Showing all posts tagged: elections 2012

Krugman - The important thing to understand now is that while the election is over, the class war isn’t. The same people who bet big on Mr. Romney, and lost, are now trying to win by stealth — in the name of fiscal responsibility — the ground they failed to gain in an open election…[W]hat voters said, clearly, was no to tax cuts for the rich, no to benefit cuts for the middle class and the poor. So what’s a top-down class warrior to do? The answer, as I have already suggested, is to rely on stealth — to smuggle in plutocrat-friendly policies under the pretense that they’re just sensible responses to the budget deficit.

The fact that the winning [2012 US presidential] campaign’s “chief data scientist” was previously employed to “maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions” does not thrill me. You should be worried even if your candidate is — for the moment — better at these methods. Democracy should not just be about how to persuade people to vote for one candidate over another by any means necessary.

Zyynep Tufecki, Beware the Big Data Campaign

The Republican story about how societies prosper — not just the Romney story — dwelt on the heroic entrepreneur stifled by taxes and regulations: an important story with which most people do not identify. The ordinary person does not see himself as a great innovator. He, or she, is trying to make a living and support or maybe start a family. A conservative reform of our health-care system and tax code, among other institutions, might help with these goals. About this person, however, Republicans have had little to say.

In the days since the election, Republicans have received (and given one another) a lot of advice: Step up the ground game. Soften on immigration and abortion. Embrace same-sex marriage. Appeal more to single women, Hispanics, and young people. Run the younger, more charismatic candidates Republicans have waiting in the wings. Some of this advice is good, and some of it bad. But the weakness of the Republican party predates the emergence of same-sex marriage as an issue, the development of Democratic micro-targeting strategies, and the growth of the Hispanic vote. And wasn’t Josh Mandel, the losing Ohio Senate candidate, supposed to be one of those great young conservative hopes? However much charisma and brains the next crop of Republicans brings to their campaigns, they need a stronger party.

The perception that the Republican party serves the interests only of the rich underlies all the demographic weaknesses that get discussed in narrower terms. Hispanics do not vote for the Democrats solely because of immigration. Many of them are poor and lack health insurance, and they hear nothing from the Republicans but a lot from the Democrats about bettering their situation. Young people, too, are economically insecure, especially these days. If Republicans found a way to apply conservative principles in ways that offered tangible benefits to most voters and then talked about this agenda in those terms, they would improve their standing among all of these groups while also increasing their appeal to white working-class voters. For that matter, higher-income voters would prefer candidates who seem practical and solution-oriented. Better “communications skills,” that perennial item on the wish list of losing parties, will achieve little if the party does not have an appealing agenda to communicate.

- Ramesh Ponnuru, The Party’s Problem

Basically, Ponnuru is envisioning a new Republican party that is not Republican, but something else: one that cares about the average American, not the rich.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
.

Lee Atwater, cited by Rick Perlstein in Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

I think punditry serves no purpose. I don’t care if it has a future.

Nate Silver,  cited by Phillip Butta in Nate Silver on the Election, Pundits, and His Drunk Alter Ego

In Tuesday’s presidential election, a number of polling firms that conduct their surveys online had strong results. Some telephone polls also performed well. But others, especially those that called land lines only or took other methodological shortcuts, performed poorly, showing a more Republican-leaning electorate than actually turned out.

Our method of evaluating pollsters involves looking at all the polls that an organization conducted over the final three weeks of the campaign — rather than only its very last poll. For each of the two dozen polling firms that issued at least five surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, counting both state and national polls, I have calculated an average error and an average statistical bias.

The bias calculation measures the direction, Republican or Democratic, that a firm’s polls tended to miss. The estimate of the average error in the firm’s polls measures how far off the polls were in either direction, on average.

Among the more prolific polling firms, the most accurate by the error measure was TIPP, which conducted a national tracking poll for Investors’ Business Daily. Relative to other national polls, its results seemed to be Democratic-leaning at the time they were published. However, it turned out that most polling firms underestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, so those with seemingly Democratic-leaning results were often closest to the final outcome.

Among telephone-based polling firms that conducted a significant number of state-by-state surveys, the best results came from CNN, Mellman and Grove Insight. The latter two of these firms conducted most of their polls on behalf of liberal-leaning organizations.

Several polling firms got notably poor results.

For the second consecutive election — counting 2010 — Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney’s performance by about four percentage points, on average. Polls by American Research Group and Mason-Dixon also largely missed the mark.

One of the most well-known polling firms, Gallup, had among the worst results. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, its polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, while in 2010 they overestimated how well Congressional Republicans would do.

Some of the most accurate polling firms this year conducted their polls online. The final poll by Google Consumer Surveys had Mr. Obama ahead in the national popular vote by 2.3 percentage points — very close to his actual margin of 2.6 percentage points, as of Saturday morning. Ipsos, which conducted online polls for Reuters, and the Canadian online polling firm Angus Reid also fared well.

Looking more broadly across the 90 polling firms that conducted at least one likely-voter poll in the final three weeks of the campaign, polling firms that conducted their polls wholly or partially online outperformed others on average. Among the nine in that category, the average error in calling the election result was 2.1 percentage points. That compares with a 3.5-point error for polling firms that used live telephone interviewers and 5.0 points for “robopolls,” which conducted their surveys by automated script.

The traditional telephone polls had a slight Republican bias on the whole, while the robopolls often had a significant Republican bias. (Even the automated polling firm Public Policy Polling, which often polls for liberal and Democratic clients, projected results that were slightly more favorable for Mr. Romney than he actually achieved.) The online polls had little overall bias, however.

