PDA

View Full Version : What Obama did better than us




Dennis Peterson
02-07-2008, 08:40 AM
On Tuesday, Obama dominated the independent vote. He also raised $32 million in January, mostly from small individual contributions, and he's gotten over $5 million since Tuesday. How?

Read these two links:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/obama_and_paul_the_kings_of_the_web_election.php

http://techpresident.com/blog/entry/21119/is_the_obama_campaign_a_model_for_online_politics

There are commercially-available databases, built up from data on magazine subscriptions, warranty cards, supermarket purchases, etc etc. They break populations into demographic and cultural groups. From there, they can predict peoples' attitudes, based on their group.

The Obama campaign bought the databases and used them for targeted marketing. They had tailored messages for different groups. Depending on their data, they would phone, or send mail, or send someone knocking. For their supporter database, they knew who was strong, who was weak, and they followed up.

By contrast, what did we have? My meetup got a walking list from the campaign, which was just Republican voters. Free public information. They gave us a neighborhood to walk that basically wasn't walkable - it was a bit rural, houses were far apart, dogs were running loose everywhere. And a lot of these people were diehard Bush supporters. How many independents and former democrats do we have in our ranks?

After that, we picked our own neighborhoods. We picked dense upscale areas that had friendly people. But now we had no information at all. We didn't even know who was a registered voter...but we still got better results than that first time.

The national campaign should have bought those databases, hired pollsters to see which groups we would do well in, and given us lists with scripts targeted to those people. They said they didn't know what to do with all that money...well, that's what the pros do with it.

If they couldn't, we should have formed PACs capable of handling it...I don't know what the data costs, but it would have been a better use of money than projects like the blimp. I loved the blimp, I saw it in Myrtle Beach and it was downright imposing, but I don't think it really got the job done. It was an illusion of power. In a campaign, information is the real thing.

WilliamC
02-07-2008, 08:44 AM
deja post.

Obama has also raised large amounts of money via bundled donations from establishment sources.

What is the main thing he did differently than Ron Paul?

He sold out to the collectivists, that's what.

LJHudd
02-07-2008, 09:02 AM
What is the main thing he did differently than Ron Paul?He lies. That's the main thing he does differently.

Truth Warrior
02-07-2008, 09:08 AM
Wins elections.

Thanehand
02-07-2008, 10:12 PM
Obama gets gobs of free advertising via media coverage!

Seriously, why doesn't everyone get this? It has nothing to do with how good or bad you are, it's who the media chooses to push or squander that is what makes or breaks candidates.

Scaryclouds
02-07-2008, 10:20 PM
On Tuesday, Obama dominated the independent vote. He also raised $32 million in January, mostly from small individual contributions, and he's gotten over $5 million since Tuesday. How?

Read these two links:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/obama_and_paul_the_kings_of_the_web_election.php

http://techpresident.com/blog/entry/21119/is_the_obama_campaign_a_model_for_online_politics

There are commercially-available databases, built up from data on magazine subscriptions, warranty cards, supermarket purchases, etc etc. They break populations into demographic and cultural groups. From there, they can predict peoples' attitudes, based on their group.

The Obama campaign bought the databases and used them for targeted marketing. They had tailored messages for different groups. Depending on their data, they would phone, or send mail, or send someone knocking. For their supporter database, they knew who was strong, who was weak, and they followed up.

By contrast, what did we have? My meetup got a walking list from the campaign, which was just Republican voters. Free public information. They gave us a neighborhood to walk that basically wasn't walkable - it was a bit rural, houses were far apart, dogs were running loose everywhere. And a lot of these people were diehard Bush supporters. How many independents and former democrats do we have in our ranks?

After that, we picked our own neighborhoods. We picked dense upscale areas that had friendly people. But now we had no information at all. We didn't even know who was a registered voter...but we still got better results than that first time.

The national campaign should have bought those databases, hired pollsters to see which groups we would do well in, and given us lists with scripts targeted to those people. They said they didn't know what to do with all that money...well, that's what the pros do with it.

If they couldn't, we should have formed PACs capable of handling it...I don't know what the data costs, but it would have been a better use of money than projects like the blimp. I loved the blimp, I saw it in Myrtle Beach and it was downright imposing, but I don't think it really got the job done. It was an illusion of power. In a campaign, information is the real thing.

Part of the reason is Ron Paul didn't get money until relatively late into the election process. Still that doesn't excuse HQ for not buying the databases.

Dennis Peterson
02-08-2008, 12:03 PM
Not sure why the dupe thread but....of course I understand Obama's free media coverage, the point is to quit whining about it and figure out what we can do better next time.

With the media not on our side, it's even more important to get maximum bang for the buck with our campaigning. We didn't.

We can't change what the media does, but we can change what we do.

Or, we can just make a bunch of excuses and go back to WoW.

Deborah K
02-08-2008, 12:06 PM
Obama gets gobs of free advertising via media coverage!

Seriously, why doesn't everyone get this? It has nothing to do with how good or bad you are, it's who the media chooses to push or squander that is what makes or breaks candidates.

Ditto! This is the real issue. Had Ron Paul gotten the same amount of coverage as Obama, we'd be killing the rest of them right now. The country would know the truth. The government would be sweating bullets. We'd be on our way to restoring the Republic.

ronpaulblogsdotcom
02-08-2008, 12:08 PM
He is not Republican. That is a big part. The other part is he is not Clinton.

Dennis Peterson
02-08-2008, 02:11 PM
Note that the title of the thread is "what Obama did better than us," not "why Obama beat us."

fedup100
02-08-2008, 02:18 PM
Obama has a extremist muslim advisor AND a (communist) billionaire!

brandon
02-08-2008, 02:21 PM
Here are the reasons, no need for a fancy analysis.

1. He is not a republican.
2. He is a much better orator then Paul.
3. He is younger and more attractive then Paul.
4. He is black (really)
5. He is an establishment politician, so he gets establishment press coverage.

Dennis Peterson
02-08-2008, 04:20 PM
Which helps answer "Why Obama beat us," but not "What Obama did better," which would have the same answer no matter who came out ahead. Probably every campaign did something better than us, and something else worse than us.

Reading comprehension seems somewhat lacking on this thread.

Just to clarify something though, I think it's possible that it just wasn't practical to do that polling. Those pollsters are pricey. We may not have had the money to justify it until the Teaparty, and by the time you buy the database, conduct the polls, and tailor some targeted messages, maybe you've hit Super Tuesday already.

In any case it's clear that I should have titled my thread "What we can do better next time."