StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Good Grief! The Paranoid Conspiracy Class

Submitted by Tully on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 7:34am

Scott Ott of ScrappleFace was ready with the electoral satire this morning:

Tight Democrat Primary Sparks Fraud Allegations

2008-01-08) — In the wake of the unexpected outcome of the New Hampshire Democrat primary Tuesday, sources at the Democrat National Committee (DNC) said they’re still trying to figure out whom to sue amid a flurry of allegations of fraud, malfunctioning electronic voting machines and voter intimidation.

“It’s a forgone conclusion that if the race outcome defies the pollster predictions, there must have been corruption,” said an unnamed DNC source. “Just because it’s an intra-party contest, doesn’t mean we’ll subject the results to less scrutiny.”

The DNC source added that “Americans need to have faith in the electoral process, but the New Hampshire Democrat primary has the smell of Bush-Gore 2000 all over it. We’re determined to follow the facts where they lead.”

If only it WEREN'T true!

But it is. Very much so. No, really! And once again, DieBold is implicated.

The craziest theory.

UPDATE: Cadillac Tight is also on the case, going into the DU fever swamps for more fun! Rick Moran has some thoughts over at American Thinker, and Michelle Malkin has lots of linky linky tin-foil-beanie goodness...

Unfortunately this isn't

Unfortunately this isn't satire, although I don't think it's very convincing. Even assuming arguendo that the pollsters are right, there are other reasons than race why, having told pollsters they would support Obama, people would change their vote. Waking up would be one, but that's a conceit. ;)

Amazing guys..

I would be concerned about this more than the conspiracy Tully highlights. I have heard this several times already and this spin will undoubtedly be used to stir passions. Yes, white people (and maybe blacks) lied to pollsters to appear Obama supporters and then changed their vote because Obama is black (or if black, that they are afraid to reveal they won't support him). Sure, that is the answer. The more likely explanation is that women and men got pretty sick of the attitude towards Hillary. It was a feeding frenzy on Hillary' corpse beginning with the ambiguous duo's tag team during the debate and continuing from all quarters with plenty of sexist crap thrown in. And pundits were certain Bill was no longer the rock star Obama was -based on his "fairy tale" campaign. NH voters like Bill. Liberal media eating its own to make way for the great new hope.

Yep, that's the ticket -race or Hillary rigging the voting machines. I can understand the radical base that wants Obama, but Media makes me ill and that includes much of it here in NY.
No wonder Americans say nothing when Iran says tapes that show their navy threating our warships "a complete fabrication by the Pentagon". We tend to believe what best supports our desire, even if it means our military or our voting machines are liars. Some pundits obviously prefer to think NH had too many closet racists for Obama to win drumming up black support in SC. Hey, there are more women than blacks in SC and black women are certainly key to what follows.

Extremely less than

Extremely less than convincing.

Best of the Web echoed yesterday what I was saying earlier--but on the assumption the polling was correct:

What Tucker is describing here is actually a liberal stereotype of white Americans--one that, by the way, is flattering to white liberals, who fancy themselves more enlightened than the typical person of pallor. Although we have our misgivings about Obama, his success will be a blessing inasmuch as it shows that this stereotype is about 40 years out of date.

The false inverse assumption here is that if Obama loses, it's because of race. Same false inverse assumption as in the BeliefNet link. My own primaries experience indicates that the small number of people who would vote AGAINST a candidate on race is more than offset by the number that will vote FOR them on race. This is especially true in Democratic primaries. Even in Iowa the insutling surprise displayed that Obama could win implied that those surprised had assumed white Democrats in Iowa were racist.

From reading through the turnout figures and totals, my own guess at this point would be that knowing Senator Clinton was in trouble, the Clinton campaign simply unleashed a superior massive GOTV effort, one heavily focused and concentrated on women and the elderly, and the weather cooperated. From exit polling it also looks as if independents failed to abandon McCain for Obama to the extent predicted. The high Obama projections were based in large part on his being able to capture the indies, which had it occured would have been reflected in lower margins for McCain. But the McCain margins were solid and in line with the pre-Iowa NH polls.

Obama turned out and captured a lot of young indies fairly new to the process, but Clinton turned out the NH rank & file Dems in greater numbers, and concentrated heavily on the demographics that most favored her in so doing. Classic! And she (her campaign) doesn't seem to have made the error that Romney's and Obama's did, that of wasting resources on heavier advertising saturation when those resources could be more effectively used "on the ground" to drive favorable turnout.

Obama has never really had to make that kind of sustained effort. He's always faced creampuff elections, and the one truly contested race he ever had he took by disqualifying his opponent. IOW, applied experience paid off. As I keep saying, loathe her or love her, but do not EVER underestimate her. She is one of the sharpest pols of the era. We just saw that demonstrated at the hands-on nuts & bolts campaign level.

the ground game

Excellent commentary, Tully. Tigerhawk concurs:

"The mainstream media, the blogosphere, the polls and the prediction markets all misunderestimated the Clinton ground game..."

Thanks. Some of this is

Thanks. Some of this is fairly stock-in-trade campaigning, but it's amazing how even the largest campaigns can get complacent or stupid and miss the basic stuff. Especially those newer to the process who rely on consultants, have never had to fight a close one in the trenches, and especially those trying to bring in "new" (translation: low-margin) voters.

The polling figures with demographics breakdowns come in, and the consultants invariably steer the campaign to (VERY expensive and only marginally effective) late media saturation buys aimed at swaying the "undecided" and indie target demographics. Becuase advertising is what they really understand, they advise you to work on changing or enlisting the hearts and minds of the most easily-convinced targets.

But undecideds and independents are also the groups with the consistently lowest turnout, especially in primaries, the most likely to give the whole thing a miss because they didn't give that much of a hoot in the first place. Sway them all you like--if they don't go to the polls, who you can convince them to prefer is 100% irrelevant. You can spend a whole ton of money trying to get that vote, but the resulting vote yield is low.

The old hands know that to win elections, you have to turn out YOUR base, especially the erratic and occasional voters who almost always vote in generals but are inconsistent in voting locals and primaries, and concentrate on reinforcing message and improving turnout among your strongest demographics groups, where the greatest yield-for-resources lies. If you can get a 20% "return" per dollar from Column A, and only a 2% "return" from Column B, where should you focus your efforts and resources? Uh huh. And it's not just money--much of this requires dedicated volunteers who know what NOT to say. Busloads of them.

Which means the classics; ID the targets, message the targets, TURN OUT the targets. Offer rides, make phone calls, remind them nicely, give them positive message and image right before they vote, and focus focus focus. You know who is most likely to vote for you--get out there and drag 'em in! Several well-placed rifle shots are worth a case or ten of shotgun shells. And much cheaper.

new voters

Up until IA, I totally discounted the ability to produce new voters/independents. But given Obama's IA success in this area, thought that he could replicate that difficult feat in NH.

And you're right- even big expensive organizations miss obvious trends. Happens with Fortune 500s all the time.

Hey, send me an email on the upcoming local primaries, Tully. Love to hear your thoughts.

Note on the local caucuses

Note on the local caucuses in your email. Not enough out there yet on the primaries--have to wait for all the filings (due end of March) to know what the field really is outside the Presidential race.

Your analysis seems correct

And I have given Kudos to McCain who is a part of the Hillary win. Maybe she was whispering sweet nothings when they talked on stage after the Republican debate. He will undounbtedly draw Independents in a race against Hillary or Obama, but perhaps Hillary holds on to more in some groups and Obama the younger demographic. I wonder if conservatives prefer McCain to Huckabee, though I wouldn't count Romney or Rudy quite out yet. The Daily Show was pretty funny on both questioning the emotional breakdown reporting of Hillary's tears and Rudy's continued use of 9/11. When asked whether he thought Hillary was sincere he mentioned his own tears at 9/11 funerals. LOL

Frum was on the Daily Show. Interesting.

One thing about Tully's thread. Imagine that Obama loses a very tight general election. Can you imagine the convergence of both race and conspiracy? Holy Cow. My sense is that Hillary can push her gender covertly as often sexists do in reverse, but attempts to make race an issue will work strongly against Obama's fairy tale of being the uniter. He better be very careful though I expect his wife coming out to appeal to black women in SC. The real story there might be people voting because Obama is black rather than stick with their previous pick. Again, this shows race over issues and Sullivan's interview with Colbert on Monday was derrangement. As Colbert asked, "Are you suggesting we pick a President to make terrorists feel better about us for electing a black person?" Sullivan seemd unhinged. He did not mention how important policies or records are, just the fabulous chance to show the world America is not racist. Next might he support Rosie because America needs to show the world it is not homophobic?

Ah....I have strayed.

Right. Sounds plausible to me.

From reading through the turnout figures and totals, my own guess at this point would be that knowing Senator Clinton was in trouble, the Clinton campaign simply unleashed a superior massive GOTV effort, one heavily focused and concentrated on women and the elderly, and the weather cooperated. From exit polling it also looks as if independents failed to abandon McCain for Obama to the extent predicted. The high Obama projections were based in large part on his being able to capture the indies, which had it occured would have been reflected in lower margins for McCain. But the McCain margins were solid and in line with the pre-Iowa NH polls.

That makes sense. As I see it, the media completely overhyped Clinton's crackup. It's not that she wasn't in trouble, it's just that listening to the press, you'd think Hillary was ready to quit the race. I've not made up my mind regarding Hillary vs. Obama yet, but last night was interesting.

As to the nutroots conspiracy circus, it amazes me how the train keeps on running. Concerning the folks at Democratic Underground, it's hard to believe that I used to hang out there (that's a looong story).

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Let's hear it....

You don't think you can just walk away from that last little tid-bit, do you, Rafique? You'll have to expound on that in a main post or an open thread one day soon. I can't wait to hear... bet it's a fascinating looong story. ;-)

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.