The difference between the performance of live telephone polls and the automated polls may partly reflect the fact that many of the live telephone polls call cellphones along with land lines, while few of the automated surveys do. (Legal restrictions prohibit automated calls to cellphones under many circumstances.)

Research by polling firms and academic groups suggests that polls that fail to call cellphones may underestimate the performance of Democratic candidates. The roughly one-third of Americans who rely exclusively on cellphones tend to be younger, more urban, less well-off financially and more likely to be black or Hispanic than the broader group of voters, all characteristics that correlate with Democratic voters.

The Techniques Behind the Most-Accurate Polls - Nate Silver via NYTimes.com

Gallup and Rasmussen’s polling should be heavily discounted in the future, unless they drastically revise their methods. Google and others that survey online came very close to accurately predicting the outcome of the elections, while those that rely on calling via phone — especially landlines — skew toward the old and white, meaning GOP.

Over the past three decades, the Democrats have surrendered so much intellectual ground to Republican anti-statism that they have little with which to fight back effectively. The result is that Mr. Obama, like many other Democrats, has avoided the initiatives that could really cement his coalition — public works projects, industrial and urban policy, support for homeowners, comprehensive immigration reform, tougher financial regulation, stronger protection for labor unions and national service — and yet is still branded a “socialist” and coddler of minorities. Small wonder that the election returns indicate a decline in overall popular turnout since 2008 and a drop in Mr. Obama’s share of the white vote, especially the vote of white men.

But the returns also suggest intriguing possibilities for which the past may offer us meaningful lessons. There seems little doubt that Mr. Obama’s bailout of the auto industry helped attract support from white working-class voters and other so-called Reagan Democrats across the Midwest and Middle Atlantic, turning the electoral tide in his favor precisely where the corrosions of race could have been very damaging.

[…]

Hard work on the ground — in neighborhoods, schools, religious institutions and workplaces — is foundational. But Mr. Obama, the biracial community organizer, might consider starting his second term by articulating a vision of a multicultural, multiracial and more equitable America with the same insight and power that he once brought to an address on the singular problem of race. If he does that, with words and then with deeds, he can strike a telling blow against the political racism that haunts our country.

Political Racism in the Age of Obama - Steven Hahn via NYTimes.com

Yes, Obama should now push a progressivist, populist, post-industrial agenda, especially around the theme of retooling America’s infrastructure for the future. But will he be willing to push that? Cut the military, and rehire the downsized soldiers to rebuild bridges and paint bike lanes? Provide work for the young, hire out-of-work college graduates to teach, rekindle American local agriculture with a back-to-the-land grants? Is his vision broad enough to do that?

In McLuhan terms, on TV Barack Obama is still cool while Romney is relentlessly hot. Hot is bad. TV is a cool medium. Yep, by McLuhan’s definition – and he was correct in so much – hot is very, very bad.

See, for all his hard-plastic handsomeness, regular features, bright smile and wealth, Romney on TV never appears fully at ease in his own skin. He grins but gives the impression of being utterly humourless, and the constantly flashing smile makes viewers wonder what the heck he’s smiling about. There’s the suggestion of innate smugness, a trait that is simply off-putting on TV, though politicians often mistake smugness for self-confidence and poise. In Romney’s case, it’s a matter of intensity and exertion to impress. That exertion creates the heat of energy and, when seen on TV, it makes people uneasy. Guy’s trying too hard. And if he’s that rich and successful, why is he coming across like a slightly desperate, grinning huckster?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Barack Obama on TV is a classic example of McLuhan’s definition of TV as a cool medium. Cool media benefit a candidate who is utterly relaxed. Cool media require effortless completion by the audience. The viewer can project a great deal onto certain people on TV, people who understand its “cool” quality. People on TV, in their relationship with TV cameras send a message. In Obama’s case, the message is that he’s confident, unruffled, at ease with himself, and has nothing to hide. He doesn’t generate the heat of trying.

There is no tide of “hope” and “change” to help him raise this time. There’s disappointment and despair about the economy. But on TV he’s serene and thoughtful, not defensive or desperate. That’s key.

Mitt Romney: Too hot for a cool medium? - John Doyle via The Globe and Mail

tedr:

paxamericana: Here’s what the 2012 electoral map would have looked like if only white males had voted. 

Republican pessimism is more than a PR headache. Put simply, it is hard for a party to win national elections in a country that it seems to dislike. Mr Romney’s campaign slogan was “Believe in America”. But too many on his side believe in a version of America from which displeasing facts or arguments are ruthlessly excluded. Todd Akin did not implode as a Senate candidate because of his stern opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest: many Republicans in Congress share those views. His downfall came because in trying to deny that his principles involved a trade-off with compassion for rape victims he came up with the unscientific myth that the bodies of women subjected to rape can shut down a pregnancy.

It was a telling moment of denial, much like the comforting myth that there is no such thing as climate change or, if there is, that humans are not involved. Ensconced in a parallel world of conservative news sources and conservative arguments, all manner of comforting alternative visions of reality surfaced during the 2012 election. Many, like Mr Akin’s outburst, involved avoiding having to think about unwelcome things (often basic science or economics). It became a nostrum among rank-and-file Republicans that mainstream opinion polls are biased and should be ignored, for instance, and that voter fraud is rampant and explains much of the Democrats’ inner-city support. Both conspiracies sounded a lot like ways of wishing the other side away.

Thoughtful Republicans are not oblivious to the dangers that they face. Optimists hope that new leaders will emerge to lead their movement rapidly towards greater realism, and greater cheeriness. If not, electoral defeats far more severe than those inflicted this time will surely impose such changes. Republicans may look back and wish the reckoning had started sooner.

Lexington: State of denial - The Economist

“It is hard for a party to win national elections in a country that it seems to dislike.”

1 2 3 4 5