Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   The one thing Romney did right was his Rmoney machine   (politico.com) divider line 50
    More: Interesting, New Hampshire Republican Party, Mitt Romney, Republicans, PAC Restore Our Future, Cuccinelli  
•       •       •

1129 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Feb 2014 at 9:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-10 08:58:23 AM  
It's going to take a shiat ton of money to polish what ever turd comes out of the Republican primaries.
 
2014-02-10 09:03:31 AM  
Romney's greatest strength was his network for raising money. Of course, in order to get that machine, he had to build up a reputation as someone who stayed bought. It is impressive, until you realize that his entire public political career has been to bird dog cash for his backers, and while that should impress the folks who want the cache of donors, it also says a fair amount about the folks who want to tap it. "Can we really be so politically amorphous to justify any position to get the dollars to spread amongst our friends and relations?" It pretty much sums up the aspirations of the folks who seek it...
 
2014-02-10 09:59:32 AM  
Have there been any firm numbers on how much of romneys money came from the religious right?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-10 10:02:42 AM  
We need desperately to get rid of this system.  My opinion ought not be worth a millionth as a Koch brother that isn't even in my district  to my rep.
 
2014-02-10 10:05:08 AM  

2.bp.blogspot.com


When Romney Bot 2.0 is complete he will be indistinguishable from a real human.


Version 1.98 just passed the touring test for the first time last week.

 
2014-02-10 10:11:11 AM  
And that $1 billion did them no good.

Here's the thing...

Obama raised money through individual donations and surpassed the Romney campaign by a wide margin in that regard.  When they bought advertising time the networks were forced to give the campaign plenty of discounts because the money was coming from an actual campaign.  Romney got this advantage, too, but not to the degree that Obama did because his individual campaign did not come close to raising the money Obama did.  Got that so far?

Where Romney far surpassed Obama was in all the Super PAC money that seeped into the campaign.  When the PACs bought their advertising, the networks were able to charge much, much higher advertising rates for their air time because the money was not coming directly from a presidential campaign.

Romney and the GOP might have had more overall money at their disposal, but Obama got far more bang for his buck, as they say.
 
2014-02-10 10:12:52 AM  

d23: We need desperately to get rid of this system.  My opinion ought not be worth a millionth as a Koch brother that isn't even in my district  to my rep.


Truer words, but the catch is, how would you do it? These guys are bought and paid for at the state and city level now, nevermind national. Calling it a rigged game is an insult to games, because it insinuates that there's still a chance.
 
2014-02-10 10:13:02 AM  
And letting Obama win.
 
2014-02-10 10:25:34 AM  
All the money in the world can't buy you a good technological or ground game if you don't believe in the value of those things.  The Obama campaign did and it won them the election.  The Romney campaign didn't and their ORCA beached itself (ORCA was the name for RMoney's tech/ground game system).  You can't half-ass the actual work of a campaign--reaching out to people, tracking them, and getting them out to vote--just because you have a big pile of money.

So here's hoping the GOP learned this lesson as well as they learn any lesson.
 
2014-02-10 10:26:59 AM  
Dog Welder: And that $1 billion did them no good.

Here's the thing...

Obama raised money through individual donations and surpassed the Romney campaign by a wide margin in that regard.  When they bought advertising time the networks were forced to give the campaign plenty of discounts because the money was coming from an actual campaign.  Romney got this advantage, too, but not to the degree that Obama did because his individual campaign did not come close to raising the money Obama did.  Got that so far?

Where Romney far surpassed Obama was in all the Super PAC money that seeped into the campaign.  When the PACs bought their advertising, the networks were able to charge much, much higher advertising rates for their air time because the money was not coming directly from a presidential campaign.

Romney and the GOP might have had more overall money at their disposal, but Obama got far more bang for his buck, as they say.


Sure it did them good.  And that's the point, it did THEM good, not their party or candidates.  The whole point of splitting it up into all the SuperPACS *and* for Romney to keep taking money in now is so they can take their cut.

It's not about spending the money in an efficient manner.  It's about them being able to take a 40% cut of the money as overhead.
 
2014-02-10 10:28:02 AM  
I think Romney's fundraising success has very little to do with Romney himself.  2012 was positioned as the year that moneyed interests completely dominate politics once and for all.  Romney's fundraising base was composed of a huge number of people who heard that and thought, "good!"

We heard repeatedly in the nine months after he election how wealthy mega-donors were absolutely livid that they got such a terrible return for their massive investments.  These people thought they were going to be kings of a new era, and now they're Late Show jokes.  What is going to make them eager to try again in 2016?
 
2014-02-10 10:29:32 AM  
I'm not sure this is going to work.  The reason these donors give scads of money to candidates is because they expect to see a ROI. If, after the primary process, the wrong turd is left floating in the bowl, all that money could be for naught.  If the candidate ends up being unelectable, like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, all you've done is realize you should have spent your time trying to purchase Democratic politicians.
 
2014-02-10 10:29:59 AM  
In 2010 and 2012, Republicans united behind one idea: destroy Obamacare before it goes into effect.  They failed at that mission and now have no such unifying principle.  Indeed, high dollar donors saw an incredibly poor return on their money, particularly through the PAC system, that I doubt they'll be willing to support it at the same level again.
 
2014-02-10 10:32:59 AM  

ckccfa: All the money in the world can't buy you a good technological or ground game if you don't believe in the value of those things.  The Obama campaign did and it won them the election.  The Romney campaign didn't and their ORCA beached itself (ORCA was the name for RMoney's tech/ground game system).  You can't half-ass the actual work of a campaign--reaching out to people, tracking them, and getting them out to vote--just because you have a big pile of money.

So here's hoping the GOP learned this lesson as well as they learn any lesson.


Just read a great article about how Romney outsourced those projects and Obama ran them from inside.
Sure, you spend money and buy data collected by external agencies, but outsourcing is how all of Romney's friends made money on the campaign. I would love to see a break down of how money was spent by the different campaigns. Tech, outsourcing, travel and expenses, etc.

I guess in the end, Romney lost for a large part because he believed internal polling, rather than the more accurate "SKEWED" polling of the rest of the world.
 
2014-02-10 10:33:25 AM  

Nuuu: We heard repeatedly in the nine months after he election how wealthy mega-donors were absolutely livid that they got such a terrible return for their massive investments. These people thought they were going to be kings of a new era, and now they're Late Show jokes. What is going to make them eager to try again in 2016?


A combination of things.  Despite being rich a lot of them aren't that bright.  They don't fully realize that despite all the sucking up that the RNC people do, all the job creation fellatio and promises of tax cuts are just sweet talk to get their money so they can skim off the top.
 
2014-02-10 10:38:41 AM  

Nuuu: I think Romney's fundraising success has very little to do with Romney himself.  2012 was positioned as the year that moneyed interests completely dominate politics once and for all.  Romney's fundraising base was composed of a huge number of people who heard that and thought, "good!"

We heard repeatedly in the nine months after he election how wealthy mega-donors were absolutely livid that they got such a terrible return for their massive investments.  These people thought they were going to be kings of a new era, and now they're Late Show jokes.  What is going to make them eager to try again in 2016?


1) their investments have grown a ton, (at least over the last 2 years), so they have MORE money to donate
2) the only way to get even more tax cuts and regulation breaks and what not, is to get a GOP elected to the white house
3) these republicans are just as narrow minded as the rest of the GOP votes. It is all about them and their narrow issues. Not the country. Not the rest of the citizens. etc etc etc

so yah, I predict that 2014 will see even more dollars in the system, rather than less.
UNLESS one or both sides nominates completely unelectable turds.
Nah, even then, both sides will be desperate for their side to win.
 
2014-02-10 10:40:34 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Dog Welder: And that $1 billion did them no good.

Here's the thing...

Obama raised money through individual donations and surpassed the Romney campaign by a wide margin in that regard.  When they bought advertising time the networks were forced to give the campaign plenty of discounts because the money was coming from an actual campaign.  Romney got this advantage, too, but not to the degree that Obama did because his individual campaign did not come close to raising the money Obama did.  Got that so far?

Where Romney far surpassed Obama was in all the Super PAC money that seeped into the campaign.  When the PACs bought their advertising, the networks were able to charge much, much higher advertising rates for their air time because the money was not coming directly from a presidential campaign.

Romney and the GOP might have had more overall money at their disposal, but Obama got far more bang for his buck, as they say.

Sure it did them good.  And that's the point, it did THEM good, not their party or candidates.  The whole point of splitting it up into all the SuperPACS *and* for Romney to keep taking money in now is so they can take their cut.

It's not about spending the money in an efficient manner.  It's about them being able to take a 40% cut of the money as overhead.


And really that is what Romney is: he is a machine for getting folks their taste. The last cycle was NOT about winning, but about raising money, and getting it into the right hands. It was about paying back favors, and raiding as many pockets as possible. Romney isn't shy about taking his cut down the road, and in favors, so he is particularly good at this sort of thing. And really, that is what the party is looking for: someone who will spread cash around to the right folks, and not ask too many questions. If he gets in office, all the better, because he is really good at making sure that the folks who supported him get even more of a taste, but this last cycle was about paying back favors and setting up the Congressional races.
 
2014-02-10 10:42:18 AM  
FTA:  The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future raised $150 million almost entirely from massive six- and seven-figure checks.

So the mailing list consists of, what... 200 maybe 300 names?
 
2014-02-10 10:46:00 AM  
I wouldn't even say he did that correctly. All he did was convinced Sheldon Adelson, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers to write him a blank check. That didn't take intelligence, skill, or planning... all it took was being a wealthy, connected businessman.

d23: We need desperately to get rid of this system.  My opinion ought not be worth a millionth as a Koch brother that isn't even in my district  to my rep.


Agreed. Every campaign from school board to POTUS should be publicly funded.
 
2014-02-10 10:46:38 AM  

hubiestubert: Satanic_Hamster: Dog Welder: And that $1 billion did them no good.

Here's the thing...

Obama raised money through individual donations and surpassed the Romney campaign by a wide margin in that regard.  When they bought advertising time the networks were forced to give the campaign plenty of

...

It's not about spending the money in an efficient manner.  It's about them being able to take a 40% cut of the money as overhead.

And really that is what Romney is: he is a machine for getting folks their taste.
The last cycle was NOT about winning, but about raising money, and getting it into the right hands. It was about paying back favors, and raiding as many pockets as possible. Romney isn't shy about taking his cut down the road, and in favors, so he is particularly good at this sort of thing. And really, that is what the party is looking for: someone who will spread cash around to the right folks, and not ask too many questions. If he gets in office, all the better, because he is really good at making sure that the folks who supported him get even more of a taste, but this last cycle was about paying back favors and setting up the Congressional races.


I hadn't really thought about it that way. While the people donating the money didnt get their money's worth, the people receiving that money got paid in spades.
All expense paid vacations, with free trips all over the country.
Huge ad budgets paid a premium rates.
Huge contracts to provide data and services.
Consulting and more consulting.

It would be very interesting to see which companies were used, who owned them, and at what point did certain people get kickbacks, or will get kickbacks. Like Mitt's kids.
 
2014-02-10 10:46:51 AM  

namatad: ckccfa: All the money in the world can't buy you a good technological or ground game if you don't believe in the value of those things.  The Obama campaign did and it won them the election.  The Romney campaign didn't and their ORCA beached itself (ORCA was the name for RMoney's tech/ground game system).  You can't half-ass the actual work of a campaign--reaching out to people, tracking them, and getting them out to vote--just because you have a big pile of money.

So here's hoping the GOP learned this lesson as well as they learn any lesson.

Just read a great article about how Romney outsourced those projects and Obama ran them from inside.
Sure, you spend money and buy data collected by external agencies, but outsourcing is how all of Romney's friends made money on the campaign. I would love to see a break down of how money was spent by the different campaigns. Tech, outsourcing, travel and expenses, etc.

I guess in the end, Romney lost for a large part because he believed internal polling, rather than the more accurate "SKEWED" polling of the rest of the world.


I would love a link to that article, if you have it.  I'm still fascinated by how the Obama campaign leveraged database management so effectively.  As a tech person, I know that technology can work that way, it's just so rare to see a body (a company, campaign, or whatever) actually do it and do it right.
 
2014-02-10 10:50:44 AM  

ckccfa: I would love a link to that article, if you have it.  I'm still fascinated by how the Obama campaign leveraged database management so effectively.  As a tech person, I know that technology can work that way, it's just so rare to see a body (a company, campaign, or whatever) actually do it and do it right.


And hopefully the DNC is smart enough to utilize Obama's system in the next few POTUS, Senate, and House campaigns.

Hell, I'll even go a step farther than that. Obama will still be in office during the next campaign, but in every campaign after, I wouldn't mind seeing Obama as the campaign manager.
 
2014-02-10 10:51:46 AM  

Muta: FTA:  The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future raised $150 million almost entirely from massive six- and seven-figure checks.

So the mailing list consists of, what... 200 maybe 300 names?


well, up to 1,500 names max.
 
2014-02-10 10:54:22 AM  

ckccfa: I would love a link to that article, if you have it.  I'm still fascinated by how the Obama campaign leveraged database management so effectively.  As a tech person, I know that technology can work that way, it's just so rare to see a body (a company, campaign, or whatever) actually do it and do it right.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/harper-reed-obama-campai gn -microtargeting

the article was both CREEPY (as an individual), AWESOME (as tech guy in the industry of collecting data), and AMAZING (as Obama rocked this process and Romney didnt even know what game they were playing).
 
2014-02-10 10:54:53 AM  

namatad: hubiestubert: Satanic_Hamster: Dog Welder: And that $1 billion did them no good.

Here's the thing...

Obama raised money through individual donations and surpassed the Romney campaign by a wide margin in that regard.  When they bought advertising time the networks were forced to give the campaign plenty of

...

It's not about spending the money in an efficient manner.  It's about them being able to take a 40% cut of the money as overhead.

And really that is what Romney is: he is a machine for getting folks their taste. The last cycle was NOT about winning, but about raising money, and getting it into the right hands. It was about paying back favors, and raiding as many pockets as possible. Romney isn't shy about taking his cut down the road, and in favors, so he is particularly good at this sort of thing. And really, that is what the party is looking for: someone who will spread cash around to the right folks, and not ask too many questions. If he gets in office, all the better, because he is really good at making sure that the folks who supported him get even more of a taste, but this last cycle was about paying back favors and setting up the Congressional races.

I hadn't really thought about it that way. While the people donating the money didnt get their money's worth, the people receiving that money got paid in spades.
All expense paid vacations, with free trips all over the country.
Huge ad budgets paid a premium rates.
Huge contracts to provide data and services.
Consulting and more consulting.

It would be very interesting to see which companies were used, who owned them, and at what point did certain people get kickbacks, or will get kickbacks. Like Mitt's kids.


I've had to see Mitt do his thing, since before he went to Utah. And the Olympics, he was an engineer at getting folks their taste of the IOC's money as well. It's what he really does. At UMaine he steered folks contracts, he put into place policies that got folks more contracts. He isn't an investor genius, he is, and really always has been, a bird dog for others to get their opportunities. In Mass, he got through a massive health care bill that hooked the state into paying for a LOT down the road, and the folks who invested in his campaign got a long payday. He is really good at hooking up those who invest in his brand payouts that extend long after he leaves office. He spends other folks' money, and that is where his popularity comes from. He is the fat rich kid who gives away candy to get friends. Even when he's not in office, and just campaigning, he sends a lot of cash out. That's what the campaign cycle has turned into, especially on the Republican side of things. Did anyone really think that Newt or Bachmann could possibly win the Primary? Really? Nope, but they sent money to the right folks, who will take care of them later. It's about finding ways to launder cash, in an entirely public fashion, and get it to the folks who have done favors, or who folks owe--and getting a bit of that steerage on the back end...
 
2014-02-10 11:00:22 AM  

clkeagle: ckccfa: I would love a link to that article, if you have it.  I'm still fascinated by how the Obama campaign leveraged database management so effectively.  As a tech person, I know that technology can work that way, it's just so rare to see a body (a company, campaign, or whatever) actually do it and do it right.

And hopefully the DNC is smart enough to utilize Obama's system in the next few POTUS, Senate, and House campaigns.

Hell, I'll even go a step farther than that. Obama will still be in office during the next campaign, but in every campaign after, I wouldn't mind seeing Obama as the campaign manager.


I WORRY ABOUT THAT.
Is the DMC smart enough to leverage everything that was learned?
Will they use that machine during both the primaries and the general election?

During the primaries, it is ME against the OTHER GUYS AND GALS. So everyone builds their own machine.
Pretty wasteful and not conducive to nominating the best candidate.

If Hillary (or Biden) runs, will she inherit Obama's machine and sweep the table of all other candidates? Which would at least get her up and running LONG before the GOP convention.

At what point it is "better" for the dems to use that machine as a king maker?

In the very least, the DNC would be well served to make the machine available to the primary winner.
WHY would you recreate all that data?
WHY wouldnt you be updating it and honing it on a continuous basis, getting ready for the midterms and 2016?

Imagine the SHOCK of the GOP in 2014, if the dems were doing just this. Massive efforts to get out the vote, esp in states like Texas. Massive efforts to seriously work seats which are in play, etc etc etc.
 
2014-02-10 11:03:13 AM  

namatad: ckccfa: I would love a link to that article, if you have it.  I'm still fascinated by how the Obama campaign leveraged database management so effectively.  As a tech person, I know that technology can work that way, it's just so rare to see a body (a company, campaign, or whatever) actually do it and do it right.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/harper-reed-obama-campai gn -microtargeting

the article was both CREEPY (as an individual), AWESOME (as tech guy in the industry of collecting data), and AMAZING (as Obama rocked this process and Romney didnt even know what game they were playing).


I don't think that his organization even considered the process. It wasn't so much that they didn't even know the game, it's that portion wasn't even on their radar. They were playing different games. Obama was looking to actually win the office, Romney was running down the clock and looking to just coast on momentum to the finish line. He wasn't looking to win so much--though, he would have been happy if he had--as just stay in the game enough to keep the narrative alive, and thus campaign dollars rolling in not just for his own campaign, but for the Congressional races. Bob Dole faced a similar situation when he ran, but Bob Dole was far classier about it, and he was a good soldier falling on his sword, while Romney figured he was owed the shot, and no one really expected him to win---not in the movers and shakers circles anyway, but the rank and file, they certainly had to believe that they weren't just plunking down cash for a campaign that couldn't win, so the narrative HAD to be kept up. The last cycle wasn't about winning, it was keeping up a narrative, and using that narrative to get seats in Congress, and then to hammer home the idea that this was the WORST thing that could possibly happen, save for these fine, brave souls to put a line in the sand against the excess of TYRANNY! And if they happened to continue to extract cash from rubes, all the better.
 
2014-02-10 11:10:29 AM  

namatad: clkeagle: ckccfa: I would love a link to that article, if you have it.  I'm still fascinated by how the Obama campaign leveraged database management so effectively.  As a tech person, I know that technology can work that way, it's just so rare to see a body (a company, campaign, or whatever) actually do it and do it right.

And hopefully the DNC is smart enough to utilize Obama's system in the next few POTUS, Senate, and House campaigns.

Hell, I'll even go a step farther than that. Obama will still be in office during the next campaign, but in every campaign after, I wouldn't mind seeing Obama as the campaign manager.

I WORRY ABOUT THAT.
Is the DMC smart enough to leverage everything that was learned?
Will they use that machine during both the primaries and the general election?

During the primaries, it is ME against the OTHER GUYS AND GALS. So everyone builds their own machine.
Pretty wasteful and not conducive to nominating the best candidate.

If Hillary (or Biden) runs, will she inherit Obama's machine and sweep the table of all other candidates? Which would at least get her up and running LONG before the GOP convention.

At what point it is "better" for the dems to use that machine as a king maker?

In the very least, the DNC would be well served to make the machine available to the primary winner.
WHY would you recreate all that data?
WHY wouldnt you be updating it and honing it on a continuous basis, getting ready for the midterms and 2016?

Imagine the SHOCK of the GOP in 2014, if the dems were doing just this. Massive efforts to get out the vote, esp in states like Texas. Massive efforts to seriously work seats which are in play, etc etc etc.


I also wonder about this, and would like to see it happen, but I also don't know what, if any, rules are in place about that kind of resource sharing between different campaign bodies.  Can an executive branch campaign share stuff with a legislative branch campaign?  It's something I've been meaning to research, but I keep getting distracted by porn.
 
2014-02-10 11:12:59 AM  

namatad: I WORRY ABOUT THAT.
Is the DMC smart enough to leverage everything that was learned?
Will they use that machine during both the primaries and the general election?
During the primaries, it is ME against the OTHER GUYS AND GALS. So everyone builds their own machine.
Pretty wasteful and not conducive to nominating the best candidate.
If Hillary (or Biden) runs, will she inherit Obama's machine and sweep the table of all other candidates? Which would at least get her up and running LONG before the GOP convention.
At what point it is "better" for the dems to use that machine as a king maker?
In the very least, the DNC would be well served to make the machine available to the primary winner.
WHY would you recreate all that data?
WHY wouldnt you be updating it and honing it on a continuous basis, getting ready for the midterms and 2016?
Imagine the SHOCK of the GOP in 2014, if the dems were doing just this. Massive efforts to get out the vote, esp in states like Texas. Massive efforts to seriously work seats which are in play, etc etc etc.


What I hope for is an extremely short and amicable primary season - after which the nominee will be openly and publicly supported by his/her previous opponents, while being handed the latest updates to the Obama campaign system.

Hopefully the Democratic candidates will have some class toward each other after four years of watching the GOP eating its own tail... any Democrat infighting will cause serious voter apathy. If the Democrats lose voter support, the White House will be filled with Elephant droppings. Obama's presidency has been conservative enough as it is... I don't want to know what a post-Obama Republican presidency would look like.
 
2014-02-10 11:13:53 AM  

d23: We need desperately to get rid of this system.  My opinion ought not be worth a millionth as a Koch brother that isn't even in my district  to my rep.


Good luck with that.  The USSC decided to go blatantly corrupt and take a match to the already gasoline-doused policy legacy of John McCain, to the point he pretty much said fark it and retired back to just representing his state.

... and he was pretty much the only sitting member of government remaining that cared about this.
 
2014-02-10 11:16:22 AM  

hubiestubert: The last cycle wasn't about winning, it was keeping up a narrative, and using that narrative to get seats in Congress, and then to hammer home the idea that this was the WORST thing that could possibly happen, save for these fine, brave souls to put a line in the sand against the excess of TYRANNY! And if they happened to continue to extract cash from rubes, all the better.


Romney did an AWESOME job at this. All those photos of heart broken workers, who really thought that it was close, that they would win, that they were playing the same game.

He certain kept them occupied, and kept them engaged, ready to do it all over again next time.

Strange that all the post game analysis has fallen on deaf ears at the RNC.
LOL
 
2014-02-10 11:19:47 AM  

namatad: ckccfa: I would love a link to that article, if you have it.  I'm still fascinated by how the Obama campaign leveraged database management so effectively.  As a tech person, I know that technology can work that way, it's just so rare to see a body (a company, campaign, or whatever) actually do it and do it right.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/harper-reed-obama-campai gn -microtargeting

the article was both CREEPY (as an individual), AWESOME (as tech guy in the industry of collecting data), and AMAZING (as Obama rocked this process and Romney didnt even know what game they were playing).


Thank you!  I think I've learned to accept that the creepy part of data gathering is happening no matter what, so I might as well start enjoying it when it works out in my favor.
 
2014-02-10 11:20:59 AM  

clkeagle: I don't want to know what a post-Obama Republican presidency would look like.


I think enough of the voters are also terrified by this. We still remember Bush 2.0 and his MBA presidency.
That and the current GOP clown car is full of win. The DEMS just need to nominate a non-robot. Anyone that we can get behind. Hell, Warren would be awesome, and get Michelle and Barak and the Clintons campaigning nonstop for you? Yup. 2016 is the race for the dems to lose.

WHO will the GOP candidate have campaigning for them? Romney will probably give some paid speeches to big donors to raise money, but that really isnt campaigning.
 
2014-02-10 11:22:36 AM  

ckccfa: namatad: ckccfa: I would love a link to that article, if you have it.  I'm still fascinated by how the Obama campaign leveraged database management so effectively.  As a tech person, I know that technology can work that way, it's just so rare to see a body (a company, campaign, or whatever) actually do it and do it right.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/harper-reed-obama-campai gn -microtargeting

the article was both CREEPY (as an individual), AWESOME (as tech guy in the industry of collecting data), and AMAZING (as Obama rocked this process and Romney didnt even know what game they were playing).

Thank you!  I think I've learned to accept that the creepy part of data gathering is happening no matter what, so I might as well start enjoying it when it works out in my favor.


Me too. I hate that I am not in the forefront of it. But close enough working for a data company.
I would KILL to get ahold of something like AMAZON's database.
 
2014-02-10 11:26:39 AM  

namatad: hubiestubert: The last cycle wasn't about winning, it was keeping up a narrative, and using that narrative to get seats in Congress, and then to hammer home the idea that this was the WORST thing that could possibly happen, save for these fine, brave souls to put a line in the sand against the excess of TYRANNY! And if they happened to continue to extract cash from rubes, all the better.

Romney did an AWESOME job at this. All those photos of heart broken workers, who really thought that it was close, that they would win, that they were playing the same game.

He certain kept them occupied, and kept them engaged, ready to do it all over again next time.

Strange that all the post game analysis has fallen on deaf ears at the RNC.
LOL


The time for introspection about message and platform was when McCain lost. My hope was that the party would get a wake up call, and shut the Hells up for a couple of weeks, and realize that putting up a sock puppet for President, and Quaylebot Version 3.0 in the VP slot was maybe not the best strategy.

The GOP is NOT looking for leaders in the Presidential chair. It hasn't for a long time. That was why George Bush was passed up for Reagan in the 80s. George Bush might have actually done something, and not just from a table of advisors, but actually led. GW? About as empty a suit as possible, though I will give the boys in the back some credit for just deciding to run their Quaylebot 2.0 in the front slot, and ride name recognition and the Good Old Boy veneer to get a captive chair to rubberstamp legislation. It is the very same reason that they derailed McCain for that run, because he might have done something as ill considered as actually used the office for more than photo ops. McCain in 2008...that was a different man than who wanted the chair in 2000. He was broken down, he was humbled, and he was ready to play ball, and the machine was ready to take him in. The problem was, it was geared up to tear Hillary a new one, and instead, they got Obama, and his own money machine, and worse, they got a candidate who could actually speak, and who didn't have a generation's worth of sound bites and outrage to heap upon him.

Presidential races, the GOP is really not looking for leaders. They want rubber stamps, and the sad thing is, that it sometimes works.
 
2014-02-10 11:53:04 AM  

namatad: I hadn't really thought about it that way. While the people donating the money didnt get their money's worth, the people receiving that money got paid in spades.
All expense paid vacations, with free trips all over the country.
Huge ad budgets paid a premium rates.
Huge contracts to provide data and services.
Consulting and more consulting.

It would be very interesting to see which companies were used, who owned them, and at what point did certain people get kickbacks, or will get kickbacks. Like Mitt's kids.


I'd be curious to how much of the spent money actually was spent on things that would help the candidate, compared to overhead and consultants.

One of the most notorious (to me) scams was carried out "against" Nancy Pelosi.  Now Pelosi, as we know, it hated universally by Republicans nationwide but is popular in her district.  The Republican running against her had zero chance; he knew this as well.  But he still wanted to give it a shot.

So he partnered up with a group that raised money for him nationally.  They took around a 98% overhead rate.  They literally took in millions and only give him like $80,000.  But for him it was a good deal because it nearly doubled his campaign funds.  The group that did this for him does this every election.  The group is entirely staffed by a husband, wife, and their brothers/sisters, all pulling six figure salaries.

