Green Room

The other demographic

posted at 7:16 pm on November 8, 2012 by

Not to resurrect the ghost of “the 47 percent” here but there is one demographic from the exit polls which is clear. Barack Obama did much better with the economically disadvantaged (read: the poor) than Mitt Romney. If you want to change this particular metric, it would seem to follow that you need to more effectively both communicate and demonstrate that you are implementing policies which will… (wait for it)

.. produce fewer poor people.

It’s fine to talk about that fact that increased prosperity and job growth will result in more jobs, giving people more money to spend, resulting in more jobs… ad infinitum. But a good team of strategists – who clearly have to be smarter than myself – will need to find concrete examples of this which can be easily conveyed in short message bursts to lower information voters and those with short attention spans.

Just a thought.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

But if we just put billions more in education then everyone will be edumicated and understand dis stuff.

ya feel me?

HoustonRight on November 8, 2012 at 7:37 PM

OBAMAPHONE!!…

Mimzey on November 8, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Make the 47% smaller, let the Bush tax rates expire.

El_Terrible on November 8, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Agreed, Jazz. With all the layoffs happening, there are surely plenty of poor (or soon-to-be poor) people suffering as a direct result of That One’s policies. The argument is there–we just have to present it.

Mr. Prodigy on November 8, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Well, wait…if you can convince the poor that you’re the right candidate for them, then isn’t it in your interest to make more poor people?

JEM on November 8, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I’ve decided that its time to follow up on the policies that produce fewer people. Give them all the abortions they want, all the birth control they want, and even give them sterilization if they want it. Lets make less poor people….

deadite on November 8, 2012 at 9:54 PM

We preach what we always have but we do it in every neighborhood. It might not work at first, but it is better than out of site out of mind. The message doesn’t need to change…just the show of effort and visibility.

tomas on November 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM

I think we should abandon the opposition to tax increases on the wealthy.

Sure, we’re RIGHT, but the rich don’t appreciate it, and it hurts us a lot.

We can always lower the taxes when we get back in power. The rich won’t be hurt that much, there are always tax shelters, foreign countries, etc. That battle isn’t worth fighting at this point. We need to start taking away 2016 ad messages.

hawksruleva on November 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Jazz, we just spent 5 trillion dollars that were supposed to help the poor people, and who did it help? Unions, government employees (I can’t say workers) and special interest groups, like Solyndra. Yet, the majority of the electorate voted for more free stuff. Communicating a conservative message no longer works on an electorate that has decided that “free stuff rules” and has no idea what the constitution stands for.

simkeith on November 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Free Romneyphones, with constant stream of GOP text spamming.

Red Creek on November 9, 2012 at 6:10 AM

If you want to change this particular metric, it would seem to follow that you need to more effectively both communicate and demonstrate that you are implementing policies which will… (wait for it)

.. produce fewer poor people.

True, but … the Dems need the votes of “the little guy” or what is in their world “the middle class” (read: “the poor”) in order to get their power. It follows, then, that the Dems need the poor to stay poor in order to keep their power, no?

It therefore further follows that the policies of the Dems are intended to prevent what the author is suggesting. And empiric evidence seems to bear this out, as the richest people in the U.S. are not the church-going country club Republicans who make their money in business, but rather the Limousine Liberals feeding off the masses’ tax dollars while laughing at their own downtrodden constituency. Dickens couldn’t have constructed a more perverse social model.

Blacksheep on November 9, 2012 at 8:05 AM

What about the demographic of the silent 12 million? That’s how many fewer people voted in 2012 than voted in 2008. We know that 9 million of them may have wised up as they didn’t come out to vote for Obamuh this time. And then there are the 3 million fewer Republicans who didn’t turn out to vote for Romney. What do we make of them?

stukinIL4now on November 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM