The Electoral College I: Why we have Battleground States

Who votes for the President? You probably don't know.

Wellington Webb, Terry Philips, Camilia Auger, Pam Shaddock, Jenifer Trujillo-Sanchez, Don Strickland, Ann Knollman, Polly Baca, and Margaret Atencio went to designated place in 2008 and cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States.  They were the only people to vote for President that day in Colorado.  

The Battle for Middle Earth

Only True Partisans think the other side are Orcs

Lost in the critique of the purloined video recording of Mitt Romney's comments to wealthy donors released last week, was his explanation why the campaign did not more aggressively attack Obama as a corrupt failure.  Romney (correctly) explained that elections are won by attracting the five to seven percent of uncommitted voters that are open to changing their prior votes.

Romney then gave a fascinating insight into his campaign's thinking about which message best sells to this critical audience:

Gaffes III: Candidates should never openly Psychoanalyze Voters

And if they do...they should only do it in glowing terms.

Speaking to a select group of wealthy contributors, the Presidential Candidate was asked why he felt that his message found difficulty taking hold within certain portions of the American Public, the Candidate set off an unintentional firestorm by guessing.  This prompted the media to psychoanalyze the candidate's true motivation.

In 2012 that Candidate was Mitt Romney.

In 2008 that Candidate was Barack Obama.

Political Polls: Tea Leaves for the Campaign Manager

When they go your way - talk them up.

When they don't - invoke Harry S. Truman.

Political polls are the proverbial tea leaves of political campaigns and become news stories in their own right.  Political polls are difficult creatures particularly in Presidential Elections because the Electoral College System narrows the focus down to 18 swing states - five of which lean Democratic and five lean Republican.  National Presidential polls are, if not worthless, very limited in value because we do not elect the President based upon a national vote - something Al Gore ruefully notes at most speaking engagements. 

Campaign Fundraising III: When you raise it matters

Email and the internet permit campaigns to be more targeted and timely in their fundraising efforts, particularly when it comes to raising money prior to the Federal Election Campaign Finance Disclosure deadlines.  Only slightly less important as how much a campaign raises - is when it gets raised.  Campaign must disclose how much they raised, from whom and in what amounts each month and quarter.  What was merely a regulatory event has grown to become a political news story.

When campaigns out raise their opposition during a reporting period it supports an argument that they have greater support from the public; and better means to follow through on delivering their message.  Out raising your opposition in the months leading up to the election gives the impression that you have momentum - even if you are behind in the total dollar amount raised.

As we discussed earlier, the drum beat out of both the Obama and Romney campaign is that the Romney Campaign and the GOP have out raised the opposition during the last several months.  Yet Democrats, at least as of July 31, 2012, had raised 587.7 million compared to the GOP $524.2 million.  Yet the fundraising emails from Democrats need a crisis to encourage people to donate.  

On August 31, 2012 - the deadline, the Democratic National Committee sent the following email for their Chair - Debbie Wasserman Shultz:

I'm going to guess your inbox is pretty full today. But think of it this way: This is one of the last fundraising deadlines before Election Day.With just 10 weeks left to go, we have limited time to make a difference for Democrats nationwide.If their races were already in the bag, if they already had all the resources they need, and if we didn't have that much on the line this year, I wouldn't ask you to make a donation today.But the stakes are high, President Obama and many Democrats across the country are in razor-close races, and these candidates need our help before they head into the final months.So if you can, please make a donation to Democrats before tonight's critical fundraising deadline:https://my.democrats.org/Tonights-DeadlineTomorrow morning, may you wake up to an uncluttered inbox -- and may Democrats in races across the country wake up to see that they're exactly where they need to be.Thanks for making that difference,DebbieDebbie Wasserman SchultzChairDemocratic National CommitteeP.S. -- We're closer to the finish line than you think. Chip in what you can today.

The email acknowledges that email inboxes must be pretty full today with requests for donations - showing just how critical that campaigns view the Finance Reports.

Use Meaningless Words II: Divisive

Rhetoric: Divisive proposals/policies are bad!

Reality: Big Issues can't be solved without upsetting someone - it means we have real choices

Divisive Defined: A derogatory label attached to an opponent's policies, proposals, or statements implying hostility, disdain, unwillingness to compromise, or callow disregard toward another group of people in an effort to create disunity, disharmony, and dissatisfaction. See also "wedge issues."  

When National Public Radio's Guy Raz asked Ari Shapiro how , Shapiro discussed the crowd's 

Discussing Paul Ryan's impact on Romney campaign events crowds, National Public Radio's Ari Shapiro told Guy Raz, "They really love Paul Ryan. They're passionate about this guy."

"What is it about Paul Ryan that gets them motivated?" Raz asked.

"They like the ideas he puts out," Shapiro said, "They like the budget, his willingness to not just criticize the other side, what the Democrats are doing, but put out proposals that are really controversial, that are, you know, very divisive in some ways, that have drawn a lot of criticism from Democrats. The Republicans I'm talking to see that as a badge of honor, and they think it was a bold decision of Romney to bring Ryan onto the ticket knowing that he's going to take all this incoming fire."

Political campaigns, and elections in particular, are - and should be - about competing policy ideas how to solve the issues of the day.  Some issues, especially important issues, cannot solved with universal consensus.  An election without differing proposed solutions and policies is an election with no meaningful choice at all. 

Still, it is a rhetorical device used across the political spectrum.  In his acceptance speech, Paul Ryan said, "You would think that any president, whatever his party, would make job creation, and nothing else, his first order of economic business.  But this president didn't do that. Instead, we got a long, divisive, all-or-nothing attempt to put the federal government in charge of health care."

Policies or proposals that target, favorably or unfavorably, one group over another are also labeled "divisive."  Two current examples:  

Proposals favoring one economic group over another, particularly in tax policy are labeled "divisive."  “'Congressman Cicilline engages in divisive class warfare where he tries to paint himself as someone who will stand up to the wealthy on behalf of the middle class,, said Doherty Campaign Manager Ian Prior."

Opposition Gay Marriage, particularly opposition, is labeled "divisive."  When Romney expressed support for traditional marriage, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation wrote, "If Gov. Romney truly desires to represent all Americans, Log Cabin Republicans encourages him to avoid divisive social issues and focus on jobs and the economy."

QUESTION:  Do you agree that "divisive" is an overused word in politics today?  What is an example you have seen where it was used correctly?

Campaign Fundraising Part II: It's more than digits

How much you raise matters

Graphic Taken from an excellent site:
 http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html

Earlier we discussed the reality of money in politics given that we live in a free society where the expression of ideas - and paying to express those ideas - is a protected First Amendment right.  This article discusses the political impact money has on the perception of support that a candidate has in a race.  

At the end of each month, campaigns are to disclose their receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.  There are several numbers that can be used to argue that your campaign is riding the popular tail winds to victory.  

This post talks about how much money is raised.

It goes without saying that you want to be able to raise a lot of money.  Raising more money than your opponents gives the perception that you are the front runner.  Thus far, at least since this summer of 2012, Mitt Romney has out raised Barack Obama and that disparity has become a recurring fundraising message of the not just the Romney campaign but the Obama campaign as well.

On June 9, 2012 the Democratic Party sent out the following email under the subject heading "They outraised us."  

Britton --

This week we learned Mitt Romney and the Republican Party outraised us in May, bringing in $76 million to our $60 million. And that deficit is even worse once you include the millions of dollars a few wealthy special interests and billionaires are pouring into super PACs and outside groups.

If you don't want to read any further, I don't blame you. Support Democrats today and help build our grassroots organization with a donation of $3 or more.

For anyone wondering how one billionaire can influence an election, here's a perfect case study: Sheldon Adelson.

This casino owner's spending is a textbook example of the Republican battle plan. Here are just a few of his "investments" this year:

    -- Singlehandedly keeping Newt Gingrich's presidential bid alive for months by pouring $20
    million of his family's money into a pro-Newt super PAC.

    -- Donating $5 million to Speaker John Boehner's super PAC, aimed at protecting the GOP majority in the House, and targeting vulnerable Democrats.

    -- And just this week, after meeting with Romney last month, pledging $1 million to a Romney-
    affiliated super PAC.

They say one person can change the world, but I'm pretty sure this isn't what they meant.

As Democrats, we aren't counting on wealthy patrons to buy this election. We rely on millions of Americans stepping up to grow this organization and provide the resources to open field offices, organize on the ground, and push back against Adelson, the Koch brothers, and all the rest of these billionaires trying to use their money to control our future.

We're counting on people like you -- and that means we need everyone to step up if we're going to win.

When Romney out raised Obama again in June, the Democratic Party sent out an email under Joe Biden's name on July 28, 2012 with the subject line "Outraised":

Britton -- For the last two months, Governor Romney and the Republicans have outraised us -- and in the last month alone, they raised $35 million more than we did. They've caught up to us in the fundraising race for the first time this election, and we have to do everything we can to close the gap now -- before it's too late. Donate $3 or more today to help close the gap. We keep reminding you about this fundraising gap because when Governor Romney and the Republicans outraise us by that much, it matters. This fundraising gap means that Republicans may not only outraise us, they could outspend us this election -- on TV, in the field, and online. You better believe that when they're using their fundraising advantage to blanket the airwaves with misleading attack ads, Democrats across the board will feel the consequences. Our next big fundraising deadline is just a few days away -- and we have the chance to reverse this trend and keep Governor Romney and the Republicans from outraising us for the third month in a row. So help close the fundraising gap before the deadline on Tuesday. It's critically important. Donate $3 or whatever you can today. Of course it is not entirely that simple.  According to an excellent interactive chart in the New York Times - In June 2012: Romney raised $32,468,000 Obama raised $45,300,000 It was the donations to the political parties that put the Republicans over the top in June. RNC: $39,154,000 DNC $17,639,00 Add to that the SUPER-PAC contributions: Republican Restore our Future PAC:  $20,728,000 Democrat Priorities USA: $6,156,000.00 In total, during 2012, the Democrats have raised $587.7 million compared to $446.6 million for the Republicans - so it would take Romney et. al. to raise an additional $60 million above and beyond the Democrats each month to just erase the fundraising lead enjoyed by the Democrats. QUESTION:  Are you more likely to give to a candidate if he or she is raising more money than the opposition?