Obama Campaign: We're On Our Way To Winning
In a conference call with reporters this morning, plus a new Powerpoint, the Obama campaign is voicing confidence that they are well positioned to win the early contests, are already picking up steam in the later contests, and that Obama would be the strongest Democratic candidate.
One key claim is that Obama's crowds in Iowa since Christmas have been larger than those of the other candidates:
In the electability department, John Edwards comes under some criticism for his acceptance of public financing, and the way the accompanying restrictions on spending would hamper him after the primaries:
And to persuade voters further, they argue that Hillary Clinton is less electable than Al Gore and John Kerry, who both lost:
Late Update: The full presentation is available here.
Comments (104)
Helter wrote on December 31, 2007 10:40 AM:I'm sure the other campaigns have different assessments of his electability. The fact is that while party members pick the candidates, independents end up picking the president come November. Hillary starts out with high negatives, but it's really a question of whether she can pull in enough independents in enough states to put her over the top in electoral votes. She might be able to do this, depending on who the republicans run.
Daniel wrote on December 31, 2007 10:43 AM:There is no poll evidence that Clinton is less electable. Quite the contrary, just check out this list of polls from red states in which Hillary is stunningly strong and is putting very red states in play.
outside the beltway wrote on December 31, 2007 10:49 AM:what an inspiring message - NOT!
why are we voting for Hussein again???
Are people realizing you're not going to charm lobbyists into giving away their power?
really they bothered to make a powerpoint slide of how much money edwards has as a reason not to vote for him???
BluePuppy wrote on December 31, 2007 10:50 AM:I don't know about crowd size. Personally, I wouldn't bank on a presidential campaign on who comes out to an event.
Then the hoary argument about Hillary's high negatives. Back in 2004, early polls had all the Democrats beating Bush. But the truth is that 48% of the country will never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, and Obama has yet to be blasted by the Republican propaganda machine.
I find it interesting that the daily tracking polls continue to show that Hillary has regained her lead, which contradicts those who say that Obama supporters were under-polled during Christmas. Clearly, there is a trend for Hillary.
outside the beltway:
I assumed this was a bigot-free forum; I guess I was wrong. Keep your Hussein comments to yourself.
Obviously there is no way to persuade members of the clinton II personality cult; however, the anti-clinton II vote should look at this very carefully. Edwards cannot compete. A vote for edwards is a vote for clinton II.
Incidentally, it is a sad testament to the american voter to automatically assume that 48% of the country will never vote for a dem. There is no evidence to support that assumption. In fact obama draws a substantial number of republicans and independents. Nearly 40% of republicans find him favorable, which is substantially more than clinton II. Why write off 50% of the country and further divide us. In order to accomplish anything a candidate needs a mandate, which clinton II will never get, even if she is lucky enough to win the general election.
Let's turn the page and try something new.
Keith wrote on December 31, 2007 11:00 AM:At the end of the day, the candidate which can translate those butts in seats into caucus goers will win on Jan 3rd.
AJ wrote on December 31, 2007 11:02 AM:Obama's spent at least $10 million dollars in Iowa on his hollow 'New Politics' message, if he doesn't win with that kind of spending he should fold up shop. Because it'll be clear no one's going to buy it.
JHo wrote on December 31, 2007 11:10 AM:With the substantial segment of undecideds, I think the most important slide is the crowd size comparison. However, I do question the graph; Edwards has seen a surge in crowd size over the last 2 weeks (sometimes reaching over 500).
brewmn wrote on December 31, 2007 11:18 AM:"why are we voting for Hussein again???"
If by we, you mean you and I, I assume "we're" not. You obviously can't get past Senator Obama's race, so I wouldn't want you to do anything that you are so uncomfortable with.
On the bright side, the Republicans have plenty of candidates who also seem to hate brown-skinned people. Maybe you should consider voting for one of them.
Jenna L wrote on December 31, 2007 11:19 AM:I clicked through the whole presentation and I have to say...I am already an Obama supporter, but it's very convincing. Edwards simply doesn't have the MONEY to compete against Clinton. Obama does. And he is very well liked by Independents and Republicans. I think in a general election he has so much of a stronger chance than Clinton. I think if people in Iowa really sat and thought this through he would win by a mile.
frankly0 wrote on December 31, 2007 11:33 AM:Honestly, my concern about Obama isn't particularly his electability in the upcoming general, though I do worry that the might have some issues that will damage him, his cocaine use possibly being one such.
My real anxiety is that he will end up after election as another Jimmy Carter, someone who won't be able to win another term.
Jimmy Carter likewise was treated to highly favorable press in his campaign, and made a big deal of his purity, "high minded" shtick.
And then when he was elected he became transformed in the public consciousness into an ineffectual leader and a classic, get-under-your-skin scold. He soon came to be reviled by both Republicans and Democrats, and could make nothing productive happen.
It's just too easy to see how Obama could fit this mold, given who he is, how he has fashioned his image, and given the nature of his supporters.
I just don't see his holier-than-thou, speak-unpleasant-truth-to-all-comers, transcendent-politics shtick wearing well either with Congress at large or with the American public.
Kefa wrote on December 31, 2007 11:33 AM:This is a message of a candidate who thinks he/she is in trouble, but take heart he will run again as he flip-flopped on MTP.
