Skip to main content

Vintage telephone on a desk.
Republican polling equipment.
I was searching for something else when I stumbled upon this laugher Hill op-ed from July 2012:
What’s up with all that polling the Obama camp is doing? Recently the folks over at the Weekly Standard combed through campaign spending disclosure records of the Obama campaign and related committees, discovering that they’ve spent $15 million on polling since the first of the year. And some of the June spending is still unaccounted for. Oh, my! From one perspective, spending $15 million on polling reeks of desperation. They are on a massive snipe hunt, trying to evaluate the appeal of every alleged accomplishment of the president and to gauge the credibility of every anti-Romney tidbit their dirt-diggers have dredged up.
Getting an accurate read on the electorate is "desperation"! And boy, did the election results prove that!
It is being reported that the Obama campaign has spent $100 million thus far on campaign ads. If they have, in fact, spent $15 million researching those ads, they are genuinely out of control over at the Democratic “research institute” where all this political science is percolating.
OMG, Democrats are spending money "researching" stuff. It's OUT OF CONTROL!
It’s interesting to try and follow the money, but it’s also disturbing. Why must Obama spend so much money to find his way? Voters are likely to be turned off to realize that even a teleprompter is not enough for this president. He also needs a phalanx of pollsters to tell him what to say.
The guy writing this? David Hill, a Republican pollster, who was so in tune with the electorate that he mouthed such right-wing inanities as teleprompter "jokes" and though that the amount of money spent by a presidential campaign would "turn off" voters.

But it's fitting. It's obvious that Republicans have little interest in genuine public opinion, since reality has a well-known liberal bias. Do they really want confirmation that they're on the losing end of virtually every issue of note? Nah, they'd rather pretend that Mitt Romney's victory is imminent and that Americans want Obamacare defunded.

So he thinks it's silly that Democrats would spend time figuring out what the public thinks and wants. Republicans certainly have no need for such a thing.

p.s. No one tell him why Obama really did all that polling. Because if he found out, he might be genuinely "disturbed".

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good thing surveillance state can't do this: (8+ / 0-)
    The campaign didn’t just know who you were; it knew exactly how it could turn you into the type of person it wanted you to be.
  •  "Anti-Romney"? (15+ / 0-)

    Is Mitt planning to run again to deny Obama his third term?

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:56:35 PM PDT

  •  i've never unbderstood why polling got such a bad (11+ / 0-)


    what is wrong with knowing what the people find important? isnt that kinda the key to good governing? knowing what your constituents want and need?

  •  Everybody does polling. (6+ / 0-)

    Even President Bartlett did polling.

    "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

    by FloridaSNMOM on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:58:04 PM PDT

  •  Yea-------------h. Mitt won by how much? (12+ / 0-)

    And that Republican guy David Hill still has clients? Really?

    The time has come to repair this country and care for its' veterans.

    by llbear on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:58:35 PM PDT

  •  Coming from a pollster.... (15+ / 0-)

    ...this is the height of arrogance.  The idea that the republicans are so sure of their own correctness and belief that the nation is behind them that they only need to poll enough verify thier correctness.  Isn't that something like conformation bias.

    This leads to Rove being gobsmaked that the voters of Ohio didn't vote like he thought they should.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:00:32 PM PDT

    •  He was right in 2004 (8+ / 0-)

      I know that some people believe Rove and Bush stole OH in 2004, but most people I rely on for analysis are pretty sure that it was very close, but legit.  Short version: our side got the "universe" wrong in our models.  Rove successfully mobilized working class white evangelicals that no one had seen before.

      In 2012, Obama's people did the equivalent in the Cleveland area.  They figured out how to mobilize normally disaffected inner city blacks, through use of data and a lot of really stellar field people.  So in 2012, "too many" blavks voted per GOP models.

      We hoisted Rove on his own petard, and the world got to see it live on Fox News.

      To be on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is to be on the right side of history.

      by mbayrob on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:12:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was stolen in 2004... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Matt Z, Noamjunior, gffish, ditsylilg

        ...but not in the way most CT believe.  It was stole by good old voter disenfranchisement and dirty tricks not by electronic means, although that could have happened as well.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:26:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's arguably true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ditsylilg, abcdiablo

          It was close enough that games effecting the ability of people to vote might have made a difference.

          I don't know if anybody actually counted up the problem precincts, or issues with early voting or number of voting machines per voter by precinct.  If they did, I'd love to see it.  My guess is you could do a back of the envelope calculation that would show if you are likely right or wrong here.  Proof, though, would be hard.

          That said:  you could be right.

          To be on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is to be on the right side of history.

          by mbayrob on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 07:19:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Recc'd for signature! (0+ / 0-)


        Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?

        by Tx LIberal on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 06:29:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In his defense, Hill doesn't mean a word of it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This is obvious campaign blather.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:48:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  OK I'll bite... (8+ / 0-)

    Why did Obama REALLY do all that polling?

  •  Data driven politics (7+ / 0-)

    This was an Obama hallmark from the beginnings of the 2008 campaign at the least.

    The irony here is that the people who learned the most from the Bush 2004 campaign were probably the Obama people.  I get the impression that people who have been in politics for a while have "their people", who have won their campaigns with them in the past.  This means that to break into the consulting business is hard in general, and that if you aren't established, insurgents are who you want to work for.  If your insurgent wins, you can become a player in the business.  And the cycle continues.

    Given how politics work, the key GOP  shops seem to be good at messaging and oppo, since folks like Gingrich and Rove have done well with it.  A lot of Democratic shops offer the same.  But since Obama's people did data, and trained so many people, our side has really begun to change.

    The GOP will catch up, but clowns like David Hill will lose a lot of races for Republicans before the needed info sinks in.

    To be on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is to be on the right side of history.

    by mbayrob on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:02:23 PM PDT

    •  Speaking of consultants, (0+ / 0-)

      want to know what Robert Gibbs is doing these days?

      Teachers unions are girding for a tough fight to defend tenure laws against a coming blitz of lawsuits — and an all-out public relations campaign led by former aides to President Barack Obama.
      The Incite Agency, founded by former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and former Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt, will lead a national public relations drive to support a series of lawsuits aimed at challenging tenure, seniority and other job protections that teachers unions have defended ferociously. LaBolt and another former Obama aide, Jon Jones — the first digital strategist of the 2008 campaign — will take the lead in the public relations initiative.
      The national legal campaign is being organized by Campbell Brown, a former CNN anchor who told POLITICO that she has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent months to get the effort off the ground. She intends to start with a lawsuit in New York, to be filed within the next few weeks, and follow up with similar cases around the country. Her plans for the New York lawsuit were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

      If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

      by skohayes on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:29:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is "republican pollster" an oxymoron at this po... (8+ / 0-)

    Is "republican pollster" an oxymoron at this point? These guys are stuck in the 1990s. Yet I imagine republicans everywhere are still "unskewing" the polls and clinging to Karl Roves words as they wait for Ohio to come in for Romney.

  •  Well, there IS that, Kos... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, dinotrac, JeffW

    ...but also I believe that Obama is not running again.

    Every human being has paid the earth to grow up. Most people don’t grow up. And you find out what it costs us to love and to lose, to dare and to fail. And maybe even more, to succeed. What it costs, in truth.—Maya Angelou

    by TerryDarc on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:10:31 PM PDT

  •  Hillary's access to OFA's data, software & team is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish, Dvalkure

    ...huge additional hurdle for anybody who challenges her for the nomination.

    This helps explain why Hillary does not seem to think that there is attractive risk/reward in urgently fundraising for and campaigning alongside 2014 Democratic candidates. This lack of urgency should infuriate Progressives, but maybe infuriating us is a feature rather than a bug of her fundraising and election strategy.

    Progressives should stay focused on the fact that their best opportunity to influence Hillary, and to increase the credibility of other challengers for the 2016 nomination, is through 2014 election results that send messages about the mood of the Democratic and general electorate, such as:

    ME-Sen; CO-Sen:




    •  Is she really not doing so (0+ / 0-)

      The electorate in 2014 is different than in 2012, and from the perspective of Angry Republican Voters, she's somewhat polarizing.  So it wouldn't surprize me if some candidates would use her or Obama sparingly, to not motivate the wrong people to vote.

      Fundraising is something else.  A presidential nominee needs people who are indebted to her.  If she really isn't helping much, I'd be shocked.  That would definitely be news.

      Anybody know what she's doing?

      To be on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is to be on the right side of history.

      by mbayrob on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:28:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are candidates asking for her help? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I see people at Daily Kos talking about her absence a lot.

      I've yet to see this complaint from the people she's supposedly abandoning, though. Maybe you have some links?

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:44:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Candidates not publicly complaining probably says (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        more about their discretion than their satisfaction.

      •  My complaints' goal is not to bash but to pressure (0+ / 0-)

        Hillary to get out on the campaign trail, as Warren has been doing.

        This would be better for everybody, including Hillary, because sitting on a lead frequently turns out to be a bad strategy, partly because it takes time for a candidate to find their most effective personal voice, as Hillary showed in 2008.

        •  Maybe the candidates don't think she'd be helpful. (0+ / 0-)

          I remember that Obama stayed out of certain races because the Democratic candidates in question didn't really want him there.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:09:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If T-Mac is the only candidate who thinks that (0+ / 0-)

            Hillary would be helpful, then Hillary has a problem.

            If Grimes in KY and Tennant in WV think that Senator Warren is helpful and Hillary is not, then Warren would be our strongest nominee.

            It seems quite obvious that Hillary is simply "not ready" yet to get out on the co-campaigning trail. This:

            1. may or may not be a good strategy for her own nomination and election campaigns (I think not), but

            2. is certainly not the approach most likely to give local Democratic candidates the early funding and visibility that can make the biggest difference.

            •  There is a difference between off-year and.... (0+ / 0-)

              Presidential elections.

              For a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton, being on the wrong side of the off-year electorate doesn't mean that you have a problem in a Presidential election.

              But good job steering the conversation back to "Hillary Clinton shouldn't be the nominee" talking points. I knew you could do it.

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:25:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I merely drove in the direction you pointed... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                My view is that Hillary prefers to delay her co-campaigning, although I have no doubt that many candidates want her.

                Your view seems to be that no candidates want her.

                Of these two views, mine has fewer, and yours has more, negative implications for Hillary's electability in 2016. Yes off-year elections have lower Democratic turnout, which is exactly a big reason why Hillary using her star power to help increase registration of voters and funding of GOTV would be good
                •    for local Democrat candidates,
                •    for everybody who wants success for them,
                •    for avoiding Repug gains in Congress, and
                •    for driving conventional wisdom on voter opinion to the Left.

                I suspect a key reason Hillary is waiting is so that more-mature polling results, and "limited time", will make it easier for her to campaign mainly with eventual winners, out of concern that campaigning with very many eventual losers would tarnish her "inevitability". But this does not, to me, project the confidence that she would benefit from projecting, or demonstrate as much public-spiritedness as I would like to see.  If she is elected with a Republican Congress, she will not pass much Progressive legislation.  That's important to me, but perhaps not as much to her.

                For the record, I  do see Hillary as having a virtually inevitable glide path, which will probably be only moderately weakened by the strategy of running out the clock, and my view is that Progressives can accomplish more in Senate and House races than in over-emphasizing a likely fruitless challenge to Hillary.

                •  No, the "Hillary has a problem" line was all you. (0+ / 0-)

                  Perhaps a better description would be, you saw your opening and took it.

                  I despise people who operate like that. I was trying to discuss this topic in good faith, and you were just trying to get to your anti-Hillary-nomination talking points.

                  I'm done, and I'll remember you from this.

                  Art is the handmaid of human good.

                  by joe from Lowell on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 10:12:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Joe, my talking point for now is 2014 candidates, (0+ / 0-)

                    while my frustration with contrary actions (like Hillary's) and arguments (like yours above rhetorically defending her actions), can provoke me into harsh rhetoric.

                    The harshness of my "then Hillary has a problem" retort resulted from my view that your comment "candidates don't want her" was:
                    •    knee-jerkily defensive of Hillary, and
                    •    such a fat hanging curve ball that I couldn't resist swinging at it hard.
                    I regret if my failure to resist this temptation has caused you to cease being open to persuasion of my underlying point -- as harsh retorts often do in this (illusorily verbal-feeling) written medium.

                    More for the record on my views of Hillary's nomination:

                    I see this as a second-order issue so long as 2014 election results remain in play, mainly because:
                    •    although much of my policy wishlist goes further than President Hillary would pro-actively go,
                    •    I believe that federal policy can be moved a long way in Progressive and populist directions through Senatorial and House election results before reaching the limits of what President Hillary would resist.

                    Further (to address the 'Rox/Sux' meme that is lurking beneath our dialog):

                    •    I respect Hillary's life accomplishments, and her willingness to stay in the governing and electoral arena after all the stress that they have given her (and to take the income reduction that would result from her being elected President), and

                    •    I don't personally hold against her that her career experience (starting with her work on the very Progressive 1972 McGovern Presidential campaign), has pushed her in more conservative directions than my experience has pushed me (and I have no doubt that she has inside information which, if known to me, would change some of my policy preferences), but,

                    •    as with any candidate, I regard Hillary's most important (to me) function as as a tool to move politics in my preferred direction, so any doubts that arise about her effectiveness in this function as overriding my general respect, affection and empathy towards her.

                    •  Stop spewing your propaganda at me. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      It is rude of you to continually use discussions not to have the discussion that is going on, but merely as an opening to try to sell people something. There was an actual topic, and all you cared about was pivoting to your sales pitch.

                      Drop the salesman act. Drop the "Always Be Closing" routine.

                      It's rude, and it doesn't become less rude because you're doing it for love instead of money. That just makes you the equivalent of the guy at the party who turns every conversation into a chance to talk about Jesus.

                      Art is the handmaid of human good.

                      by joe from Lowell on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:12:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  there's alot of (0+ / 0-)

                  good points here, I think she doesn't want to start the madness until she has to, but if she gets elected in 2016, she'll have the Senate, the House will probably stay in Republican hands. So maybe there's just not a ton to gain here.

                  •  So many Dems spend so much time raising so little (0+ / 0-)

                    money, including in races where a few 10,000s or even a few 1,000s can materially improve a candidate's prospects (and GOTV for statewide and nationwide candidates), that I cannot bear to accept the possibility that

                    there's just not a ton to gain here
                    ...because this would imply futility of all such time, contributions and efforts.
                    •  i get (0+ / 0-)

                      for the broader agenda, electing good people is important. Getting rid of some of the crazies be great.  I'd love to make gains. Personally I'm gonna do what I can. I think it's important to keep the Senate. I just don't think much will change in House.

                      I was just trying to see it through her eyes. That was all. We'll see how active she is in this cycle.

    •  The best way to influence HRC is to defeat her (0+ / 0-)

      in the primaries.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 01:27:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think they are all genuinely "disturbed". eom (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BelgianBastard, JeffW, ditsylilg

    You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

    by MikePhoenix on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:11:26 PM PDT

  •  EZ to explain . . . Democrats, being rational . . (5+ / 0-)

    using polling to establish factual data points.

    Republicans, being irrational and anti-science, only believe the data that support their preconceived notions . . .

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

    by bobdevo on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:13:21 PM PDT

  •  What a dumbass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    doesn't he realize that this is exactly how Clinton ran his second administration?

  •  publicans polled too... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, ditsylilg, Dvalkure

    They just did it at billionaire fund raisers.  That was the only part of the electorate that interested them.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:31:48 PM PDT

  •  Rule of thumb: the word "desperate" is a tell. (8+ / 0-)

    When you see a political figure, or someone from a campaign, describe an opponent's actions as "desperate," it means he's afraid of them working.

    Think about it as the elections heat up. Whenever you see a campaign put out a statement about their opponent's "desperate" attack, it means it left a mark.

    You never see them say that about genuinely desperate moves. When a candidate is actually in a desperate position, the opponent either continues talking about what he was talking about before, or shuts up and stays out of the way.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:42:03 PM PDT

  •  And it smacks of... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, ditsylilg, aimeehs, jiffykeen, Dvalkure

    ...clumsy reverse psychology.

    It's funny enough when Repubs offer advice to Dems; it's funnier still when it's done passive/aggressively.

  •  hey Markos, that's not an American phone... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, ditsylilg, Dvalkure

    It's an English phone.

    This I know because I have one of those (presently sitting in the "awaiting restoration" box).

    GPO Tele. 150, typically manufactured by Siemens Bros. London (which was split off from Siemens of Germany after WW1) or Ericsson Telephones Ltd. (which was responsible for two subsequent major designs of telephone used by GPO, the Tele.332 and Tele.706).  

    Should be all black, someone stripped the paint & buffed the brass, which is not original for this type.  Does have original "Dial No.10" and solid-back transmitter.  Receiver cord appears to have been changed out when it was reconditioned.

    The USA version would be Western Electric 51-AL, or Automatic Electric type 21 (there are others that are less common).

    But no, Republicans don't use those, they wouldn't know how.  
    They use "outbound telemarketing applications," otherwise known as
    "that %$#@#&!! robot that keeps calling during dinner!"

    We got the future back. Uh-oh.

    by G2geek on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 07:08:48 PM PDT

  •  Polling: Republicans push, Democrats pull (eom) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, ditsylilg
  •  So a pollster is complaining about polling? Is he (0+ / 0-)

    looking for a career change?  Or is it because the polls he oversaw didn't bring the result he thought it would.  More proof that the Rs stink at math.

    "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

    by ditsylilg on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 08:26:39 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site