Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

[_Abyssinia]

I think alot of otherwise rational intelligent people are failing to understand just how much America has changed in the last 15-20 years. I think most of us (with some notable exceptions) would agree that the Obama years have been a disaster for this country, and yet America continues to move further to the left, with even naive Republicans suggesting that we need a moderate to win in 2016. (Didn’t know the Republican party was made up of so many extremists)

                                     Obamacare is going to fail, and when that's eventually acknowledged by the masses, you're going to see even more demand for a thoroughly socialist system of healthcare. This country is moving to the left, and barring an unforseen miracle, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lock in 2016.

PS We tried a president once, who wasn’t an old white guy, and we’re still trying to navigate our way through that train wreck.

Study: Americans in all 50 states more conservative since 1964

 

[ishii]

Study: Americans in all 50 states more conservative since 1964

Thanks for the link.

From the brief article:

“the study suggests that America has moved steadily to the right since the full-fledged embrace of the welfare state.”

Not sure how you can square that with the election and re-election of Obama, and the record number of Americans receiving government assistance of one kind or another.

Ishii

 

[Seamus_L]

Sorry, but I have a very difficult time believing that survey.

 

[Darken_Rahl]

Thanks for the link.

From the brief article:

“the study suggests that America has moved steadily to the right since the full-fledged embrace of the welfare state.”

Not sure how you can square that with the election and re-election of Obama, and the record number of Americans receiving government assistance of one kind or another.

Ishii

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The country is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

 

[Darryl1958]

Thanks for the link.

From the brief article:

“the study suggests that America has moved steadily to the right since the full-fledged embrace of the welfare state.”

Not sure how you can square that with the election and re-election of Obama, and the record number of Americans receiving government assistance of one kind or another.

Ishii

I have heard those kind of claims about ‘conservative’ America too.

They don’t make much sense to me either. Whether you deem Obama and Democrats in general to be left, extreme left, liberal or socialist, the one thing you cannot claim about them is that they are in any way conservative.
When politicians who advocate a decrease in the rate of growth of government spending are purported to be extreme right wing, and this is accepted by Americans in general, any further reports that Americans are conservative would seem to be greatly exaggerated.

What I would say is that there is still a core of conservatives in America that no longer exists as a credible political force in any other industrialized nation. The Tea Party phenomena is a uniquely American response to the financial meltdown of 2007. In any other country, the protests were always for the government to do more. Only in America, were the protests for the government to do less.

America is a country of immigrants though, and has become increasingly mult-cultural as opposed to melting pot. Urban votes therefore reflect the world’s view that government ought to do more in response to crisis and need. In a federal system the heartland values of traditional America still are a force, but more and more Americans are not forged with that kind of metal.

Any conservative who would vote for Obama is a conservative in imagination only, and not in reality.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

1. Ted Cruz
2. Rand Paul
3. Marco Rubio

 

[ishii]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense…

Oh, totally. How many reports have we heard about Democrat vote drives in which bus loads of “voters” are driven to the polling booth and told exactly who to vote for on the ride over. And then they feign outrage when someone suggests that people ought to show an ID in order to vote.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The country is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

Getting out the vote has become a very fine art. The Obama campaign had a phenomenally successful operation, known as Project Narwhal. Huge amounts of data about potential voters—particularly low-motivation “sporadic” voters—was gathered and tracked, allowing Obama campaign operatives to focus their efforts on enticing marginal voters to the polls. Areas of interest to individual voters were monitored, to facilitate targeted campaign advertising. The time available to campaign staff and enthusiastic volunteers is limited. Obama’s team used data processing technology and the Internet as force multipliers, to ensure precious campaign resources were invested wisely.

That’s how Project Orca was supposed to work, too, but it didn’t work. Numerous volunteers have emerged since the election with tragic tales of the system’s failure, from silly mistakes to serious flaws in online architecture. Prominent among them was John Ekdahl, who has a background in web design.

He wrote a landmark expose of Orca at the Ace of Spades blog on Nov. 8, in which he concluded the end result of its failure was that over 30,000 of the most energetic Romney volunteers “were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity’s sake.”

The problems identified by Ekdahl and others include inadequate testing of the Orca system; a top-down infrastructure run out of Boston, instead of the nimble decentralized effort one might have expected from a campaign that praised the virtues of decentralized government; incorrect password information distributed to campaign volunteers; backup systems that failed as comprehensively as the primary system did; and unclear, or even inaccurate, instructions distributed to volunteers.

humanevents.com/2012/11/21/hayward-orca-aground-romneys-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-failure

 

[_Abyssinia]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The country is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

Getting out the vote has become a very fine art. The Obama campaign had a phenomenally successful operation, known as Project Narwhal. Huge amounts of data about potential voters—particularly low-motivation “sporadic” voters—was gathered and tracked, allowing Obama campaign operatives to focus their efforts on enticing marginal voters to the polls. Areas of interest to individual voters were monitored, to facilitate targeted campaign advertising. The time available to campaign staff and enthusiastic volunteers is limited. Obama’s team used data processing technology and the Internet as force multipliers, to ensure precious campaign resources were invested wisely.

That’s how Project Orca was supposed to work, too, but it didn’t work. Numerous volunteers have emerged since the election with tragic tales of the system’s failure, from silly mistakes to serious flaws in online architecture. Prominent among them was John Ekdahl, who has a background in web design.

He wrote a landmark expose of Orca at the Ace of Spades blog on Nov. 8, in which he concluded the end result of its failure was that over 30,000 of the most energetic Romney volunteers “were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity’s sake.”

The problems identified by Ekdahl and others include inadequate testing of the Orca system; a top-down infrastructure run out of Boston, instead of the nimble decentralized effort one might have expected from a campaign that praised the virtues of decentralized government; incorrect password information distributed to campaign volunteers; backup systems that failed as comprehensively as the primary system did; and unclear, or even inaccurate, instructions distributed to volunteers.

humanevents.com/2012/11/21/hayward-orca-aground-romneys-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-failure

 

[_Abyssinia]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The country is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

Getting out the vote has become a very fine art. The Obama campaign had a phenomenally successful operation, known as Project Narwhal. Huge amounts of data about potential voters—particularly low-motivation “sporadic” voters—was gathered and tracked, allowing Obama campaign operatives to focus their efforts on enticing marginal voters to the polls. Areas of interest to individual voters were monitored, to facilitate targeted campaign advertising. The time available to campaign staff and enthusiastic volunteers is limited. Obama’s team used data processing technology and the Internet as force multipliers, to ensure precious campaign resources were invested wisely.

That’s how Project Orca was supposed to work, too, but it didn’t work. Numerous volunteers have emerged since the election with tragic tales of the system’s failure, from silly mistakes to serious flaws in online architecture. Prominent among them was John Ekdahl, who has a background in web design.

He wrote a landmark expose of Orca at the Ace of Spades blog on Nov. 8, in which he concluded the end result of its failure was that over 30,000 of the most energetic Romney volunteers “were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity’s sake.”

The problems identified by Ekdahl and others include inadequate testing of the Orca system; a top-down infrastructure run out of Boston, instead of the nimble decentralized effort one might have expected from a campaign that praised the virtues of decentralized government; incorrect password information distributed to campaign volunteers; backup systems that failed as comprehensively as the primary system did; and unclear, or even inaccurate, instructions distributed to volunteers.

humanevents.com/2012/11/21/hayward-orca-aground-romneys-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-failure

 

[_Abyssinia]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The country is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

Getting out the vote has become a very fine art. The Obama campaign had a phenomenally successful operation, known as Project Narwhal. Huge amounts of data about potential voters—particularly low-motivation “sporadic” voters—was gathered and tracked, allowing Obama campaign operatives to focus their efforts on enticing marginal voters to the polls. Areas of interest to individual voters were monitored, to facilitate targeted campaign advertising. The time available to campaign staff and enthusiastic volunteers is limited. Obama’s team used data processing technology and the Internet as force multipliers, to ensure precious campaign resources were invested wisely.

That’s how Project Orca was supposed to work, too, but it didn’t work. Numerous volunteers have emerged since the election with tragic tales of the system’s failure, from silly mistakes to serious flaws in online architecture. Prominent among them was John Ekdahl, who has a background in web design.

He wrote a landmark expose of Orca at the Ace of Spades blog on Nov. 8, in which he concluded the end result of its failure was that over 30,000 of the most energetic Romney volunteers “were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity’s sake.”

The problems identified by Ekdahl and others include inadequate testing of the Orca system; a top-down infrastructure run out of Boston, instead of the nimble decentralized effort one might have expected from a campaign that praised the virtues of decentralized government; incorrect password information distributed to campaign volunteers; backup systems that failed as comprehensively as the primary system did; and unclear, or even inaccurate, instructions distributed to volunteers.

humanevents.com/2012/11/21/hayward-orca-aground-romneys-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-failure

 

[_Abyssinia]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The country is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

Getting out the vote has become a very fine art. The Obama campaign had a phenomenally successful operation, known as Project Narwhal. Huge amounts of data about potential voters—particularly low-motivation “sporadic” voters—was gathered and tracked, allowing Obama campaign operatives to focus their efforts on enticing marginal voters to the polls. Areas of interest to individual voters were monitored, to facilitate targeted campaign advertising. The time available to campaign staff and enthusiastic volunteers is limited. Obama’s team used data processing technology and the Internet as force multipliers, to ensure precious campaign resources were invested wisely.

That’s how Project Orca was supposed to work, too, but it didn’t work. Numerous volunteers have emerged since the election with tragic tales of the system’s failure, from silly mistakes to serious flaws in online architecture. Prominent among them was John Ekdahl, who has a background in web design.

He wrote a landmark expose of Orca at the Ace of Spades blog on Nov. 8, in which he concluded the end result of its failure was that over 30,000 of the most energetic Romney volunteers “were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity’s sake.”

The problems identified by Ekdahl and others include inadequate testing of the Orca system; a top-down infrastructure run out of Boston, instead of the nimble decentralized effort one might have expected from a campaign that praised the virtues of decentralized government; incorrect password information distributed to campaign volunteers; backup systems that failed as comprehensively as the primary system did; and unclear, or even inaccurate, instructions distributed to volunteers.

humanevents.com/2012/11/21/hayward-orca-aground-romneys-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-failure

 

[_Abyssinia]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The country is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

Getting out the vote has become a very fine art. The Obama campaign had a phenomenally successful operation, known as Project Narwhal. Huge amounts of data about potential voters—particularly low-motivation “sporadic” voters—was gathered and tracked, allowing Obama campaign operatives to focus their efforts on enticing marginal voters to the polls. Areas of interest to individual voters were monitored, to facilitate targeted campaign advertising. The time available to campaign staff and enthusiastic volunteers is limited. Obama’s team used data processing technology and the Internet as force multipliers, to ensure precious campaign resources were invested wisely.

That’s how Project Orca was supposed to work, too, but it didn’t work. Numerous volunteers have emerged since the election with tragic tales of the system’s failure, from silly mistakes to serious flaws in online architecture. Prominent among them was John Ekdahl, who has a background in web design.

He wrote a landmark expose of Orca at the Ace of Spades blog on Nov. 8, in which he concluded the end result of its failure was that over 30,000 of the most energetic Romney volunteers “were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity’s sake.”

The problems identified by Ekdahl and others include inadequate testing of the Orca system; a top-down infrastructure run out of Boston, instead of the nimble decentralized effort one might have expected from a campaign that praised the virtues of decentralized government; incorrect password information distributed to campaign volunteers; backup systems that failed as comprehensively as the primary system did; and unclear, or even inaccurate, instructions distributed to volunteers.

humanevents.com/2012/11/21/hayward-orca-aground-romneys-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-failure

 

[_Abyssinia]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The country is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

Getting out the vote has become a very fine art. The Obama campaign had a phenomenally successful operation, known as Project Narwhal. Huge amounts of data about potential voters—particularly low-motivation “sporadic” voters—was gathered and tracked, allowing Obama campaign operatives to focus their efforts on enticing marginal voters to the polls. Areas of interest to individual voters were monitored, to facilitate targeted campaign advertising. The time available to campaign staff and enthusiastic volunteers is limited. Obama’s team used data processing technology and the Internet as force multipliers, to ensure precious campaign resources were invested wisely.

That’s how Project Orca was supposed to work, too, but it didn’t work. Numerous volunteers have emerged since the election with tragic tales of the system’s failure, from silly mistakes to serious flaws in online architecture. Prominent among them was John Ekdahl, who has a background in web design.

He wrote a landmark expose of Orca at the Ace of Spades blog on Nov. 8, in which he concluded the end result of its failure was that over 30,000 of the most energetic Romney volunteers “were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity’s sake.”

The problems identified by Ekdahl and others include inadequate testing of the Orca system; a top-down infrastructure run out of Boston, instead of the nimble decentralized effort one might have expected from a campaign that praised the virtues of decentralized government; incorrect password information distributed to campaign volunteers; backup systems that failed as comprehensively as the primary system did; and unclear, or even inaccurate, instructions distributed to volunteers.

humanevents.com/2012/11/21/hayward-orca-aground-romneys-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-failure

 

[_Abyssinia]

I suspect part of the support for guys like Obama at the polls is the major advantage in grassroots efforts the Dems have. They took advantage of the internet in its infancy much better than the Republicans, they bus otherwise disinterested voters from Churches, the comb the streets for the homeless. They are more effective campaigners, though I wouldn’t endorse much of what they do, ethically. Some of it may be legal, but it isn’t ethical, and that is where we have to answer to God. The large chunk of the welfare state wouldn’t be voting if they weren’t dragged like chattle for their Democratic overlords on buses to vote. Part of the reason some countries used to give the right to vote to landowners was because they had the greatest stake in the elections and consequences. Not saying land ownership need be the barometer, but the logic behind it made sense.

Some may claim that any vote is a good vote, but I strongly disagree. Having ignorant people on either side of the spectrum voting because they are simply told to does the country founded by men of great wisdom and vision a severe disservice. I don;t want disinterested conservatives of liberals deciding the fate of the rest of us. The cou:blush:ntry is only going to be as successful as the wisdom of those voting for their leaders. When you have masses of ignorant or disinterested people voting and deciding the fate of the rest of the populace who take an active interest and role in the policies at work, your country is doomed.

Sadly, many politicians couldn’t care less, because they only care about their own power. Likely the extremely wealthy in athletics and Hollywood, they exist above the fray. They do not have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and are rarely treated the same in the legal system, so the policies don’t effect them. Why would Pelosi or McCain care about the future of the country? They are old, and are set either way. Even the country is brought to its knees by their own foolish beliefs, it doesn’t really affect them, at least until they have to stand before God and account for the misery they have left for everyone else. And if they haven’t made an accounting for it by then, it is too late for them.

Project ORCA was a get out the vote strategy to win the election, and there were problems.

An article by John Ekdahl

ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php

Getting out the vote has become a very fine art. The Obama campaign had a phenomenally successful operation, known as Project Narwhal. Huge amounts of data about potential voters—particularly low-motivation “sporadic” voters—was gathered and tracked, allowing Obama campaign operatives to focus their efforts on enticing marginal voters to the polls. Areas of interest to individual voters were monitored, to facilitate targeted campaign advertising. The time available to campaign staff and enthusiastic volunteers is limited. Obama’s team used data processing technology and the Internet as force multipliers, to ensure precious campaign resources were invested wisely.

That’s how Project Orca was supposed to work, too, but it didn’t work. Numerous volunteers have emerged since the election with tragic tales of the system’s failure, from silly mistakes to serious flaws in online architecture. Prominent among them was John Ekdahl, who has a background in web design.

He wrote a landmark expose of Orca at the Ace of Spades blog on Nov. 8, in which he concluded the end result of its failure was that over 30,000 of the most energetic Romney volunteers “were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity’s sake.”

The problems identified by Ekdahl and others include inadequate testing of the Orca system; a top-down infrastructure run out of Boston, instead of the nimble decentralized effort one might have expected from a campaign that praised the virtues of decentralized government; incorrect password information distributed to campaign volunteers; backup systems that failed as comprehensively as the primary system did; and unclear, or even inaccurate, instructions distributed to volunteers.

humanevents.com/2012/11/21/hayward-orca-aground-romneys-high-tech-get-out-the-vote-failure

 

[Holly3278]

I am for Paul Ryan. I selected “Ryan” from the options in the poll because I assumed it was listing the last names. I wish it would have listed the full names and then I wouldn’t have been as confused about who to choose. Should I have picked “Paul” instead? Sorry if I chose the wrong option.

 

[ishii]

I am for Paul Ryan. I selected “Ryan” from the options in the poll because I assumed it was listing the last names. I wish it would have listed the full names and then I wouldn’t have been as confused about who to choose. Should I have picked “Paul” instead? Sorry if I chose the wrong option.

Holly, the poll indicated the last names of the candidates. So if you like Paul Ryan, selecting “Ryan” was correct. You’re right- I should have used the full names.

I like Paul Ryan too. But I don’t think he’d be the strongest candidate. I thought his vice presidential debate performance was a bit weak.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

1. Ted Cruz
2. Rand Paul
3. Marco Rubio

As a historical note, the last sitting Republican Senator who was voted President was Warren Harding in 1920.

 

[99th_Monkey]

1. Ted Cruz
2. Rand Paul
3. Marco Rubio

I thought Rubio was kicked to the curb due to his views on immigration. No?

 

[Estevao]

Someone rational, moderate and intelligent, Like Jon Huntsman.

I may be liberal, but I would consider voting for a Republican like him.

Lib princess, what do you propose we do about out of control entitlement and welfare spending in this country? Just vote straight ticket democrat and hope everything will work out?