Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 A couple of things that I heard recently about both candidates, that may have more of an influence on the outcome of the election than one might think. Some of this **** is floating around tangentially in the news. This weekend, though, I enjoyed some drinks and political conversations with a couple of "ok" connected political minds in Alexandria, VA and learned the following "not so inside," inside information about the campaigns: 1. Romney is spending a lot of time trying to figure out what BOs internal electoral map projections look like. He wants BO to give up in FL by repurposing his folks so that they (Romney) can pull their team and the lion share of their ad buys there and rededicate them to Ohio, WI and NV. 2. BO has ceded NC. Romney is pulling out his folks and repurposing them as I type this. 3. BO folks feel VERY confident that they have PA back under control. There is some consternation within the Romney campaign around the propriety of ceding PA. Don't know who is on which side of the argument but there is a little in-fighting. 4. BO feels that if they get VA or OH it's game over. They feel that both states are a bell weather for how the other toss ups will fall. 5. The auto bailout may decide the election. It's sustaining BO's lead in MI and likely giving him the advantage in OH. Despite Romney's contentions that the administration did what he (Romney)suggested, the WH feels that they are successfully making the nuanced case in those states that GM and Chrysler would not have successfully emerged from bankruptcy without Government guarantees - essentially that government intervention was the key to that process happening successfully. Big Big Big distinction. The WH will owe Sherrod Brown huge if OH goes blue. He is stumping on that point like a man on a mission. 6. Expect to here "China" brought up many times tonight. Romney folks feel that may give them an in-road into an obstinate OH electorate. 7. A lost point from the second debate: many conservatives are annoyed at Romney for his "Binders full of Women" comment. Some feel that what he did was advocate and acknowledge the usefulness of affirmative action policies. This point is from a former colleague and republican strategist. 8. Romney has a 10 point lead among men. Obama has a 9 point lead among women. There are a couple more million women than men in this country. Romney is running ads blasting away at BOs claim about Romney's stance on contraception. The ads also attempt to broaden the scope of women's issues to encompass ancillary family economic considerations (where they feel that BO is demonstrably weak). Romney feels that within the penubras of the contraception issue is where the gender gap falls. 8a. BO feels that there is a certain substantive centrality to the contraception issue that Romney can't talk around or through. It affects women every moment of every day and therefore they feel that they have a talking point that isn't predicated on situation ethics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 1. Both sides are trying to get into the mind of their adversary. Think back to Sun Tzu 2. Obama never really had a chance there 3. If Team Romney thinks they have a shot in PA, they will lose. That said, with momentum on their side they are trying to make the appearance that the map has shifted dramatically 4. I suspect Team Obama has privately written off VA. They are diverting resources there to so Team Romney has to defend VA instead of moving assets to Ohio. 5. Ohio is the election. Romney can't win without it. Obama, possible but unlikely 8. Gender gap drops quite a bit between registered and likely women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 1. Both sides are trying to get into the mind of their adversary. Think back to Sun Tzu 2. Obama never really had a chance there 3. If Team Romney thinks they have a shot in PA, they will lose. That said, with momentum on their side they are trying to make the appearance that the map has shifted dramatically 4. I suspect Team Obama has privately written off VA. They are diverting resources there to so Team Romney has to defend VA instead of moving assets to Ohio. 5. Ohio is the election. Romney can't win without it. Obama, possible but unlikely 8. Gender gap drops quite a bit between registered and likely women 5. How do you see Ohio playing out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 #7 is ridiculous. If you think for one minute that any conservative is tweaked about Romney's efforts to fill positions with women, then I have to question everything else you posted. It has nothing to do with "affirmative action" and everything to do with providing opportunity to a group of people who would simply be better at the job than a man. Anyone who spends any significant time managing/running/owning a private business knows, in general, women are kickass workers; organized, prompt, respectful and loyal almost to a fault. Yes, there are many "chatty Cathys," but you have just as many chatty, bickering men. The only reason women get the label is because men dominate the workforce and are, generally speaking, big babies at the administrative level. You can't confuse "I want to hire women because they're great workers" with "I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I was just about to post the same sentiment, LA. As for the other points, they are (also) people's opinions/perceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 #7 is ridiculous. If you think for one minute that any conservative is tweaked about Romney's efforts to fill positions with women, then I have to question everything else you posted. It has nothing to do with "affirmative action" and everything to do with providing opportunity to a group of people who would simply be better at the job than a man. Anyone who spends any significant time managing/running/owning a private business knows, in general, women are kickass workers; organized, prompt, respectful and loyal almost to a fault. Yes, there are many "chatty Cathys," but you have just as many chatty, bickering men. The only reason women get the label is because men dominate the workforce and are, generally speaking, big babies at the administrative level. You can't confuse "I want to hire women because they're great workers" with "I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin." I didn't say it, Ron did. I don't care what you believe and what you don't believe. The information comes from a legitimate political op who is an established republican strategist who can boast political bonafides and is not just some guy being skeptical on a message board. Think what you please. If i posted to score high on the veracity meter and be liked, then yea...I'd care. But I don't. And I don't. By the way, read Romney's quote. And then read the definition of affirmative action: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; It was affirmative action LA. There were some conservatives who weren't happy about it, LA. But since it wasn't some big-lipped !@#$ going after the white man's jobs, then I guess you characterize it a little differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I didn't say it, Ron did. I don't care what you believe and what you don't believe. The information comes from a legitimate political op who is an established republican strategist who can boast political bonafides and is not just some guy being skeptical on a message board. Think what you please. If i posted to score high on the veracity meter and be liked, then yea...I'd care. But I don't. And I don't. By the way, read Romney's quote. And then read the definition of affirmative action: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; It was affirmative action LA. There were some conservatives who weren't happy about it, LA. But since it wasn't some big-lipped !@#$ going after the white man's jobs, then I guess you characterize it a little differently. Juror, LA can defend himself, but I find that comment uncalled for and bigoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 5. How do you see Ohio playing out? That's the question that you, me, and 300Million+ of our fellow citizens won't know the answer to until late into the night, possibly the next day, and maybe even Florida 2000 style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 #7 is ridiculous. If you think for one minute that any conservative is tweaked about Romney's efforts to fill positions with women, then I have to question everything else you posted. It has nothing to do with "affirmative action" and everything to do with providing opportunity to a group of people who would simply be better at the job than a man. Anyone who spends any significant time managing/running/owning a private business knows, in general, women are kickass workers; organized, prompt, respectful and loyal almost to a fault. Yes, there are many "chatty Cathys," but you have just as many chatty, bickering men. The only reason women get the label is because men dominate the workforce and are, generally speaking, big babies at the administrative level. You can't confuse "I want to hire women because they're great workers" with "I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin." Except for the fact it wasn't Romney who asked for more women when setting up his staff -- various woman's groups in Mass approached him after his election due to the lack of women on his proposed staff. Confronted with that, and keeping his eye on the White House, he asked for more women candidates. ...So...it kind of defeats your entire argument. #Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) I was just about to post the same sentiment, LA. As for the other points, they are (also) people's opinions/perceptions. Of course you were. But they are opinions...based on the observations of someone whom I trust and who does have particularized knowledge into some campaign strategy items. Juror, LA can defend himself, but I find that comment uncalled for and bigoted. Why? LA distinguished out racial minority groups as if that encapsulated the whole of affirmative action hiring efforts. La said: "You can't confuse 'I want to hire women because they're great workers' with 'I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin.'" LA is saying that if you specifically look for women to fill positions because they're underrepresented in an applicant pool, it's trying to find great workers. If you specifically seek to find minorities who are underrepresented in an applicant pool, it's hiring them because of the color of their skin. Seriously, 3rd? Romney said that he noticed that their weren't any women who applied for the positions so he made an effort to JUST FIND qualified women to fill some positions. It is, by definintion, an affirmative action effort. Edited October 22, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Romney said that he noticed that their weren't any women who applied for the positions so he made an effort to JUST FIND qualified women to fill some positions. It is, by definintion, an affirmative action effort. He said this in the debate. But the facts of the issue aren't that. He didn't notice there weren't any women applicants until several Mass women's groups pointed it out to him. Which makes it even more by the numbers as far as affirmative action goes -- --as well as furthering the conservative reinvention of Romney's record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Obama and Co. should guard that Florida projection and continue to buy ad space in Florida to force Mitt to stay there and out of the other states ... even though it's likely lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 He said this in the debate. But the facts of the issue aren't that. He didn't notice there weren't any women applicants until several Mass women's groups pointed it out to him. Which makes it even more by the numbers as far as affirmative action goes -- --as well as furthering the conservative reinvention of Romney's record. Do you have a credible link to this? Of course you were. But they are opinions...based on the observations of someone whom I trust and who does have particularized knowledge into some campaign strategy items. Why? LA distinguished out racial minority groups as if that encapsulated the whole of affirmative action hiring efforts. La said: "You can't confuse 'I want to hire women because they're great workers' with 'I need to hire more blacks because of the color of their skin.'" LA is saying that if you specifically look for women to fill positions because they're underrepresented in an applicant pool it's trying to find great workers. If you specifically seek to find minorities who are underrepresented in an applicant pool, it's hiring them because of the color of their skin. Seriously, 3rd? Romney said that he noticed that their weren't any women who applied for the positions so he made an effort to JUST FIND qualified women to fill some positions. It is, by definintion, an affirmative action effort. "Big lipped !@#$ going after the white man's job" mischaracterizes his post and is what I was objecting to. We can argue the issue without you making it racial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Do you have a credible link to this? They are out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 We're talking about affirmative action? Seriously? Affirmative action?...LOL I think there's an awful lot of Obama supporters here who are stunned and desperate for answers about this election and where it's going. When we start seeing threads about affirmative action I think it's time to stop the BS train. Here's your answer... Obama lost this election in the first debate with Romney. On that night, 70 million Americans saw a frail, scared and unprepared president and said "check please". There was a historic shift in the polls and perceptions of both candidates. Even the skewed polls have the race tied now. That means that Gallup is right and Romney does have a solid 6 point lead. Romney will definitely win OH and it's 50-50 he wins PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 He said this in the debate. But the facts of the issue aren't that. He didn't notice there weren't any women applicants until several Mass women's groups pointed it out to him. Which makes it even more by the numbers as far as affirmative action goes -- --as well as furthering the conservative reinvention of Romney's record. That's Mitt Romney for you. The !@#$er can't figure out who he is or what he believes. Now he even has some conservatives carrying his water and substantiating his affirmative actions efforts. That is, of course, until someone discusses affirmative action efforts for racial minorities. Then it's *real* affirmative action as opposed to the "looking for good workers" affirmative action subset that happens when you seek to hire along gender lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 LA is saying that if you specifically look for women to fill positions because they're underrepresented in an applicant pool, it's trying to find great workers. If you specifically seek to find minorities who are underrepresented in an applicant pool, it's hiring them because of the color of their skin. If you are specifically looking for any group because of some so-called 'underrepresentation' you are looking to fill quotas more than you are looking for great workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Of course you were. But they are opinions...based on the observations of someone whom I trust and who does have particularized knowledge into some campaign strategy items. I was. And I don't doubt you trust this person and he (Ron?) has insight into campaign strategy. However sometimes you can be too close to the action. My questions would be so what if conservatives thought he was advocating affirmative action? Are they not going to vote for him now? Doubtful. Could it help him gain more female voters? Possibly. So the outrage is wasted. That's Mitt Romney for you. The !@#$er can't figure out who he is or what he believes. Now he even has some conservatives carrying his water and substantiating his affirmative actions efforts. That is, of course, until someone discusses affirmative action efforts for racial minorities. Then it's *real* affirmative action as opposed to the "looking for good workers" affirmative action subset that happens when you seek to hire along gender lines. Call it "evolving." It's an acceptable excuse for a turd like Barry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I was. And I don't doubt you trust this person and he (Ron?) has insight into campaign strategy. However sometimes you can be too close to the action. My questions would be so what if conservatives thought he was advocating affirmative action? Are they not going to vote for him now? Doubtful. Could it help him gain more female voters? Possibly. So the outrage is wasted. So... the party of moral values is okay with their nominee shifting core values just to win an election. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 They are out there. OK, Sue. Or is it BF4E? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts