Breakin All Da Rules

corplinx · 6th January 2008, 11:58 AM

It seems like its the season for the rules of the primary season breaking.

1. "There's a word for politicians that count on bringing new voters to the poll: 'loser'." -- James Carville

Iowa saw new voters turn out in record numbers to vote for Barack "the Uri Geller of politics" Obama. Hey wasn't that supposed to be the way RonPaul was going to win it?

2. Attack ads work!

Iowa saw Huckabee defeat Romney despite a very negative run of attack ads by Romney. The convention wisdom in politics is that attack ads work. Unfortunately for Romney, they didn't.

It will be interesting to note what other conventional wisdom goes by the wayside this season.

Kerberos · 6th January 2008, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by corplinx

It seems like its the season for the rules of the primary season breaking.

1. "There's a word for politicians that count on bringing new voters to the poll: 'loser'." -- James Carville

Iowa saw new voters turn out in record numbers to vote for Barack "the Uri Geller of politics" Obama. Hey wasn't that supposed to be the way RonPaul was going to win it?

As I understood it Obama always had significant support among traditional voters, new voters were an extra bonus, not all he had.

Originally Posted by corplinx

2. Attack ads work!

Iowa saw Huckabee defeat Romney despite a very negative run of attack ads by Romney. The convention wisdom in politics is that attack ads work. Unfortunately for Romney, they didn't.

You haven't really proven that, he might have won bigger if no negative adds had been run.

Tsukasa Buddha · 6th January 2008, 12:30 PM

I must admit that I believed both of those things.

But I am happy to have been wrong

.

Tsukasa Buddha · 6th January 2008, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

As I understood it Obama always had significant support among traditional voters, new voters were an extra bonus, not all he had.

Actually, the core Democrats voted 33% Hillary and 32% Obama. The new voters, independents, and moderates really were what brought him over.

mrbaracuda · 6th January 2008, 12:33 PM

Making it a Ron Paul thread, one at a time.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Kerberos · 6th January 2008, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Actually, the core Democrats voted 33% Hillary and 32% Obama. The new voters, independents, and moderates really were what brought him over.

32% is fairly signigicant to me, also how large is the "new voter" group compared to independents and moderates? I'm not saying he didn't benefit from new voters, just that he's by no means rellying solely on new voters.

Tsukasa Buddha · 6th January 2008, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

32% is fairly signigicant to me, also how large is the "new voter" group compared to independents and moderates? I'm not saying he didn't benefit from new voters, just that he's by no means rellying solely on new voters.

Well, the Democrats had like a 90% increase in turnout over 2004.

Sorry, but that's the only stat I know

.

leftysergeant · 6th January 2008, 03:09 PM

You can't rely on party regulars in a multi-party electorate. They are never the solid majority of the people who go to the polls. New voters are vital to any candidate who wants to change the direction of the party. Obama and Edwards both need reform-minded new voters to overcome the entrenched DLC people who have taken over the leadership in the party.

Huckabee needs the fundies and the people who think the GOP is getting too corporatist and not patriotic enough.

Dr Adequate · 6th January 2008, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by corplinx

Barack "the Uri Geller of politics" Obama.

Huh?

He's mean to cutlery?

What?

Puppycow · 6th January 2008, 07:20 PM

Well, sometimes the exceptions prove the rule, as they say.
Some negative ads should be more effective than others. And some candidates should do a better job of turning out new voters than others. Not all negative ads or candidates are created equal.

mrbaracuda · 6th January 2008, 08:11 PM

Where can I view the attack-ads by the way? Care to throw in a couple of youtube-videos or -links?

Brainster · 6th January 2008, 08:15 PM

Both rules still apply. Remember that with all the hoopla over Iowa's amazing turnout, the Democratic caucuses got 1/3 the number of voters that John Kerry pulled in 2004. Obama has energy, but can he maintain it over the long haul? This is a marathon, not a sprint; the general election's ten months away, remember!

Negative ads work, but they work best when people aren't paying that much attention to a race. The Iowa voters were very well informed about the candidates and not about to be swayed by a last gasp from Romney.

My favorite example of how well negative advertising works is from my home state of Arizona. Steve Forbes carpet-bombed us with negative ads about Bob Dole in 1996, and stunned everybody by winning the state (IIRC one of the two he ever took). More amazing, in the general election Dole lost again, becoming the only Republican to lose here since Thomas Dewey in 1948. All, I am convinced, because of those ads in the primaries.

6th January 2008, 11:58 AM	#1
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Breakin All Da Rules It seems like its the season for the rules of the primary season breaking. 1. "There's a word for politicians that count on bringing new voters to the poll: 'loser'." -- James Carville Iowa saw new voters turn out in record numbers to vote for Barack "the Uri Geller of politics" Obama. Hey wasn't that supposed to be the way RonPaul was going to win it? 2. Attack ads work! Iowa saw Huckabee defeat Romney despite a very negative run of attack ads by Romney. The convention wisdom in politics is that attack ads work. Unfortunately for Romney, they didn't. It will be interesting to note what other conventional wisdom goes by the wayside this season.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

6th January 2008, 12:28 PM	#2
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by corplinx It seems like its the season for the rules of the primary season breaking. 1. "There's a word for politicians that count on bringing new voters to the poll: 'loser'." -- James Carville Iowa saw new voters turn out in record numbers to vote for Barack "the Uri Geller of politics" Obama. Hey wasn't that supposed to be the way RonPaul was going to win it? As I understood it Obama always had significant support among traditional voters, new voters were an extra bonus, not all he had. Originally Posted by corplinx 2. Attack ads work! Iowa saw Huckabee defeat Romney despite a very negative run of attack ads by Romney. The convention wisdom in politics is that attack ads work. Unfortunately for Romney, they didn't. You haven't really proven that, he might have won bigger if no negative adds had been run.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

6th January 2008, 12:30 PM	#3
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,912	I must admit that I believed both of those things. But I am happy to have been wrong .
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

6th January 2008, 12:32 PM	#4
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,912	Originally Posted by Kerberos As I understood it Obama always had significant support among traditional voters, new voters were an extra bonus, not all he had. Actually, the core Democrats voted 33% Hillary and 32% Obama. The new voters, independents, and moderates really were what brought him over.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

6th January 2008, 12:42 PM	#6
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Actually, the core Democrats voted 33% Hillary and 32% Obama. The new voters, independents, and moderates really were what brought him over. 32% is fairly signigicant to me, also how large is the "new voter" group compared to independents and moderates? I'm not saying he didn't benefit from new voters, just that he's by no means rellying solely on new voters.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

6th January 2008, 02:38 PM	#7
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,912	Originally Posted by Kerberos 32% is fairly signigicant to me, also how large is the "new voter" group compared to independents and moderates? I'm not saying he didn't benefit from new voters, just that he's by no means rellying solely on new voters. Well, the Democrats had like a 90% increase in turnout over 2004. Sorry, but that's the only stat I know .
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

6th January 2008, 03:09 PM	#8
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	You can't rely on party regulars in a multi-party electorate. They are never the solid majority of the people who go to the polls. New voters are vital to any candidate who wants to change the direction of the party. Obama and Edwards both need reform-minded new voters to overcome the entrenched DLC people who have taken over the leadership in the party. Huckabee needs the fundies and the people who think the GOP is getting too corporatist and not patriotic enough.

6th January 2008, 06:45 PM	#9
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by corplinx Barack "the Uri Geller of politics" Obama. Huh? He's mean to cutlery? What?

6th January 2008, 07:20 PM	#10
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,761	Well, sometimes the exceptions prove the rule, as they say. Some negative ads should be more effective than others. And some candidates should do a better job of turning out new voters than others. Not all negative ads or candidates are created equal.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

6th January 2008, 08:11 PM	#11
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Where can I view the attack-ads by the way? Care to throw in a couple of youtube-videos or -links?

6th January 2008, 08:15 PM	#12
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,429	Both rules still apply. Remember that with all the hoopla over Iowa's amazing turnout, the Democratic caucuses got 1/3 the number of voters that John Kerry pulled in 2004. Obama has energy, but can he maintain it over the long haul? This is a marathon, not a sprint; the general election's ten months away, remember! Negative ads work, but they work best when people aren't paying that much attention to a race. The Iowa voters were very well informed about the candidates and not about to be swayed by a last gasp from Romney. My favorite example of how well negative advertising works is from my home state of Arizona. Steve Forbes carpet-bombed us with negative ads about Bob Dole in 1996, and stunned everybody by winning the state (IIRC one of the two he ever took). More amazing, in the general election Dole lost again, becoming the only Republican to lose here since Thomas Dewey in 1948. All, I am convinced, because of those ads in the primaries.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.