• comment on a post OH-5: Video of Rep. Tim Ryan from Weirauch Rally over 6 years ago
    Thanks for the bump, Todd! We had ourselves some SERIOUS freezing rain last night and today, but that didn't even put a dent in our GOTV. Laura and I are working on some posts with pix so y'all can check it out... Thanks for all the support!
  • comment on a post LA-2: "Cautiously Optimistic" over 7 years ago

    http://www.nola.com/elections/1209_retur ns.ssf

    is the correct URL... there is a wierd character in hoose's post - thanks for posting that though (i was looking for it)!!!

    btw, Planned Parenthood's Action Fund endorsed Carter. Just sayin'... :)

  • looks to me that the difference is pretty well explained in the undecideds - which suggests a methodological difference in how hard they push undecideds...

    Group Democratic:
    CNN: 3% undecided (9/24)
    AP-Ipsos: 8% undecided (9/13)
    Harris: 19% undecided (9/11)

    Group Republican:
    Gallup: 4% undecided (9/17)
    Zogby: 29% undecided (9/14)
    Fox: 21% undecided (9/13)

    please note the more recent ones have the lowest % undecideds... and lets not forget the MoE.

    i 100% agree with everything that has been said here about what to DO about this, but I don't necessarily think that there is anything wierd in the numbers themselves.

  • they may be trying to NOT draw attention to the association - so a quiet separation may have been the best for them...

  • comment on a post MyDD Accountability Adwatch: Jennifer Lawless over 7 years ago

    it is a great ad (and i am not just saying that b/c of the planned parenthood endorsement)!

  • comment on a post MyDD Accountability Adwatch: Jennifer Lawless over 7 years ago

    also, the accountability frame doesn't really work on langevin - a democrat - in a primary... :)

  • comment on a post Nicco Mele - The e blogosphere true story over 7 years ago

    nicely put.

  • just remember that while there are separate entities - congresscritters don't view them as distinct.

    consequently, the actions of the pac will impact the ability of the c3 to lobby those reps once the session has begun, so even though the pac could go straight ticket, that would effectively slam the door in the face of the c3 lobbyists when they visit the other side of the aisle.

  • she asked in comparison to when the democrats were in charge (which was 1992-1994?1) so i was looking at it comparatively.

    I would point out that we are still able to offer low-cost or free health care to millions of clients each year in an economic environment that you describe above IS a success. If we had thrown supportive republicans overboad our clients would have been left high and dry due to cutbacks. Take a look at the rest of the crumbling medicare/medicaid system and tell me we aren't doing better.

    you also forgot about pushing the antis into the states seems like a pretty big success to me...

  • "success" is a tricky word... we have a lot of successes and setbacks every session and I am not particularly qualified to talk about legislation. I do know that we have been pretty successful at maintaining medicaid funding over the last 5 and a half years and some other stuff that don't really make headlines - and none of that would have been possible by burning bridges with supportive republicans.

    I can also tell you that a lot of the fights are moving to the states since the antis haven't been able to get what they want in washington. I would consider that a success for us and our allies.

    If you take a look at a lot of states, the appeal of becoming partisan is even less appealing... would you recommend we stop working with republicans in Louisiana, Georgia and elsewhere? Should we push anti-choice Dems in the midwest, hoping that the "party" will keep them in line?

    I would imagine that you will see the "death" of non-partisan choice groups when you see the "death" of the anti-choice democrats nationally (or the pro-choice republicans defect).

  • 1 - while I agree with you, it is the IRS' opinion that counts, here...

    2 - any examples? my experience is that they want to be in the room when their ISSUES are being discussed...

    3 - Not for issue groups, who really rely on small, frequently unnoticed issues in appropriations bills, etc... those decisions can have a far larger impact on our (i work for planned parenthood) issues and funding for our millions of clients who need medicaid funding for health care...

  • comment on a post D.C. Consultants: Voters Don't Care About Politics over 8 years ago

    Glad to see that somebody else reads the literatre - go msnook!!! :)

    Because I enjoy playing the devil's advocate, i think most of the people who suggest folks "stay on message" really don't disagree with this theory of political choice... rather, they think they have ID'd issues that they know voters care about and that they want to make sure that every exposure that a voter has to a candidate involves them saying something they know the voter agrees with.

    For example, if being too close to the sitting president at the expense of your own party is a good issue with voters in a primary, the strategy would be to have them repeating that everywhere so that even if a voter only sees/reads/hears about a candidate once, they are most likely going to form a positive opinion about that candidate based on their pre-conceived notions. Whether they "recall" the position or not isn't politically relevant - the trial heat question is.

    It is more the advertising peeps who use "recall" to judge the effectiveness of their contact programs - which, as you point out, tests the wrong thing.

  • comment on a post WSJ on Lieberman, Cardin, Mfume, blogs over 8 years ago

    congrats on the coverage!

  • very good points, nate - i must agree with the underuse of cable, can't wait for wider VOD distribution... :)

  • thanks for the clarification on the cable news voting - but cable news viewing wouldn't be necessarily exclusive of broadcast TV. The significant indicator really is "news consumption" not venue. Jerome is referring to where folks are watching (hbo, youtube, etc.) where you can't put persuaision tv messages.

    also you shouldn't view the data mining as a different model from the old voter file one. what the GOP did was add commericial data points to the voter file records to target folks irrespective of their geography. We (I have worked at the DCCC and am now at Planned Parenthood) that can't really work without the info traditionally on the voter file, specifically becuase being registered is such a powerful predictor of turnout.

    the old model i think you are referring to is when parties would just to target and blast precincts based on the (d/r)pi and what-not. No responsible direct mailer or canvasser these days would do that (unless the CHAID models and what-not gave you an outrageously high hit-rate in a precinct). Almost every mail/phone/canvass program i have worked with in the last decade hasn't been that bad. :)

    In fact, precinct is still generally a predictive factor in the models, but now it is used as a smaller in an array of significant predictors (instead of by itself - don't quote my on this but i think the reason it still has predictive value is that the homogeneity of precincts tend to serve as a proxy for other socio-economic factors you may not be able to get easily from commercial data).


Advertise Blogads