An inside look behind Romney's loss: An epic failure of its Orca big-data app

[KarlMarx]

Many things went wrong with Romney's campaign for president, but one of the biggest was the epic failure of the campaign's big-data app for getting out the vote, called Orca. When the campaign needed it most, Orca was beached.

Politico has an excellent summary of the problems it says that Orca had (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/romneys-fail-whale-orca-the-votetracker-149098.html). Among them were that the Romney campaign kept it secret and didn't beta-test it before it was rolled out on Election Day. That meant that the people who it was designed for -- the thousands of volunteers across the country -- didn't have a chance to learn how to use it before it was launched. And Orca kept crashing throughout the day.
The system was designed to identify likely Romney voters who had not yet voted on Election Day, and then get them to vote. But it continually crashed and people didn't know how to use it.

read the rest at

http://blogs.computerworld.com/governmentindustries/21310/inside-look-behind-romneys-loss-epic-failure-its-orca-big-data-app

So, a website crashed and left the Romney campaign flying blind...

[tailfins]

Incompetence is costly. This severely dampens my view of Romney as a good leader. The GOP just didn't have a good choice of nominees this time around. If it keeps all of them away from the 2016 race, it will not have all been for naught.

[gabosaurus]

The GOP just didn't have a good choice of nominees this time around. If it keeps all of them away from the 2016 race, it will not have all been for naught.

Didn't this happen in 2008 as well?
The GOP needs to change its ideology as well as its candidates.

[Robert A Whit]

Didn't this happen in 2008 as well?
The GOP needs to change its ideology as well as its candidates.

When you guys got the crap kicked out of you, did you change your ideology?

I think not.

[Abbey Marie]

When you guys got the crap kicked out of you, did you change your ideology?

I think not.

Exactly!

:clap:

[Kathianne]

When you guys got the crap kicked out of you, did you change your ideology?

I think not.

I totally agree. However, it seems to me that the conservatives have to look at what is truly the issues they hold dear. Then look at what level of government, if any, the discussion of those issues belongs.

Take abortion for example. At the federal level my issue is with Roe, which is not for President or executive, but SCOTUS. Thus I back any organizations that can find decent cases to bring that could get bad law overturned. The issue is one for the states, just as it was prior to 1973 ruling on Roe. A few states made legal, many more did not. My guess if Roe was overturned, it would be heavily in favor of the opposite way. I don't like that, but can only work it in the state I reside in.

Same with Gay marriage, just doesn't belong on the federal level.

Same with school curriculum, just doesn't belong on the federal level. I'm uncertain just how much influence the states should have with setting curriculum for that matter, but another discussion.

There's no doubt in my mind that the conservatives, whether GOP, Libertarian, or others, could be attracting more folks, if they would only listen before pronouncing judgment on so many. A hell of a lot of folks voted for Obama earlier this week, many of whom hold dear the same values you claim to. So why are they there and not with you? Could it be the nastiness of being called uneducated, liars, freeloaders, sponges, immoral, heads-up-their-asses? Perhaps.

It certainly wasn't Romney throwing those terms around or most in a small arena as DP. I've seen the same though at larger sites. I've seen the same at some rallies.

BTW, yes, I've seen far worse from the left towards the right. Without doubt. Here's the problem to some degree, many of us on the right, who'd not act that way, ignore those whose ideas we agree with-while not calling out their bad behavior. On the left? They disavow their idiots, at least publicly. If one wishes to eviscerate the opposition, do so with their ideas, not with them personally.

[Robert A Whit]

I totally agree. However, it seems to me that the conservatives have to look at what is truly the issues they hold dear. Then look at what level of government, if any, the discussion of those issues belongs.

Take abortion for example. At the federal level my issue is with Roe, which is not for President or executive, but SCOTUS. Thus I back any organizations that can find decent cases to bring that could get bad law overturned. The issue is one for the states, just as it was prior to 1973 ruling on Roe. A few states made legal, many more did not. My guess if Roe was overturned, it would be heavily in favor of the opposite way. I don't like that, but can only work it in the state I reside in.

Same with Gay marriage, just doesn't belong on the federal level.

Same with school curriculum, just doesn't belong on the federal level. I'm uncertain just how much influence the states should have with setting curriculum for that matter, but another discussion.

There's no doubt in my mind that the conservatives, whether GOP, Libertarian, or others, could be attracting more folks, if they would only listen before pronouncing judgment on so many. A hell of a lot of folks voted for Obama earlier this week, many of whom hold dear the same values you claim to. So why are they there and not with you? Could it be the nastiness of being called uneducated, liars, freeloaders, sponges, immoral, heads-up-their-asses? Perhaps.

It certainly wasn't Romney throwing those terms around or most in a small arena as DP. I've seen the same though at larger sites. I've seen the same at some rallies.

BTW, yes, I've seen far worse from the left towards the right. Without doubt. Here's the problem to some degree, many of us on the right, who'd not act that way, ignore those whose ideas we agree with-while not calling out their bad behavior. On the left? They disavow their idiots, at least publicly. If one wishes to eviscerate the opposition, do so with their ideas, not with them personally.

I hold freedom dear. For that reason, my goal is to get back to the COUSA and stick to it.

Though Roe is claimed to be about abortion, it actually was/is about privacy. It is a case of a view of privacy that was extended to mean abortion.

Those who voted for Obama clearly don't hold my values or views.

I don't call democrats the names you listed. Sorry.

Tell you this much.

When they work to revoke my freedom, I must defend myself. They want to do MORE of it not less.

Take how they gang up on the already heavily taxed rich.

Were I rich, I would be taking some serious action against democrats.

I can't stand thieves is why I do what I do. I am honest and can't stand those jerks in congress messing things up then saying they will solve it by rippinng off the rich. They can raise taxes till hell freezes over but they are not fooling me. Later down the line, it will be my grandkids being forced to pay when it becomes clear the rich can't solve the problems.

If the rich simply donated all of their earnings, the massive debts of this country will not come close to being paid off.

I admire republicans for their stand to slow spending way down.

For giggles, spend what Clinton spent his last year. The budget would balance pretty fast.

Look up what Clinton spent his last year. We can just go back to that level.

Obama however wants to spend triple that amount.

[Kathianne]

I hold freedom dear. For that reason, my goal is to get back to the COUSA and stick to it.

Though Roe is claimed to be about abortion, it actually was/is about privacy. It is a case of a view of privacy that was extended to mean abortion.

Those who voted for Obama clearly don't hold my values or views.

I don't call democrats the names you listed. Sorry.

Tell you this much.

When they work to revoke my freedom, I must defend myself. They want to do MORE of it not less.

Take how they gang up on the already heavily taxed rich.

Were I rich, I would be taking some serious action against democrats.

I can't stand thieves is why I do what I do. I am honest and can't stand those jerks in congress messing things up then saying they will solve it by rippinng off the rich. They can raise taxes till hell freezes over but they are not fooling me. Later down the line, it will be my grandkids being forced to pay when it becomes clear the rich can't solve the problems.

If the rich simply donated all of their earnings, the massive debts of this country will not come close to being paid off.

I admire republicans for their stand to slow spending way down.

For giggles, spend what Clinton spent his last year. The budget would balance pretty fast.

Look up what Clinton spent his last year. We can just go back to that level.

Obama however wants to spend triple that amount.

Here's the scary thing Robert, some of those that voted for Obama may well hold the same values or at least some of the same as you or myself. We really haven't a clue. We just know that for one reason or another, perhaps abandoning many other issues, something tipped them to voting for him.

The reason that Roe was 'bad law' is that it was grounded on privacy, something that is absent in the Constitution. Made up out of whole cloth.

Robert, regarding 'name calling,' did I mention anyone, especially you? So why the response? Don't feel you need to jump in on every issue, much less every post

[KarlMarx]

Didn't this happen in 2008 as well?
The GOP needs to change its ideology as well as its candidates.
If it did happen in 2008, then they need to fire their programmers and get a new app... not change their ideology

We need a choice not an echo..

The Democrats really secretly wish for single party rule, much like what happened in the USSR, except they don't dare say it, so they look to the Republicans to act and think like them and get their wish in the process

[tailfins]

Didn't this happen in 2008 as well?
The GOP needs to change its ideology as well as its candidates. That's a nice self-serving response. Candidates definitely need changed, not the ideology. I'm talking basic competency here. Obama is not competent either, he only got elected by playing Santa Claus. What is needed is someone with Newt's political skills and Romney's personal conduct. Your ideology is a path the ever increasing poverty.

[Kathianne]

If it did happen in 2008, then they need to fire their programmers and get a new app... not change their ideology

We need a choice not an echo..

The Democrats really secretly wish for single party rule, much like what happened in the USSR, except they don't dare say it, so they look to the Republicans to act and think like them and get their wish in the process

Without a doubt, what you wrote is perfectly illustrated by how both Obama rules and his minions applaud it. Without compromise, hell without explanation. Everytime the man mouths, 'Compromise,' it's followed by I won't do this...

However with many in the GOP their own type of absolutism is putting the country between the rock and hard place.

[mundame]

ORCA was beached on the sand in New Jersey.

But ORCA had nothing to do with why Romney lost.

He lost because 2.5% fewer voters voted for him. It wasn't about a database; it was about people not voting for a rather unattractive candidate with no firm beliefs who invented Obamacare, and a weird religion, and a tendency to send his money to the Caymans, Bermuda, and Switzerland to protect it from taxes. I mean, really, what was to like?

Don't blame a database.

Run better candidates.

[Kathianne]

ORCA was beached on the sand in New Jersey.

But ORCA had nothing to do with why Romney lost.

He lost because 2.5% fewer voters voted for him. It wasn't about a database; it was about people not voting for a rather unattractive candidate with no firm beliefs who invented Obamacare, and a weird religion, and a tendency to send his money to the Caymans, Bermuda, and Switzerland to protect it from taxes. I mean, really, what was to like?

Don't blame a database.

Run better candidates.

It was a nationwide problem, that the Romney campaign was responsible for. Indeed, they were warned by volunteers weeks earlier that there were problems in simple meetings via conference calls, the pins weren't working. Same thing happened on election day, tens of thousands of volunteers, unable to find who they were to call or get to the polls. Disaster.

[Abbey Marie]

Whether or not abortion should be a Federal-level issue, it currently is, and for the forseeable future. So until it is reverted back to the states, we have to deal with it as such. Which means that if we care deeply about the unborn, we have to try to elect a President who won't appoint pro-choice justices. Unfortunately, believing it is a state issue won't change that reality right now.

[Kathianne]

Whether or not abortion should be a Federal-level issue, it currently is, and for the forseeable future. So until it is reverted back to the states, we have to deal with it as such. Which means that if we care deeply about the unborn, we have to try to elect a President who won't appoint pro-choice justices. Unfortunately, believing it is a state issue won't change that reality right now.

and that has to do with the president elected and his/her choices for SCOTUS which have often proven a headache for both partisan parties. Indeed, there isn't a reason to make abortion the center stone, which it actually isn't but some like to paint that it is, of the GOP.

Funny how folks that are conservative on most fiscal issues, tend towards also being more right on states rights issues. Those justices that are such, would be more likely to find for a well reasoned striking down of Roe.

IF that were to happen Abbey, it will unlikely change the number of babies killed; few if any states would be likely to outlaw it either. I also disagree, just practical.

What is impractical is not doing B, because you're stuck on A.