Kerry campaign spent more on Bob Shrum than on Latino media outreach

[lancdem]

http://www.newdonkey.com

Garance Franke-Ruta has an interesting and in-depth article on the Democratic Party's creaky minority outreach efforts up on the American Prospect site. By way of emphasizing the Democratic habit of underinvesting in targeted media and messaging, as opposed to more mechanical GOTV efforts, she passes along this factoid: "Kerry spent less on targeted Hispanic media--$3 million--than he did on political strategist and consultant Bob Shrum."

Well, just about any way you look at it, had Shrum's fees gone to targeted Hispanic media, Kerry would be president today.

Of course, some might argue that Kerry would be president today if Shrum's fees had been stuffed in a paper bag and tossed into the Potomac River, but there's no question more targeted Hispanic media would have been helpful as well.

:mad:

[jmaier]

1. If there is one positive from the 2004 outcome

perhaps Shrum will finally get benched for good. It is SO time to move on.

[lancdem]

2. True

Why Kerry hired him given his abysmal track record is beyond me. Bob Shrum vs. Karl Rove is like the Washington Generals vs. the Globetrotters.

[elperromagico]

3. I'm worried about our dropping figures among Hispanics.

As the Hispanic population grows, we need their support more than ever.

[Lexingtonian]

12. Well....

The best way to find out why you should vote Democrat is to vote Republican once or twice, and see what that gets you.

[saracat]

4. Another bash Kerry thread. How productive.

Whatever you think of the past campaign, it is certainly done with. Let us look to the future please instead of endlessly rehashing, woulda ,coulda , shoulda and picking pieces to trash our former nominee!

[lancdem]

5. The point is that our Dem nominee not make this mistake

in 2008. I'm not "bashing" Kerry. I thought he was a good candidate and should've won.

[snowbear]

7. We'll do better next time... with a new candidate and a better strategy!

And that's why I don't mind lancdem or anyone pointing out another area that our next nominee needs to focus more on ~~ :thumbsup:

As long as the next candidate and their staff are taking good notes and won't repeat ANY of the problems of this last run!

Our next nominee needs to pay attention to EVERY detail! :patriot:

(and yeah... I know about Diebold.. but I still think we're winning it big time in 2008)

you'll see.. ;) :bounce:

[politicasista]

8. It's too early to talk about 2008

Can we focus on 2006?

[snowbear]

9. It's never too early!

When you have a president like the one we have!

But yeah.. you are right.. 2006... We've gotta do something about that first! :toast:

[LittleClarkie]

18. If we have the funds the Repubs had we can

We looked like a rummage sale in Kerry HQ. They had a nice space, freshly painted, multiple t-shirts, pins, bumperstickers, literature in both spanish and english.

It's easy to look clever if you have the money.

We were saving our money for GOTV, because they said "Yard signs can't vote." And this was in a battleground state.

I think it had more to do with not waging a 50 state strategy. We didn't have the structure in the Party itself to do what needed to be done. That's what I'm looking to Dean for.

[saracat]

10. That may be so, but it is still armchair quarterbacking of the campaign!

And the phrase"Kerry Campaign spent more on Bob Schrum than Hispanic outreach" is an indictment of Kerry as well as his campaign. I do not think these types of posts are helpful.The Republicans never nitpick former candidates campaigns like this. These kind of posts are used to denigrate our leaders whether intentional or not. I also believe we should learn from our mistakes and that is what I assume you mean to be saying but that is NOT the way the bashers will use this point! It would be more productive to point out the positive things that Kerry is doing lately.What about his work on voting reform?

[gratuitous]

19. Well, I would hope someone learned a little lesson

Most of all, I hope the Democrats have learned not to give John Kerry the nomination in 2008. I really wanted him to win in 2004, and was as dismayed as anyone with his strategy to take August off from campaigning.

I thought, though, that he was conserving his limited presidential campaign funds, holding them in reserve until Bush got the Republican nomination so that both sides would have an approximately equal amount to spend during the foreshortened September-October campaign season.

Kerry ran a decent enough campaign, but his near silence about the Swift Boat Liars and his inability to articulate what was wrong with the past four years of Bush's incompetent leadership really hurt him. But even that I could forgive for 2008, except for one thing: He ended his 2004 campaign with $15 million in unspent federal funds! If he wasn't going to spend the money in August to counter the Swifties (whose relentless lying really hurt him), and he didn't spend everything he had during September and October, what was he saving back $15 million for? Could a few million here and there have tipped the polls in one or two close states? I believe it could have.

If Kerry's the 2008 nominee, I'll support him. But I'd far rather have someone else take a shot.

[Snivi Yllom]

6. Bob Shrum is like the Washington Generals of politics.

But I expect him to keep getting hired.

[Fleshdancer]

11. Should we take into consideration what the DNC spent on minority outreach?

Granted, I don't like the idea of Bob Shrum receiving $3 million for piss poor consulting (talk about a waste of money) but perhaps the DNC took on the bigger role of reaching out to minorities? I don't know what the DNC spent but I would assume the Presidential campaign and the Party work together to figure this sort of thing out so that their effort isn't duplicated. :shrug:

This may be a topic for another thread, but I wouldn't mind putting a cap on the amount of money a political strategist can make for a campaign. $3 million dollars is f*cked up.

[corbett]

13. Considering That Teresa Is Hispanic And Speaks The Languages Fluently...

I am a staunch Kerry supporter who knows beyond a doubt that Kerry won Florida, New Mexico and Ohio and hopes that he'll run in 2008. That being said, if these figures are correct, I am deeply saddened. Shrum did a few things right but on balance, Karl Rove whooped him handily. I plan to write a personal plea to the Senator right after he announces his second run for the White House that he take a month off and become fluent in Spanish. Teresa can teach him!

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Teresa is not "hispanic" by any definition of that term

What the hell are you talking about?

She's Portugese.

[corbett]

27. The Term "Hispanic" Covers Italians And Portuguese, Too n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. LOL...maybe in corbett world, but in no other

Get a fucking clue. Or a dictionary. Here ya go: http://www.answers.com/hispanic&r=67

Italians! :rofl: I never realized I was "hispanic." We're all just olive-skinned darkies, eh? Name end in an "O" - Hispanic! :eyes: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Dr Fate]

14. Shrum is probably the one telling them to not talk about the DSM...

"...Put somthing on the internet to get the base off your back without brushing them off completely- but no direct confrontations-and NEVER talk about it on TV if you can help it- that would upset swing-voters..."


The "stay positive on safe issues & dont attack Bush" camp talks a great game, but never gets the results.

[LightningFlash]

15. Kerry dropped the ball.

There was mass fraud in new mexico among hispanics and minorities, and Kerry did nothing. Richardson said he would take care of it and then blocked all fraud investigations shutting off access to any data.

[LittleClarkie]

20. Then how could Kerry take care of it

if Richardson wasn't going to cooperate.

Why do people praise Richardson as someone who would be good in 2008 if he did stuff like that in New Mexico?

Why would Richardson be against finding fraud for a fellow Dem? I don't get it.

[LittleClarkie]

16. Depends on whether or not you believe in the fraud

Either way, they'd have paid SOMEBODY to be in that position.

But if you believe he was diebolded, then no amount of hispanic outreach would have made a difference.

How much of an advantage did Bush have with his TexMex sensibilities and/or money enough to spend on bilingual literature and/or his one liberal stance re: immigration?

[quaoar]

17. If Kerry had spent 25 cents on Shrum

it would have been too much.

[Mass]

21. A few things you may want to read before you continue arguing

on false data. I know factchecking is hard, but some numbers have been very contested.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000951.php

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000972.php

And particularly this one.


http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000979.php


EDM Newsletter Donkey Rising Ruy Teixeira

« The Nation Serves Feast for Victory-Hungry Dems | Main | 'Moral Values' Theory of Election Discredited in WaPo Article »


December 5, 2004

More on the Revision of NEP National Exit Poll Hispanic Data

On Thursday, I covered the downward revision of the NEP exit poll's national Hispanic support for Bush from 44 percent to 40 percent. That swings their Hispanic vote estimate from 53-44 Kerry to 58-40 Kerry. Quite a change: that doubles Kerry's margin among Hispanics from 9 to 18 points. And personally I believe that 40 percent figure is still a touch high and I certainly believe there are still an abundance of unanswered questions about this year's Hispanic results, both original and revised.

Here are some additional materials about the Hispanic results and revisions that you may find helpful. Mark Blumenthal of Mystery Pollster has a post about the revised national Hispanic figures which goes into some detail on a few questions raised by the revision. And the William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI), which did their own exit poll of Hispanics that indicated a 65-33 lead for Kerry, has a useful press release on the NEP revisions (national and TX) and summarizing their position on Hispanics and the 2004 election. Here's a quotation from the Institute's president, Antonio Gonzalez, on their position:

There is no doubt that some churning of numbers has occurred, meaning Republicans appear to have made significant gains in Texas and Arizona while Democrats appear to have made significant gains in Colorado and Florida. But the net effect among these respective gains is a canceling out of one another. Latino voter partisanship has remained consistent with roughly a 30 point democratic advantage in 2000 and 2004's presidential elections.

WCVI also provides on their website an analysis of their exit poll data by St Mary's University political scientist, Henry Flores, and an extensive powerpoint presentation on their poll's findings.



So there are 3 exit polls showing 3 different results on the Hispanic vote with a difference between 9 and 30 %.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Geez kill a good bitch fest with facts, why dontcha

Spoilsport.

[Mass]

25. I forgot where I was.

Sorry, my mistake.

This kerry fellow is worth nothing :sarcasm:

Is that better?

[lancdem]

23. I am aware of those

But there is no false data in the original post, which says Kerry's campaign money could've been spent more wisely.

[Mass]

24. The original post for me is Garance, not you

and it is full of false data.

In addition, the number does not take care of 2 facts:

- TX and CA were ignored because (hence a large part of the hispanic population )...
- In NV and NM, most ads in Spanish were done thru printed media and radio in Spanish. I do not know what was done with the Spanish Channel, but I know that ads were done both by the DNC and by the Kerry campaign.

NOTE: the previous post was not directed particularly to you, anyway. Just a generic post.

[liberaliraqvet26]

28. This does not surprise me...

the campaign was run like a joke.

[cestpaspossible]

30. Garance Franke-Ruta said it, but what does it mean?

Does it mean that he paid more that $3 million to Shrum, Devine & Donilon? Talk about an apples and oranges comparison...