And THAT'S that the Republican campaign system is about.
 
2014-02-10 12:01:57 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: namatad: I hadn't really thought about it that way. While the people donating the money didnt get their money's worth, the people receiving that money got paid in spades.
All expense paid vacations, with free trips all over the country.
Huge ad budgets paid a premium rates.
Huge contracts to provide data and services.
Consulting and more consulting.

It would be very interesting to see which companies were used, who owned them, and at what point did certain people get kickbacks, or will get kickbacks. Like Mitt's kids.

I'd be curious to how much of the spent money actually was spent on things that would help the candidate, compared to overhead and consultants.

One of the most notorious (to me) scams was carried out "against" Nancy Pelosi.  Now Pelosi, as we know, it hated universally by Republicans nationwide but is popular in her district.  The Republican running against her had zero chance; he knew this as well.  But he still wanted to give it a shot.

So he partnered up with a group that raised money for him nationally.  They took around a 98% overhead rate.  They literally took in millions and only give him like $80,000.  But for him it was a good deal because it nearly doubled his campaign funds.  The group that did this for him does this every election.  The group is entirely staffed by a husband, wife, and their brothers/sisters, all pulling six figure salaries.

And THAT'S that the Republican campaign system is about.


Similarly, Hannity's "Freedom Concerts" take a similar cut for their "charity" efforts.

Rule of Acquisition 1: Once you have their money ...never give it back.
 
2014-02-10 12:13:20 PM  
Dog Welder:
Romney and the GOP might have had more overall money at their disposal, but Obama got far more bang for his buck, as they say.

Awwwwwww yeaaaah.
 
2014-02-10 12:15:55 PM  
Jesus, this thread is full of well thought-out points and reasoned discussion.

WHAT DID YOU GUYS DO WITH THE REAL FARK.COM!??!?
 
2014-02-10 12:25:43 PM  

xanadian: Jesus, this thread is full of well thought-out points and reasoned discussion.

WHAT DID YOU GUYS DO WITH THE REAL FARK.COM!??!?


Seriously, is there a booze shortage or something?
 
2014-02-10 12:31:50 PM  

Dog Welder: And that $1 billion did them no good.

Here's the thing...

Obama raised money through individual donations and surpassed the Romney campaign by a wide margin in that regard.  When they bought advertising time the networks were forced to give the campaign plenty of discounts because the money was coming from an actual campaign.  Romney got this advantage, too, but not to the degree that Obama did because his individual campaign did not come close to raising the money Obama did.  Got that so far?

Where Romney far surpassed Obama was in all the Super PAC money that seeped into the campaign.  When the PACs bought their advertising, the networks were able to charge much, much higher advertising rates for their air time because the money was not coming directly from a presidential campaign.

Romney and the GOP might have had more overall money at their disposal, but Obama got far more bang for his buck, as they say.


Well and Obama's team used VERY sophisticated Data-mining operations to analyze tv ratings to allow them to  target EXACTLY the voting demographic they wanted.  Because of this they could often buy cheaper ads on Daytime TV, Certain cable channels and even Netflix and Hulu.     Romney, lacking this info had to do more general network TV and evening news ads  which come at a high premium.  Obama also had a better sense of the battlegrounds far in advance of the romeny team and locked in better rates for buying early.

In the end I recall reading that Romey spent more than double what Obama did per commercial minute, which effectively blunted or even obliterated any fundraising edge he had.
 
2014-02-10 12:43:52 PM  

Magorn: Well and Obama's team used VERY sophisticated Data-mining operations to analyze tv ratings to allow them to  target EXACTLY the voting demographic they wanted.  Because of this they could often buy cheaper ads on Daytime TV, Certain cable channels and even Netflix and Hulu.     Romney, lacking this info had to do more general network TV and evening news ads  which come at a high premium.  Obama also had a better sense of the battlegrounds far in advance of the romeny team and locked in better rates for buying early.
In the end I recall reading that Romey spent more than double what Obama did per commercial minute, which effectively blunted or even obliterated any fundraising edge he had.


It's interesting to compare campaign spending vs. results. Over the last few cycles, Republicans have outraised and outspent Democrats by several orders of magnitude in their victories (anywhere from 2:1 in "safe" red areas to 10:1 in "purple" areas). Makes you wonder... is the Republican message so toxic that they need to soak it in cash before the public will swallow it? Or, as you implied, are they just that unfocused with how they spend the money... throwing it at last-minute prime-time ad space, while the Democratic campaigns have been very efficient and targeted in their spending.
 
2014-02-10 01:05:40 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: I'd be curious to how much of the spent money actually was spent on things that would help the candidate, compared to overhead and consultants.

One of the most notorious (to me) scams was carried out "against" Nancy Pelosi.  Now Pelosi, as we know, it hated universally by Republicans nationwide but is popular in her district.  The Republican running against her had zero chance; he knew this as well.  But he still wanted to give it a shot.

So he partnered up with a group that raised money for him nationally.  They took around a 98% overhead rate.  They literally took in millions and only give him like $80,000.  But for him it was a good deal because it nearly doubled his campaign funds.  The group that did this for him does this every election.  The group is entirely staffed by a husband, wife, and their brothers/sisters, all pulling six figure salaries.

And THAT'S that the Republican campaign system is about.


THIS is an awesome way to make money off of the RUBES.
Back in the early day of the teahadists, I tried to get a friend to make some T-shirts.
It was a great get rich quick time. Now everyone is doing it.
 
2014-02-10 01:07:05 PM  

ckccfa: xanadian: Jesus, this thread is full of well thought-out points and reasoned discussion.

WHAT DID YOU GUYS DO WITH THE REAL FARK.COM!??!?

Seriously, is there a booze shortage or something?


MY GUESS is that all the yahoos are nursing their hangovers at the office right now.
ALAS, they will be back later.
 
2014-02-10 01:21:46 PM  

xanadian: Jesus, this thread is full of well thought-out points and reasoned discussion.

WHAT DID YOU GUYS DO WITH THE REAL FARK.COM!??!?


Sorry, mang, bit this is what I do. I guess we all forgot to log in for different shifts. Maybe all of the Idiot Brigade are nursing Olympics induced hangovers for all their love of figure skating...
 
2014-02-10 01:40:56 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: namatad: I hadn't really thought about it that way. While the people donating the money didnt get their money's worth, the people receiving that money got paid in spades.
All expense paid vacations, with free trips all over the country.
Huge ad budgets paid a premium rates.
Huge contracts to provide data and services.
Consulting and more consulting.

It would be very interesting to see which companies were used, who owned them, and at what point did certain people get kickbacks, or will get kickbacks. Like Mitt's kids.

I'd be curious to how much of the spent money actually was spent on things that would help the candidate, compared to overhead and consultants.

One of the most notorious (to me) scams was carried out "against" Nancy Pelosi.  Now Pelosi, as we know, it hated universally by Republicans nationwide but is popular in her district.  The Republican running against her had zero chance; he knew this as well.  But he still wanted to give it a shot.

So he partnered up with a group that raised money for him nationally.  They took around a 98% overhead rate.  They literally took in millions and only give him like $80,000.  But for him it was a good deal because it nearly doubled his campaign funds.  The group that did this for him does this every election.  The group is entirely staffed by a husband, wife, and their brothers/sisters, all pulling six figure salaries.

And THAT'S that the Republican campaign system is about.


I think I've decided on my new career!
 
2014-02-10 02:04:11 PM  

Dog Welder: I think I've decided on my new career!


Has to go better then welding dogs.  I'm not even sure how you could tack those anyways.
 
2014-02-10 04:11:28 PM  

hubiestubert: Romney was running down the clock and looking to just coast on momentum to the finish line. He wasn't looking to win so much--though, he would have been happy if he had--as just stay in the game enough to keep the narrative alive, and thus campaign dollars rolling in not just for his own campaign, but for the Congressional races.


I dunno, you don't get permits for an early fireworks show on Election Night and have a raft just ready to go off when they announce you won, if you were just coasting on momentum. You also don't have to whomp up a concession speech in an hour, or have your transition website up and ready to go if you think it was all about making bank and not about being President.
 
2014-02-10 04:18:13 PM  

theorellior: hubiestubert: Romney was running down the clock and looking to just coast on momentum to the finish line. He wasn't looking to win so much--though, he would have been happy if he had--as just stay in the game enough to keep the narrative alive, and thus campaign dollars rolling in not just for his own campaign, but for the Congressional races.

I dunno, you don't get permits for an early fireworks show on Election Night and have a raft just ready to go off when they announce you won, if you were just coasting on momentum. You also don't have to whomp up a concession speech in an hour, or have your transition website up and ready to go if you think it was all about making bank and not about being President.


SURE
Unless that was all part of the scam.
The people making all those plans were scammed. Romney had nothing to do with those parts.
OF COURSE, some kind of insane bombshell could have hit the week before and R could have won.
And then he would have looked silly not having started getting ready for the job.
 
2014-02-10 09:25:28 PM  

jayhawk88: d23: We need desperately to get rid of this system.  My opinion ought not be worth a millionth as a Koch brother that isn't even in my district  to my rep.

Truer words, but the catch is, how would you do it? These guys are bought and paid for at the state and city level now, nevermind national. Calling it a rigged game is an insult to games, because it insinuates that there's still a chance.


Cap the amount of $$$ that can be spent on a campaign by either side, perhaps?

/ shorten the campaign season as well
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report