainly nowhere near a “91% probability” of loss in the last 24 hours. Which shows the fundamental uselessness of Silver’s methodology to areas such a hedging futures for weather or other risks.


42 posted on 11/10/2012 11:44:32 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer
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?


43 posted on 11/10/2012 11:45:15 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer
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?


44 posted on 11/10/2012 11:45:47 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Absurd.

Kindly post your predictions prior to the election.


45 posted on 11/10/2012 11:49:11 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

I think you could be right on both counts, certainly on the first. The fundamentals alone should have resulted in a Romney and republican congressional landslide, but Obama squeaked it out with feet on the pavement.

The second part very likely played a role given the nature of unregistered voters. They are low information voters and therefore very susceptible to group think and the theory of truth by authority, i.e., if this is a person with whom I can identify and feel comfortable with and cares for me says something, it must be right. Kind of how we all inherit the religion and politics of our parents until we are old enough to differtiate intellectually or confirm through own experience that they were right. Then they find those around them with the same views and it becomes solid like cement.


46 posted on 11/10/2012 12:03:33 PM PST by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

The other way you get to this kind of precision is to know ahead of time what numbers they’re going to write in on the vote tallies in a lot of places. Then it helps to be able to point to a brilliant guru who had it all figured out ahead of time.


47 posted on 11/10/2012 12:04:18 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Obama had over 200,000 precinct workers (SEIU, Autoworkers, etc) in the battleground states starting just after the 2010 elections. The 2010 elections was the lib/left wake-up call. Romney had 25,000. No army won a war with those numbers. Maybe a battle, but not a war.

Obama had a 6 month head start on advertising and carpetbombed Romney in Ohio. The Romney campaign couldn't answer until after the convention, but a Republican SuperPac could. Why it didn't? Poor coordination?

48 posted on 11/10/2012 12:08:10 PM PST by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Here’s The Real Reason Nate Silver’s Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough”

Answer: Fraud, corruption, lies and mass media promotion. Period.


49 posted on 11/10/2012 12:36:55 PM PST by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer

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


50 posted on 11/10/2012 12:48:34 PM PST by squarebarb ( Fairy tales are basically true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson