My Frustrating Ignorance On The Campaign

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 13:31


I feel very frustrated right now because I have a difficult time pinning down the cause of McCain's continued polling increase. Obama peaked toward the end of June, and apart from the Democratic convention, has been on a slow, downward trend ever since. I want to know why this is the case, because I want to understand how this trend can be reversed. It is only from that point that I believe I can develop better ideas on what I can do personally to help positively influence the result.

Why is McCain performing well, relative to where the general election was in June? In the extended entry, I explore some possibilities, and offer a path toward figuring out which is correct.
Chris Bowers :: My Frustrating Ignorance On The Campaign
Here are some possibilities:

  • Does McCain make more effective attacks? McCain's attacks seem to dominate the news cycle, but I'm not convinced they are making a big difference. For one thing, Obama's favorables are still very high, and actually rose over the summer. At this point, both Obama and McCain have roughly equal favorable ratings. So, I'm not sold on this one.

  • Is it shifting partisanship? Republicans have gained at least 4% on Democrats in partisan self-identification since June. The decline in Democratic partisanship could account for the entire difference in polling between now and then. However, these shifts in partisan self-identification could be, as they have always been, about Republican and Democratic leaning independents whose voting preferences are stable shifting between identifying as partisan and identifying as Independents depending on how they feel about their party at any given moment. So, this might not be shifting votes, and is really more of a shell game.

  • Is it Sarah Palin? People online seem convinced that Palin has helped McCain. I however, am not so sure. As I wrote after the conventions, Palin's speech was not well received in focus groups, McCain still receives far more news coverage, and his convention speech resulted in a better polling result. Also, polling internals disagree on where McCain's bounce has come from. I don't think there is clear evidence that Palin is making a big difference for McCain.

  • Is it that Obama is black? While there are clearly some normally Democratic voters who aren't backing Obama because he is African-American, people didn't just realize that Obama was African-American sometime over the summer. Obama was black when he was winning, too. So, this might be a problem for Obama, but it isn't the cause of his polling decline.

The truth is, it is probably a combination of several factors. The frustrating aspect is that we don't know which ones are the more important factors, and we don't know what message or strategy will turn the campaign around. This is highly aggravating, and tensions over this are boiling over online.
 

Which brings me to my next point. While I don't know the reasons why McCain is rising, one thing I do know is that the problem not the people who are worried, or who think that the Obama campaign is doing a poor job. How could it possibly be?

The argument that progressive critics of the Obama campaign are de-motivating Obama supporters from taking action is idiotic. I wasn't aware that grassroots progressives were such delicate creatures that even the slightest criticism of the campaign they support causes them to cease all activism. Even reading a progressive blog is an indication of being a self-starting activist and political junkie, given that the progressive blogosphere has a collective advertising budget of zero dollars. Reading critiques of the Obama campaign, not to mention the occasional honest expression of frustration and depression, is not going to deter such people. Further, every indication is that grassroots activism on behalf of Obama continues to be record breaking, making the argument is stupid on both the deductive and inductive levels.

So, I have a suggestion: if you are feeling frustrated at the state of the campaign, let's admit to our ignorance of the cause, and stop blaming each other. From that point, join me in experimenting with messaging and campaign strategy by running your own micro-paid media campaign. Read my first article proposing this idea here, and my update from yesterday here. This is a way that we can not only engage in activism, but actually test it to see what works and what doesn't. And if you don't feel up to running a campaign like this yourself, but you want to help out, then you can donate to our efforts here.

Let's stop blaming each other. Let's start admitting that we don't necessarily know what will turn things around. From that point, let's pursue courses of activism that will increase our understanding of what works and what doesn't. I'll have an update on my campaign later today, but the more people who participate and comment, the more and better information we will have. Run your own paid media campaign, and let's learn how we can do better.

Update: In the comments, I think Kagro X has the explanation exactly right:

I saw a comment on a blog that said it was because we weren't following the advice of the guy who wrote the comment.

So I'm pretty sure that's it.

I bet it is, too.

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
My Frustrating Ignorance On The Campaign | 105 comments
No expert on polling... (4.00 / 7)
But I think a lot of McCain's rise has to do with the fact that many Republicans-leaning voters are not political junkies, and don't pay attention until after the convention. If you asked them in June who they were going to vote for, they would either not know, or might even be considering Obama, who got a lot more press coverage than McCain in the first half of the year. However, once the convention and Labor Day come, they fall back into their old Republican voting habits. We saw this with Obama's attempts to woo evangelical voters, which was wiped out in one fell swoop with the selection of Palin.  
Yeah (4.00 / 1)
Which shows why Obama's time and effort wooing evangelicals wasn't a great idea.

In any case, I have a slightly different take on all this. I think it's amazing that a black guy named Barack Obama has a shot of becoming president. Fuck the fundamentals favoring Democrats: we have a well-oiled Republican populist fear machine that has proven time and time again it knows how to win at the national level, an American population that is fearful, anxious, exploited, insulted, lied to, oppressed, and sent off to foreign lands to die for lies (and therefore especially vulnerable to fear-mongering) plus an inexperienced (and yes black) candidate presiding over a party that is insecure and self-loathing. The only reason we have a shot is the mind-blowing unpopularity of Bush and a Republican opponent who has no credibility on the economy. I admit to some admiration for those who hopped on the Obama train early; I, on the other hand, in addition to finding his progressivism wanting, couldn't envision him winning. But I can envision it now, sometimes.  

[ Parent ]
Even simpler... (0.00 / 0)
Photobucket

People can never be under estimated.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Another way to figure out why the numbers are the way they are (4.00 / 7)
Go out and volunteer!

Every day people could be talking to at least 30 people. That's a statistical sample right there. Seems to be a good way to get an idea of what's going on.

I talked to one woman that was wavering in her Obama support because she thought he was going to raise taxes (based on a McCain ad). When I straightened her out she was back on the wagon. So that's a good bit of information right there. Obama needs to keep hitting back on McCain's lies. Personal attacks yes, but also the economic stuff. I've noticed in a lot of polls that McCain's economy numbers have gone up. Sounds like that could be a reason for some of the McCain movement as well.  

lies and culture war (4.00 / 3)
Does anyone have any idea how many third party ads and direct mail pieces are going out all over the country? I don't, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's massive. I heard from my brother that a buddy of his out in Vancouver, Washington got some slick flier that looks like it's from some non-partisan group comparing McCain and Obama's tax plans. It had this guy of very moderate income convinced that Obama was going to raise his taxes $8000. He wants to vote for Obama, but if he loses $8000 a year he is fucked.

This is what we are facing. A tidal wave of lies funded by the billionaires that are the real Republican base. My point is that, how do we know that this is not already happening on a significant scale and could be the answer to why McCain is gaining?

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
And some of it (4.00 / 1)
isn't even from third-parties. It's just straight up lies from the McCain campaign themselves.  
[ Parent ]
One More... (4.00 / 11)
People don't think/know that McCain is a Republican.

At least, a typical Republican.

McCain's "Change" numbers are now almost as high as Obama's.  Whether that's because of Palin or just an intense re-focusing with his convention, people apparently think that McCain will bring plenty of change to Washington, this DESPITE the fact that most people think he'll continue George W Bush's policies.

There's obviously quite a bit of cognitive dissonance for people, but cognitive dissonance doesn't stop people from voting either.

This is something that's been noted before, but Obama's ads don't mention that McCain is a Republican. McCain's ads don't mention that he's a Republican.  No one is saying to people "Republicans have had their chance for the last 8 years and it led to disaster.  It's time to put the Democrats in charge."  That message WAS in Obama's speech, but has been lost in the national dialogue.

That's it. To a certain extent people now accept McCain as an agent of change (0.00 / 0)
Obama needs to emphasize just how much ordinary, party-line Republican McCain's record is.
[ Parent ]
Obama is running to be a postpartisan president (0.00 / 0)
so that is out. Good idea but no dice with Obama.
[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
How does that conflict with exposing McCain as just a shitty Republican with the same shitty Republican policies of the last 8 years?  Isn't that consistent with his argument that he's post-partisan while McCain is partisan?

I'm not saying I entirely like the post-partisan frame, but keeps talking about how HE'LL fight Republicans.  Obama should expose this as bullshit.

[ Parent ]
Experience argument killing Obama, softly amoung independents (4.00 / 1)
My theory is that Obama is slowly losing the experience argument as true Independents start to come off the fence.

Check out this CBS News monthly survey of undecideds

Also from the Atlantic, check out their survey of undecideds here and here.

The upshot seems to be that for issues-oriented undecideds, right now, McCain's experience trumps Obama's change.  For character-focused undecideds, your guess is as good as mine.  I'd say it's a combo of POW, Palin, quite frankly, Obama's race.

I have two theories (4.00 / 6)
1) First, the race is likely to be close, despite the major Democratic advantages in the generic ballot. The reasons? There's the fact that McCain is simply one of the most popular politicians in the country. He came to prominence due to his being a thorn in Bush's side. People remember him for that, and he's far more popular than his party. For people who don't vote on issues and vote more on personality, they remember him well and think more highly of him than they do Bush or many other Republicans.

Moreover, despite the depressed Republican ballot strength, this is still a pretty polarized country, politically. How much did congressional Democrats win by? Remember that most of the critical races were close. Even in the face of major disapproval, partisan habits stay pretty entrenched, and with the stakes high, in a presidential election, most of those voters will come home. Although I think Obama would be defeating Romney or Huckabee fairly comfortable, I think even they would narrow the gap from the double-digit losses they polled back in the spring.

2) Secondly, I wonder if McCain's gains aren't through osmosis.

It's not that McCain's ads or the Palin pick directly cause a shift in voters. It's that by dominating news coverage, they get free publicity. I suspect that for a not-insignificant number of low-information voters, that publicity is what ultimately sways their vote. They see McCain and Palin on TV, they hear people discussing them and so, when pressed, they say their vote leans towards McCain.

Likewise, back in May and June, when the Democratic Primary and Obama's campaign thoroughly dominated the conversation, many of those low-info voters said they were voting Obama -- he was who they were hearing about and who people were talking about.

That's the real cost of the Palin pick. It wasn't even that her coverage (especially initially) was all that favorable. It's just that she's drowned out all coverage of Obama and made Obama's excellent convention a distant memory. Now if people think about the campaign, the first thing they think about is Palin and thus, they plan to vote for McCain.

* Now, I have no data on this. So feel free to tear me to shreds. But I think it's plausible, as a lot of public opinion depends less on substance and more on how widely something is diffused into the ether.  

thank you (4.00 / 2)
This is exactly the attitude that's warranted. Almost everyone I talk to seems to be glum these days, but not for any rational reason. I was asking similar questions earlier in the week, and I didn't get any constructive responses. People, we have to understand what's going on the polls if we want to affect them.

Chris, can I add another item to your list?

  • Is it Obama fatigue? Is it possible that the airwaves and media were so saturated with Obama during the primary season that people are just tired of listening to him? In an ironic kind of way, McCain is more of a fresh face than Obama because he didn't get nearly as much attention until the summer. Even his surge to the nomination over the winter was eclipsed by the Obama-Clinton rivalry. Maybe people are just tired of seeing Obama on TV.

I'm beginning to wonder if this campaign season is really all about independents' hatred of all politicians. No matter how personally appealing a candidate might be, eventually the uplifted folks' friends say, "Bah, he's crooked politicians who will do anything to get elected, just like the rest of them." This attitude is reinforced when politicians talk a good game for months and months, yet peoples' lives are not made any better by it (yet). It seems that many people find this whole thing to be exhausted and they just want it to be over. They are numb. Hope gradually turns into talk of hope, which turns into just talk.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

Obama fatigue (4.00 / 1)
Is it Obama fatigue?

He was fresh and Obamamania lasted a long time, but now people are used to him.  Palin is the new cool celebrity.  Trad med and Dems and Rs are all over her.  

The question is how Obama reinvents himself based on his image.  He needs to change a bit, while building on what he has.  

[ Parent ]
stupidity (4.00 / 1)
"I feel very frustrated right now because I have a difficult time pinning down the cause of McCain's continued polling increase."

approximately half of eligible citizens actually vote, and very few vote on the issues. what's so hard about mccain's continued polling increase in a country that elected bush twice?

Almost every time I listen to Obama during the campaign, I am reassured. In fact, he's almost the only thing that reassures me. I'm not convinced he's going to win, but win or lose he will have done it his way, with honor and dignity.

I think people on both sides are quick to panic when things aren't going perfect. As much as I've wanted a convincing win for the Democrats, I think I've always known this election was going to be extremely close.

Ultimately, this election is urban vs. rural, has been since 2000. The battle lines have been drawn and the deciding factor will be who gets out the vote. Unfortunately, I agree with McCain's campaign manager that this election will not be about the issues. Sadly, the issues really don't matter that much as long as people have bread and circuses (cheap food and entertainment). As long as people can afford the fast food dollar menu and cable Tv, very little will change in this country.

Damn, now I need to go listen to Obama again...

Re: stupidity (4.00 / 5)

I'm not convinced he's going to win, but win or lose he will have done it his way, with honor and dignity.

Screw honor and dignity. How does Obama's honor or dignity put food on the table and bring the troops home?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
screw honor and dignity? (4.00 / 1)
don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

like i said in my initial post, there aren't enough people without food on their tables to start a revolution. never will be as long as people have the fast food dollar menu and some form of entertainment. watch the movie idiocracy.

[ Parent ]
"there aren't enough people without food on their tables" (0.00 / 0)
A lot of hungry people during the 1930s.
[ Parent ]
reply (0.00 / 0)
this ain't the 1930s (yet). the dollar menu and college football are still strong, stronger than national politics unfortunately.

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
all we need is another Great Depression and we'd win the White House easily!

You know, you can't discount the fact that Democrats haven't won more than 50% of the vote since 1976...and even only barely.

Since 1944, only one have the Democrats won more than 51%.

What does that say to you?  

[ Parent ]
By what measure? (0.00 / 0)
How are we to measure honour and dignity? One (me, that is!) can argue that there is no honour or dignity in choosing "honour and dignity" over the lives of people (let us not get distracted with the particular point of "food on the table" -- there are many ways in which lives of people are affected for the worse by the GOP; and the Dems to an arguably lesser extent) -- and that is a choice, without doubt. And its a choice of following some affected stiff upper lip and "That's not cricket, old chap" playbook. Instead, I ask you to consider Sojourner Truth's words.
[ Parent ]
by what measure? (0.00 / 0)
how are we to measure the "many ways in which people are affected for the worse"? if mccain wins does that mean the voters have decided that their lives have been improving under republican leadership or that things will get better under even more republican leadership? i think not.

for me it has always been bread and circuses. most people know times are tough, but they do little to change their circumstances in the way of voting until there is no food on the table or no monday night football. no bread and circuses is the tipping point of real change, the kind thomas jefferson talked about.  

and are you suggesting that if obama is acting on his honor and dignity that he is putting himself above the lives of people? if so, i disagree. the people are part of the problem. we the people must also take some responsibility for our current state. obama said the other day that the republicans must think we're stupid. we'll, unfortunately, some of us are.  

[ Parent ]
Stupidity, honour and so on... (0.00 / 0)
The jury is still out, in my opinion, on the stupidity of the masses. Thomas Frank made his claim in WTM w/Kansas and since then Bartels and a host of others have questioned his thesis. The lower you go down the income ladder the more votes the Democrats get. The people do understand what is at stake, a lot of the time. And even if their inability to make judgements involving divergent vectors does meet our satisfaction, what is the point in blaming them/us? Surely your blog comments and mine aren't going to rouse the people into radical consciousness! (Interestingly, one of the few people who has consistently achieved this in the last few decades, Noam Chomsky, is one of the more reviled figures in the liberal blogosphere).

I am suggesting that Obama (and many Democrats) in putting some sort of code and protocol over what is needed to win, is betraying a deeper code and cause. Sojourner Truth stood up and offered a very different vision of, and argument for, equality and rights, that was based on the hard-lived lives of people and how that hard life made her no less a woman, in comparison to the "intellect"ual (and somewhat self-serving, in terms of lifestyle) arguments offered in the forum she was attending. What the people need from Obama is for him to enter the fray -- the ugly reality of what their daily lives and struggles are. Not follow some code of conduct that benefits the old boys. Oscar Wilde wrote that "we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" (quoting from memory, here), but note that he did not suggest that he shall not enter the gutter! The gutter that is GOP politics, that McCain with Rove mini-me's are rolling out, is a voluntary one that they have embarked on, but it is the same gutter that is the lives lived by your average Joe involuntarily and often without dignity.

[ Parent ]
It doesn't (0.00 / 0)
but there's no guarantee that reinventing himself as a ruthless politician will win him the election either.

In the end Obama is not Hillary, he doesn't do ruthless. He doesn't do mean-spirited. It's just not him. It's what I love about him, but now in hindsight, sadly, it's what may lose him the election.

If there's one thing I learned in this race, it's when I pick the candidate I like least in the next priamry, thats the person I'm voting for, because America doesn't like the character I like.  

[ Parent ]
he ISN'T doing it (0.00 / 0)
but he can't?  Maybe not to Rovian levels, but he's still a politician.  I think the problem is that for him to do it would run counter to his image, which is where the lack of infrastructure is a problem.  It would be best if there was a bad cop out there too.

Speaking of which, where is Joe Biden?  Can't he hop on this Sarah Palin train since no one seems to know how to make it go away and push some VP debate stuff in the media?

[ Parent ]
The Sarah Palin train is a problem too (4.00 / 2)
talking to people, independents and Democrats included, they are beginning to feel Palin is being pounced on for no other reason than she's on the ticket.

I mean we all laughed and saw it as a gaffe, but to everyone I talked to today, even people in the campaign office, Charlie Gibson asking Palin about the Bush Doctrine was "unfair" and some people even called it an example of "liberal bias"

Palin as victim has played well, maybe because she's a woman and mother of five, but Biden attacking her wouldn't do anything but cause undecided voters to run and defend her against "that awful awful man"

Biden should go after McCain, so should Obama...destroy McCain. It may not work, but it's the best chance we got. The more we attack Palin, the stronger she gets.  

[ Parent ]
well i still think it should be women critiquing palin (0.00 / 0)
and it should be on women's issues like abortion rights and free rape kits for rape survivors.  that, apparently, is why this pick was so good.  because that conversation among democrat partisans was shortcircuited during/after the primary (imo) and now it's hard to unstifle it or undo the effects.
[ Parent ]
Honestly (0.00 / 0)
with the way women feel about the primaries, they really don't care to attack Palin...except for maybe Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

We can force people like Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein to attack Palin if they don't want to...and we can go on the "Fine, do you really want her appointing SCOTUS judges" tyraid, but that only makes the problems worse.

To be really honest, I think some of these women just don't want Obama to be President and want to try again for a better Democrat in 2012. If that's true, there's nothing we can do about that and yelling at them is counterproductive.

Palin was a really good move on McCain's part...he outsmarted us.  

[ Parent ]
you're right (0.00 / 0)
that no one should force anyone to do anything.  but that was my point about the conversation about women and the democratic party (and american politics in general, including 'progressive' politics) that was so shortcircuited.  If that conversation had happened in a different way you might be seeing people who supported Hillary Clinton for feminist reasons to push against Palin.

I think Palin is a feminist's worst nightmare - honestly, her opinions on issues like abortion are BEYOND conservative - they're fringe.  Who doesn't support a rape survivor's right to her own body?  And for a woman to do that?  I find it appalling, and I don't understand how anyone couldn't.  And having (or even allowing) her police chief while she was mayor to even VOICE the idea that rape survivors should have to pay for the rape kits after reporting to the police while she was mayor?  Why doesn't every single American know that these are Sarah Palin's views?

There are equally appalling views and actions that Palin has in numerous respects that alienate other parts of me as well, but if the overall misogyny present in U.S. that makes its effects felt in the progressive movement as well had been more effectively engaged with and communicated about and the progressive movement was a more feminist movement, this wouldn't have become an issue.  It's not about who you support - it's about why you do it and what they stand for.

So given that atmosphere of misogyny in what was already a sexist system, the only people who are in a position to stand up to a woman like Palin are other women - because people who are not used to dealing with identity issues are not going to separate out male television interviewers being an prick to a woman vp candidate from the woman's actual anti-woman stances and positions (and as a result role in many ways).

I mean, where is the analysis?  When James Carville was emasculating Obama and Obama supporters were refusing to acknowledge that there was misogyny in the air during Clinton's run, that was the time for everyone to take a step back and say "Democrats are feminists" and start competing for women's votes on the basis of issues and not identity.

Similarly, if Clinton had been nominated, I'm sure McCain could have picked a young Black man to be his vice presidential candidate.  He hasn't outsmarted us - he's calling our bluff and if you really want to make sure that Obama wins this election, we should  deal with it.

So let me start - why isn't the Obama campaign or Democratic surrogates talking about more issues that affect women from a feminist or even liberal standpoint when more than half the electorate (I think) are women?  Because they're not going to be able to keep the media or other insitttions from being misogynstic towards Palin, and I think  this is the only way to actually discredit her thoroughly.

In an extreme case, run on abortion rights, in a very moderate way, if you're afraid of alienating people!  Make every ad from now on about choice - safe legal and rare or whatever.  Just make it an issue.  It will give him at least as good a chance at winning the election, and will be more progressive than trying to appeal to Jewish voters in Florida by basically promising to support Israel no matter what, and will kill Palin's career and hopefully McCain's as well.

[ Parent ]
btw criticism directed at self too (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
i agree (0.00 / 0)
i think the one thing that obama and biden need to keep preaching endlessly is that mccain = bush (more of the same). if they get off this message, they will surely lose.

here is a great ad by the dnc running in michigan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

they should totally overlook palin, make her look insignificant.

[ Parent ]
Indeed... (4.00 / 1)
I really do think at least a third of the voting population is utterly stupid, and the number is probably much greater, especially if you want to add in that 25% who constitute the religious fundamentalists. Of course, its hard to say if they are really stupid or just truly brainwashed.

Some people really just don't understand that policy has a real effect.  Some people just can't fathom the idea that President Gore might have gotten a report title 'Al-Qaeda determined to attack America' and actually turned some real resources into trying to stop an attack.  They can't fathom that a different set of tax cuts in 2001 might have put real money into their pockets and created an economy that actually made them better off now than they were in 2000.  They don't understand that Gore wouldn't have put oil regulators in Denver to have sex and flood the market with speculative dollars to make the price of gas go over $4/gallon.  

All politicians may indeed be corrupt but some are less corrupt than others and good policy from a corrupt politician is better than bad policy from a good politician. Listening to 'Independent' voters is really like reading the Darwin awards for political thought.

Add to it a media that acts like it has the same 'independent' stupidity and I just don't see anything a Democrat can do to fight back much less bring to light the issues.  Obama has almost no power to fight back.  He can run ads, but then the 'news' shows will either focus entirely on McCain's attack ads puffing them up or they will pick apart Obama's attacks and try to minimize their effect.

While I am feeling pessimistic my hope is that Obama's ground game and swing state GOTV strategies will turn the tide in our favor.  The reality is the election will turn on some pretty small margins in a few states and getting just a few million more people to the polls across a dozen states might be enough to win this thing.

[ Parent ]
Opportunity cost (4.00 / 2)
While I don't know the reasons why McCain is rising, one thing I do know is that the problem not the people who are worried, or who think that the Obama campaign is doing a poor job. How could it possibly be?

I certainly agree with your basic point, here.  But continue to think of this election not as a fight between McCain and Obama, but between the conservative infrastructure and the liberal infrastructure.

When we praise McCain for brilliantly working the refs each time he complains about the press but then turn around and say Obama complaining about the press makes him look weak, we help spread memes that help McCain (Strong!) and hurt Obama (weak).

I have no problem looking for faults internally, discussing what needs to change and so on.  I even have tolerance (in theory, at least) for the occasional venting.

But we are the liberal media.  The one advantage we have over the conservatives is our on-line presence.  Perhaps we would help more by being outraged over the McCain/Palin lies instead of Obama's lack of outrage.

I think it's Palin (4.00 / 4)
She's very attractive ... a lot of people don't care if she's not too bright.  (You know, I couldn't remember what they meant by the "Bush Doctrine" myself before the explanation--)
It's the American Idol effect.
Kind of like voting for Arnold or that other biker in Wisconsin -- what was his name?
Then also she somehow neutralizes the appeal of Obama and stirs up the anti earnest young-black-guy voters.  He starts to look like an annoyance.
Sorry, I'm afraid that I think that because of television which I avoid entirely (I have never seen American Idol),
Palin changes the calculus into a popular culture phenomenon.
It doesn't make sense to us as intelligent policy -- but it's like a movie with Brad Pitt and Angelina-- the beautiful woman, even the shooting wolves, and making stupid mistakes.
I was horrified at first, but now I think she will have wide appeal.  It is REALLY scary.
Palin's appearance (4.00 / 1)
It's funny, I thought for sure that Palin's physical attractiveness would have hurt her with both men and women. This would be a great subject for an independent poll, something the traditional pollers are probably afraid to touch.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
A poll to measure... (4.00 / 2)
schwing voters?

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
She's not that attractive (4.00 / 1)
I mean, come on. She is very average looking.
[ Parent ]
She's daffy looking (4.00 / 1)
But many Americans liked the lovable want-to-have-a-beer-with doofus the Dubya, before everything went to hell.
[ Parent ]
Whither sexism? (0.00 / 0)
I'm surprised--pleasantly, as a human being, and not so pleasantly, as a human partisan--that the right seems to completely lack all sexism when it comes to voting for a female VP.

Good for them, I say! Both morally and electorally. But I'm still surprised. It appears that voting for a (relatively) young woman isn't a problem at all for the right. Pretty heartening, actually--especially as I remain idiotically confident that Palin will ultimately be a drag on the ticket.

[ Parent ]
what makes you think they lack sexism? (0.00 / 0)
she reinforces almost every anti-woman message out there, and does it while allowing people to think they're not sexist because she's a woman.
[ Parent ]
Well, every anti-woman message except (0.00 / 0)
'women shouldn't have power' and 'women aren't capable or qualified'. And 'women should stay home with children and obey their husbands.' ANd that sorta thing.

I agree that she communicates an anti-woman philosophy; I guess I'm talking more about a personal misogyny.  

[ Parent ]
Intense battle going on over the middle/swing vote (4.00 / 3)
McCain just solidified his base and ours has been in place for some time. We live in a divided country, 50-50. Nothing has really changed since Gore-except the battleground includes more states.

We are fighting over the swing vote in OH, PA, MI, CO, NV, NM, and maybe VA and FL etc. The common thread is probably income. And as anyone who has moved around knows, they are not exactly the same folks culturally from one state/region to the next, but they are linked by a lifestyle of living paycheck to paycheck.

I am a fan of the Obama's field organization. What he did in Iowa he is trying to do in those above mentioned states.

* In Ohio (which John Kerry lost by only 120,000 votes in 2004), 750,000 eligible voters between 18 and 22 who could not vote in 2004 can vote in 2008.

* In Colorado (Kerry lost by 99,000) 293,000 between 18 and 22 have become eligible to vote in 2008.

* In New Mexico (Kerry lost by 6000 votes) 145,000 kids have reached voting age.

* In Michigan 690,000 have become eligible.

* In Virginia 465,000 (Kerry lost by 260,000).

* In Florida alone over 1 million young people have reached voting age since 2004.

Then there are black voters. According to the Census Bureau there are 24 million eligible black voters in America of which 16 million (64%) are registered. In 2004 blacks cast 14 million votes or only 56% of the eligible black population. Blacks are registering to vote at historic rates in 2008 and turnout will soar above 2004 levels. Some examples:

* In Colorado there are 110000 eligible black voters. Only 50,000 voted in 2004.

* In Ohio there are 860,000 eligible black voters. Only 380,000 voted in 2004. (Remember Kerry lost by only 120,000 votes).

* In Virginia, 945,000 eligible black voters, 465,000 voted in 2004.

* Florida; 1,750,000 eligible blacks, 770,000 voted in 2004.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

If we can't win those middle/swing voters we have to win in the field.

Those few million remaining swing voters may be a small portion of the electorate, maybe as tiny as one or two percent, but that's going to be the difference in some important Electoral College states, and if neither side finds the key, or if they fight it to a draw, it then comes down to field organization - registering new voters and getting them to the polls - once again.

http://narcosphere.narconews.c...

not a complete explanation (0.00 / 0)
This doesn't completely explain everything. Didn't we have swing voters in the bag back in June?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
the gop right wing hates mccain (4.00 / 2)
and he didn't win them over until he appointed palin. think about it: the far right was sitting on its hands and may have stayed home if liberman, ridge or romney had been picked. Now its a different story. They now have a reason to battle and a reason to vote (up and down the ticket). Win or lose the WH this is a brilliant pick for the GOP. In the end its going to make McCain look like an idiot, but for now it helps maintain party id and build party unity.

Obama is going to win because his campaign is going to do whatever it needs to do. But nevertheless he is working in a 50-50 divided landscape.

Why did we have swing support in June/July? Because we were more exciting--now they are--swings swing, back and forth.

[ Parent ]
no (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
married white women and independents (4.00 / 2)
I realize the internals on many polls are contradictory and it is hard to make definitive statements.  But from what I've seen the problem lies in some combination of the factors you've suggested, specifically among married white women and Republican leaning independents.  These groups have been fired up by the Palin choice, and hence become more likely voters, and also convinced by the McCain/Palin change narrative.  I do think race plays a factor, as well.  Voters who were not sold on Obama because he's "inexperienced" or too "different" have now come home to McCain, thinking that he represents the same promise as Obama, just "safer."

The solutions that follow from this: 1) Motivate Obama base.  This needs to be done by scaring the crap out of Democratic voters about what four years of McCain/Palin would mean.  This will boost up Obama's numbers in the likely voter models. 2) Peel off just enough independent voters by convincing the public, and just as important, the media, of the systematic mendacity of the McCain campaign.  It's the lies, stupid.  A lot of work needs to be done, still, to convince people that this is a continuation of Bush, not change.  

If we win though it seems obvious it will be the narrowest of margins.  But I was not one to ever believe there'd be a landslide.

Years of branding powers attacks (0.00 / 0)
We cannot reverse GOP branding of decades in just 2 cycles.

Therefore, McCain's culture war attacks are more effective than they otherwise would be.  It's only because of demographic change that Obama can win.  

fundamentals (0.00 / 0)
Trust in the fundamentals and the smartness of the Obama campaign which defeated the seemingly inevitable Clinton machine until after the debates. If the debates don't move Obama clearly ahead in the polls, then it's panic time. Don't forget your towel.
The Obama campaign defeated the Clinton Machine in Feb.......it didn't do (4.00 / 3)
so well after that

When she ramped it up she did well, exceptionally well, McSame is ramping it up.

Did/does the Obama campaign not expect a traditional republican style Presidentail campaign?????

GOP tactics - was alway going to be Hillary Campaign on steriods by the gallon

Shaking your head and saying this has to stop doesn't work by itself

Charcterize Mcsame this way:
"John McCain is running a dishonorable campaign that insults the intelligence of the American people:he is perpetuating LIES,  creating distortions and fabricating disractions thereby showing contempt for the American electorate.

I see no honor or integrity in the campaign he is waging.

He is doing a grave disservice to the American people."

That's just for starters.

That puts Obama clearly in the drivers seat driving the narrative.

Obama has to say something that gets the narrative wheel away from McSame.

As GOP heads explode from that statement hammer it home and launch it every day till Mcsame starts to talk about issues( he never will, but keep it part of the narrative)

[ Parent ]
Who is going to hear the message? (4.00 / 1)
The problem is that Obama can say this all he wants but if the media doesn't cover it or spins it as a negative, either no one knows he said it or they think he is a jerk. If he then tries to attack in the debates he gets labeled as aggressive and angry by the media and McCain is declared the winner of the debate.

The dynamics in the primary don't matter.  The media ultimately didn't care whether Obama or Hillary won and let everyone attack and devoted the most coverage to the nastiest attacks from both sides. The tight race filled their coffers but is now over.  The real election is now and the media companies need to try and do everything to help McCain over the finish line.  I have no doubt the coverage will only devolve further as we get closer to zero-hour.  

I hope I am wrong, but I also have to hope Obama's ground team can get enough Democratic voters to the polls to overcome the idiotic identity voters who call themselves 'independent'.

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Obama defeated Clinton early, and lost the second half, in part because of the debates.  
[ Parent ]
I have my own pet theory, based on reading blogs (4.00 / 4)
We are losing (if we are) because we are doing a bunch of things not right:

1. We are too insular.  We have no understanding of how the other side thinks, making it impossible to come up with a reasonable narrative that pleases anyone but ourselves.  While I personally thought Sarah Palin's interview revealed her inexperience - you'll be surprised to know that conservatives don't see it that way.  Just today Andrew Sullivan argued that McCain's candidacy was over because of his appearance on the view.  I just watched the segments he linked to on HuffPost, and can see no evidence that McCain hurt himself on the show.  In the meantime - I'm certain that the unanswered narrative about Obama going having a side-by-side town hall with McCain is hurting Obama. Easy to answer "attacks" but are we answering the more subtle stuff?

2. We lack internal discipline to drive home the talking points.  The media picks up conflict for talking points - and we keep giving them talking points about our internal conflict. Odd that the story is STILL - why isn't Obama doing better?  That's been the blog story from when he was winning by 3 in all the polls, and it's still the story now that he's frequently down.  And unfortunately, we and the Republicans are feeding this story.  This (to me) is a story of the tail wagging the dog.

3.The theme that was working got shattered - and another theme is needed.  As ugly as it may be for a while, Obama's camp may need to employ a kitchen sink strategy - so that they can pick the theme that shows signs of sticking.  I continue to argue that the gauntlet Obama threw needs to be picked up and run with.  He said he was ready for a debate on temperament - he needs to go ahead and start working that.  McCain's pick of Sarah Palin absolutely shows the wrong temperament - and even republicans not on the religious right might take a second look at Obama if this theme was driven aggressively.  Certainly independents would have another look.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



20 comments (0.00 / 0)
with 20 theories.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
True enough (0.00 / 0)
but I offer mine for consideration just in case they're useful.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Two basic reasons (4.00 / 2)
These are macro reasons, but I think they encompass the reasons for movement to McCain:

1) For two months McCain has been on offense and Obama has been on defense.

2) McCain has no problem disqualifying Obama in stark, ad hominem terms. Obama refuses to disqualify McCain on his own merits, and refuses to see that tying him to Bush is not enough.

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

tying him to bush was their attempt at an ad-hominem attack (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
tying him to bush was their attempt at an ad-hominem attack (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
We Must Consider McCain's POW Narrative at the RNC (4.00 / 2)
I am not saying this is a good way to choose a President, but for Patriotic Americans I think McCain's speech at the RNC, although substantively lacking, was extremely compelling.  He has a heart wrenching story and people's patriotism overrides their rationality.  McCain is riding that wave.

The way to handle it is to attack it directly the way the GOP did against Kerry and even Max Cleland.  It is immoral, unethical and dirty, but we are not playing two hand touch here.  They will eat us alive if we don't play hard ball. Here is the narrative:

McCain's POW story not only is irrelevant it is scary.  It will make him unstable and not think straight.  He has become a war monger and a deranged VET as a result of that experience.  We can't put a man like that near the button.  

Harsh, but it will work.  Obviously Obama stays a mile away from this message, but let surrogates do the work.      

Wesley Clark tried that, sort of (4.00 / 2)

 And he was quickly bound, gagged, and locked away by...the Democrats.

 We lose because we want to.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Not BECAUSE of the Democrats (0.00 / 0)
but because the response was bad. When Clark did that, that's when I realized we can't go negative on McCain. The response to his comments among people I talk to was somewhere between "Who does he think he is?" or "Clark was never tortured, he should shut up"

You can't attack a POW on being a POW...especially when it's a Democrat attacking a Republican. We could've defended Clark, but it would've dug our hole deeper.

There's a lot of stuff Republicans can get away with that Democrats can't.  

[ Parent ]
Media narrative (4.00 / 1)
Just to point out the obvious, right now the media narrative on both Obama and McCain is fairly positive.  That alone probably explains why both have high approval ratings.

I really think this thing will be won or lost in the media narrative.  Get the MSM to turn on McCain and his lying ways and we win.  If we don't it's a tie and we know how ties work in this country.

I don't think so. (0.00 / 0)
The more the media does that, the more fodder they give to the ever-growing and ever-louder "liberal bias" whinebags who are tearing this election away from the issues.  At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they force Charles Gibson to apologize or resign.  Damned if we do and damned if we don't, really.

You owe it to yourself to listen to This American Life's fantastic and common-sense explanation of the economic crisis.
[ Parent ]
liberal bias (0.00 / 0)
The "liberal bias" line only resonates among conservatives. Of course they will rally around McCain against charges of dishonesty, just as they did with Palin. But it's the independents we're after. Most of them swallow whatever the media outlets feed them.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
The one glimmer of hope... (0.00 / 0)

My only solace at this point is the fact that young people and urban residents are far less likely to have landline phones, so they are pretty much being left out of the polling equation now.  And they'll likely turn out for Obama in landslide numbers, unless the Palin thing gets them all apathetic again.  Has this been accounted for by any polls?

You owe it to yourself to listen to This American Life's fantastic and common-sense explanation of the economic crisis.
yes (0.00 / 0)
There have been polls including cell phones, and what you are talking about might make a difference of a few points at most.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Price of Oil no longer in crisis mode? (4.00 / 1)
I have been feeling for a while that the news hasn't been super duper awful lately. Yeah, the economy is tanking -- slowly but surely -- but Iraq isn't the monster clusterfuc* that it's been, and the memory of Katrina is receding.

The nation is now focused on McCain v Obama. We've all forgotten about Bush, and when we forget about Bush we forget about what a disaster he's been. When we forget that we forget that McCain is Bush's bitch.

During oil's inexorable and shocking rise it made the whole sense of "nation in crisis due to Republican mismanagement" vibe much much stronger. I myself was in a daily state of shock at where it was all headed.

Has it resulted in a return to complacency, and "heck, maybe it hasn't all been such a disaster?"

Don't get me wrong, I am not sure that the nation will recover from Bush. But unless the fires of danger are immediate and urgent most people don't really think about them. I think it's why "McCain is more of the same" isn't packing the same punch these days.  

I Think It's Complicated (4.00 / 1)
I started writing a comment about this, and it quickly got headed to diary territory, so I'll just summarize and flesh it out tomorrow.  Basically, I think we're in a period of intense flux, which makes the measurements of cause and effect problematic.  Voters' decisions are usually complicated, and often opaque even to themselves.  But when the forces involved are relatively simple, there are enough people with similar enough motivations that the data allow us to tease out the reasons.  For a number of reasons, this is not the case right now, so we have to adopt a different attitude toward trying to understand what's going on.

I do think that the long-term decline is significant, but it's not due to a single cause--although Obama's post-primary rightward turn certainly played a role.  More thoughts in a diary tomorrow.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

My own theory is as follows (4.00 / 3)
People detest partisanship, and the image of a maverick is  simultaneously an image of strength (though enough to take on those in your own party), integrity, and populism (i am the country's side, note the insider party people in Washington)

It is a powerful message that is close to Perot's in '92 (who would have won if he wasn't such a nut).  

In the last two elections where the right track wrong direction question was over 70%, 1980 and 1992, there were signficant revolts by independent candidates coming from the center.  I think McCain has tapped into that same sense, and is in effect running an anti-washington campaign.  

Great observation (0.00 / 0)
You are right re: wrong track and third party runs.  I'd say it's definitely a factor.  
[ Parent ]
i think you're right (0.00 / 0)
but this still doesn't answer the question of why it's working and how mccain's been able to do it but obama hasn't.
[ Parent ]
Its not rational (4.00 / 3)
Chris, stop trying to make SENSE of what's happening. The 10% of the electorate who's vote was ever up in the air are a fickle bunch, and most importantly, they aren't rational voters.  They aren't going to vote against mccain because he's a liar and they aren't going to vote for obama because he's going to cut taxes for them and invest in cool things like infrastructure and education.  

The Obamathon post from yesterday nailed it.  It's like a sitcom, and these people will "vote" for their favorite character (ie, the most entertaining, not the most likable).  Digby I don't think is that far off either when she compares the dynamic that this 10% of the electorate responds to as not unlike American Idol.  

I think you need to step back and realize that the only movement in these polls comes from about 10% of the electorate shifting around.  What makes them move?  I think really start internal polling would be to identify and learn as much as possible about anyone who went from being an obama voter in July to a Mccain voter in September. I think the McCain team is really playing to this crowd right now, putting on quite the show and the 10% are incredibly entertained right now.  Good show, McCain team.  The Obama campaign is still trying to win these people over with rational arguments, without realizing that these people stopped watching PBS and boring documentaries years ago.  The fact that I don't think the OBama campaign gets this worries me.  

I agree with most of the (0.00 / 0)
comments that suggest U.S. voting patterns are starting to mirror the past few elections, and that this was to be expected. Also, something no one seems to want to mention as a factor is oil drilling.  If you look at the latest generic congressional poll the congressional Dems have only a 3 pt. lead.  The GOP's main issue over the past few months has been domestic oil drilling and it apparently has worked, much as I hate to say it. I think the oil issue has also benefited McCain  and it's no accident that he keeps promoting Palin's "expertise" on the energy issue.  Anyway, the race is tight and most states are reverting to past patterns.  Which are the states that could go either way that might shift from red to blue?  Ohio and Florida?  Probably not.  Missouri? Probably not.  It has become more of a red state in presidential elections than a bellweather state.  Virginia?  Probably four years away.  That leaves Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.  Looks like Iowa will go for Obama and Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada might, which leaves the possibility of Obama and McCain tying at 269, or Obama winning by 4 to 8 electoral votes or losing by the same margin.  Unless Obama's registration efforts and ground game change the playing field, that's the way it looks to me right now and I'd be hitting local Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada issues with everything I had.  
Thank you (4.00 / 1)
First I would like to thank you for the attitude.  At the least it comes down to do you want McCain running the country no matter who is running against him or what flaws that person has.

I also have been thinking for a while that the Obama supporters are really tired.  The nation is now so overexposed to the 3 regular candidates and now they have this new, interesting, completely unknown shiny new object to focus on.

If Palin shows up for more interviews more of the nation will see her as she is, not as she's being painted and things will settle down a little.

One thing I think Obama needs to do is stop focusing on small group encounters and mix in a few mega speeches that are hard hitting like his convention speech.  Regenerate that will to vote FOR him, get excited FOR him.  Maybe a 2 small group encounter, 1 big speech event mix.  He's getting lost in the media and he can easily fix that with a few firebreathing ENOUGH speeches.

Then it will boil down to numbers and ground games.  If Obama can get new voters to the polls, he negates the evangelical ground game.  If there are more Dem leaning voters than Rep, he can negate the race issue which is very real and will never be accurately polled.

Fired up!  Ready to go!  I'm already fighting for my country in every way I know how.  How about you? ;0

I saw a comment on a blog... (4.00 / 2)
that said it was because we weren't following the advice of the guy who wrote the comment.

So I'm pretty sure that's it.

Media not message (0.00 / 0)
Not to get all Marshall McLuhan (if I have the right name), but I think a lot of leading Democrats fail to grasp the basics of reaching and influencing "low information voters" (or "stupid people" or etc.).

Democrats tend to see public discourse as a debate - you make your case and win the argument. Repubs see it (correctly) as a marketing campaign. You pick a message, you repeat it, you repeat it, you repeat it. You make it as memorable as possible. And you repeat it again. Even if its not the best message, low-information people are going to remember it.

Take John McCain's houses. The Obama campaign actually did a pretty good job of getting that out there for a few days, but after a couple days you heard nothing. You've got to keep beating the drum if not with that, than with reinforcing attacks ($5Million, today's "divorced", etc.). You can't take it for granted that because for two days there were jokes about John Mccain's houses that people get the point - anyone who was busy at work or who didn't have the TV on that day or is just plain forgetful isn't going to remember it. You need to smack them over the head with it repeatedly until November 4.

There are two metrics that advertising professionals use to measure the effectiveness of an ad: recall (memorability) and persuasion. Don't have the link but Markos wrote a while back about how numbskulls like Bob Shrum use persuasion as the metric in deciding which ads to run. The marketing industry, on the other hand, has known for decades that recall is far more important (not to be confused with the advertising industry, which pats itself on the back for metrics like cretivity that have no intrinsic effect on consumer/voter activity).

There is only so much the Obama campaign can do. I actually think party elected officials (senators, reps, etc.), party leaders, other surrogates, etc. are far more important to revving up the echo chamber and repeating a message over and over. Republican leaders are great at throwing coordinated hissy fits when things are going badly. Dems are great at throwing anonymous sniping at the Obama campaign to their favorite reporters.  

i have a hard time believing that obama thinks this (0.00 / 0)
"Democrats tend to see public discourse as a debate - you make your case and win the argument. Repubs see it (correctly) as a marketing campaign. You pick a message, you repeat it, you repeat it, you repeat it. You make it as memorable as possible. And you repeat it again. Even if its not the best message, low-information people are going to remember it."

I think it's just that currently, the Democrats are either running a bad marketing campaign, or they're using a different strategy (like registration/turnout) which concedes polling / narrative.

[ Parent ]
HE NEEDS STRONGER ATTACK ADS (4.00 / 2)
My own sense is that it's a non-intellectual evaluation of who's stronger.   McCain has launched an onslaught vile attacks on Obama.  Given the completely uncritical mass media, some of this is sticking.  But mostly I think people want to see him fight back.  Responding to the ads isn't fighting back.  It just trying to defend yourself.  It's defensive and it makes him look weak.  He has to attack.  And frankly, his attack ads have not been very strong.  

For example, saying "more of the same" is really weak.  The same what?   You need to have an ad that says the Bush Administration has been inept and incompetent, and the McCain Administration will be just as inept.  We don't need more incompetence.  Or corruption.  We need someone smart enough to change the way things are done.  We need Barack Obama.  

I would also attack McCain's ideas as being old, tired and feeble.  And by inference keep hammering home that McCain himself to weak, tired and old.  And I wouldn't be subtle.

Or, THE PIG.  I would make a pig with lipstick a part of every rally Obama holds.  I'd have a sign on one side that says, "All pork all the time."  And on the other side I'd say "McCain/Palin."  Signs could be alternated, such as "All lies all the time."  I'd then weave the pork theme into a humorous monologue about the McCain campaign's phony outrage and crocodile tears, pointing out "You can't turn a silk purse into a sow's ear."  But Gov. Palin is the "Queen of Pork."  And in case you're worried the GOP might get confused, this is a male pig.  We call him John.  

I'd continue with the pig theme, cramming as many pig phrases and idioms into the monologue as I could.  It would be funny, and enrage the GOP.  Moreover, it would show Obama fighting back in a very witty way, ridiculing his opponent and scoring points with the public.  Various ideas include:  Just because John McCain didn't properly vet his Vice Presidential candidate doesn't mean that we have to "buy a pig in a poke."  

When it comes to lying they're slicker than a greased pig.  If pigs had wings, some of McCain's claims might actually fly.  But we know that's not true.    

Sarah Palin has claimed she's against pork, but while mayor of Wasilla and Governor of Alaska she's been Pigging out on Government give aways.  You could say she was as greedy as pig.  But then again, she's the Queen of Pork.  

When will we see Sarah Palin in pigtails?  Anytime soon?

Does anyone think she's hogging the lime light from John McCain?

While the Republican base may have gone hog wild over Palin, the rest of us remain skeptical.  She doesn't know what she's doing.  She's clearly unqualified to be President.  We've already had one unqualified President.  Do we really want another?

This will no doubt bring on more cries of feigned indignation from the GOP.  I expect "they'll squeal like a stuck pig."  

I wish you were writing copy.... (0.00 / 0)
....for the Obama ads.

Obama: Together, we can do better!

[ Parent ]
The 10% who are swinging (0.00 / 0)
The graph is somewhat deceptive, because it is of the gap between the two candidates, and probably does represent a slow erosion of likely Repub voters who were disenchanted with Bush, but undecided about McCain, and gradually came home.

Best comments: these are low-info, non-ideological, gut-feeling voters. We lose them with candidates like Kerry and Dukakis - we shouldn't lose them with Obama, IF...

1. More big events, with broad, charismatic speeches by Obama. Much as I liked the convention speech, it could have been packaged better, with a sustained, general uplift at the end. These folks are probably in the fabled "Reagan Democrat" range - not because they are conservative ideologues, but because Reagan made them feel good and hopeful and proud.

2. Get the actual tax-cutting plan out there. Misinformation on this issue hurts us worst of all, since Repubs have long established the frame with low-info voters that "Dem raise your taxes." Obama lowering your taxes more than McCain. Hit it, over and over and over and over again, in every possible venue.

If these voters can think "inspiring, won't raise my taxes" - with a few vignettes of the Obama family - we've got a shot to get a few percent over 50%.

Welcome to America (0.00 / 0)
There isn't any rational explanation.

The polls may eventually show that white lower and middle income voters are trending more towards McCain.  Or they may show something else.

But we all know where Obama is weakest, and where McCain is strongest.  McCain is making a jingoistic/cultural resentment/heartland values/reformer pitch and going negative, as everyone expected him to do.  And it will work, to some extent, as everyone expected it would.

Basically, after eight years of Bush, about half of America is willing to continue down the same road with McCain.  There isn't any reason for that.  Maybe Obama can tattoo a flag on his forehead and send out photoshopped pictures of McCain strangling puppies.  Joe Biden could wear a cowboy hat to the debates, maybe.  Hillary could challenge Sara to a mudwrestling match down at the NASCAR track.  These tactics are about as logical as anything McCain has done.  

Or Obama can look Americans in the eye as if they were serious people and say "McCain is no reformer" and "the healthcare system is in crisis."  But that won't work.  We've tried that.

Nothing to do but enjoy the ride.  We've been here before.  

Or Obama could put out an ad (0.00 / 0)
in which he looks right at the camera and tells Americans to just grow the fuck up and get their heads out of their clueless identity politics-obsessed asses and stop voting for the guy they'd like to have a beer with or doesn't make them feel stupid. Is that how one chooses a brain surgeon or airline pilot? Of course not. Then why should it be the critereon for choosing a president?

Of course, I'm just kidding. But part of me wishes that he did do this, because clearly these morons have earned it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Honesty doesn't work (0.00 / 0)
lying, vindictiveness, mean, spiteful, that works. That's not Obama.

[ Parent ]
I don't entirely agree (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps true honesty, delivered in unvarnished form, doesn't work, but being a lying asshole--i.e. your typical Repub--is not the only thing that works. Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Clinton--they went a different route and won. There's more than one way to get to those low-information types who don't understand the difference between identity politics and real issues.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Ancient history. (0.00 / 0)
Clinton ran against a man who had been a legislator, a diplomat, a career civil servant, and who had an understanding of world affairs.  The Elder Bush may have run some nasty ads, but there is no question that he was qualified to hold high office, and that he was not an ideologue.

Bush's son didn't lower the bar - he buried it. He appealed to a group of voters who not only don't seek competence, they despise it.  Because they are ideologues, they think that holding onto a set of narrow certainties  is the main requirement for wielding power - that is why Palin says she "can't blink" in answer to the question about qualifications, because she has a "mission." To someone like me, that answer was oddly disconnected and chilling - to the right, it is logical and common sense.

McCain is older, cut from the same cloth as the elder Bush. In this environment, he rose in the polls and solidified his base, not through his own merits, but by Palin.

I can accept that negative politics works, that shallow and lying attacks are effective in the hands of someone who is a relatively sound choice otherwise.  I cannot accept that our society has fallen to the point where competence is disdained, and ignorance and inexperience isn't just excused to reach the highest office, but celebrated and made a virtual requirement.  

The combination of vacuous incompetence combined with duplicity and nastiness is more nihilism than I can comprehend.  George Bush was a symptom of a society in rapid decline.  Sara Palin is a symptom of that society's imminent collapse.

The age of Clinton, Bush the Elder, McCain, and FDR is over.  Palin is our future.  

[ Parent ]
Palin is our future only if we let it (0.00 / 0)
The true right makes up only a third of the electorate (or else why would Bush's numbers be lower than this?). The left is also around a third. The real fight is for the center, which is now undeniably more left-leaning than right-leaning, in the aggregate. McCain has won over the right and most of the right-leaning center by going nasty. Obama cannot win over any of these by going nasty, or by going anything, really, as they'll never vote for him no matter what he does.

