• comment on a post American Progress over 5 years ago

    My score was 338. :-)

  • Yes, exactly dogeatdogi. If Obama were to drop a few hundred K extra on TV, as Jonathan suggests, it will help a lot. More importantly, a quick visit/rally here would be much, much bigger. Just a fly-in/fly-out deal. The media coverage, in the context of these three poll results, would be devastating. And that might very well put him over the top, in addition to giving a big boost to Bob Lord in AZ-03.

    And I agree prop. 102 has energized our side. Theirs, too, but I think ours more. The Goops didn't count on that when they forced it onto the ballot.

  • In my view, at least. As you know, psychographics and building homogenous groups based on cultural and political values, lifestyle activities and demographics is the core of my biz. The flip side of that is: demographics are not destiny, nor are they an adequate basis for building and implementing communication strategies and messaging.

    When we think about it, what would be the basis for building coalitions? What would be a strong enough glue to hold broad coalitions together, to cause large numbers of demographically different people to come together and agree on common action, whether policy or electoral?

    The answer, I believe, is meaning, or how we define our selves, reality and the world in which we live. Meaning is value we ascribe to something based on our core values and perceptions.

    Ideology is not a useful predictor, or even explanantory variable, because it's permutations mean so many different things to so many different people. There's no coherent nor widely accepted internalized definition of conservative, moderate or liberal. It's mush for most everyone. That renders it useless in a political context.

    Demographics alone are insufficient. All men do not see political issues and questions alike. Ditto for women and any other demographic you choose to look at. Demographics, as a concept, simply does not discriminate (in an analytical sense) effectively enough to basic political strategy on it.

    So we go back to values and the meaning we associate with them. We all here believe in justice and it is a core value. Same for freedom and various forms of it: freedom of expression, of religion, of assembly and so on. Same for government of the people, by the people and for the people. And on and on. These are core values for most Americans, the exception being the wingnuts.

    So if people generally agree and ascribe similar meanings to key values like these, then identifying and communicating with homogenous values-based groups on this values level makes it more likely, much more likely, that you can get similar behaviors and actions out of large numbers of people. Further, you can isolate the minority who don't believe in those core values, the wingnuts. This values- and meanings-based dual track, building a majority and isolating the wingnut minority, is the best strategy to win elections. It's been my experience, anyway.

    Great post, Chris. Thanks for taking discussion and analysis to this level.

  • Oh geez, Jonathan. A Nightmare on MyDD Street for me on this one. Jan Van Lohuizen is a blast from my past, before I was an independent pollster. I worked for another polling outfit that worked with people that just loooooved good old Jan. My view is they loved him because he has no principles, ethics nor values other than whoring right-wing numbers, which enabled proto-rovian campaigns in the late '80's from these guys. (I quit that polling outfit PDQ, as you can imagine.) I hadn't heard of Jannie ("Yanni") in a long time and thought maybe, just maybe, he retired to Transylvania. Or The Green Zone.

    Needless to say, you are beyond right on in pointing out the total crapola this "poll" represents. Good job, amigo. Thanks for showing the folks how those scumbags do their thing.

    Maybe I'll watch A Nightmare on Elm Street tonight to soothe my Jan-mare just induced.

  • comment on a post On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    This is an outstanding post, Matt. Thank you for writing it. And you are spot on in your thoughts and analysis, IMHO. Others above in comments are clearly showing the intense, heartfelt support both you and Chris have earned, so I won't belabor that fact.

    It's always good to relax a bit when possible, so I support you in doing that. For a day or two.

    Then we need you back here pronto to continue working to rebuild this nation, and our moral foundation at home and abroad.

    Thanks so much for all you guys do. Onward!

  • Guys,

    If you do the polling, let me know if I can help. Glad to, pro bono as always. As we all know, there are major issues in sampling and respondent qualification et and cetera in a caucus poll. That stuff is key to getting solid numbers.

  • I think you're right on, Jerome. And then to use the 'saved' dough to contribute to BlogPac or something similar. The point is to direct contributions to where it's most effective, especially long-term.

  • comment on a post The State of the Progressive Movement over 7 years ago

    God bless you Matt. You know the detail of this issue. You're a good man who's done a really, really good thing with this post. Thank you, again.

  • comment on a post What's Up With California? over 7 years ago

    Juls this is a great diary and thank you so much for getting this issue out there and in such an effective way.

    I think we all see the political implications of the problem in CA: 2008 and 50+ Electoral Votes. Sure there's longer-term and more severe structural problems, as Paul accurately notes in the comments. And we certainly want to deal with those. However, IMHO, '08 is the immediate problem to deal with. That's the immediate focus.

    The CDP, as Juls notes in his excerpt of Rick Jacobs' comments, cannot be allowed to dictate what happens in CA in '08. (I feel some degree of disclosure is warranted. I'm Joel Wright, whom Rick quoted in his comments.) We cannot take such a risk in a crucial presidential election.

    Which means we have to do it ourselves. I don't see any other way. And, so you know, there are several of us developing a plan for CA as we speak. In 33 days, or thereabouts, we're going to have something to develop progressive community consensus around. That's our plan. We'll see how the people respond to it once it's got some skeletal and muscular structure. We hit the ground running in 2007. It's going to take 12-15 months to develop capability and impact. We work now for 24 months down the road, in short.

    2008 and Phase 2 of the progressive evolution of America is already underway. We take a breath right now, we feel good about 2006 and where we are, and we re-commit ourselves to the next phase. And Normandy is next.

  • comment on a post Elections prove Dems should NOT write off the South over 7 years ago

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. The 50-state strategy includes the South, despite what Tom says. Tom is a good guy, and I do know that personally, but he's misguided on this issue.

    Please keep up the good work. I'll have more to say on this in a post I'm going to write when I get some time to do it. It's called 'Diamond Dogs' and is a result of some discussions I had at the YKos Convention. Keep your eyes peeled, please. It's important to push back against the 'South is unwinnable' meme.

  • comment on a post Trippi's '08 Line over 7 years ago

    Gore. The Oxygen Taker is a dead giveaway, IMHO. Classic Trippi observation, with key strategic implications of that: immediately changing the field, the rules, the dynamic. And Gore needs a consultant to ensure he doesn't play it safe. Uh, Trippi's available, I'm sure.

  • Yes AZ is more 'libertarian' but it's also more Bible-thumping, too. The thumpers have been going full bore out here for a long, long time. Even back to the '80's, when, for example, Mormon thumper Evan Mecham was elected governor. In '92, my Congressional candidate, Karan English, faced Doug Wead a big-time thumper. We won. So, the point is both of the voter types you mention are important in AZ.

    On the border gig, yes, we do have a long border but illegal immigration bashing was home-grown in 2004 with the Protect Arizona Now initiative. It was not a big issue with the public before that. That initiative was the first in the nation and it passed. That unleashed a wave of anti-illegal immigrant bashing that has not crested yet.

    Thanks for your comments!

  • comment on a post `Red' Arizona Supports Gay Marriage? Say What? over 7 years ago

  • comment on a post Try Something New over 7 years ago

    I cannot agree more, Chris. Thank you very much for such a truly outstanding post. You've moved the ball down the field quite a bit with this one. My compliments, as you already know you have my greatest respect.

  • I also included '72 as a Vietnam year. Sorry 'bout that typo.


Advertise Blogads