| Submit your comments on this article | ||||||||
| Home Front: Politix | ||||||||
| On Nov. 2, GOP Got More Bang For Its Billion, Analysis Shows | ||||||||
| 2004-12-30 | ||||||||
| This could probably go under Fifth Column as easily. Note how WaPo subtly implies the paltry $.5M in private donations to SwiftVets belong in Bush campaign money totals. Note, also, that they seem to be substantiating the current Donk meme that it wasn't the message that was defeated, but how it was delivered. Please, let's find the flaws and post 'em, lol! Fun for the whole family! In the most expensive presidential contest in the nation's history, John F. Kerry and his Democratic supporters nearly matched President Bush and the Republicans, who outspent them by just $60 million, $1.14 billion to $1.08 billion. But despite their fundraising success, Democrats simply did not spend their money as effectively as Bush.
And the denial continues...
| ||||||||
| Posted by:.com |
| #15 More MSM bullshit. Kerry had tons of money, in fact more than he knew how to spend. And the 527s gave him tons of human resources-- again, more than he could intelligently deploy. And on top of that he had an openly favorable MSM getting his message out daily. The crucial difference was that Bush/Rove's people were 1.4 million volunteers working in their own neighborhoods through voluntary community associations and social networks, mainly churches. In other words, they listened to people, understood what people cared about, and offered them a program that was more in touch with what ordinary people cared about rather than what their bicoastal betters thought they should care about. aka Politics 101. It's about listening, stupid. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-30 3:48:41 PM |
| #14 I got deluged with "Vote for Kerry" crap from my old union starting six months prior to the election. No actual help from them in finding a j-o-b, mind you....but they always remembered me when it came time to send out that garbage. I wonder how many union and former union people got turned off completely by that never-ending avalanche of propaganda? |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2004-12-30 3:42:12 PM |
| #13 good catch Emily! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-30 11:31:51 AM |
| #12 With 'analysis' like this, I'm looking forward to "60 in '06". Maybe more. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-12-30 11:19:31 AM |
| #11 Don't forget the pink cardboard tanks, Frank. Absolutely critical to the message. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-30 10:40:40 AM |
| #10 I, for one, bow to their expert analysis, and can forsee that if they just screach their message a little louder (paper mache pupets are useful too), that they will, of course, be victorious... yeppers |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-30 10:37:02 AM |
| #9 Oh goody. Glad you found this, dotcom. I was reading the article on my way out the door this a.m. and was hoping to get some good blog analysis. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-30 10:28:10 AM |
| #8 "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery." It wasn't the delivery, it was the message. The democrats here in the office where I work who voted for President Bush did so because they couldn't tell what Kerry's message and position were. To them the most important things were national security and the war in Iraq. I work in an engineering office where there are very few people under 35 years old and the Democrats are life-long Democrats. They were never going to vote for an extreme liberal like John Kerry. They also won't vote for Hillary in 2008. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2004-12-30 10:20:00 AM |
| #7 "They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery." Yeah, that statement makes your job performance look real good, Terry. Might want to leave that off of the resume. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-12-30 9:06:01 AM |
| #6 Agree, Carl. But I doubt they'll find a Watergate equivalent unless it involves Underperformin Norman Mineta. It is amazing, but not amazingly unreported, how scandal free this administration has been. His dad's was too. You know the M$M would love to find one, so they must just do a great job of recruiting people who just want to simply be public servants. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-30 8:58:24 AM |
| #5 Mrs D., I'm betting on the other side's blind rage and flawed analysis to get us through the next two election cycles ('06 and '08) I can't to see what issue the MSM is going to try to turn into Watergate for the Bush admin, and watch it blow up in the Dems' faces... |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2004-12-30 8:21:42 AM |
