View Article
11
Gary’s progressive but he’s also old-fashioned so a year ago when he said, ‘You know, you ought to use Twitter’– he surprised me.
 
‘I expect,’ I said, ‘Twitter’s too young for my blood.’
 
‘Use it like an old-fashioned clipping service,’ he said.
 
Back in the old days, in the dark ages before Facebook and Google News, if you ran a campaign and needed to know what the newspapers were saying about a candidate you had to subscribe to a clipping service and say, Send me every newspaper article that mentions Jesse Helms – then every morning a manila envelope stuffed full of clippings that were two or three days old would arrive in the mail.
 
Now you can use Twitter like an old-fashioned clipping service. And it’s free. For instance, you can ‘follow’ Under the Dome or Rob Christensen or Joe Klein or David Brooks and a link to whatever they write appears on Twitter.
 
Last Sunday I read the News & Observer the old-fashioned way, sitting in bed, then meandered over to the office and turned on the computer and up popped a headline in Google News from the Los Angeles Times: Mitt Romney Pollster: Why we thought we would win.
 
The reporter, interviewing Romney pollster Neil Newhouse, sailed right past the philosophical and got down to brass tacks.
 
Why, he asked, did Romney’s polls show him winning Colorado and New Hampshire? Why did Romney’s polls show him in a dead-heat in Iowa? Why did Romney feel sure he would win Florida and Virginia?
 
Mr. Newhouse gave a pretty valid answer. He simply said, I’m not sure.
 
So much for brass tacks. Maybe the answer is philosophical.
 
In my world of older white Republican males hardly a soul could imagine Barack Obama winning the election. Men – and women – were certain Obama would lose. Republican pollsters and consultants had their own point of view: Anti-Obama voters, they said, were more intense and more likely to vote than pro-Obama voters. Plus, they’d add, undecided voters always vote against the incumbent. Once, sitting in a meeting, I said, That might not be so on Election Day if undecided voters dislike Romney as much as they dislike Obama – but only one person in the room thought that made any sense at all.
 
Now, a lot of times, the truth is ambiguous. But a lot of times not seeing the truth has nothing to do with ambiguity – it has to do with eyesight. Republicans didn’t lose because of demographics or Hispanics or Obama’s ground game. It was simpler. We lost, say, Florida and Virginia because we listened to one another and saw an election unfolding before our eyes that bore no resemblance to the election that was unfolding in Richmond and Miami.
 
 
 
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (5) RSS comment feed |

Comments

clarence swinney
# clarence swinney
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:06 PM
CORPORATE TAXES NEED REFORM
Century Foundation had a great study. The corp. income tax is projected at just 1.5% of GDP this year. In 1952. the corporate income tax accounted for about one third of government revenues. Corporate America has devised complex tax avoidance schemes. Today Corporate supplies just less than 9% of today's federal revenues.
Between 2008 and 2011 many multinationals paid no corporate tax on profit in billions.
In 2011. the effective tax paid was 12.1% a 40 year low.
America needs Tax Reform. Quick.
clarence swinney
# clarence swinney
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:09 PM
COMPARATIVE
--------------------------Reagan-----Bush I---Clinton--Bush II
Median Income-------------$47,000---46,000---52,000---50,000
M in Poverty--------------32----------38-------32--------40
%Children in poverty—-----20-----------24-------16--------19
No Health Care(%)---------?------------39-------38--------46
In Poverty—Obama 46 Million
Increase of 15% to Bush 25%
dap916
# dap916
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:46 PM
I am wondering why it is that neither you nor Gary post responses to what is posted...in response...to what you two post here on the front page on your blogsite.

Guess we're to just accept what you guys post and screw anything in responsse.

Great.
clarence swinney
# clarence swinney
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:52 AM
MILITARY SPENDING-2008 (IN BILLIONS)
UNITED STATES------------711
EUROPE—--------------------289
CHINA—----------------------122
EAST ASIA/AUSTRALIA-120
MIDDLE EAST + N. AFRICA-82
RUSSIA------------------------70
LATIN AMRICA-------------39
CENTRAL / S.ASIA—-------30
SUB=SAHARAN AFRICA-10-
TOTAL--------------------$1400 BILLION
President Obama is proposing to spend 8000B over ten years om all security
800 bases worldwide. Who can attack us? No one..Only “a “Terrorist can.
Why waste so much when Infrastructure is crumbling everywhere.
When Health Care cost is so severe.
When Education is too expensive.
dap916
# dap916
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:35 PM
Swinney...where in the heck do you get that info????? hahahahahahahahahahaha...I mean, you're so "controlled" it's pathetic. The numbers you're being sent and see are skewed so drastically it'd be impossible to defend their legitimacy.

C'mon, man. Do some research on the REAL numbers....check out the information you're getting. If I can take away this and ignore that...I can make ANY number look good to favor my political ideology. You're being SOOOO misled, my friend. I hate it for ya.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.
Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :  DNN Hosting  :  Terms Of Use  :  Privacy Statement