# Americans for Shared Prosperity understands women voters **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 22, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270 "2014-09-22T20:37:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2014, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/201 "2014-09-29T05:29:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Avoiding the issue. In a thread about Americans for Shared Prosperity and women voters, do you even know what the issue is anymore? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2014, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/202 "2014-09-29T06:16:51Z")
That’s your first mistake, thinking that women are necessarily the target of the ad. Your second is that even if they are, it’s a lot more intelligent than the “war on women” campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2014, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/203 "2014-09-29T07:02:47Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > In a thread about Americans for Shared Prosperity and women voters, do you even know what the issue is anymore? > [@adaher](#): > > That’s your first mistake, thinking that women are necessarily the target of the ad. Your second is that even if they are, it’s a lot more intelligent than the “war on women” campaign. No, I stand by my statement. I feel reasonably safe in saying that a thread titled “ **Americans for Shared Prosperity understands women voters** ” is about Americans for Shared Prosperity and women voters. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2014, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/204 "2014-09-29T08:42:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Avoiding the issue. Where did 4 million Obama voters go? Obama is the first President to lose support and still win reelection in our lifetimes. Condoleeza Rice would call that a “catastrophic success”. More pathetic attempts at distraction. You made claims that were easily refuted, including by your own cites. Please answer – why don’t you read your own cites? Why is it so easy to refute your claims? Why do you put so little effort into trying to be correct? ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/205 "2014-09-30T03:59:47Z")
Adaher, I asked you what the Obama campaign’s mechanism was to “tamp voter participation down”, and so far, it sounds like your response is that they campaigned against him. Every single contested political campaign is a mix of reasons to vote for the candidate and reasons to vote against the opponent. That’s just “no shit, sherlock” kind of stuff. Do you have any actual evidence that > [@Adaher](#): > > the party of self righteousness about getting people to vote explicitly carrie[d] out a strategy of tamping voter participation down to save their skins. Any? Because the facts that an incumbent didn’t run on a message of change even though he did four years prior and that overall participation was down slightly _relative to a wave election year_ are not, by themselves, remotely convincing. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/206 "2014-09-30T12:11:17Z")
As I said before, the Obama campaign targeted white working class voters, a group they had a lot of trouble winning even in 2008, with a negative campaign against Romney that was designed to get them to stay home. This ad we’re talking about now seems to be serving a similar purpose, to get many former pro-Obama voters to stay home. Which is actually not that hard to do in an election where voters generally aren’t that motivated anyway. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/207 "2014-09-30T12:20:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As I said before, the Obama campaign targeted white working class voters, a group they had a lot of trouble winning even in 2008, with a negative campaign against Romney that was designed to get them to stay home. What you said before were false claims that were refuted, including by your own cites. Stop running from this. You said that Obama failed to get his voters to turnout – this was a false claim: big portions of his voters turned out in larger numbers than in the prior elections. You also said that Romney would have won had white turnout in 2012 matched 2008 – this was a false claim which was easily refuted **by your own cite.** Have you learned anything from this exchange? Will you try and do a better job of reading your own cites? Will you refrain from making factual assertions unless you’re _absolutely sure_ that they are ironclad? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/208 "2014-09-30T12:24:31Z")
Portions of his base turning out are not “getting your base to turn out.” You cannot run away or change the subject from the fact that Obama got a LOT fewer votes in 2012 and had to win by making sure that Romney’s base didn’t turn out either. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/209 "2014-09-30T12:26:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Portions of his base turning out are not “getting your base to turn out.” You cannot run away or change the subject from the fact that Obama got a LOT fewer votes in 2012 and had to win by making sure that Romney’s base didn’t turn out either. No, FALSE. Your own cite proved that if Romney’s base had turned out in 2008 levels, _Obama still would have won_. Obama won by the significant margin he did because minorities still turned out in huge numbers (and for black voters – even greater than 2008), and because he focused his efforts more successfully on swing states like VA, OH, and FL. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/210 "2014-09-30T12:27:24Z")
Stop saying false things. And once they’re shown to be false, stop repeating them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/211 "2014-09-30T12:41:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, FALSE. Your own cite proved that if Romney’s base had turned out in 2008 levels, _Obama still would have won_. Obama won by the significant margin he did because minorities still turned out in huge numbers (and for black voters – even greater than 2008), and because he focused his efforts more successfully on swing states like VA, OH, and FL. Yes, Obama still would have won. But again, he did get fewer votes. You are only right if you redefine his base to mean only minority voters, which isn’t really much of a base. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/212 "2014-09-30T12:49:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yes, Obama still would have won. So you admit your claim was false, finally. This was the claim you made that was refuted by your own cite. I applaud you for, even in a roundabout way, finally admitting your claim was false. Hopefully, this will inspire you to read your own cites and do a better job of not making false factual claims (and not repeating them when shown to be false). > [@](#): > > But again, he did get fewer votes. Which no one has denied. > [@](#): > > You are only right if you redefine his base to mean only minority voters, which isn’t really much of a base. Wrong. I’m not saying he was as successful in 2012 as he was in 2008 – clearly, he was less successful overall, while more successful with certain demographics. But “less successful” does not mean “fail”. You said he failed to get out his voters. This is an overly broad statement which was easily proven to be false – he succeeded in getting out his own voters – “success” being defined in relation to his opponent, as it always is in political races (there is no other reasonable way to define success). But even delving into the demographics, your statement was false – minorities are obviously a HUGE part of Obama’s political success, so it’s ridiculous to ignore them when making a statement about his supporters. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/213 "2014-09-30T12:52:34Z")
Overall, he did not succeed in getting his base out. He got fewer votes. But I never made the case that he even really tried. There were efforts on the downlow, such as getting Bill Clinton out to motivate the African-American vote. When I said he failed, I was being snarky. His 2012 campaign was quite good, and the results speak for themselves: Romney’s base didn’t come out. White working class voters’ attitude was “a pox on both their houses”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/214 "2014-09-30T12:56:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Overall, he did not succeed in getting his base out. Why do you keep saying this? How can success be possibly defined in any way other than in relation to his opponent? He succeeded, in a big way. He won the presidential election, by a significant margin. It wasn’t as big a majority as in 2008, but that was a landslide. > [@](#): > > But I never made the case that he even really tried. There were efforts on the downlow, such as getting Bill Clinton out to motivate the African-American vote. “on the downlow”? What crap. > [@](#): > > When I said he failed, I was being snarky. You were also being wrong. The only reasonable bar to judge success or failure in an election is in relation to his opponent. > [@](#): > > His 2012 campaign was quite good, and the results speak for themselves: Romney’s base didn’t come out. This was Romney’s fault. If Romney had run a good campaign, Romney’s base would have come out in higher numbers. Romney still would have lost, as your own cite showed, but it would have been closer. > [@](#): > > White working class voters’ attitude was “a pox on both their houses”. Whether true or not, this was not the goal of Obama’s campaign. His goal was to persuade swing voters to choose him over Romney, and to turn out his own voters. He was largely successful at this, if not quite as successful as he was in 2008. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/215 "2014-09-30T14:29:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You were also being wrong. The only reasonable bar to judge success or failure in an election is in relation to his opponent. The goals you set also matter. To go the tired sports analogies, a team can win a game but still be disappointed that they had turnovers or missed tackles. The Obama team’s strategy was covered pretty extensively in the media, and it was a strategy geared towards a lower turnout election. And the target of their personal attacks on Romney were clearly white working class voters. > [@](#): > > This was Romney’s fault. If Romney had run a good campaign, Romney’s base would have come out in higher numbers. Romney still would have lost, as your own cite showed, but it would have been closer. Well, if Romney had run a good campaign he probably would not have lost, actually, because he would have won a higher share of the independent vote as well. Or he would have at least won the pyrrhic victory of a popular vote win, which the polls actually predicted was very possible. Obama’s team are gurus at working our peculiar electoral system to win even when you might lose the popular vote. He played that game well against Clinton and played it to perfection against Romney. > [@](#): > > Whether true or not, this was not the goal of Obama’s campaign. His goal was to persuade swing voters to choose him over Romney, and to turn out his own voters. He was largely successful at this, if not quite as successful as he was in 2008. Oh, now that’s bullshit. There was never any chance of that happening, and if there’s one thing the Obama team was not, it was delusional. They counted on big minority turnout while holding white turnout down by making Romney unacceptable. They also hit upon the opportunity created by Todd Akin to also get women to vote for them in higher numbers, which was probably what actually saved them in the end. Minus Todd Akin, there’s a chance we’d be looking at unified Republican control of the government today. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/216 "2014-09-30T14:40:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The goals you set also matter. Obama’s goal was, obviously, to win the elction. > [@](#): > > To go the tired sports analogies, a team can win a game but still be disappointed that they had turnovers or missed tackles. Which of Obama’s campaign moves should be “disappointing”? I’m very, very pleased with the negative advertising, and strongly encourage the politicians I support to use such tactics in the future. They work, and they motivate our voters to turn out. > [@](#): > > The Obama team’s strategy was covered pretty extensively in the media, and it was a strategy geared towards a lower turnout election. Recognizing that turnout will probably be lower than a record-turnout election like 2008 is completely different from encouraging lower turnout. Obama’s campaign wisely recognized this, and worked as hard as they could to turn out their supporters. > [@](#): > > And the target of their personal attacks on Romney were clearly white working class voters. The target was swing voters in general, many of whom were persuaded to support Obama because they didn’t like Romney. That’s the purpose of attack ads, and it worked. > [@](#): > > Well, if Romney had run a good campaign he probably would not have lost, actually, because he would have won a higher share of the independent vote as well. Possibly, but the data does not really support this. > [@](#): > > Or he would have at least won the pyrrhic victory of a popular vote win, which the polls actually predicted was very possible. The polls taken altogether showed a very low likelihood of this happening. Obama’s popular vote victory was still significant, if not as large as in 2008. > [@](#): > > Oh, now that’s bullshit. What, that Obama was trying to get swing voters to choose him? Are you kidding? Every politician tries to get swing voters! > [@](#): > > There was never any chance of that happening, and if there’s one thing the Obama team was not, it was delusional. They counted on big minority turnout while holding white turnout down by making Romney unacceptable. This is all nonsense. Swing voters are, by definition, gettable. No winning politician makes no attempt to get swing voters. And Obama got some of them. > [@](#): > > They also hit upon the opportunity created by Todd Akin to also get women to vote for them in higher numbers, which was probably what actually saved them in the end. Minus Todd Akin, there’s a chance we’d be looking at unified Republican control of the government today. Another assertion of facts with no cite. You are wrong here. Factually wrong. You have failed to learn any lesson. Seriously – why can’t you learn anything from these exchanges? Why are you making another claim of electoral math with no support? What is going through your head where you think, with no cites and no evidence whatsoever, “if it hadn’t been for Todd Akin, Romney would have won”? ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/217 "2014-09-30T14:48:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Obama team’s strategy was covered pretty extensively in the media, and it was a strategy geared towards a lower turnout election. You keep saying that, but do you ever plan on providing any support, data, documentation, or cites - anything at all - to back it up? That there was actually a strategy to reduce voter turnout? That the Obama campaign actually thought, “Hey, if 131MM people vote this time, we’re screwed. We gotta stop that!” > [@](#): > > Minus Todd Akin, there’s a chance we’d be looking at unified Republican control of the government today. Did you mean to say Congress there, or do you actually believe that without Todd Akin Romney would have won? Because that’s just crazy talk. There’s not a single state that Romney would have added to his total had Akin kept his mouth shut, much less enough to have crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/218 "2014-09-30T14:53:23Z")
Total tangent, but I just checked out Todd Akin’s wikipedia page, which had this gem: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] In a book published in July 2014, Akin said that he regretted apologising and defended his original comments. [/QUOTE] Really? That’s what you regret? _Apologizing?_ Not making dumbass comments completely unsupported by science, and which are completely offensive to rape victims who got pregnant? How do we get this guy to run again… ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/219 "2014-09-30T14:59:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Seriously – why can’t you learn anything from these exchanges? Why are you making another claim of electoral math with no support? What is going through your head where you think, with no cites and no evidence whatsoever, “if it hadn’t been for Todd Akin, Romney would have won”? He’s just trying to un-skew the election. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270/220 "2014-09-30T15:16:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Overall, he did not succeed in getting his base out. He got fewer votes. But I never made the case that he even really tried. There were efforts on the downlow, such as getting Bill Clinton out to motivate the African-American vote. When I said he failed, I was being snarky. His 2012 campaign was quite good, and the results speak for themselves: Romney’s base didn’t come out. White working class voters’ attitude was “a pox on both their houses”. Because, perhaps, they really didn’t like Romney much. That’s not Obama’s fault. Romney is a douche. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-for-shared-prosperity-understands-women-voters/699270.md?page=12)