| #4 In the most expensive presidential contest in the nation’s history, John F. Kerry and his Democratic supporters nearly matched President Bush and the Republicans, who outspent them by just $60 million, $1.14 billion to $1.08 billion. You know you're reading a liberal rag when they use the adjective just in describing $60 million. But despite their fundraising success, Democrats simply did not spend their money as effectively as Bush. That is the conclusion of an extensive examination of campaign fundraising and spending data provided by the Federal Election Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and interviews with officials of the two campaigns and the independent groups allied with them. "Alright, who put the 'Bush had the democrats by the balls' remark in the draft report?" In a $2.2 billion election, two relatively small expenditures by Bush and his allies stand out for their impact: the $546,000 ad buy by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Bush campaign’s $3.25 million contract with the firm TargetPoint Consulting. The first portrayed Kerry in unrelentingly negative terms, permanently damaging him, while the second produced dramatic innovations in direct mail and voter technology, enabling Bush to identify and target potential voters with pinpoint precision. That is why the Swift boat veterans were called veterans for truth, not veterans for leftist bullsh*t. Those tactical successes were part of the overall advantage the Bush campaign maintained over Kerry in terms of planning, decision making and strategy. The Kerry campaign, in addition to being outspent at key times, was outorganized and outthought, as Democratic professionals grudgingly admit. Outthought is the key here. When you deliver a message that says: we will end the war... no wait, we will finish the war... no wait, we will win the war, but better... no wait... Money doesn't fix that. The democrats have some very intelligent people working for them, but they were leftists and fifth columnists, and the US electorate didn't want to hear about how bad things were going. They, like me, want a military victory in Iraq, low taxes, love of allies and hate for our enemies. The fundamental flaw in the democrats' strategy was just as it was in 2000: They thought votors would respond to leftist ideas, but after 911, it just wasn't happening. They still do not think we are at a real war even after losing in 2004. They are still in the glidepath to another pasting by the right, and rightfully, and, hopefully, painfully so. "They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery." That loser still in charge of the democratic party? McAuliffe was Bush's best strategic weapon against the left. The ultimate test of the two campaigns is in the success of their efforts to increase turnout from 2000. Kerry and his allies increased the Democrat’s vote by about 6.8 million votes; Bush increased his by nearly 10.5 million. In the key battleground of Ohio, Bush countered Kerry’s gains in the metropolitan precincts by boosting his margin in exurban and rural counties from 57 to 60 percent, eking out a 118,457-vote victory. A supposed strategic advantage for the Democrats -- massive support from well-endowed independent groups -- turned out to have an inherent flaw: The groups’ legally required independence left them with a message out of harmony with the Kerry campaign. This is rich. The fact is that Moveon et al were perfectly in harmony with the Kerry camp, fifth columnist with regard to the war, and statist with regard to taxes. The fact is the Kerry camp made more right turns in its positions that a toy train set, setting itself apart from the 527s and trying to gain voters wasn't going to work, no matter how badly they hated Bush. A large part of Bush’s advantage derived from being an incumbent who did not face a challenger from his party. He also benefited from the experience and continuity of a campaign hierarchy, based on a corporate model, that had essentially stayed intact since Bush’s 1998 reelection race for Texas governor. Pardon my red state, Jesusland stupidity, but I seem to recall after Dean' screechfest, it was Kerry all the way, that nearly every other democratic candidate was made irrelevant. The left was united, engourged with money and coming after Bush. The left missed the train when they decided to coronate Kerry as their candidate. I remarked when Kerry started winning big that the Kerry Koronation was a gift; that the left would lose this election. No one in time of war wants to hear the same platitudes and the same rhetoric as from a typical Euro leftist political party. And it seems they still believe that we want to become like Eurostan. Expect another immolation in 2006, democrats. Bush took you all to the woodshed, and you're going back there again unless you get the message. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-12-30 8:17:40 AM |
| #3 Let'em have their flawed analysis and see how much it helps them in '08. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-30 8:14:35 AM |
| #2 ...wants his advice. Preview is my friend... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-12-30 5:39:53 AM |
| #1 Naturally, there is no mention of MSM participation: one would think that Memogate would have merited a mention. If Captain Nuance really had the skills to sway foreign governments to action, then he should have used them on the American electorate first, to prove they were in his possession. He didn't, he couldn't, so they aren't. The essence of governance is discovering one's supporters and detractors, getting one's message out efficiently, and motivating one's supporters to action. Bush's team did that better than Kerry's when it came to the election, and thus merit the right to govern. Karl Rove isn't there just to win elections: He's on tap whenever the President |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-12-30 5:39:21 AM |