Fox & Friends Mocked U.S. Olympic Team Headgear
During the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, Fox & Friends criticized the U.S. Olympic team’s Opening Ceremony uniforms. The red, white, and blue uniforms, designed by American company Ralph Lauren, were topped by navy berets with red and white stripes.
Fox & Friends mocked this sartorial decision, with Doocy asking: “Should the American team be wearing a beret? Why not a baseball cap? Why not a cowboy hat like when we went to Calgary.”
In fact, berets have been a part of U.S. military attire “unofficially as early as 1954” and as part of the official uniform as early as 1961. Ten years before, the 2002 U.S. Olympic team had worn powder blue berets during the Winter Games.
Fox & Friends Pretended Obama Met With A Pirate Instead of Netanyahu
In honor of “Talk Like A Pirate Day,” the Obama campaign Twitter account posted a photo of President Obama in the Oval Office with a man dressed as a pirate.
Fox & Friends, jumping on the Drudge Report’s misinformation about the photo, accused Obama of meeting with the pirate while ignoring to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was in the country. But Netanyahu did not meet with Obama when he was in the United States because of a scheduling conflict.
Moreover, the Obama pirate picture has been available on the White House’s flickr account at least since May 8, 2009. CBS reported on the photo on May 12, 2009, less than two months after Netanyahu formed a government.
Though the show did not issue a correction, Fox & Friends’ twitter account and Doocy’s twitter account later noted that the picture was from 2009.
Fox & Friends Manufactured Controversy Involving Obama Campaign And The American Flag
Following the Obama campaign’s use of an American flag imagery on a campaign poster, Fox & Friends expressed outrage over the decision, accusing him of trying to replace the actual U.S. flag. Kilmeade said: “So long stars and stripes. The president is redesigning the American flag with an ‘O,’ I guess to get reelected.” Doocy added, “Oh boy.”
Numerous theories have been offered recently not just for Mitt Romney’s stunning defeat by Barack Obama, but for the apparent decline of the Republican electoral coalition. Many emphasize the diverse demographic coalition — of women, ethnic minorities, and gays — that came together behind the president, while others stress the well-executed ground game and state-of-the-art analytic techniques used by the Obama campaign.
America’s increasingly diverse demographic makeup may well have created a long-term advantage for Democrats. Republicans had better change their stripes and address these new realities if they want to be relevant and competitive again.
As our own Sommer Mathis noted the morning after the election, county-level election results show that cities are very, very blue. “The math of assuming cities will go to Democrats and thus not bothering to craft a message aimed at the people who live there is just a losing game going forward for Republicans,” she wrote. “And it’s only going to get worse as urban populations increase and become more concentrated.” After examining a series of electoral maps, Emily Badger also concluded that electoral power is “concentrated in those blue-black patches, one of which strings all the way from southern Connecticut to Washington, D.C. These are the places where people live densely together, where they require policies and an ideology that Republicans lately have not offered.”
I’ve already received two surveys from the Obama campaign about how to better retool efforts for the next campaign and candidate. They aren’t the types of push surveys I get from GOP where they put the answer they want you to parrot inside the directed question. These surveys are multiple choice with real choices, and open ended questions seeking real input. It’s refreshing to be approached by a political party as a valuable asset as opposed to minion at their command.
President Obama’s re-election was largely a result of unprecedented use of data to mobilize and empower grass-roots volunteers, who in turn had a huge impact in the handful of states where the election was decided, according to a political operative who worked in Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters.
Jonathan Wright, who worked as a field director for an Illinois congressional campaign and with the Obama operation, gave Wichita State University students an insider’s look at the Obama campaign during a speech to professor Mel Kahn’s political science class on Tuesday.
Wright said the re-election effort actually began within days of Obama winning the presidency in 2008 and continued straight through to Nov. 6 of this year.
‘They retooled,’ he said. ‘They figured out what they did right, and then they went and made it better.’
Read more here: kansascity.com
The traditional tactical faking and feinting of a presidential contest’s final days has been transformed this year by the stunning amounts of money both camps possess. The sort of scarcity-driven tough decisions of old among competing alternatives has been supplanted by both campaigns spending as if they were playing Monopoly with stacks of cash piled to the ceiling.
The Romney camp disclosed its moves into the states earlier in the week, explaining that polls showing single-digit deficits justified an expansion of the electoral playing field. Even some Republican consultants, who aren’t with the Romney campaign, were taken aback, seeing the prospect of victory in the three states as remote.
But the Obama campaign has counterattacked, even as it rolls its eyes.
“I think the reality of this race has closed in on the Romney campaign, that we are even or ahead in every one of the battleground states, including Ohio, so they are taking fliers, desperately looking for an alternative path to 270 (electoral votes),’ said David Axelrod, a chief Obama strategist.
For example, by Wednesday evening, the Obama campaign discerned Romney and allied groups dramatically upping their campaign spending in Pennsylvania to what’s known as 5,000 GRPs (gross rating points) per TV market—meaning the average voter will see their spots 50 times in the next five days.
As President Obama and Mitt Romney enter the closing week of the presidential race, where the 18 electoral votes of Ohio are seen by both sides as critical to victory, Mr. Obama’s ability to prevent erosion among working-class voters may be his best path to re-election.
In Ohio, according to the latest poll of likely voters by Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News, Mr. Obama runs nearly even with Mr. Romney among white voters who do not have college degrees.
That helps explain why he appears slightly better positioned there in the closing week of the campaign than in Florida and Virginia, where the polls found that Mr. Romney holds an advantage of about 30 percentage points among those voters.
The presidential contest has become an intense state-by-state fight, with the climate in Ohio shaped by months of efforts by the Obama campaign to portray Mr. Romney as a job killer who opposed the president’s decision to bail out the auto industry.
Democratic strategists are grimacing at a recent Gallup poll out Friday showing the make up of the electorate remains virtually unchanged since the 2008 election.
The survey of likely voters shows nonwhites, blacks and Hispanics sharing roughly the same share of the electorate Gallup predicted in 2008. According to Gallup’s year by year analysis, blacks account for 11 percent of voters this year when in 2008, they made up 12 percent of the electorate. And Gallup predicts Hispanics grew to be 7 percent of the electorate, a one point increase since their 2008 prediction.
“Key elements of President Barack Obama’s electoral coalitions, such as racial minorities, women, young adults and postgraduates will likely turn out at rates similar to those in 2008,” the survey says.
But the Obama campaign sees it differently.
“The electorate has changed,” Jeremy Bird, the national field director for Obama’s campaign, wrote in a memo Friday. “The Latino community is playing a key role in our diverse, grassroots movement to re-elect President Obama.”
Four years ago, there were doubts, then hope, then worry, work and elation. Today, as African American voters look at electing the first black president to a second term, there is support tinged with disappointment and defensiveness.
There are worries about President Obama’s support for gay marriage, worries about the economy and worries about life under a Mitt Romney administration. There are fewer thoughts about making historic strides and quieter worries about history slipping away.
“Some people may see it as subdued, but I think the difference is there’s more of a serious tone to it,” Matrice Brown Johnson, a 53-year-old Obama supporter from Richmond, said of African American backing for the president. “People are taking it more seriously.”
On the surface, Obama’s support among blacks appears solid. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 92% of registered African American voters surveyed said they backed Obama, and 5% supported Republican nominee Mitt Romney. No other constituency offers the president such consistent and solid support in polls.
But the shift in mood and energy from four years ago could have an effect in an election expected to be decided by thin margins.
With the Obama campaign desperately trying to turn support into votes, even subtle shifts may change the result. In important battlegrounds Obama won four years ago — Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Florida — the campaign is preparing to lean more heavily on support from African Americans as it braces to lose white voters.
Early voters could account for up to 40 percent of all voters in the 2012 presidential election, and polls of people who already have cast ballots show President Barack Obama with a comfortable lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
Both candidates have been urging supporters not just to vote but to do it early as Republicans and Democrats campaign vigorously - particularly in key battleground states - to lock up as many votes as possible before Election Day on November 6.
Polls of people who say they already have voted show Obama with a lead in many of the states. The Obama campaign, which benefited from early voting in 2008, has focused heavily on urging supporters to vote early in this election as well.
Obama leads Romney 54 percent to 39 percent among voters who already have cast ballots, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled in recent weeks. The sample size of early voters is 960 people with a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
About 18 percent of registered voters already have cast ballots, the Reuters/Ipsos polling data showed. Around a quarter of minority voters - who tend to support Obama - and almost a fifth of white voters have cast ballots, the data showed.
…Nearly four in 10 voters, 37 percent, in the eight swing states — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin — say they have personally been asked for their support by a representative of the Obama campaign, either by phone, in-person or online in the past month. About as many, 35 percent, say they have heard from Romney’s side. Two weeks ago, more voters in this collection of states said they had recently heard from Obama than Romney.
Looking just at reported contacts in the past week, the campaigns are equally matched: 28 percent of all likely voters in swing states say they’ve heard from the Romney campaign, and 27 percent say so of Obama’s.
Campaign contacts are highly correlated with voter preferences. All told, about two-thirds of those who have been contacted by the Obama side support the president’s bid for reelection, and a similar proportion of those who have heard from Romney back his candidacy.
Whether the campaign contacts are persuasive or they are simply good at targeting voters likely to affiliate with their candidate is unclear, but the possible effects on turnout are hugely important.
When the histories of the 2012 campaign are written, much will be made of Bill Clinton’s re-emergence. His convention speech may well have marked the finest moment of President Obama’s re-election campaign, and his ads on the president’s behalf were memorable..
But there is one crucial way in which the 42nd president may not have served the 44th quite as well. In these final weeks before the election, Mr. Clinton’s expert advice about how to beat Mitt Romney is starting to look suspect.
You may recall that last spring, just after Mr. Romney locked up the Republican nomination, Mr. Obama’s team abruptly switched its strategy for how to define him. Up to then, the White House had been portraying Mr. Romney much as George W. Bush had gone after John Kerry in 2004 - as inauthentic and inconstant, a soulless climber who would say anything to get the job.
But it was Mr. Clinton who forcefully argued to Mr. Obama’s aides that the campaign had it wrong. The best way to go after Mr. Romney, the former president said, was to publicly grant that he was the “severe conservative” he claimed to be, and then hang that unpopular ideology around his neck.
In other words, Mr. Clinton counseled that independent voters might forgive Mr. Romney for having said whatever he had to say to win his party’s nomination, but they would be far more reluctant to vote for him if they thought they were getting the third term of George W. Bush. Ever since, the Obama campaign has been hammering Mr. Romney as too conservative, while essentially giving him a pass for having traveled a tortured path on issues like health care reform, abortion and gay rights.