Fill in the blank: I’ve seen more _________ yard signs in my NoVa neighborhood. (insurance, tax rates)

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by springfieldva

There are still plenty of signs up - both Obama and Romney.

I agree that it's past time to have taken them down....

Remember how long it took for the Kerry/Edwards stickers to come off all the Subarus.

[springfieldva]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Remember how long it took for the Kerry/Edwards stickers to come off all the Subarus.

The bumper stickers stay on baby .

[Caladium]

I don't mind stickers on cars, but signs I hate. Before an election I can live with 'em--once the election is over my tolerance for 'em is over too. I'm the same way with yard sale signs that never get taken down, even though the yard sale was weeks before. And don't even get me started on signs for real estate. There's a new set of condos near me and the sale signs have been sprouting up and down the median and all over the common areas. Hate 'em.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Caladium

I don't mind stickers on cars, but signs I hate. Before an election I can live with 'em--once the election is over my tolerance for 'em is over too. I'm the same way with yard sale signs that never get taken down, even though the yard sale was weeks before. And don't even get me started on signs for real estate. There's a new set of condos near me and the sale signs have been sprouting up and down the median and all over the common areas. Hate 'em.

We buy junk cars.

Weight loss guaranteed.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Whatever the reason, I'm glad to see them gone. I really dislike political signs (can you tell? ) If the only reason to give them out and put them up is to "reward" the workers, I hope they switch to a better reward. Starbucks certificates cost about the same, why not hand those out?

They are not really rewards. They are, for lack of a better term, for "team-building."

I do know that many campaigns now expressly state "Please remove them after the election."

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Why was that a surprise? The Democrats had much of that back in 2008 and refined it some over the intervening four years. I remember seeing very targeted computer generated canvassing lists back then. A smart political operative on the other side should have recognized that.

If only it were that easy. 2008 was, with some justification, viewed as an exception where there was a confluence of positive conditions for Obama (severe Bush-fatigue, suddent drop in the economy, an opponent strongly disliked by the base of the opposing team, novelty of the first non-white, or more accurately, part non-white, candidate and so on).

2012 was very different in conditions. It is a tribute to the superb political skill of the Obama campaign that it eked out a victory despite losing 9 million voters.

That shouldn't have been a surprise when nearly all the political activity was focused on a small number of battleground states. I haven't looked at the numbers but I suspect the voter turnout numbers on both sides were comparable to 2008 in these states while most of the falloff occurred in states where little if any effort was expended by either side.

Nope. Even factoring in the drop in places like NY and NJ, Obama lost millions of voters including in the battleground states. The surprise, really, was that it was a low turnout election. Romney needed a lot of middle to lower-middle class white voters to turn out in places like Ohio and Florida and they stayed home. I suspect that Romney's "plutocratic" background (during a huge recession!) and Obama campaign's portrayal of him as a heartless "vulture" capitalist out murdering workers' wives played a strong role in depressing the downscale white vote for Romney among other things.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Nope. Even factoring in the drop in places like NY and NJ, Obama lost millions of voters including in the battleground states. The surprise, really, was that it was a low turnout election. Romney needed a lot of middle to lower-middle class white voters to turn out in places like Ohio and Florida and they stayed home. I suspect that Romney's "plutocratic" background (during a huge recession!) and Obama campaign's portrayal of him as a heartless "vulture" capitalist out murdering workers' wives played a strong role in depressing the downscale white vote for Romney among other things.

It was comparable to previous second term elections with turnout slightly higher than 1996 or 2004. Sounds like you're trying to make a case for the Repubs going further right as a path to victory. Go for it.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Sounds like you're trying to make a case for the Repubs going further right as a path to victory. Go for it.

I like having two opposing parties, not two leftist parties.

Also, I don't have a short memory, I remember rather well the "sky is falling" consternation among the left in the aftermath of the 2004 election when both the left and the right crowed (or cried) about the "permanent" conservative realignment of the electorate.

Last, as I mentioned repeatedly, I am for expanding the center-right coalition, not shrinking it. Contrary to some purists and sellouts, I don't think that requires sacrificing principles. Politics is often a business of feelings and tones, not principles and substance. As such "personal likability" is huge and recruiting attractive (in more ways than one) candidates is half the game. I'll take the Rubios, Jindals and even Cruzes over Bidens, Clintons (i.e. Hillary) and even O'Malley's anyday.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Last, as I mentioned repeatedly, I am for expanding the center-right coalition, not shrinking it. Contrary to some purists and sellouts, I don't think that requires sacrificing principles. Politics is often a business of feelings and tones, not principles and substance. As such "personal likability" is huge and recruiting attractive (in more ways than one) candidates is half the game. I'll take the Rubios, Jindals and even Cruzes over Bidens, Clintons (i.e. Hillary) and even O'Malley's anyday.

You overestimate the gullibility of the electorate. They know a right wing wolf in sheep's clothing.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

You overestimate the gullibility of the electorate. They know a right wing wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't think the electorate is "gullible." It's more that politics is about more than policy positions and pocket books. It's a very atavistic business about one's view of self, community and country at large.

Democrats generally tend to do better than Republicans in this regard (although "liberals" tend to do worse than "conservatives"). If you lay down party agendas of Ds and Rs without the labels, Rs tend to do very well in a survey, confirming tha the country is still fairly center-right. Attach the party labels and the numbers change. Rs often have a toxic image and there is a variety of reasons for that, much of it having to do with tone.