He's locked up the left. All he has to do is win enough of the center, and he's not going to do that by going negative. Not in an underhanded, personal, dishonest and nasty sort of way. Sure, he can and must attack McPalin, but that's not the same thing as going nasty. He has to attack them on their record and character. And he hardly has to lie or be mean to do it--they offer up an embarrassment of riches here.

Fundamentally, nothing ever changes, and we are not living in a "post-historical" era in which what applied in the past no longer applies. That's a very typically western and especially American conceit, this tendency to see our times as somehow special, and beyond the tug of history. Nonsense. The future might hold more Bushes and Palins--or worse--or it might hold more Obamas and Clintons--or FDRs. It's all up to us, and a bunch of other things.

It may well turn out that the Bush years were an aberration, an extreme last gasp of an extended period of conservative dominance that tried to extend itself beyond its sell-by date. Or they may not. It's impossible to tell from where we sit. To claim that Bush and Palin-style politics are here to stay is meaningless, because they've always been with us. And to claim that they will from here on dominate is simply unprovable, a guess like any other.

We'll see. But I wouldn't make any grand declaration about how it's all over and the other side has won. No one is in a position to be able to make such a claim with any authority.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Who is this "we" you speak of? (0.00 / 0)
Unless it is either the indecisive/inattentive/uninformed middle or the elites who control the political/media system, there is no "we" in the equation that can change this dynamic.  The rest of us are sideliners, with one vote and a few hundred or few thousand dollars and a little volunteer time to throw on one side or the other of a machine of someone else's making.

We don't know the path of history, but there is absolutely no reason to think that Bush is the "last gasp" of anything conservative, if conservative ideas/infrastructure is still strong enough to offer a candidate that attracts 50% of the electorate after such a historically failed Presidency.  Conservativism is incredibly resilent at the moment, and there isn't any reason to assume that will change in the near term.  

Nor is there any reason to believe that standards for high office will go up, when Obama is where he is in large part because of his thin resume (in fact, the three "strongest" candidates - Clinton, Obama, and Edwards - were the three most corporate, least experienced candidates, and anyone with experience never had a prayer), Bush had no resume or ability, and McCain (the only one in the field with any experience) saves his campaign by making a nobody into a superstar.  

As to whether the center is more left-leaning than right leaning, I'm not so sure.  It's common to tout surveys that show that people are more liberal on the issues than election results may indicate.  But today, abstract party identification and the generic ballot bears little relation to the Presidential race.  Americans are high minded in the abstract, but with it comes time to make real decisions, are easily frightened of change, complicated ideas, and bogymen. For all practical purposes, they are conservative.

"Palin is our future" isn't a grand declaration of the end of history.  It's an assessment of current trends, with very little evidence to the contrary.

[ Parent ]
kovie honestly (0.00 / 0)
I yearn from the type of elections and campaigns like Lincoln v. Douglas, Roosevelt v. Hoover, Kennedy v. Nixon and Clinton v. Bush.

This is not one of those elections. We thought this was a return to grandeur America past, where people debated issues important to them and our candidate stood before us and told us why and why not we should be in Iraq or why an why not we should have universal healthcare and how we do it.

But that's not to be, this election is about hurt feelings, spitefulness, looks, media narratives and gaffes.

Obama faces an uphill task to win that type of campaign...looking back, any Democrat did against anyone but Romney.  

[ Parent ]
Re-read your history and then get back to me (0.00 / 0)
This silly notion that we're living in historically unique times, oddly shared by some on both left and right, is a simple-minded not to mention hugely innacurate view of both our times and history. Campaigns have always been dirty and nasty. The commenter below praised Bush Sr., but he ran the willy Horton ad, which set a new low for despicable campaign tactics. Nixon was notorious for being a master ratfucker and red-baiter, from his very first race for congress in the late 40's. And the 1860 campaign was famously nasty. Nothing new here whatsoever, once you get beyond the obvious differences in technology and campaign techniques.

And this same history shows that nasty often wins, but it's not the only way to win. Was Lincoln nasty, even though his opponents were? Was JFK? And Dukakis didn't lose because he refused to campaign from the gutter. He lost because he was a terrible campaigner who didn't know how to deal with the other side's attacks while going on the attack himself--in a non-nasty or dishonest way. And do you really expect Obama to go nasty now? Seriously?

I swear, few things annoy me more than knee-jerk cynicism posing as sophistication.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Today (0.00 / 0)
it is the only way to win. That's my point. Campaigns have had nasty turns since Ancient Greece, but it's only recently when the media has basically turned politics into a nasty catfight about anything but issues.

And I think the reason that has happened is because people don't vote on issues, they vote on character.  

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
I categorically reject any arguments made on the basis of our or any other time in history being "special" ir "different". The specifics change, the fundamentals never ever do.

And I suggest once again to re-read your history. Newspapers were notorious in the 19th century for being extremely partisan and biased and publishing the most despicable lies and smears about candidate that they wanted to see defeated.

I agree that we have been in an intellectual and media lull these past few decades, where the media has gone down in quality and the public has shown less sophistication about and interest in issues (why do you think the GOP did so well in the 20's?). But that's not necessarily permanent, and has been true in the past as well.

It's all about cycles, which history has always followed. We've been on a down cycle. We might still be on it, or we might be on the verge of an up cycle. And even if we're not, sooner or later we will be, if we don't first destroy ourselves.

Plus, it's not just about issues, but about identity politics. We're still stuck in, but hopefully near the end of, an era of identity politics that started in the mid-60's over civil rights and cultural change, that has been masterfully and cynically exploited and hightened by the GOP, to get people to vote against their own material interests.

It's not nearly as simple or necessarily dead-end as you think it is.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
All times are historically unique (0.00 / 0)
I suppose that it may be some consolation to muse that, in the midst of a bad presidency, it isn't as bad, or uniquely bad, as the civil war.  But nations and the world do go through catastrophically bad, and uniquely bad, times.  It isn't any answer to the unique horror of Hiroshima to say "it isn't as if no one ever dropped a bomb before."

The question today isn't negative campaigning.  The question is whether the system can be so broken that McCain can win with every policy negative in the world in a historically bad time for his party simply on cultural resentment themes and lies, despite war, record foreclosures, etc.

[ Parent ]
the trick to pop ed (0.00 / 0)
is to convey your belief (which you believe is a 10 out of 10 in accuracy) to someone who's at level 3 - to get them to level 5.  That gap is what popular education stuff is about - it means reundersatnding that you can't hammer critical thinking skills into someone's head - you can only try to mvoe them along through conversation.  But that's much harder in a national televised political campaign.
[ Parent ]
Dem congress (0.00 / 0)
I think the lack luster performance of the Dem congress is also coming home to roost.

I wish i had a time line of events so this is just a hunch, but I think people are also looking at the performance of this congress and concluding that there is not that much difference between parties once in power. if that meme is strong, then voting out one party in favor of the other loses its value.

Harry and Nancy, we love ya!
(cue jazz hands)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

ZOMG this comment is irresponsible and defeatist! (0.00 / 0)
And is probably the main reason why Obama is slipping. I should never have posted it and need to just SMFPH and follow the orders of whatshisorhername's diary on DailyKos.

Oh, and I think that it's mostly due to the McCain campaign's attempt to cast Obama as a pompous and condescending elitist who is out of touch with everyday Americans and utterly lacking in experience and substance (oh, and that he's black too! in case no one noticed).

I.e. a replay of 2000 and 2004, plus the dogwhistle racism, with less emphasis on issues-based cultural identity demonization politics (e.g. gays, abortion, flags), and more on personality-based cultural identity demonization politics (e.g. small towns vs. cities, folksiness vs. urbanity, apple pie vs. merlot).

They're clearly trying to appeal to that low-information soft right-leaning swing voting center that wants change but is uncomfortable with either a black president, or someone as liberal as he's been portrayed to be. And, for now, I think that it's working. But they haven't locked in these people yet. The shift that we've seen isn't permanent for the most part. After being bombarded with dishonest and insubstantive negative ads, many of them are going to end up looking at the actual issues, and not like what they see in what McCain has to offer. Obama has to make sure to appeal to them in ways that they can relate to, on the issues.

It's issues vs. identity redux. I think that the issues will win out this time--if Obama handles this right, in his ads, speeches, interviews, and the debates.

Now I have to go and delete this harmful comment...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

c'mon, Chris, you know this. (4.00 / 2)
The answer is that Republicans have only thing unifying their tent: hatred.

I don't mean that as an attack; what I mean is that Republicans have created the greatest strawman in political history, the "liberal".

To middle class suburbanites, "liberals" are the city dwellers who suck up their tax money;

To lower-income rural whites, "liberals" are the people who insist on using PC language and handing out Affirmative Action jobs;

To the upper-income and well-educated, "liberals" are the sniveling bleeding hearts who steal from the rich;

To the evangelicals, "liberals" are the pornographers and homosexuals who think the religious are stupid and Christianity should be eradicated.

They've meticulously created these strawmen over two generations, and they can rally people to resist the ever-encroaching power of "the liberal".

I challenge you to find any real attacks on "conservatism" as an ideology or the "conservative" as a figure. They don't exist.

The result of Kos-style partisanship over-ideology is that we can try to "sell" the Democratic brand, but we don't define our ideology, and that leaves us open to constant to all of these strawmen.

The "liberal" is a rohrschack for "What you hate" for lots of Americans, and we don't have an effective way to fight back, because we're so sure that having a forceful ideology is some kind of turn-off.

Until we define a new, ideologically combative Leftism, we'll always have this problem.

Resist the counter revolution, build a movement. Same Subject, Continued

Ive been saying this for a long time (0.00 / 0)
Obama is trying to run as the candidate for change, but the average voter can't tell you what he is trying to change. He is running on the same Kerry platform of "I HAVE to be better than Bush!" but McCain's reputation as a maverick is making that tough sledding. Obama needs to put 2 or 3 concrete things out there that he stands for that McCain can't touch because he is a republican. Because right now he isn't proposing anything that the average person can look at and focus on.

Right now the republicans are more credible on change because they have 2 people on their ticket who have gone against their own party in high profile situations. Obama needs to give people something to latch onto.

Forget all that (0.00 / 0)
Right now the republicans are more credible on change because they have 2 people on their ticket who have gone against their own party in high profile situations.

That's the key...it doesnt matter what Obama does or says, the people don't want a Democrat, but a Republican who isn't Bush...unfortunately they thought all Republicans were like Bush, until McCain and Palin came along.

They're the dream candidates for this country.

As for as what Obama stands for that McCain can't touch...like what? Diplomacy over war? His education plan? His energy plan? He has plenty of concrete ideas, no one wants to talk about them...it doesn't fit the "Obama isn't specific" narrative.

[ Parent ]
speculation (0.00 / 0)
As someone above pointed out, the map has for the most part been far better than four years ago or 8 years ago, so maybe it's just returning to norm as more people start paying attention besides partisan Democrats, who were engaged throughout the whole process while people who lean Republican tuned and partisans tuned out for the months after McCain clinched.

In addition, that it wasn't better to start with and is as bad or slightly worse now can probably be chalked up to a) 8 years of ideological indoctrination + the existing Republican infrastructure b) loss in the narrative war (you can include here demobilizing 527s, Palin, the media's role, racism, effective ads by McCain, ineffective ads by Obama, and most especially moving the election totally away from bread and butter issues that a working/middle class voter might care about) c) racism as a structural factor d) overweighting the most recent results because of the Republican convention bounce.

Some random thoughts too - is the Iraq War coverage getting less prominent / favorable (I don't know)?  Is the coverage of the election drowning out the horrible news that dominated for the last 7-8 years in the absence of a media spectacle?  

but like everyone else, I don't really know.

take a look at the supertracker on 538 (0.00 / 0)
granted, it's a model, but two things of note:

1) nate had said that the race tends to converge so things were only slightly bad before
2) there's a structural break right after the democratic convention - so unless it's the republican convention, it has to be palin, who in whatever way (whether as a woman or as a rightwinger or as someone who allowed mccain to restore his maverick image or as the new "celebrity") has made things very bad.

or it could be some of the factors thehy talked about before (0.00 / 0)
that there were republicans not responding to pollsters before who are now and other factors.
[ Parent ]
actually i think a convention bump makes the most sense (0.00 / 0)
if you look at these historical charts.  They're also somewhat reassuring. :)
[ Parent ]
Changes? (0.00 / 0)
1.  Drop the constant attack line of white racism.  This is no way of getting working class and middle class white people to vote for Obama.  Candidates need to get voters to feel good about them.  This is not the way.  (Even if it is true this is not the way to make friends and influence people.)

2.  Go positive for at least three weeks giving voters very specific reasons why voting Democratic will help.  Connect every dot.  Fill a few holes and things will look better.  Show why your plan works.  Don't go tit for tat vs. McCain.

3.  Wrap yourself in the party label.  If Democrats are running well ahead of generic Republicans make it D vs. R and not Obama vs. McCain.

4. Drop the aloofness and cuteness.  Americans don't want a guy who see,s to be above it all (heck, we sometimes choose guys who are below it all).

5.  Wrap yourself in the Party accomplishments.  Clinton created more jobs, better jobs, balanced the budget, etc.  JFK/LBJ did the same.  Worried about retirement?  Democrats preside over stock market booms and created social security and medicare.  It is a great record and easy as hell to sell.  The President makes a gifference.  You can look it up.

promote a myth people want to believe (0.00 / 0)
and scoff at a reality people hope is not true.

maybe that's too simple, but it gets to a gut feeling that I have.

Overwhelmed and frightened people want desperately to believe in a big strong daddy who will make decisions for them, tell them they don't need to do their own thinking and deciding. And that things are okay, really, they are okay, you can trust me, believe me.

During a campaign, this is a myth that works, because people WANT it to be true, very badly, and because it won't be put to the test until governance begins. Then the wheels fall off, as in Bush, life gets measurably worse for everyone and the lie is revealed. Too late, and all the damage has been done.

We have made the mistake of assuming and hoping that people wouldn't be duped again, but the problem is that people want very badly to be told things are okay, and to believe it.

In addition, people's anger, a seductively powerful distractive emotion, is being successfully channeled (by the Palin and McCain campaign message) against anyone who talks about scary reality and personal responsibility.

Obama has said that this campaign is about US, that we have the power to change things, but now that Palin has energized a huge swath of people who are terrified by that message of personal responsibility, Obama's strongest message has been undermined.

Obama and the rest of us have to come to terms with this very entrenched dynamic.  The politics of hope are operating, but it's upside down now, and regressed to the Bush formula of hope from 2000 and 2004.

Dangerous, very very dangerous.

anger, SCORN and DERISION too, and... (0.00 / 0)
the deep, dark appeal of violence when an individual, group, clan or family is convinced they are threatened.

Palin is serving to activate the worst and darkest of human nature, the urge to scorn and deride the arrogant sons of bitches, those ivy league prima donnas who have never done honest work, those community organizers, those people of color who hate us real Americans and are coming to get us if Obama and his kind gain access to "our" White House. You can imply an awful lot of unspeakable and primally satisfying behavior without actually having to be so direct that people wake up enough to be appalled. I think that they've managed to plant a deep fear and conviction that in this country, it's a kill or be killed situation, and "it's US or THEM" is a short step to unexpressed violence. Palin becomes a cheerleader at a bloodsport.

I believe this is the fundamental way Rovian politics works. They've found a perfect catalyst in Palin.

It makes me wonder about whether trying to tag Palin as a bloodthirsty hunter might actually backfire, if her symbolic purpose is to fire up people's primal behavior.

I have to say, that back in the Primary, when I knew that what was coming in the General against Obama would be terrible, I committed the sin of forgetting just how awful these people can be.

It could be that what Obama needs to do is find a new way to get out his message of hope that appeals again to the best side of people.

Or, is the alternative that the only way to win is to descend to the same horrible tactics as Palin, Bush, Rove and McCain?

Please let there be another way.

[ Parent ]
I respepctfully disagree with everyone one of your polling suppositions (0.00 / 0)
Does McCain make more effective attacks?

Answer Yes

McCain's attacks seem to dominate the news cycle, but I'm not convinced they are making a big difference.

They dominate so they do have the redundancy to make a difference.

As my mother would say....favorables, shmavarables.

Is it shifting partisanship?

Yes. As Nate silver hypothesized Republicans are picking up the phone and the Reagan Democrats have decided to not go back to being Democrats for one more cycle.  

about Republican and Democratic leaning independents whose voting preferences are stable shifting between identifying as partisan and identifying as Independents depending on how they feel about their party at any given moment. So, this might not be shifting votes, and is really more of a shell game.

These shell voters have been Obama's target all along and why many preferred him over Hillary because he was supposed to be able to get those independents....He may be losing them.

Is it Sarah Palin?

Saying it's not Sarah Palin is like saying if you omit the nitro from the TNT it still could be TNT. Only 3 things happened at the RNC convention of note.....The speakers bashed Obama, John McCain said yes I am still a maverieck which is aka as a moderate, and Sarah Palin.

Focus groups are always undecided voters...The people Palin energized were not undecided, they were the Republican base who decided to be enthusiatic. The same elelctricity would have resulted had Obama picked Hillary. I know the blogosphere doesn't ever want to mention or admit that it was a mistake not to choose her, but it was a big mistake.  Part of admitting that mistake is admitting that Sarah Palin mattered a lot....so of course you can't.

Is it that Obama is black?

Answer  yes...it was a not a problem in the primary.  It was not a problem that was going to show up until the election got closer.  That is how the Bradley effect shows up.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

My Frustrating Ignorance On The Campaign | 105 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox