2012 Presidential Campaign

[cody8200]

I figured as much. I'm sure it will be read into too much but at the same time, I'm sure it was an intentional choice by Rand. He seems to make a lot of intentional noise.

[panerd]

His dad is far classier with similar views on gun control but I would say having a gun pointing at Obama with enough plausible deniability to say that's not what was intended is certainly not going to hurt your popularity in Kentucky or with the Republican voting base as a whole. As far as nobody having any idea of what he is talking about I believe this was based on a UN thing but I thought it was a couple of years ago. Not sure how this made the news recently unless Paul just sent out the new e-mail. He has been talking about the million guns for a while.

[panerd]

With Romney having basically sealed up the nomination looks like Gary Johnson will be getting my vote. Hope the next election cycle offers up a D or R that actually supports cutting spending or ending the wars. Until then at least I can vote my conscience and not convince myself that Obama has found a good reason to kill the brown people or that Romney has found a reason not to get the budget in order. The gay marriage thing would have been a bigger deal to me in 2009. 2012? Just empty politics. Maybe Obama will come out against the Patriot Act this election cycle also and then do nothing for 4 years about it.

[larrymcg421]

I'm amazed that people are acting like this is some amazingly popular move that obviously seals his re-election. It's still very controversial and many of the states he's counting on winning still largely oppose it.

If he had done it in 2009 (or 2013), people would have blasted him for being cowardly and waiting until after the election. There's literally nothing he could've done on this issue to make people happy aside from going back in time and changing his stance, which maybe costs him the election in 2008, resulting in a much worse 4 years for gay Americans who wouldn't currently be able to serve in the military.

People can shit on his announcement all they want, but the fact remains on May 9, 2012 for the first time a President of the United States declared support for gay marriage. Whatever motivation you want to attach to his announcement, that's a significant day in the history of gay rights.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by panerd

With Romney having basically sealed up the nomination looks like Gary Johnson will be getting my vote. Hope the next election cycle offers up a D or R that actually supports cutting spending or ending the wars. Until then at least I can vote my conscience and not convince myself that Obama has found a good reason to kill the brown people or that Romney has found a reason not to get the budget in order. The gay marriage thing would have been a bigger deal to me in 2009. 2012? Just empty politics. Maybe Obama will come out against the Patriot Act this election cycle also and then do nothing for 4 years about it.

I'm a big Gary Johnson fan. This might be the first time I've ever been excited to vote for someone in a presidential election. Of course, he has no shot at getting elected. It's kind of disappointing that Ron Paul has gotten all the libertarian love when Johnson's views are a lot more consistent with liberty. As a highly successful two term governor of New Mexico you would think he would attract more attention.

[Grover]

Bet Karl's not too happy about this getting out.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Grover

Bet Karl's not too happy about this getting out.

I don't think that map is a big surprise to anyone except FOX News.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I don't think that map is a big surprise to anyone except FOX News.

...and the people here who said Obama didn't have a chance in GA/SC. (Though I'm surprised that SC seems more likely than GA. I had the opposite.)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Grover

Bet Karl's not too happy about this getting out.

Bet Karl had it leaked on purpose.

[Passacaglia]

This is dated 5/10, but a few weeks ago, I saw one similar to it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I don't think it's a leak: Karl Rove's website

[sterlingice]

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin all solid Obama?

SI

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

This is dated 5/10, but a few weeks ago, I saw one similar to it.

Surely a map like this is only really useful once the opinion polls have been carried out in all states after Romney became the nominee.

[Ryan S]

I have never understood why arguments about gay marriage or abortion laws are such a huge part of politics in the US. I just can't imagine making my decision to vote based on either one of those issues.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin all solid Obama?

SI

Not a surprise.

Dems haven't lost Minnesota since 72, Wisconsin since 84, and have only lost Iowa once since 84. Even Dukakis won all three of those states.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

...and the people here who said Obama didn't have a chance in GA/SC. (Though I'm surprised that SC seems more likely than GA. I had the opposite.)

I'm actually shocked by that. Obama's % of the white vote in the deep south is stunningly bad; 10% in Alabama in 2008. Heck, if you look systemtically, the deep south is the political / racially segregated part of America - Minorities vote Democrat, Whites vote Republican. See table below.

Tables: White Vote for Obama « All Other Persons



1) In GA, I could see the city of Atlanta being a counter (urban liberals to pair with minorities); in SC, I'm curious what's driving it - what the hell passes for a city in South Carolina? I thought the minority population in SC (African Americans) is only about 30% (for which we assume 95% will vote for him), so he needs to get a substantial portion of the white vote (30% + ) to win. I am surprised that he did better amongst the white vote in SC (where he got 26% of the White Vote) in 2008. In other words, is this a case of South Carolina being more "liberal" than Alabama or Louisiana or MS, or what are we missing?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin all solid Obama?

SI

If Obama loses any of those states, Mitt Romney is president. Much in the same way that if Obama wins one of Virginia, Ohio, or NC, he is re-elected.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I have never understood why arguments about gay marriage or abortion laws are such a huge part of politics in the US. I just can't imagine making my decision to vote based on either one of those issues.

I can't wait until whatever the SCOTUS case that grants gay marriage is so that people can bitch about it for 50 years(as they have with Roe V Wade)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm actually shocked by that. Obama's % of the white vote in the deep south is stunningly bad; 10% in Alabama in 2008. Heck, if you look systemtically, the deep south is the political / racially segregated part of America - Minorities vote Democrat, Whites vote Republican. See table below.

Tables: White Vote for Obama « All Other Persons



1) In GA, I could see the city of Atlanta being a counter (urban liberals to pair with minorities); in SC, I'm curious what's driving it - what the hell passes for a city in South Carolina? I thought the minority population in SC (African Americans) is only about 30% (for which we assume 95% will vote for him), so he needs to get a substantial portion of the white vote (30% + ) to win. I am surprised that he did better amongst the white vote in SC (where he got 26% of the White Vote) in 2008. In other words, is this a case of South Carolina being more "liberal" than Alabama or Louisiana or MS, or what are we missing?

I think you're missing how disliked Romney is among the conservative Republicans in the South. Sure, there will be some "anything is better than Obama" votes and some "anything is better than a nigger" votes. But there will also be, I suspect, a significant number of people who normally vote Republican for President who won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Romney. Thinking about it more, it may be that those numbers point to just the opposite of what you're saying: it may well be a case of SC's Repubs being *more* conservative than Georgia's, therefore more likely to see little/no difference between Obama and Romney, and therefore more likely to either sit it out, or vote their consciences by writing in someone like Santorum or Palin.

Ultimately, the big part of my thinking from the day I made that semi-prediction is that a Romney nomination would lose enough conservative Repubs to hand Obama a deep south state or two, since I suspect that there will be another very strong black voter turnout.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Thinking about it more, it may be that those numbers point to just the opposite of what you're saying: it may well be a case of SC's Repubs being *more* conservative than Georgia's, therefore more likely to see little/no difference between Obama and Romney, and therefore more likely to either sit it out, or vote their consciences

I'm totally on board with the possibility of SC > GA ... but I'm having a tougher time with the idea of SC > MS. (edit to add: Hell, I don't think there's any question than SC GOP is more conservative than GA GOP)

Is that as simple as black voter concentration being higher in SC than MS?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can't wait until whatever the SCOTUS case that grants gay marriage is so that people can bitch about it for 50 years(as they have with Roe V Wade)

The crazy thing is that, unlike Roe, the upcoming ruling will almost certainly be limited. This means most states will claim it doesn't apply to them, meaning we have many many more years of litigation before SCOTUS finally overturns gay marriage unilaterally.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I have never understood why arguments about gay marriage or abortion laws are such a huge part of politics in the US. I just can't imagine making my decision to vote based on either one of those issues.

I can't imagine why those who want to ban gay marriage to preserve the sanctity of marriage aren't focusing on banning divorce.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I can't imagine why those who want to ban gay marriage to preserve the sanctity of marriage aren't focusing on banning divorce.

California Divorce Ban Movement Underway, Led By John Marcotte

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm totally on board with the possibility of SC > GA ... but I'm having a tougher time with the idea of SC > MS. (edit to add: Hell, I don't think there's any question than SC GOP is more conservative than GA GOP)

Is that as simple as black voter concentration being higher in SC than MS?

I've always thought of Mississippi as the most racist state in the South. I strongly suspect that's the state where you'll get the highest percentage of whites who'll show up to vote for any white man--and by "any white man" I mean even a Howard Dean or an Al Gore--over Obama. I'll bet Mississippi is a good 20-30 years behind Georgia and South Carolina when it comes to just plain ol' racism. White Republicans in Georgia and South Carolina would, in my estimation, be far more likely to make their decision blind to race than white Republicans in Mississippi.

EDIT TO ADD: That's not just a stereotype of the state, by the way. It's based on my experiences and the experiences of quite a few friends of mine--both black and white.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I've always thought of Mississippi as the most racist state in the South. I strongly suspect that's the state where you'll get the highest percentage of whites who'll show up to vote for any white man--and by "any white man" I mean even a Howard Dean or an Al Gore--over Obama. I'll bet Mississippi is a good 20-30 years behind Georgia and South Carolina when it comes to just plain ol' racism.

I think you're right on that, but if you look at the numbers, MS was actually about the same as AL or LA for Obama in 2008 -10/11% of the vote. Now i'm no southerner, but I have heard friends from the south who've acquainted me with the phrase "Thank God for Mississippi" as a sort of rejoinder for anytime anything embarrassing happens; ie, their state is ranked 49.

Its interesting though about South Carolina; I'd say if you asked those of us in California (who tend to view it as one big nebulous South), that SC would be on par with Alabama or MS; surprised that it's not.

PS, one interesting thing you said Ben - MS is also the state with the single largest African American population in the US (as a % of total), and by a substantial margin (ie, 6% more than the closest state).

List of U.S. states by African-American population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think you're missing how disliked Romney is among the conservative Republicans in the South. Sure, there will be some "anything is better than Obama" votes and some "anything is better than a nigger" votes. But there will also be, I suspect, a significant number of people who normally vote Republican for President who won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Romney. Thinking about it more, it may be that those numbers point to just the opposite of what you're saying: it may well be a case of SC's Repubs being *more* conservative than Georgia's, therefore more likely to see little/no difference between Obama and Romney, and therefore more likely to either sit it out, or vote their consciences by writing in someone like Santorum or Palin.

Ultimately, the big part of my thinking from the day I made that semi-prediction is that a Romney nomination would lose enough conservative Repubs to hand Obama a deep south state or two, since I suspect that there will be another very strong black voter turnout.

That may be, but look at the numbers I cited above - Obama in SC amongst white voters was 26% - which is a substantial statistical difference from the MS / LA / AL group. What I'm curious about is why he's doing that much better in SC; Is it just culturally closer to a GA or an NC than it is to the deeper southern states? Ie, I take your point for 2012 - what I'm trying to understand is in 2008, what made SC give as much of the white vote to Obama as it did, in comparison to the other deep south states. Ie, looking at 2008 data for the South alone (excluding Florida), you can almost sub-categorize:

The strongly competitive

- VA (39%)
- KY (36%)
- NC (35%)
- TN (34%)
- AK (30%)

All have at least one major city you can point or urban center that you can see driving the white vote, and Arkansas has the weird dichotomy of still being almost a complete Democratic state at levels other than federal.

The next tier

- OK (29%)
- SC (26%)
- TX (26%)
- GA (23%) (ps, given JIMGA's thoughts, interesting Obama did worse in GA than SC!!!)
-


The "no chance in hell"


- LA (14%)
- MS (11%)
- AL (10%)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I think you're right on that, but if you look at the numbers, MS was actually about the same as AL or LA for Obama in 2008 -10/11% of the vote. Now i'm no southerner, but I have heard friends from the south who've acquainted me with the phrase "Thank God for Mississippi" as a sort of rejoinder for anytime anything embarrassing happens; ie, their state is ranked 49.

My Daddy told me a story once about an ol' boy from Georgia who explained why Mississippi was so racist thusly...

"See in Georgia, we can look down on Alabama. In Alabama, they can look down on Mississippi, but Mississippi ain't got nobody to look down on, so they take it out on their niggers. That's why it's so much worse there than here."

Its interesting though about South Carolina; I'd say if you asked those of us in California (who tend to view it as one big nebulous South), that SC would be on par with Alabama or MS; surprised that it's not.

I don't know a ton about the state as a whole, but I'm quite sure those from outside the south would be absolutely shocked to see my neighborhood and church. It's a standard middle class suburb, populated by mostly college-educated working couples in the 35-45 age range. I just walked outside to check so I could get the numbers exactly right. There are 22 homes on my block. They are occupied by:

• 12 white families
• 6 black families
• 3 asian families
• 1 biracial family

While I was out there, four girls--two white, one black, one asian, all ages 8-10--came bounding out of my next-door neighbor's front door, giggling and laughing about something or the other. You very rarely will see a single-race group of kids if there are maybe four or more of 'em around here. Yes, I'm quite certain most of the whites in this neighborhood vote nearly exclusively Republican, but given where they live and who their kids play with, I seriously doubt they're voting on race. Ironically, as liberal as parts of metro Atlanta are, I suspect we've made a much better choice to raise our biracial daughter here than there. (Given how many effin' birthday parties we are going to these days, I might even welcome some racists deciding to exclude us. Our 3-year-old has quite the social calendar. )

PS, one interesting thing you said Ben - MS is also the state with the single largest African American population in the US (as a % of total), and by a substantial margin (ie, 6% more than the closest state).

List of U.S. states by African-American population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely. It has been that way for quite some time, too. I've always assumed the voter registration stuff in particular there was so much more intense because the whites understood that the political scales there could be tipped fairly easily if the blacks voted with a relatively small number of white "turncoats." And it was much easier to intimidate the blacks into not voting than to try to identify the whites who might vote the "wrong" way.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

That may be, but look at the numbers I cited above - Obama in SC amongst white voters was 26% - which is a substantial statistical difference from the MS / LA / AL group. What I'm curious about is why he's doing that much better in SC; Is it just culturally closer to a GA or an NC than it is to the deeper southern states? Ie, I take your point for 2012 - what I'm trying to understand is in 2008, what made SC give as much of the white vote to Obama as it did, in comparison to the other deep south states. Ie, looking at 2008 data for the South alone (excluding Florida), you can almost sub-categorize:

The strongly competitive

- VA (39%)
- KY (36%)
- NC (35%)
- TN (34%)
- AK (30%)

All have at least one major city you can point or urban center that you can see driving the white vote, and Arkansas has the weird dichotomy of still being almost a complete Democratic state at levels other than federal.

The next tier

- OK (29%)
- SC (26%)
- TX (26%)
- GA (23%) (ps, given JIMGA's thoughts, interesting Obama did worse in GA than SC!!!)
-


The "no chance in hell"


- LA (14%)
- MS (11%)
- AL (10%)

Well, I'll continue to assume that other than in Mississippi and maybe Alabama, an extremely high percentage of white voters weren't voting on race, but on their personal political thinking. Therefore, the simplistic answer is "there are more liberal whites in SC/TX/GA than in LA/MS/AL." I'm not really sure why that is, but the statement just rings true to me. KY and TN are the only two states in that list that don't appear to "fit." (i.e. if I were listing them on guesses, they wouldn't have been in the tier with VA and NC by any means.) But keep in mind that the economy took a massive downturn in 2008, so it could be that those places were simply harder hit, and therefore voted for "change" in greater numbers.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by panerd

His dad is far classier with similar views on gun control but I would say having a gun pointing at Obama with enough plausible deniability to say that's not what was intended is certainly not going to hurt your popularity in Kentucky or with the Republican voting base as a whole. As far as nobody having any idea of what he is talking about I believe this was based on a UN thing but I thought it was a couple of years ago. Not sure how this made the news recently unless Paul just sent out the new e-mail. He has been talking about the million guns for a while.

Don't we have like half a billion guns in this country? What's banning a million going to do?

[TargetPractice6]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Well, I'll continue to assume that other than in Mississippi and maybe Alabama, an extremely high percentage of white voters weren't voting on race, but on their personal political thinking. Therefore, the simplistic answer is "there are more liberal whites in SC/TX/GA than in LA/MS/AL." I'm not really sure why that is, but the statement just rings true to me. KY and TN are the only two states in that list that don't appear to "fit." (i.e. if I were listing them on guesses, they wouldn't have been in the tier with VA and NC by any means.) But keep in mind that the economy took a massive downturn in 2008, so it could be that those places were simply harder hit, and therefore voted for "change" in greater numbers.

Most of Kentucky geographically may not "fit" with that model, but Louisville and Lexington both trend liberal and those are the two largest population centers by far. Obama won in both Jefferson county and Fayette county respectively even though each is about 80% white.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by TargetPractice6

Most of Kentucky geographically may not "fit" with that model, but Louisville and Lexington both trend liberal and those are the two largest population centers by far. Obama won in both Jefferson county and Fayette county respectively even though each is about 80% white.

Yes, but Cincinnati is still a conservative hotbed, and a large portion of NKY voters go that way. Despite my best efforts, Obama has no chance in hell of winning this area. Obama actually carried Hamilton Co. (Cincinnati OH) but it also has the largest population of black voters in SW Ohio.

[JPhillips]

Rand's on a roll:

At the Iowa Faith & Freedom event, Paul mocked President Obama’s remark that his view on marriage was evolving. “Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his views on marriage could get any gayer,” he said.

[Dutch]

My Daddy told me a story once about an ol' boy from Georgia who explained why Mississippi was so racist thusly...

"See in Georgia, we can look down on Alabama. In Alabama, they can look down on Mississippi, but Mississippi ain't got nobody to look down on, so they take it out on their niggers. That's why it's so much worse there than here."

Actually, starting in ~1995, Mississippi started looking down on California, so suck it, Georgia!

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Rand's on a roll:

He literally missed the memo on this.

Bush '04 pollster: Change in attitudes on gay marriage across the board - POLITICO.com

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Actually, starting in ~1995, Mississippi started looking down on California, so suck it, Georgia!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

False alarm. I thought California school systems were so horrid these days that they were the worst in the country. Apparently Mississippi is still dead last. Sorry for the confusion.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Rand's on a roll:

A couple more zingers like that and he'll have the 5th grader vote sealed up.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Rand's on a roll:

It's disappointing for sure. He really does carry a lot of momentum generated by his father's movement and then says shit like this to court a group of people his father felt no need to pander to. Degrading people for political gain... sad.

I will repeat what I said at the top of the page though... Rand isn't trying to court the Jphillips on the world but the typical Republican voters, especially those from the state of Kentcuky. So I am not sure this does anything but energize supporters and anger people who wouldn't vote for him anyways. I don't agree and have to say that my list of Republican candidates that I can tolerate grows smaller and smaller by the day.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Actually, starting in ~1995, Mississippi started looking down on California, so suck it, Georgia!

In what way, pray? CA is 20X the size, the biggest state contributor to the federal budget, and generally a cultural mecca.

[Dutch]

I was taking the education angle, since I equate racism with poor education standards. I probably should've mentioned that beforehand.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I was taking the education angle, since I equate racism with poor education standards.

{scratches head}

"Uh, Dutch."

The worst localized education standards I know of are in the poor, rural areas in the "Black Belt" and the Mississippi Delta--areas that are pretty heavily majority black. I don't think there's a whole lot of racism in those areas.

[Dutch]

Sure, blacks in Mississippi aren't exactly in a position to be the racists, but I'm not convinced the local whites are much better off educationally, afterall I attended elementary school in Mississippi and look at me, I couldn't logically argue that the sky appears blue or that the grass is green.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Surely a map like this is only really useful once the opinion polls have been carried out in all states after Romney became the nominee.

When did that happen? I don't remember anymore -- but the map I saw was dated 4/25.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...ctoral-map.png

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

When did that happen? I don't remember anymore -- but the map I saw was dated 4/25.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...ctoral-map.png

I think that all of the state polls in that map use the most recent polls that they can find for each state, but there have not been recent polls carried out in every state. At the Rove website it mentions that the most recent South Carolina poll is 5 months old, dating back before the primaries started. At that point there were probably 7 high profile Republican candidates running.

[Grover]

Ohio Republicans want to disallow ballots with errors caused by poll workers. - Slate Magazine

Sigh.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't know if this quite belongs here, but it also does not quite belong in its own thread.

I've donated money to Democrats in the past, so I am on every emailing list for every Democratic candidate in the world. Whatever. But one of the things that I have found strange/disconcerting about the emails is how personal they all try to be. They rarely use last names. Everyone is discussed on a first name basis--senators, presidents, candidates for such offices, etc.

And there is also the fact that the emails want you to do things like sign birthday cards for the candidates or their spouse. Which, of course, is just a way of collecting names, but is still a kind of creepy-personal way to do it.

So, it occurred to me to wonder, is this just a Democratic Party hippy-dippy touchy-feely thing? Or is it just common for political fundraising in general?

So, those of you on equivalent lists for the GOP, is it the same way? Do you receive business-like fundraising requests from Mr. Cantor? Or are you being asked to sign a card wishing Eric a Happy Birthday (and chip in $25 to defeat Nancy Pelosi if you can)?

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't know if this quite belongs here, but it also does not quite belong in its own thread.

I've donated money to Democrats in the past, so I am on every emailing list for every Democratic candidate in the world. Whatever. But one of the things that I have found strange/disconcerting about the emails is how personal they all try to be. They rarely use last names. Everyone is discussed on a first name basis--senators, presidents, candidates for such offices, etc.

And there is also the fact that the emails want you to do things like sign birthday cards for the candidates or their spouse. Which, of course, is just a way of collecting names, but is still a kind of creepy-personal way to do it.

So, it occurred to me to wonder, is this just a Democratic Party hippy-dippy touchy-feely thing? Or is it just common for political fundraising in general?

So, those of you on equivalent lists for the GOP, is it the same way? Do you receive business-like fundraising requests from Mr. Cantor? Or are you being asked to sign a card wishing Eric a Happy Birthday (and chip in $25 to defeat Nancy Pelosi if you can)?

Subject Lines of Obama Campaign Emails That Sound Like a Stalker Wrote Them | The Hairpin

[panerd]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't know if this quite belongs here, but it also does not quite belong in its own thread.

I've donated money to Democrats in the past, so I am on every emailing list for every Democratic candidate in the world. Whatever. But one of the things that I have found strange/disconcerting about the emails is how personal they all try to be. They rarely use last names. Everyone is discussed on a first name basis--senators, presidents, candidates for such offices, etc.

And there is also the fact that the emails want you to do things like sign birthday cards for the candidates or their spouse. Which, of course, is just a way of collecting names, but is still a kind of creepy-personal way to do it.

So, it occurred to me to wonder, is this just a Democratic Party hippy-dippy touchy-feely thing? Or is it just common for political fundraising in general?

So, those of you on equivalent lists for the GOP, is it the same way? Do you receive business-like fundraising requests from Mr. Cantor? Or are you being asked to sign a card wishing Eric a Happy Birthday (and chip in $25 to defeat Nancy Pelosi if you can)?

I donated money back in '08 to the Libertarians to get a Barr yard sign and lets just say that number of crap junk mailings and e-mails I have gotten from all sorts of "freedom loving" businesses makes me shutter at what would happen if the GOP or Democrats had this information.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So, those of you on equivalent lists for the GOP, is it the same way? Do you receive business-like fundraising requests from Mr. Cantor? Or are you being asked to sign a card wishing Eric a Happy Birthday (and chip in $25 to defeat Nancy Pelosi if you can)?

I get every sort of fundraising pitch imaginable I think.

The phrase "by any means necessary" seems to be pretty popular with fundraisers regardless of who they're working for.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't know if this quite belongs here, but it also does not quite belong in its own thread.

I've donated money to Democrats in the past, so I am on every emailing list for every Democratic candidate in the world. Whatever. But one of the things that I have found strange/disconcerting about the emails is how personal they all try to be. They rarely use last names. Everyone is discussed on a first name basis--senators, presidents, candidates for such offices, etc.

And there is also the fact that the emails want you to do things like sign birthday cards for the candidates or their spouse. Which, of course, is just a way of collecting names, but is still a kind of creepy-personal way to do it.

So, it occurred to me to wonder, is this just a Democratic Party hippy-dippy touchy-feely thing? Or is it just common for political fundraising in general?

So, those of you on equivalent lists for the GOP, is it the same way? Do you receive business-like fundraising requests from Mr. Cantor? Or are you being asked to sign a card wishing Eric a Happy Birthday (and chip in $25 to defeat Nancy Pelosi if you can)?

I've never donated to the Democratic or Republican parties, but I still get stuff exactly like that from both. I'd chalk it up to "common for political fundraising in general."