Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Hillary Clinton’s Vaunted GOTV Operation May Have Turned Out Trump Voters"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Hillary Clinton’s Vaunted GOTV Operation May Have Turned Out Trump Voters"



    Define irony...
    Hillary Clinton’s Vaunted GOTV Operation May Have Turned Out Trump Voters
    A focus on big data over people may have backfired.

    11/10/2016

    “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?”

    That’s the question that Hillary Clinton asked a group of labor organizers in late September when she was up by 7 points in the national polls.

    The outcome of the 2016 election stunned the members of the Democratic establishment, many of whom left their “get out the vote” turf early to don cocktail dresses and ties and be first in line at the bar at the victory party that would surely go on all night. There they expected to toast the first woman president and her much vaunted “third term” for President Obama’s administration. But maybe leaving turf early wasn’t such a bad idea. Because out in the GOTV effort, something may have gone very, very wrong.

    The media have made much ado about the absence of a real Trump organization on the ground in the states, but has largely failed to interrogate the hype around the Clinton campaign’s ground operations. As the post-election day hangover wears off, an examination of the mechanics behind the Clinton’s get out the vote efforts ― reaching out to Clinton voters in key states at the door, on the phone or by text messages ― reveals evidence of what appears to be a pretty shocking truth. Clinton volunteers were inadvertently turning out Trump voters. Possibly in significant numbers.

    Volunteers for the Clinton campaign in Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina have reported that when reminding people to vote, they encountered a significant number of Trump voters. Anecdotal evidence points to anywhere from five to 25 percent of contacts were inadvertently targeted to Trump supporters.

    [...]

    The campaign’s text messaging GOTV effort may have been the worst offender. Volunteers reported as many as 30% of the replies they received from voters they were urging to get out were Trump supporters.

    [...]

    How could the Clinton campaign have gotten the targeting so wrong? In the rust belt states, there were many registered Democrats voting for Trump, not Clinton. The extent of their errors probably had a lot to do with the fact that party registration ― normally one of the best predictors of political behavior ― would have wreaked havoc with their models in many geographies. And most of us were surprised to learn the day after the election that 53 percent of white women cast their ballots for Trump. While the campaign’s failures may not have been unique, the deeply damaging outcome of this election casts the impacts of the Democratic campaign industrial complex’s possibly quite mistaken assumptions in stark relief.

    [...]

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ddc27?ka603sor
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    I find that telling your enemy what he's doing wrong in a fight is ill advised. Lets keep the libturds in the dark for the next election...
    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • #3
      Studies have shown that telemarketing-style contacts and door-to-door efforts are often counter-productive, as people hate these approaches.

      Many GOP districts have gone to alternative methods instead.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #4
        First, unions have lost their clout entirely. Close to half their members vote Republican in any case. There is no more party line vote or where a union local boss can arm twist members into voting Democrat. That is a dead and long gone idea.

        Yet, the Democrats cling to their Little Red Books, and rainbow flags thinking that people still listen to party leadership like they did a century ago.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          First, unions have lost their clout entirely. Close to half their members vote Republican in any case. There is no more party line vote or where a union local boss can arm twist members into voting Democrat. That is a dead and long gone idea.

          Yet, the Democrats cling to their Little Red Books, and rainbow flags thinking that people still listen to party leadership like they did a century ago.
          Very true. The DNC has been fooled by the fact that union leadership is still largely with them, but cannot, as you have noted, deliver the votes like they used to.

          Just like the IACP leans towards the Dems, but the majority of police officers tend to vote GOP.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            First, unions have lost their clout entirely. Close to half their members vote Republican in any case. There is no more party line vote or where a union local boss can arm twist members into voting Democrat. That is a dead and long gone idea.

            Yet, the Democrats cling to their Little Red Books, and rainbow flags thinking that people still listen to party leadership like they did a century ago.
            That is why the Democrats have their own split coming. Clinton represented the moderate wing of the party: liberal, but still capable of being pro-business and playing well with Wall Street.

            They lost this election. Now it is the more stringent elements, the explicitly anti-business, anti-Wall Street, distrustful of capitalism, anti-establishment elements that look likely to jump into the fray. Not as far as Bernie, but much more Bernie than Bill.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              That is why the Democrats have their own split coming. Clinton represented the moderate wing of the party: liberal, but still capable of being pro-business and playing well with Wall Street.

              They lost this election. Now it is the more stringent elements, the explicitly anti-business, anti-Wall Street, distrustful of capitalism, anti-establishment elements that look likely to jump into the fray. Not as far as Bernie, but much more Bernie than Bill.
              Good. They will be easier to beat.

              Americans are sick of losing jobs. The welfare state is an expensive joke, costing billions while helping no one.

