Although it is legally barred from taking direct action in elections, Organizing for America can still have an impact on elections by pushing issues in certain states and in individual districts. Now that they are no longer focused on getting the president elected and are a wholly issue-oriented enterprise, they should be more effective in the 2014 elections than they were in 2010.
How much of an impact do you think they will have?
My first thought is, ‘very little.’ Unlike, say, MoveOn or Color of Change, I don’t recall hearing about OfA doing anything, particularly. I’m sure they have, but the fact that a fairly engaged, if absentminded, guy like myself can’t think of anything … doesn’t bode well.
My second thought is, ‘where’s the red meat?’ There’s a reason politicians feed red meat to their bases; it works. And I have a very hard time imagining the DNC offering anything juicy. So I’m gonna stick with ‘very little.’
I get emails almost daily from OfA. So just cause you don’t hear anything doesn’t mean they are doing nothing.
I also still follow people who give regular updates from their local OfA offices
Despite working for 2 years full time without pay for the Democrats and the Obama campaign, I have never heard of the Color of Change or anything that they have done. Therefore, since my anecdotal experience can be universalized to all people, it is clear that Color of Change doesn’t do anything and has no effect on the American political system.
They can obviously be a major source of negative advertising, freeing up candidates to stay positive. Negative ads can be entirely issue oriented and don’t have to mention the other candidate.
As much as I hate to say it, negative advertising works. The garbage thrown at Russ Feingold in Wisconsin is a good example. A lot of people are very lazy and cynical and negative conditioning seems to have a serious effect on them, regardless of anything they admit to. Many people I know seem to know little about candidates save what they see in ads.
…My thoughts…
…Probably very little. The districts are so gerrymandered that Red is red and Blue is blue.
…I suspect we are stuck with “teh crazy” for the rest of this decade.
My question is whose side OFA is on? Obama’s (cutting social security)? Or ours?
OT — or maybe not — Kevin D. Williamson lambasts Gabby Gifford for her op-ed piece in the Times.
“being shot in the head by a lunatic does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy questions, nor does it give one moral license to call people ‘cowards’ for holding public-policy views at variance with one’s own.”
Wow, can I quote you on that, Mr. Williamson? Or maybe OfA can quote you on that?
The Democratic Party now has at its disposal one of the richest treasure troves of verbal assholery in human history.
By the way, Mr. Williamson, in fact yes, being shot in the head by a lunatic does give one special grace to pronounce on public-policy questions when those questions relate to keeping firearms out of the hands of lunatics and murderers. And I don’t think you need a “moral license” to call a coward a coward. A right is good enough for me — a moral claim to the free exercise of speech. Although it is not so easy for her to speak any more.
It’s hard to say at this point. They are doing some things here locally regarding health care and immigration. Their relationship with our local Democratic Parties is getting off to a little of a rocky start, though. Seems to be some confusion on OFA’s end as to what they can and cannot do. It has created a little tension.
Yet another source of ad money won’t make much difference. How can an Obama organization be wholly issue oriented when Obama’s real issue is Compromise? If they’re tied to points the Democratic Party finds acceptable for public airing, they’ll basically have nothing game-changing to say.
OFA doesn’t do ads. They do phonebanking and canvassing. It’s certainly debatable how effective that is in the end, but the simple fact is you will never see a TV ad saying, “Paid for by Organizing for America.”
Little if any. I don’t check my private email anymore, really, and I sign up for things like OFA utilizing a fake/spam email address anyway.
Can you tell me what they’ve done since inauguration?
I’d say they could swing maybe 5% towards (+ ads) or away from (- ads) a candidate that gets their focus. They should pick their races according to where that little of a difference can be decisive in a low-turnout mid-term race.
I don’t know.
I unsubscribed when the President offered to cut Social Security.
“.. they should be more effective in the 2014 elections than they were in 2010.”
um, not setting the bar real high here…
bloodpressurebible.com