6.08.2009

Obama's Top Targeter Bullish on Montana and Worried About Gingrich; Predicts Deeds Win Tomorrow

Ken Strasma, recognizable to many 538 readers as Barack Obama's national targeting director in 2008, is the first participant in a new series of interviews we will be conducting with consultants and experts from the field of campaigns and elections.

In this interview, Strasma describes the voter targeting approaches of the 2008 Obama campaign, explains why he thinks Montana is the top target for Obama to flip in 2012, calls Newt Gingrich an unconventional and thus potentially tough 2012 Republican nominee, and predicts that Virginia Sen. Craigh Deeds will win his state's Democratic gubernatorial primary tomorrow.


First, give our readers a little bit of background on you and Strategic Telemetry.

Strategic Telemetry specializes in providing microtargeting and other strategic consulting services for progressive candidates and organizations. I founded Strategic Telemetry in 2003 in order to help make sure that Democratic candidates didn't fall behind in the targeting arms race against the Republicans, who under the leadership of Karl Rove were making big investments in voterfiles and data analysis.

My own background is in campaign management. I was using microtargeting as a manager long before there was a buzzword to describe the process. One of my favorite early successes with microtargeting was when I was able to combine polling data from more than 20 individual legislative races in Minnesota in order to find likely swing voters. The morning after a mailing using that model hit, I was listening to a right-wing talk show host in the Twin Cities who was attacking our strategy in sending out the mailing. He felt that because it was attacking the legislative Republican's votes on education, it should have been targeted to hard-core Republicans who always vote, and he didn't understand why he hadn't gotten the mailing. He went on to say that his girlfriend who voted for some Democrats and some Republicans had received the mailing. So that made my day, having the right-wing talk show host confirm for us that our targeting had succeeded in finding his swing-voter girlfriend.


What was your role as a consultant for the Obama campaign?

I served as Obama's national Targeting Director, and my firm provided the Obama campaign's microtargeting in both the primaries and the general election. We started planning for the IA Caucuses in late 2006. The primary process lasted longer than anyone expected, so we shifted right into targeting for the general election even before the last primaries had been held.


Without giving away any trade secrets, can you explain to us how you developed the targeting models for the Obama campaign?

At the most basic level, any campaign is about persuading undecided voters, and turning out supporters. Using telephone IDs, we were able to ask hundreds of thousands of voters who they were supporting, and how they felt about certain issues.Those IDs by themselves were very valuable, but there were still millions of voters who we were not able to reach. Using the ID information we did have, combined with demographic and commercial marketing data, we built statistical models that predicted how voters we weren't able to reach would have answered the ID questions if we'd been able to reach them. Some of the statistical modeling techniques are well known from the academic and commercial marketing worlds. Other proprietary techniques fall under the category of trade secrets that we'll have to keep to ourselves for the moment. The Obama campaign was in some ways a wonderful 2-year research and development project, with the most aggressive testing of microtargeting models that I have ever seen. We'll be continuing intense R&D to make sure that we maintain the technical lead we established in 2008.


The Obama campaign used Catalist, supplemented with some other voter databases. Can you give us a status update on the quality of voter lists today?

While I can't get into the details of exactly what voterfiles the Obama campaign used in the primaries and the general election, I can say that the voterfiles were the best I have ever worked with. There are always problems with voterfiles, but a lot of progress was made this cycle. Because my work is highly dependent on having accurate voterfile data, I was especially pleased with the advances in the quality of voterfiles in 2008. Another major achievement was the quick turn-around on voterfile updates. The Obama campaign focused heavily on voter registration and on early vote. Getting new registrants on the voterfile and flagging who had voted early was extremely valuable. Because we knew who had voted early, and because we had support scores for those voters telling us how likely it was that they were Obama supporters, we were able to estimate our margin from early vote going into election day, and calculate the percentage of the at-the-polls vote that we needed to get to 50 percent +1.


Obama flipped nine states: three each in the Southwest, Midwest and South. How did the demographic challenges differ in each region?

One of the key demographic challenges was to avoid treating groups as if they were all the same. There are significant differences between Protestant and Catholic Hispanics in the Southwest, between Cuban and non-Cuban Hispanics in Florida, and between Hispanics living in majority Hispanic neighborhoods and those who live in more diverse areas.

Once you start looking at voters on the individual level, rather than as monolithic blocks, there are a lot of similarities between these states. There are pockets of similar voters in all of these states, but the share of the electorate made up by the various groups differed dramatically.


OK, I lost a bet to you about Obama winning North Carolina. In my defense, that bet was made in July, before the September economic collapse and McCain's "fundamentals are strong" blunder. But, to your credit, you were bullish on NC five or six months out. What made you so optimistic?

The North Carolina primary gave us a lot of insight into how the state was changing, and what was doable in the general election. Winning North Carolina wasn’t just about mobilizing African-American turnout, although that was very important. North Carolina’s electorate is changing, with a significant increase in younger, well educated voters who made up another key part of Obama’s winning coalition. Even when things looked bad for a little while when McCain briefly took the lead following the Republican convention, we knew that we were on track to hit or vote goal in North Carolina. That gave me confidence, even when the polling looked bad.


Indiana might be the biggest puzzle of 2008. Aside from the neighboring state advantage, how the heck did Obama swing Indiana so far in one cycle?

Indiana is one of those states whose dark-red status in presidential elections has become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Indiana is Republican-leaning, but still competitive at the state level. We made Indiana competitive by choosing to compete there. It is important to understand that this wasn’t any kind of head-fake. We invested serious resources in building an unprecedented field operation in Indiana.

It's also worth noting that our primary organization paid huge dividends in the general election. People are still debating whether the long primary process helped or hurt, and I don’t claim to know the answer to that question. One thing I am sure of is that winning Indiana would have been much more difficult if we hadn’t been forced to compete there late in the primary process.


We're a long way from 2012, but if you had to project forward, what will it take for Obama to flip states like Montana and the Dakotas?

I'm very bullish on Montana. It is currently my number one pick to flip in 2012. Energy, land-management and environmental issues are key in Montana and the Dakotas. If, after four years, voters there see that Obama’s policies aren’t the caricatures that Republicans have claimed, we should do quite well.


Which Republican of the potential field of names presently under discussion-Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour-do you think would present the biggest obstacle to Obama in 2012?

I would love to see Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee if only for the entertainment value. In terms of who I think would be the strongest opponent, that depends on what type of environment we’re facing. If the economy is still in dire straits, and voters blame Obama, than I would worry about facing Romney. He is an inoffensive, reasonable-appearing candidate, especially compared to some of the other candidates competing for the support of the right-wing of the Republican Party.

However, I expect that the economy will begin to recover, and that Obama will continue to be a popular and successful president. In that case, the Republicans will not win by nominating an inoffensive candidate like Romney. In those circumstances, Newt Gingrich is the candidate who worries me the most. Gingrich has new and unusual ideas. While those ideas are usually dead wrong, and often quite scary, he is something different. You don’t defeat a popular incumbent with a conventional politician, so an unusual choice like Gingrich would be what would worry me the most.


You got to know Virginia demography pretty well in 2008. Any predictions on what will happen Tuesday in the Virginia primary?

The key in Virginia as that we don’t yet know the demographics of the primary electorate. The Democratic primary electorate in VA has been changing over the last several cycles. The share of the Democratic primary vote coming from Northern Virginal more than doubled between 2001 and the 2008 presidential primary. We’ll see on Tuesday who does the best job of turning out their vote.

Most public polling is showing Deeds and Moran gaining and McAuliffe dropping, but the numbers are close enough that a good GOTV operation could make the difference for any one of the three candidates. I see the most likely outcome as a Deeds win, but McAuliffe could still win if Deeds and Moran continue to split the “non-McAuliffe” vote. If Moran’s supporters begin to defect to Deeds then there is probably no way for McAuliffe to win what would then be functionally a 2-person race against Deeds.

45 comments

David Tenner said...

"You don’t defeat a popular incumbent with a conventional politician, so an unusual choice like Gingrich would be what would worry me the most."

I take it this is an attempt to induce the GOP to nominate Gingrich and lose by a landslide.

It would be like an LBJ aide saying in 1964,
"You don’t defeat a popular incumbent with a conventional politician, so an unusual choice like Goldwater would be what would worry me the most."

wecaan nation said...

Can you imagine half the country voting for Gingrich? Neither can I.

nova_middle_man said...

Thanks for asking the Indiana question

Looks like there was no real reason for Indiana just good old fashioned hard work

Thats usually the most important ingredient anyway.

For Virginia Turnout is forecasted to be very low. That obviously hurts TMac the most.

I think this really helps Moran who has always focused on the most likely voters and focused on rolling out endorsements.

There is a trend of the non-McAuliffe vote switching to Deeds but thats mostly your low attention late to the game voters who are less likely to show up anyway.

The question is how many super hard core democrats are there and is it enough to push Moran over the top.

Mike said...

I found the interview an interesting read, but I disliked the cut-and-dried statements in your headline. It almost caused me to not read the rest.

Simply "Interview with Obama's top Targeter" would have made me happier.

Jeff said...

I guess this site is no longer breathlessly covering the European elections, now that the left has been so badly battered? Come on Silver, follow up.

As for Gingrich, be careful what you wish for. He's smart and policy oriented, and he would not be bested by Obama in debates, that is for sure. This fellow is fairly honest, however, in admitting that the economy might still be in rough shape in two or three year's time, opening up a space for Romney. Even if the economy itself has revived, the country's finances certainly will be a disaster. The deficit could be issue number one. That also is a potential Romney opening.

The real threat, unmentioned, is Petraeus. But whether that is plausible is unclear.

mclever said...

David Tenner, back in 2005, except for a select few, who could have imagined half of the country voting for Obama in 2008?

Gingrich is politically savvy and much more of a policy wonk than any other candidate we've seen from the right. He could semi-credibly say that he has ideas and present reasonable-sounding, detailed plans to fix things. He's good at putting forth his ideas in sound-byte form, and good at articulating his views in a way that the average voter can digest.

Drawbacks for the GOP: He's getting OLD, so he won't attract any extra youth votes from Obama's tally. Democrats who remember Monika will be out for blood against the Newt. Etc.

mclever said...

Jeff,

Wait for Renard's analysis. Nate hasn't said anything about the European elections. I'm sure Mr. Sexton will have something to say soon, once the tallies are finalized.

Aside from that, you make a good point about there being an opening for Romney even if the economy has recovered, by harping on the National deficit and debt.

markymark said...

David Tenner said
'"You don’t defeat a popular incumbent with a conventional politician, so an unusual choice like Gingrich would be what would worry me the most."

I take it this is an attempt to induce the GOP to nominate Gingrich and lose by a landslide.

It would be like an LBJ aide saying in 1964,
"You don’t defeat a popular incumbent with a conventional politician, so an unusual choice like Goldwater would be what would worry me the most."'
--------------------------

Strangely I have a memory of reading somewhere that JFK was worried in 1963 that the GOP would nominate Goldwater, for exactly the sort of reason Mr Strasma fears Gingrich. And I have to say I can see Strasma's logic. (Remember that to a large extent LBJ rode on the back of sympathy for the death of Kennedy).

Gingrich is an unconventional thinker, and whilst at times he may come across as an idiot, at other times he can be a master. I think back to his launching of his 'Contract with America' in 1994 and how it gave the GOP momentum into the mid terms that year, which had been predicted to be very close, but ended up being an easy enough GOP win. Gingrich's big disadvantage seems to me to be that he has been out of elected politics for such a long time. I guess an analogy might be that he is like a streaky wide receiver who can catch the game winning touchdown, but the next week not be able to lay a hand on the ball. You just don't know whats gonna be coming at you. I think that is the worry.

davidsfr said...

I find it hard to believe that Montana is more likely to flip than Missouri, which Obama lost by less than 1% and which probably would have gone for Obama if there had been a recount, which the Obama campaign didn't think was worth the trouble.

I hear what Strasma is saying about Montana and energy, and I do think it is a potential target state, but more likely to flip than MO just doesn't seem reasonable.

BTW, along with a recovering economy comes increased revenues and decreasing deficits. Plus we will have had the Medicare reductions long before 2012, so don't count on the deficit being a major issue in that election. If the economy is doing well, neither Romney nor Gingrich will be able to come close to Obama.

PeteKent said...

The very real prospect of higher taxes and interest rates will kill any chance of real recovery. Obama better start figuring out how he can "save or create" a few million votes, because his electoral machine and this nascent Democratic dominance will evaporate in the face of economic despair. Trust me, he is not that charming!

Look at how Obama plans to fund universal healthcare coverage: By soaking the rich.

http://tinyurl.com/m8uxww

Don’t worry, right? You ain’t rich!

But maybe your boss is – or was. And maybe you were working, but won’t be!

At least not until you can get one of those new, nifty, temporary census jobs.

The Obama economy – sux don’t it?

petekent01 (on twitter)

PeteKent said...

Also, Obama’s electoral coalition will crumble in the face of $4.00 gas prices. They are coming.

Obama wants America to stop using gas. But we won’t listen.

http://tinyurl.com/phn94u

Prius sales are down 45% this year.

Trust me Obama will boost sales of hybrids by making sure that gas goes way up in price.

You can bet he promised cooperation on price increases when he bowed before his Moslem King yet again last week!


petekent01 (on twitter)

PeteKent said...

Do you think Odumbo also kissed the "Holy" Koran before his majesty, the Kind of Saud and All that Oil?

Imagine is that loser had been caught once during the campaign uttering the words "Holy Koran". Unthinkable!

What a difference a few months makes -- now he says it three times in one speech!

petekent01 (on twitter)

markymark said...

See whats confused PeteKent is that he isn't used to seeing an American leader treating foreign leaders, and other religions with respect *sigh*
Oh, and much better to be an Obama style 'loser' than any of the actual losers who exist in the GOP.

davidsfr, I think Strasma was responding to a specific question on Montana and the Dakotas. I agree with you that Missouri would be another target, but he didn't mention MO simply because he wasn't asked about it! I think that a lot of Missouri swing may happen naturally. (Most Presidents do better in a reelection campaign than in there first election.)

Amanda said...

I'm really curious as to which other states the Obama campaign is going to target for 2012. I think Missouri, Montana, Georgia and Arizona all have a decent chance of flipping. West Virginia and North Dakota are possibilities as well, and Alaska might be if Sarah Palin isn't on the ticket. Of course, this is all idle speculation on my part, and I'd like to hear what Obama's people think.

I don't know about Gingrich, but as an Obama supporter, I would not be at all worried about a Romney candidacy in 2012. Even if the economy is still in poor shape, people just flat-out don't like Mitt Romney.

David Tenner said...

markymark:

"Gingrich is an unconventional thinker, and whilst at times he may come across as an idiot, at other times he can be a master. I think back to his launching of his 'Contract with America' in 1994 and how it gave the GOP momentum into the mid terms that year, which had been predicted to be very close, but ended up being an easy enough GOP win."

Actually, polls showed that most voters had not even heard of the Contract. This is not necessarily to say that the Contract was a bad idea; it did give the GOP a road map for what to do once they won conrol of Congress. But it was not responsible for their winning control in the first place.

See http://mediamatters.org/research/200610210001 (A biased site? Sure. But on this point their evidence is convincing.)

Andrew said...

Putting aside the merit (or lack thereof) of his ideas, can a short, chubby guy named Newt Gingrich get elected President?

Chris Roberts said...

Romney,and huckabee couldn't beat Mccain for the nomination In 2008.Palin Is a godsend to Democrats,and Gingrich reelected Clinton and wants to be the new Cheney.Jindal won't run because he can't run for president and run for reelection In 2011 at the same time.

Missouri,Arizona,Montana,and Georgia In that order are the pickup opportins for President Obama.He might lose Indiana but won a couple of there.Georgia Is the only southern state he lost that could be In play for 2012.Some white Democrats just won't vote for a black Liberal.ALthough Romney being a morman could have a effect If he Is the nominee.And I don't see the Dakotas flipping although If one would It would be North Dakota.

juvanya said...

It is really interesting how much statistics and modeling plays in an election. If you turn out the right targets and swing the right people, you can defy expectations.

It is also interesting to see that someone is finally saying that you can not just lop people together based on their skin color.

Casual Observer said...

Is Chris Roberts supposed to be a shining example of another Democrat with an incredible vocabulary capable of titillating dialogue and far superior intellectual acumen to us ignorant conservative hicks who've been humiliated and been wondering in the wilderness?

Feel free to amaze and humble us further with your intellect...

Casual Observer said...

That's "wandering" in the wilderness.

davidsfr said...

Marymark, I am just going by the quote in the story: "I'm very bullish on Montana. It is currently my number one pick to flip in 2012." I agree it is a good state to target for 2012, but I disagree on it being the number 1 pick to flip.

As for PeteKent: Couldn't you fit all your wild fantasies into one post, instead of three? Sheesh!

nova_middle_man said...

I agree in general

However, you can for African Americans see the latest post for more

Pete Kent and Marky Mark you two should get married and have little troll kiddies

shiloh said...

Jeff said...

The real threat, unmentioned, is Petraeus. But whether that is plausible is unclear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the 21st century, Generals make terrible candidates for president ie Haig, Clark, etc. ie they have to run a political campaign to get elected ie they have to talk politics and raise $.

Ike didn't have to run, he was annointed! whereas Eisenhower = Supreme Allied commander during WWII = very popular war ... Petraeus = very unpopular Iraq war, as Thomas Ricks has said, the worst military decision in the history of mankind!

And the surge didn't work, Iraqis just got tired of killing each other and cheney/bush bribed all the tribal war lords.

take care, blessings

p.s. If the surge worked, the u.s. military would not still be there, eh, I digress

carry on

markymark said...

nova-middle-man
I don't even know what that means.

Davidsfr
I would suggest that the important thing about the Contract With America is hinted at by this quote from the media matters article

'Columnist Gene Lyons, in his November 16, 1994, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette column, wrote: "What happened here [in the 1994 midterm elections] is that Republican voters were energized and turned out, Democrats weren't and didn't. The majority of independents let their uneasiness about Clinton govern their choices. As for the famous 'Contract with America,' exit polls showed that only about 18 percent of voters -- mostly committed Republicans -- gave it a second thought."'

The contract was all about GOTV, which is after all what mid term elections are all about. But the point about Gingrich is that he is unconventional, and in an American sense, coming out with a manifesto and launching it on the steps off Congress with house candidates standing with you is unconventional, and that is why he might be a threat. (Though personally I think the GOP is going to need a big dip in Obama's performance and the strength of the country to stand a chance in 2012.)

markymark said...

Jeff said
'The real threat, unmentioned, is Petraeus. But whether that is plausible is unclear.'
-----------------------

My reading on Patraeus is two fold. One I don't sense he has political ambition. I think that his name comes up from wishful thinking from foreign policy Republicans who need a head to throw there hat on.

But the second thing is that I think any military man is going to have a real struggle standing against there commander in chief, or someone they have served under, without seeming disloyal, and therefore tarnishing part of there reputation. I just don't see Patraeus as that type of guy at all. Might he possibly stand in 2016? Thats more plausible, but not likely.

e3323 said...

Uh...........Missouri was WAAAAY closer than Montana was. Why is Montana number 1 when Missouri was way closer and it has 3 times the electoral votes?

I said it once and I will say it again...RALPH NADER COST OBAMA MISSOURI...HE GOT MORE VOTES THAN THE MARGIN OBAMA LOST BY.

Also Montana is a huge state (land-wise) and is not even close to any other swing states...kinda out of the way.

Finally I can not imagine a realistic 2012 scenario where MONTANA makes the difference between winning and losing the whole election.

Like...I cant imagine being up at 2:30AM on November 7th 2012, watching CNN and looking at the magic map with every state in red or blue but Montana and hearing Wolf Blitzer say "We still can not make a projection for Montana but with 89 percent of the vote in President Obama trails Newt Gingrich by 1,283 votes, however *zooms in on map* Deer Lodge County, an obama stronghold with a high Native American population, only 76 percent of the vote counted, If these numbers hold up Obama could potentially catch up to Gingrich and win the state and thus the election. Again nether candidate has reached the magic number of 270 but the winner in Montana will be the winner of the election".

No i'm sorry...I cant imagine THAT.

If Obama wins Montana he will have won states like Ohio by bigger margins. Obama wont win montana and lose ohio, virginia, indiana, AND north carolina...which would be the required scenario for Montana to be the deal breaker.

Bottom line here is that Obama is better off trying to flip Missouri and Arizona. I guess they only want to win Montana for fun....just to put more blue on the electoral map.

nova_middle_man said...

@markymark

Sorry I got my bloggers mixed up I was thinking you were Mike In Maryland for a second. Point being they are both trolls who feed off each other.

I usually find what you have to say to be pretty interesting

Casual Observer said...

very unpopular Iraq war, as Thomas Ricks has said, the worst military decision in the history of mankind!

I laugh at statements like this. Out loud. Can someone be taken seriously - much less, be considered sane and rational - by making such a statement with the Vietnam War just a generation back in the rear view mirror?

It looks even more foolish with the "history of mankind" hyperbole. There were at least 10 worse than the decision to go to war in Iraq in the 20th century alone.

Pragmatus said...

If Newt Gingrich were the GOP nominee in 2012 the Democrats would be shouting Hallelujah! There are few politicians in American more roundly and deeply despised than Gingrich. Even during the "Republican Revolution" (which lasted all of two years) while the country looked favorably upon the GOP Gingrich's favorables never got above the twenties.

He is everywhere seen as a weasely manipulator.

nicholasjalcock said...

Q. What is more important targeting
swing voters nationally or swing states nationally?

Casual Observer said...

He is everywhere seen as a weasely manipulator.

Where I live, the same can be said of Obama.

markymark said...

Personally I am not sure that the only reason Gingrich lets his name run around in this speculation is for his own ego really. I don't think he really plans to run. He has made no serious run for the Presidency yet, and at his age, if he has real plans to do so you would have imagine if he would have made some sort of run already. (He'll be 69 in 2012) I think he is realistic enough to know his personal approval is not great, and I think is happy getting fat and rich on the personal appearance circuit! (But it doesn't do his fees any harm to be thought of as a potential candidate!)

I think one of the problems for prospective 2012 candidates is that its going to be tough to call if its a good year to run or not. I think that it could potentially still be a decent year, if the economy is still bad, and if Iraq and Afghanistan haven't improved much. I think some will have to run, in an if not now, when style (Palin, because 2016 would be too long after 2008, and Romney, because of his age, would be in that category) but I can imagine some others thinking that maybe 2016 is a better target, but also being aware that if things went badly for Obama, that they would need to be prepared to throw there hat in the ring for 2012.

Charles said...

> The real threat, unmentioned, is Petraeus. But whether that is plausible is unclear.

While Petraeus was once registered as an NH Republican, I doubt he s rooting for todays GOP. After all, hes on record for being against torture and clearly he believed the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, given the Petraeus quotes in THE GAMBLE. Given this, he hardly fits into todays GOP...

More importantly, I dont see him having any political ambition. Consider. He has said he wont be writing any memoirs. No interest. Waste of time, he thinks. A real tell, I think, in regards to his interest in a political career.

And, of course, he cant run against his CiC. Just not compatible with his ethos.

Not that hes interested in the first place...

Charles said...

Marky, I think you are right on the mark. Gingrich is trying to push his market value and stroke his ego with the 2012 buzz. I am sure he appreciates that he lacks the personal appeal to voters.

My money is on Romney being nominated. And I do not see him getting remotely close to toppling Obama short of some huge scandal...

markymark said...

Charles,

My only doubt with Romney is a Romney v Palin straight fight for the nomination. I am not sure how he gets the nomination in that fight. But if Huckabee runs, or if some other righty governor steps in (a Stanford or a Barbour perhaps) and takes votes away from Palin, then I think Romney could stroll the nomination. Though now i think about it I am not sure which big states Palin might play in. Maybe Texas, maybe Florida, maybe Georgia, but they are all maybes. Romney could sweep California and the Northern industrials, probably would vs Palin, and her back is against the wall from the start.

shiloh said...

Casual Observer said...

very unpopular Iraq war, as Thomas Ricks has said, the worst military decision in the history of mankind!

I laugh at statements like this. Out loud. Can someone be taken seriously - much less, be considered sane and rational - by making such a statement with the Vietnam War just a generation back in the rear view mirror?