              That sort of rhetoric will push more corporate money into GOP coffers with fewer strings attached.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                That is why the Democrats have their own split coming. Clinton represented the moderate wing of the party: liberal, but still capable of being pro-business and playing well with Wall Street.

                They lost this election. Now it is the more stringent elements, the explicitly anti-business, anti-Wall Street, distrustful of capitalism, anti-establishment elements that look likely to jump into the fray. Not as far as Bernie, but much more Bernie than Bill.
                I'd say she represented the Old School wing. That is the wing that could be bought and paid for by Big Business, Unions, and other groups with cash to squander.
                While the Progressive Left is highly monolithic they don't buy into Old School Democrat politics of the establishment. That's why Sanders did so well with the college age demographic.

                If the Democrats are going to be Socialist revolutionaries they'll lose. If they stick with Old School politics of the machine and graft, they'll lose. They need to figure out a strategy for the Electronics age and 21st Century.
                The Republicans have the edge here. They represent the more Centrist and Right Wing. The Right wants to be left the Hell alone. The Centrists want limited government. That is doable on popular vote when the electorate gets pissed at those who want to impose too much government come along.
                Hillary represented the worst of all those worlds. She was Old School machine politics, combined with Progressivism, and topped with a good helping of lying corruption.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  If the Democrats are going to be Socialist revolutionaries they'll lose. If they stick with Old School politics of the machine and graft, they'll lose. They need to figure out a strategy for the Electronics age and 21st Century.
                  Considering we just got off of 8 years of Democratic rule, dismissing them as already defeated in perpetuity smacks of hubris.

                  Remember that Obama won two elections by much wider margins than Trump accomplished this year. To believe that the GOP is the darling of America, now and forever, dismisses a heck of a lot of history.

                  This election was not about some inherent superiority in the GOP party line. It was dominated by anti-establishment sentiment, on the left and the right. Thankfully for the GOP, they weren't in power at the time, so didn't have 8 years of malaise sapping their enthusiasm.

                  I said it 8 years ago, but I still think Obama winning was one of the best things to happen to the GOP.

                  The Right wants to be left the Hell alone.
                  No they don't. Otherwise they'd never complain about gay marriage, drug legalization. They want to have the nation run according to a very specific model that promotes a social viewpoint they find tolerable. Very similar to the Dems on that front, only with a slightly lower interest in micromanaging private funds. They're still just as determined to shape society by force into what they see as a better world (whether that's conservatives talking about "family values" or liberals talking about "equality", it is the same load of dung being forced on everyone else).

                  If conservatives really wanted to be left alone, they'd not care an ounce if I wanted to marry my same-sex goat life partner while high on PCP. As long as they do object to any part of that situation - or want the government involved in any of it - they don't really want to be left alone.

                  I swear, I should know better, but I kinda want to see a PCP wedding now...

                  Hillary represented the worst of all those worlds. She was Old School machine politics, combined with Progressivism, and topped with a good helping of lying corruption.
                  Which is why the left-wing populist strain is seeing a resurgence: they will point to the DINOs and traitors as being wimps who spent 8 years kowtowing to the GOP and their big business backers and betraying everything they stood for by refusing to be the party the electorate really wanted.

                  Sound familiar?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You miss the point with the Right. They don't really give a $h!+ about that stuff. What pisses them off is government forcing it down their throats. If you wanted the PCP goat fer wedding they wouldn't really care until you want to make them accept it on a legal and public basis.
                    You want a gay wedding cake? Find somebody who doesn't mind baking it. Don't force some uber religious baker to make it. But NOOOooo... The Left wants to force that recalcitrant baker to make it because...

                    That's the problem with the Left. They want a literal fair and equal. They want everyone to have exactly the same stuff, think the same way, and be the same physically. To do that, they're more than willing to use the force of government to take it from you to give to your lazy @$$ed neighbor.

                    Obama won twice on racism. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for him and that gave him about a 2 percentage point victory.

                    Yes, Obama winning was a GOP victory because the Progressive Left in power always screws the pooch governing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      You miss the point with the Right. They don't really give a $h!+ about that stuff. What pisses them off is government forcing it down their throats. If you wanted the PCP goat fer wedding they wouldn't really care until you want to make them accept it on a legal and public basis.
                      You want a gay wedding cake? Find somebody who doesn't mind baking it. Don't force some uber religious baker to make it. But NOOOooo... The Left wants to force that recalcitrant baker to make it because...

                      That's the problem with the Left. They want a literal fair and equal. They want everyone to have exactly the same stuff, think the same way, and be the same physically. To do that, they're more than willing to use the force of government to take it from you to give to your lazy @$$ed neighbor.

                      Obama won twice on racism. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for him and that gave him about a 2 percentage point victory.

                      Yes, Obama winning was a GOP victory because the Progressive Left in power always screws the pooch governing.
                      Exactly.

                      The Left is all about intolerance. They, like ISIS, demand that all must share only one belief system, and will use force to accomplish it.

                      The Right doesn't care what you legally do so long as you don't try to force acceptance upon them.
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        You miss the point with the Right. They don't really give a $h!+ about that stuff. What pisses them off is government forcing it down their throats. If you wanted the PCP goat fer wedding they wouldn't really care until you want to make them accept it on a legal and public basis.
                        Which is why they don't just want to be left alone: they want to be left alone AND to ensure the government promotes a social vision they are comfortable with.

                        Being left alone means not caring what your neighbor does as long as you're free to do your own thing as well. You are still left alone even when the law allows me to run around my house naked and covered in honey.

                        If conservatives really did "just want to be left alone" they'd be more libertarian in their approach to social issues. Then it doesn't matter about my goat-marriage being recognized by the state or not because it doesn't affect them.

                        After all, lets just flip that around and examine it from the other side: I "just want to be left alone" to marry my goat in peace, but these damn interventionists keep erecting laws and intervening in my private life to prevent it and ensure their views dominate legally.

                        You can't use the law to protect and promote your view on society and then claim you just want to be left alone without being a major hypocrite.

                        You want a gay wedding cake? Find somebody who doesn't mind baking it. Don't force some uber religious baker to make it. But NOOOooo... The Left wants to force that recalcitrant baker to make it because...
                        Oh absolutely, we know the left is interventionist and a statist ideology who meddle in social issues. But they're using the law to promote their social world view... just like conservatives who tried to force in a specific definition of what marriage was and exclude any who didn't meet those standards.

                        Both the major parties are imminently guilty of this behavior, and they both justify it time and again by trying to avoid being seen like the other. Whether you're using the law to promote "family values" or a "equal society", you're using the state's authority to prevent other Americans from being "left alone".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          The Right doesn't care what you legally do so long as you don't try to force acceptance upon them.
                          And that's the weasel word used right there: legally.

                          "You can do whatever you like... as long as it is acceptable to me. Otherwise, I will use state authority against you to ensure your compliance."

                          Both liberals and conservatives use state power to enforce their approved view of social life upon others. As long as one is acting as the judgement on what is or isn't legal, they're directly intervening in the lives of their fellow citizens.

                          And that's without even moving into the distinction between actions that impact the rights of others (such as murder) versus acts that only offend the sensibilities of others (such as doing cocaine off a hooker's backside).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            And that's the weasel word used right there: legally.

                            "You can do whatever you like... as long as it is acceptable to me. Otherwise, I will use state authority against you to ensure your compliance."

                            Both liberals and conservatives use state power to enforce their approved view of social life upon others. As long as one is acting as the judgement on what is or isn't legal, they're directly intervening in the lives of their fellow citizens.

                            And that's without even moving into the distinction between actions that impact the rights of others (such as murder) versus acts that only offend the sensibilities of others (such as doing cocaine off a hooker's backside).
                            Actually, the key word is morality, but I knew it would confuse you.

                            Your argument is the same one we hear from pedophiles.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              Actually, the key word is morality, but I knew it would confuse you.
                              Desperate to hold onto some moral high-ground when struggling to find purchase, I see. Well, let's see what you follow up wi-

                              Your argument is the same one we hear from pedophiles.
                              Really? Really? That's what you chose as a response? An ad hominem fallacy? Your argument was nothing but equating your opponent's views with that of pedophiles to try and demonstrate some sense of moral superiority? Why not just go full argumentum ad Hitlerum and claim its what the Nazis would want as well? Double down on the fallacies and go for broke.

                              Maybe you'll actually read my previous post in its entirety before responding here, which means you'll see where you fell flat pretty swiftly - unless you don't believe that the actions of pedophiles violate the rights of another being, in which case I could understand your confusion, and you have my apologies for not clarifying.

                              Just in case I'll tell you that most of us tend to see rape and molestation as violations of another's rights, which would make it an example of not "just being left alone". That would make it like the example of murder provided in my previous post, which was contrasted against crimes committed where no individual's rights are violated. Murder is an example of an action that does violate the rights of someone else, while drug use and consensual sex (which is different from non-consensual sex, including with a minor) were provided as examples of ones that don't violate the rights of another.

                              I would have assumed someone educated about morality - or the law, which was dismissed in favor of the former - would have understood that distinction, but you know what they say about making assumptions. I'll try to avoid as much in the future to reduce the chance of another misinterpretation.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X