Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Obama Won Is So Clear, The Day After
Why Obama Won Is So Clear, The Day After
NEW YORK -- Everything seems so clear the morning after.
A Manhattan friend, one of the shrewdest guys in media, public relations and politics, just sent me an email that pretty much summarized it all.
"Obama ran a flawless campaign except for the first debate, and they pivoted correctly every time. Very impressive," he wrote. "Romney ran a ridiculous campaign and the primaries killed him and he was never able to fix that. He wound up being one of two things: either a liar with no center or a right wing nut case."
I probably should stop there. But given the line of work I'm in, I can't let it rest. I will be brief. Here are summaries of the analytical pieces I won't inflict (in full) on Huffington Post readers:
Organization. In 1960, Jack Kennedy's team revolutionized presidential politics, taking it away from the state party bosses and putting it all in Bobby Kennedy's famous "little black book" of JFK friends. Their winning strategy became the template of campaigns for a generation after. President Barack Obama's team has worked another revolution in method, using social media, micro-targeting and distributed grassroots activism. Now they've proved that victory wasn't an accident in 2008. Their model will be studied and followed for decades.
Not a Status Quo Election. Sure, the numerical line-up didn't change much: a Democratic president, a narrowly Democratic Senate and a Republican-led House. But under the circumstances, the results made an extraordinary statement about commitment to change: in health care (Obamacare), in taxes (a push to raise rates on the wealthy), on environmental action and for activist government. The vote was an expression of hope for more change in the future, along the lines of what the president has done so far.
~snip~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/why-obama-won_b_2089194.htmlNEW YORK -- Everything seems so clear the morning after.
A Manhattan friend, one of the shrewdest guys in media, public relations and politics, just sent me an email that pretty much summarized it all.
"Obama ran a flawless campaign except for the first debate, and they pivoted correctly every time. Very impressive," he wrote. "Romney ran a ridiculous campaign and the primaries killed him and he was never able to fix that. He wound up being one of two things: either a liar with no center or a right wing nut case."
I probably should stop there. But given the line of work I'm in, I can't let it rest. I will be brief. Here are summaries of the analytical pieces I won't inflict (in full) on Huffington Post readers:
Organization. In 1960, Jack Kennedy's team revolutionized presidential politics, taking it away from the state party bosses and putting it all in Bobby Kennedy's famous "little black book" of JFK friends. Their winning strategy became the template of campaigns for a generation after. President Barack Obama's team has worked another revolution in method, using social media, micro-targeting and distributed grassroots activism. Now they've proved that victory wasn't an accident in 2008. Their model will be studied and followed for decades.
Not a Status Quo Election. Sure, the numerical line-up didn't change much: a Democratic president, a narrowly Democratic Senate and a Republican-led House. But under the circumstances, the results made an extraordinary statement about commitment to change: in health care (Obamacare), in taxes (a push to raise rates on the wealthy), on environmental action and for activist government. The vote was an expression of hope for more change in the future, along the lines of what the president has done so far.
~snip~
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1093 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Obama Won Is So Clear, The Day After (Original Post)
Emit
Nov 2012
OP
thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)1. Mitt was a horrible candidate, but the M$M needed the cash
So they didn't dive too deep.........and never seemed to call him out for not speaking to them. It took a clandestine video shoot by an amateur for the professional press punditry to even barely see how bad Romney would have been as a President. Big money clouded this election.......making it possible for Mitt to even get close in the popular vote.......he should have been buried from the start, and yet he was almost light breezed into the oval office. I hope you like your seven pieces of silver M$M.............
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)2. What you said.....
Our media is very dangerous to our health.
Emit
(11,213 posts)3. Yes, yes, they needed their horse race
sad for our electorate and for our country