It looks even more foolish with the "history of mankind" hyperbole. There were at least 10 worse than the decision to go to war in Iraq in the 20th century alone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whereas it may be hyperbole ie history usually takes eons for the true story/result to be determined, Ricks is indeed a Mideast expert and besides the fact cheney/bush had their minds made up to invade Iraq before the SC appointed dubya president, ignoring his daddy and General Scowcroft's intelligent/rationalized opinion that Iraq was a no win situation that can only be controlled, never conquered, much like Afghanistan, I digress.

Back on topic, at least the Vietnam war had the rationale of fighting Communism ie this war was also not winnable, but at least it drained the Soviet Union of valuable resources ie the Cold War ended because the Communists went bankrupt! whereas the Iraq war drained the U.S. of valuable resources, let alone needless deaths of soldiers and civilians, ie a total waste of $, unless, of course you were a cheney crony ~ halliburton/blackwater etc. I digress ...

and CO, please don't be bashful, tell us all the other (9) wars in the 20th century that were as ridiculous, not necessary and more foolhardy than cheney/bush's Iraq war ... Grenada? Panama? Falkland Islands lol

btw, the U.S. kicked butt in Grenada, eh ;) remember being in the USN at the time and everyone was saying whiskey/tango/foxtrot!

take care, blessings

Bob X said...

@shiloh: much as I hate to agree with Casual Observer about anything, "worst military decision in history" was just ludicrous. Napoleon's decision to march on Moscow was pretty bad; Hitler's decision to march on Moscow was even worse, since he knew about Napoleon; the Gallipoli campaign was famously inept; the Charge of the Light Brigade was so stupid its stupidity was enshrined in a poem that we all used to have to memorize; etc.

shiloh said...

Bob X said...

@shiloh: much as I hate to agree with Casual Observer about anything, "worst military decision in history" was just ludicrous. Napoleon's decision to march on Moscow was pretty bad; Hitler's decision to march on Moscow was even worse, since he knew about Napoleon; the Gallipoli campaign was famously inept; the Charge of the Light Brigade was so stupid its stupidity was enshrined in a poem that we all used to have to memorize; etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, np lol, so as a casual observer ;) my own self to 538, I take it that CO has a definite history at 538, eh.

In any event, I agreed Rick's statement was indeed hyperbole in my above comment, much like CO saying there are 10 military decisions in the 20th century which were worse than Iraq was also hyperbole. btw, I'm still waiting for the other (9) ...

By its very essence war is usually a bad decision as the history of the world tells us. As long as there are borders and religion there will be wars, which is why the Iraq war was such a very, very bad decision ie Sunni/Shiites/Kurds/Arabs/Muslims etc. and after the invasion al Queda joined the chaos!

and re: Casual Observer, who I don't know, "even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn", so it's ok to agree w/him occasionally.

take care, blessings

p.s. so many bad military decisions, hard to rank, but, but, but Napolean, Hitler etc. did not have the advantage of the modern information age ie those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it ie cheney/bush would have invaded Iraq regardless of history and its consequences, they both had a Saddam Hussein fetish!

When the greatest military power in the history of the world invades a small dictatorship w/no discernible military resistance and gets its butt kicked consistantly for over (3) years one could assume the plan or lack thereof was not well thought out, eh

ciao

The Ponderer said...

On the Virginia Democratic Governor's Primary, your remarks are right on the money. As this is written, Deeds seems to have taken over from Moran as the non-Terry candidate in light of the very strong, persuasive endorsement of Deeds from the Washington Post. With Deeds momentum growing, the key question is how fast does Moran fade. So on the eve of the primary this is Deeds' race to lose and I don't think he will. Moran fades to black, Deeds wins.

Mike in Maryland said...

n_m_m,

A couple of things:

1. For a couple to have children, wouldn't that have to be through a heterosexual sexual encounter, or at least one of the people in the union having a uterus in order for the unborn fetus to develop enough to be born? Since I'm a self-admitted gay male, and I presume that markymark is also male (I've never heard of a female named Mark), I don't think we'd have much success in 'starting a family'. As to the idiot who begs people to follow him on TWITter, I don't read, thus I don't respond to that troll's posts.

2. So you consider me a troll, but not the rider of a horse/donkey mating? You consider me a troll, but not the one who self-admits he only observes things on a random and causal basis, not with a consistent focus? You consider me a troll, but not the one who names himself after an adulterated alcoholic drink?

3. And finally, you call yourself nova_middle_man: In the Mid-Atlantic, nova (more properly NoVa) is the Virginia portions of the Washington DC suburbs. Are you from NoVa? And 'middle' of what? The quicksand of the current GOOPer ideology - in other words, to the far right of the center of the political spectrum?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

beavis said...

He is everywhere seen as a weasely manipulator.

Where I live, the same can be said of Obama
.

Back here on planet earth, Obama is respected for his thoughtfulness, intelligence and skill.

Morons like Casual Observer(Ass Rider) and PK have never even come close to being correct, not even once.

These people are being left behind with the rest of their shrinking neo-con population.
**************************************
Gingrich is a hypocrite, racist and liar.

All one has to do is spend 5 seconds searching for quotes and them publicize them and this southern fried bigot is gone.

He will be easier to destroy then a total dumbass like Palin.

Upon Further Review said...

People who poo poo Montana forget that:

1) The governor is a Democrat.
2) Both Senators are Democrats.
3) The legislature is Democratic.

There are hot button issues upon which Democrats can capitalize.

I'd put Montana up there with North Dakota and Arizona as states with issues that Democrats can appeal in (but not South Dakota).

Georgia, however, never. No chance. The redneck mentality cuts across all demographics.

10kZebra said...

@Andrew "Putting aside the merit (or lack thereof) of his ideas, can a short, chubby guy named Newt Gingrich get elected President?"

That's a very funny point, actually made me laugh. But then I thought about it. Can a lanky black guy named Barack Hussein Obama get elected? Sounded pretty unlikely, but no amount of throwing in the Hussein and conflating Osama seemed to have made much difference.

My guess (not educated, just a guess) is that we'll see the GOP field a candidate that isn't on our radar yet. The Patreaus idea is nonsense and I don't know what's wrong with people who think he'd make a good candidate (or an even passable leader).

Why not Condi? She's as terrible as any of the other suggestions.

And is it just me or do the trolls get more irrational the less we feed them?

Montana Conservative said...

Here is the significance of Montana. If Obama can take Montana then the Dems will have almost "split the nation" by capturing Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico. (Yes, I know Wyoming will never D). For a number of elections the R's had the Rocky Mountain states to themselves. If we can take these states, then one can start "working outward." For example, if have Montana and Minnesota, then can start on North Dakota.

another big reason to try to take Montana is Jim Messina whose office is across the hall from Rahm Emanual. Messina was head of Senator Baucus's staff for many years. Messina would no doubt like to win Montana very, very much.

Nosimplehiway said...

I have an example of the amazing micro-targeting program the Obama campaign ran. I am an Italian-American, gay man in my 30's, living in Charleston, SC, but I was raised in the outer suburbs of Philly... Reading, PA. I signed up to do phone banking for the Obama campaign from my home. They sent me several lists, which I worked through, sending the campaign the results. One list was women with Italian surnames in eastern SC. Another was men in PA (Reading, Allentown, Scranton, Easton, all 610 or 570 area codes, none from Philly), most of whom I "read" as gay and perhaps a bit older by their voice over the phone. (Presumably the campaign found them to be men over 30 who were never married.) The third was a similar group of men, this time with Italian or Mediterranean (Greek, Portugues, whatever) surnames, scattered across the South, mostly FL, NC and VA.

Amazing campaign... just beautiful.

@Mike in MD: Markie Post.

@davidsfr and e3323: While it's true that MO was closer than MT, look at the trend over the past few years. In MO, the Dem's share of the vote went from 47% in 2000, to 46% in 2004, to 49% in 2008. In MT, the Dem's share of the vote went from 33% in 2000, to 38.5% in 2004, to 47% in 2008. MO just sort of hovers in the mid to upper 40's, whereas MT shows a strong upward trend. In how many other red states did Dems gain 14 points between 2000 and 2008? Now that trend can't continue forever, and I don't see MT giving the Dems 60% in 2012, but a win is likely, ceterus paribus. Plus, with the current instant media age, running on issues which sell anywhere in the interior west or high plains gets you some votes everywhere in that region. You can't run well in CO, NM, AZ, MT or NV without accidentally doing better in ND, SD, WY, ID and UT. Speak to western issues, and you get western votes.