• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ABC NEWS: New Polls Show Signs of Serious Vulnerability for Obama

ArlingtonDeac said:
Boy, you really love to mock that woman, don't you 2&2?

Anyone thinking that turnout is going to be low in 2012 is simply insane. Not with the dollars that will be in play. Neither side needs to worry about their base showing up either. Not with the poisonous political atmosphere we have currently. That woman may have been a hysterical voter in 2008, but she's still likely a voter in 2012, with a little prodding from the billion-dollar ground game Obama will employ. And she is not likely to vote for the GOP.

Voters have been trained by media and both parties to see these elections as war, with the winner walking all over the loser. The left will be plenty stoked to hate the right by November--most polls are showing the enthusiasm gap to have closed drastically from 2010 already, due to the House Pubs and their blundering, and Obama's recent resurgence as an effective, compromise-minded executive. Once Obama started spending all those dollars on his message, he's going to go up, not down.

These polls show the election should be close, and it likely will be, but with Obama (and the economy) trending upward rather than down, we're likely simply looking at a marker along the way to that 50% approval he needs to be very comfortable on election night.
Click to expand...

Unless his ground game involves handing out cash, I fail to see how it will prod many people. If I am someone who never voted before 2008 and never really intended to vote ever, and in 2008 I got all hyped up and went to my polling location and stood in line to vote for this guy, but then over the subsequent years realized that voting for that guy didn't get me jack shit, what is going to motivate me to leave my house and stand in line to vote for him again? And that is why I posted that clip ... someone expecting that level of personal individual gain from an election result who then sees none of that gain come to fruition is not likely to waste their time repeating the vote, regardless of how many people tell them to do it for some sort of greater good.
 
2&2, for your sake, I hope the Giants win the Super Bowl because now to November is going to suck royally for you.
 
Haha, you are probably right. I will say that if by the grace of God the Giants do manage to pull it off, I will refrain from posting that clip again until after the election.
 
You vastly underestimate the power of a well-funded ground game to influence the electorate in any given area. It's all about targeting dollars to persuade wavering (or new) voters that they need to vote, for their own interests, and it's accomplished with phone calls, mailers, ads, home visits, election day assistance, etc. A robust ground game is very, very effective--numerous metrics show that turnout rate, and success rate, are directly relatable to the amount of money spent by a candidate in a district.

Take that confused, over-energized woman. She might feel every bit of what you described. But a personal home visit by a Obama support worker, explaining the Obama viewpoint on why things are the way they are, and how he's going to make them better, can re-galvanize that voter. Same as a slew of negative ads can make it seem imperative that the other party cannot be allowed to win. Local supporter presence, and a strong visual presence, has a powerful effect. Ground game works, because people are flattered by individual attention. Obama absolutely nailed this in 2008, his information systems were light years better than the GOP, and now he'll have even more money to work with. The GOP is playing catch-up with less cash.

Frankly, if we're being blunt, the dumber the potential voter, the easier it is for a good ground game to get that person fired up to vote the way they would like. You think it would be hard to convince that woman that Obama would've fulfilled all her dreams if the GOP hadn't stepped in and ruined everything? That her vote, today, is fundamental to stopping the GOP, so Obama can succeed, and things don't get worse for her? Sometimes all it takes is direct face-time, and that face-time is acquired through money.

When you have a billion dollars to spend, you have the ability to get close to everyone who voted for you last time and sway them, through one method or another, and importantly, get to persuade them in a one-sided way. That's how ground game works--it get's you closer to the voter, with your side of the story, which leads to more votes on election day. I've posted for years that this is a terrible reality for our electoral process, and that money needs to be equalized and capped through campaign finance reform. But this is how it works, today, and why the better-funded candidate is a heavy favorite in any election.
 
Last edited:
Using the same logic that 2&2 uses, then none of the Republicans who voted in 2010 will come out to vote since they didn't get what they wanted.
 
Republicans depend heavily on people getting excited by Romney and against Obama. That's going to be tougher and tougher as the economy improves unless Republicans succeed in their efforts to keep hurting the economy and making government ineffective.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
You vastly underestimate the power of a well-funded ground game to influence the electorate in any given area. It's all about targeting dollars to persuade wavering (or new) voters that they need to vote, for their own interests, and it's accomplished with phone calls, mailers, ads, home visits, election day assistance, etc. A robust ground game is very, very effective--numerous metrics show that turnout rate, and success rate, are directly relatable to the amount of money spent by a candidate in a district.

Take that confused, over-energized woman. She might feel every bit of what you described. But a personal home visit by a Obama support worker, explaining the Obama viewpoint on why things are the way they are, and how he's going to make them better, can re-galvanize that voter. Same as a slew of negative ads can make it seem imperative that the other party cannot be allowed to win. Local supporter presence, and a strong visual presence, has a powerful effect. Ground game works, because people are flattered by individual attention. Obama absolutely nailed this in 2008, his information systems were light years better than the GOP, and now he'll have even more money to work with. The GOP is playing catch-up with less cash.

Frankly, if we're being blunt, the dumber the potential voter, the easier it is for a good ground game to get that person fired up to vote the way they would like. You think it would be hard to convince that woman that Obama would've fulfilled all her dreams if the GOP hadn't stepped in and ruined everything? That her vote, today, is fundamental to stopping the GOP, so Obama can succeed, and things don't get worse for her? Sometimes all it takes is direct face-time, and that face-time is acquired through money.

When you have a billion dollars to spend, you have the ability to get close to everyone who voted for you last time and sway them, through one method or another, and importantly, get to persuade them in a one-sided way. That's how ground game works--it get's you closer to the voter, with your side of the story, which leads to more votes on election day. I've posted for years that this is a terrible reality for our electoral process, and that money needs to be equalized and capped through campaign finance reform. But this is how it works, today, and why the better-funded candidate is a heavy favorite in any election.
Click to expand...

I think you're discounting the fact that, other than the people who turned 18 in the last 4 years, there are no new voters for Obama to get - everyone he could get already turned out and voted for him last time. And I think it is harder to get a repeat voter under these circumstances than a new voter last time.

It's like car ads on TV. The first time you see one and pay attention, you may run down to the dealership expecting to get your Tahoe for $0 down and $99/month. But after you waste your time realizing it is bullshit, you're not going to fall for it and waste your time going down there again because of an ad, no matter how many thousands and thousands of similar ads you are exposed to in the years thereafter. If you need and like the car anyway, you'll go, but the ad alone won't be enough to get you there if you have no other intent to go. They can sucker in the new folks, but not those they already duped the first go-round.
 
RJKarl said:
Using the same logic that 2&2 uses, then none of the Republicans who voted in 2010 will come out to vote since they didn't get what they wanted.
Click to expand...

No, from their perspective they got exactly what they wanted. No more of Obama's asinine proposals got passed. Those guys held down the fort until reinforcements arrive in 2012.
 
Yeah, the tea party really wanted Mitt Romney to be the reinforcements.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, from their perspective they got exactly what they wanted. No more of Obama's asinine proposals got passed. Those guys held down the fort until reinforcements arrive in 2012.
Click to expand...

They are bitching like 12yo girls who have been dumped. I am constantly amazed at your perceptions.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I think you're discounting the fact that, other than the people who turned 18 in the last 4 years, there are no new voters for Obama to get - everyone he could get already turned out and voted for him last time. And I think it is harder to get a repeat voter under these circumstances than a new voter last time.

It's like car ads on TV. The first time you see one and pay attention, you may run down to the dealership expecting to get your Tahoe for $0 down and $99/month. But after you waste your time realizing it is bullshit, you're not going to fall for it and waste your time going down there again because of an ad, no matter how many thousands and thousands of similar ads you are exposed to in the years thereafter. If you need and like the car anyway, you'll go, but the ad alone won't be enough to get you there if you have no other intent to go. They can sucker in the new folks, but not those they already duped the first go-round.
Click to expand...

"Getting duped" is a matter of opinion, and opinions are subject to persuasion. That's what ground game does- it gets on side in touch with voters and gives them a one-sided, hard-sell take on the issues. The more times you can do this, the more likely you are to win. Disregard it's effect at your peril.

And it's not like the GOP has such a good image right now that it's likely to be incredibly hard to sway former Dem voters against to vote Dem again. The GOP is polling terribly.

I think your blind-spot is that not everyone is nearly as down on the president as you are, especially in the ranks of undecideds and moderate voters, where the election will be won. There are more Dems than Pubs to begin with, so a money advantage is more effective for a Dem than a Pub, as his base is broader to begin with, and these voters are, naturally, much more likely to vote for Obama over Romney so long as he can get them to the polls. Money helps with that issue tremendously. In the middle is where you have to win the perception battle, and I'm pretty confident that one billion can be spent judiciously to get Obama to the 52% of the votes he'll need to win. He likely does need 70 million for reelection, so it's not so much about drumming up new voters (although money is huge in that area, and if turnout continues to rise money will play a large part in where those votes fall). If Obama can retain 85% of his vote, he walks to victory. And money can be very effective in retaining votes when the other side has no charismatic candidate to lure them away.
 
Last edited:
Using round numbers, he won 53% to 46% over McCain. Nobody who voted for McCain is going to vote for Obama now. So even if Obama didn't lose one single independent vote from 2008 to Romney (which as seen in 2010 is not going to happen), if >7% of Obama's 2008 voters don't bother showing up this time around, he loses (again, round numbers). You don't think that enough of the hipster/urban-minority/skater/student/pothead crowd to constitute 7% is going to find something better to do than go vote?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Using round numbers, he won 53% to 46% over McCain. Nobody who voted for McCain is going to vote for Obama now. So even if Obama didn't lose one single independent vote from 2008 to Romney (which as seen in 2010 is not going to happen), if >7% of Obama's 2008 voters don't bother showing up this time around, he loses (again, round numbers). You don't think that enough of the hipster/urban-minority/skater/student/pothead crowd to constitute 7% is going to find something better to do than go vote?
Click to expand...

Nope. Voting is not going out of style, not in this super-charged and highly financed climate. By November there won't be a thing in the world that anyone will be thinking about but voting, because so much will be spent on campaigning. And none of that crowd you mentioned is likely to cast a vote for Mitt Romney. If the GOP strategy is to just hope that those type of voters simply don't come out this time, it will be a wipeout. It's just too easy to vote nowadays, even without a billion dollars pushing turnout. And those people don't see Obama the way you do, anyway. Wait until the money nudges them to blame the GOP for blocking call progress for four years.

2010 was not a general, so I wouldn't base your projections on a mid-term. The vote will turn out to pick the next president, I have no concerns on that point. Personally, I think Obama will win around 52% to 48% in the highest ever turnout (just nipping the number of 2008 voters). Obama is going to be standing next to Romney, and the majority of the electorate, as usual, is going to stick with the incumbent they know and can predict over a place-holder GOP contender with no particular appeal that they can't. There's a record of this type of battle as recent as 2004.

Just using your metric, Romney can only win if he can steal 5%+ of Obama's voters, while keeping every one of McCain's voters. He must do this while lacking charisma to galvanize the middle, at a severe money disadvantage, in a recovering economy, against the guy who just got the most votes in history, running under the banner of party that is just as disliked by the public as the Dems. Good luck with that.

For Romney to win he'd have to be a demonstratively better candidate than Obama, and I have a hard time seeing him pull that off. It's not like he plays well to the middle as is, or that Obama doesn't know how to campaign. There's just no surge to vote for Romney, because he's so Kerry-like, meaning he likely can't generate the rapid enthusiasm needed to take down a lead runner like Obama. Without that charismatic impetus, money will likely talk louder than usual.

The only thing that could get Romney elected is a disaster affecting Obama.

All just my opinion.
 
I think you are discounting the disaster of last 3 years affecting Obama. Should be interesting, I just hope that media outlets don't start calling it with like 2% of the vote reported, which dissuades people from voting.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Nope. Voting is not going out of style, not in this super-charged and highly financed climate. By November there won't be a thing in the world that anyone will be thinking about but voting, because so much will be spent on campaigning. And none of that crowd you mentioned is likely to cast a vote for Mitt Romney. If the GOP strategy is to just hope that those type of voters simply don't come out this time, it will be a wipeout. It's just too easy to vote nowadays, even without a billion dollars pushing turnout. And those people don't see Obama the way you do, anyway. Wait until the money nudges them to blame the GOP for blocking call progress for four years.

2010 was not a general, so I wouldn't base your projections on a mid-term. The vote will turn out to pick the next president, I have no concerns on that point. Personally, I think Obama will win around 52% to 48% in the highest ever turnout (just nipping the number of 2008 voters). Obama is going to be standing next to Romney, and the majority of the electorate, as usual, is going to stick with the incumbent they know and can predict over a place-holder GOP contender with no particular appeal that they can't. There's a record of this type of battle as recent as 2004.

Just using your metric, Romney can only win if he can steal 5%+ of Obama's voters, while keeping every one of McCain's voters. He must do this while lacking charisma to galvanize the middle, at a severe money disadvantage, in a recovering economy, against the guy who just got the most votes in history, running under the banner of party that is just as disliked by the public as the Dems. Good luck with that.

For Romney to win he'd have to be a demonstratively better candidate than Obama, and I have a hard time seeing him pull that off. It's not like he plays well to the middle as is, or that Obama doesn't know how to campaign. There's just no surge to vote for Romney, because he's so Kerry-like, meaning he likely can't generate the rapid enthusiasm needed to take down a lead runner like Obama. Without that charismatic impetus, money will likely talk louder than usual.

The only thing that could get Romney elected is a disaster affecting Obama.

All just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Remind me how the Pubs obstructed from 2009-2010. I think Obama's going to have to run on his record, and own it. Maybe that will produce a desirable candidate, perhaps not, but blaming somebody else isn't going to work two elections in a row.
 
By putting 40 Senate no votes on every issue, without deliberation, forcing Obama to have to have all 60 Dem votes in accord to get even get a vote on any action. Frankly, I'm amazed a single bill got passed. I doubt any past president has ever been forced to operate with such a 100% requirement from SIXTY other legislators from all over the country, knowing that the other forty were blocking the idea without even needing to know what it was. You really think that wasnt incredibly effective obstruction?

He can win running on his record. All things considered, it's very solid.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
By putting 40 Senate no votes on every issue, without deliberation, forcing Obama to have to have all 60 Dem votes in accord to get even get a vote on any action. Frankly, I'm amazed a single bill got passed. I doubt any past president has ever been forced to operate with such a 100% requirement from SIXTY other legislators from all over the country, knowing that the other forty were blocking the idea without even needing to know what it was. You really think that wasnt incredibly effective obstruction?

He can win running on his record. All things considered, it's very solid.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I do. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf
 
That took over a year, nearly died roughly ten times, and still had to be passed through procedural back doors. Getting 60 on one version was a miracle. Actually, 60 never really happened on the final bill. It only passed in the end because the Dems finally realized that they had to pass a compromise plan or look like fools. And it was on an issue that every Dem wanted! It would have been my example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top