He's just like the rest, just untested. HRC is not going anywhere win or lose in Iowa.
Win or lose in NH. Win or lose in SC. In for the long haul. :)
And to persuade voters further, they argue that Hillary Clinton is less electable than Al Gore and John Kerry, who both lostThe accompanying slide about the candidates "negatives" is throughly misleading. If anything at all, it just re-emphasizes the fact the Obama is a novice who has not been tested and vetted, and would be a roll of the dice to nominate. The only reason Obama's approval/disapproval rating ratio is high is because he is a "green" pol and relative newcomer who has not yet been "introduced" to the people by the GOP smear machine as his other battled-tested opponents or past Dem nominees were or have been (Clinton has been battling the "machine" for some 15 years!)
Here is the reality. Gore was a seating vice-president for 8 years and had his share of detractors by October 1999, the date for his reported approval rating numbers. It is therefore not surprising that his unfavorables would be on the "high" side. As for Kerry, I had already addressed that back in October in a post that I recycle below:
A relative unknown when he won the Dem nomination in 2004, Kerry had an unfavorability rating of 13-20% when he started campaigning for the GE. By the time the Repubs were through "introducing" him to the public, his unfavoravility rating was about where Hillary's is now. Hillary's unfavorability do not where anywhere to go because she is now a well known quantity so that most people who have a negative opinion of her have probably already been counted (statistically speaking), meaning that, as Ezra Klein had posited over at TAPPED (see also below), her so-called 'negatives' are now as high as they'll ever get. The other candidates have low negs because they have not yet been "introduced" to the public.
HOW POLARIZING IS HILLARY?
The question of whether Hillary Clinton is uniquely polarizing is actually pretty hard to answer. For instance: The metric you use matters quite a lot. If you're going by how many voters "definitely would not" vote for her, she's less polarizing than John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney. But some say that number is a function of name recognition -- that folks are sure they won't vote for candidates they don't know. So if you're going by favorability numbers, then Clinton's 44% unfavorable is fairly high. But that may just mean she's further along in a process that any high profile Democrat will undergo. At this point in the 2004 cycle, John Kerry's unfavorables were between 13% and 20% -- by the time the election rolled around, he was in the mid-40s, posting numbers pretty comparable to Hillary's.
So that's the question: Not whether Hillary Clinton is more polarizing right this second. Given that everyone knows who she is, that simply has to be true. But whether she'll be more polarizing than John Edwards after eight months of haircut and hedge fund smears, or Barack Obama, after an election full of madrassa insinuations. Clinton's numbers probably reflect the end point of that process -- she's been smeared with maximum energy and efficiency for 15 years now. Edwards and Obama haven't, but if either captures the nomination, the GOP's attack machine will boot up, and do to them exactly what it did to John Kerry. If someone has an argument for why, at the end of that political war, they'll be less polarizing than Clinton, than that's a fair comparison. But the current numbers are not.
--Ezra Klein
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 22, 2007 11:57 AM
In just that one slide Obama has given us once more a reason why we should be concerned about nominating him: He has not been battle-tested. My sense is that he is under the illusion that the Repubs would play nice because he is a new kind of politician. Fat chance! The Legendary Smear Machine of Lee Atwater/Karl Rove would be booted up and ready to do business, regardless of who is the ultimate Dem nominee. Therefore, we'd better make sure that we nominate someone who's been battle-tested: Hillary!
anon wrote on December 31, 2007 11:41 AM:The Obama people say they are for change, but criticize Edwards for taking public financing? This bizarre attitude toward "only" spending $50 million on the primary is fueled by a stronger belief in money than in ideas. A candidate "constrained" by only spending $50 million on the primary is less beholden to monied interests than one who is not. Furthermore, any nominee is the nominee of a party that has absolutely no restrictions on what it can spend. This entire argument is a straw man and an invention of the people who profit from the unlimited spending outside the publicly financed campaign limits: dc consultants and the other "insiders" who have produced a flaccid leadership in Pelosi and Reid and a capitulationist attitude among most Democratic members of Congress. No thanks! Had enough of that bullshit. I think I'll stick with the guy who is actually interested in changing the corrupt DC based system instead of just talking about it and then screwing the little guy again for another 8 years. Fuck that!
thegolux wrote on December 31, 2007 11:50 AM:I was wondering about the crowds. We have seen from many different sources that Obama is drawing larger crowds than the other candidates. However, the polling data has not suggested that it translates into a lead. Thus I am wondering if the sampling for the polls is missing a segment of the population (those with no land lines etc) or if there is something else at play. Psychologically speaking- one would expect that attending a campaign event wouyld raise investment in a candidate and make the individual more likely to vote for said candidate- thus a Hilalry supporter at a Hilary rally would be more likely to vote for HRC than a Hillarly supporter who had not attended a rally. So what is happening here. Are the pollsters missing something? Are the crowd reports wrong? Or is something happening at the Obama rallies that actually turns people off? any thoughts?
Jenna L wrote on December 31, 2007 11:51 AM:anon,
Obama's campaign wasn't criticizing Edwards for receiving public contribution. Rather, they were pointing out the sheer IMPOSSIBILITY that Edwards can compete against Hillary outside of Iowa. She has oodles of money. Obama also has oodles of money and can actually beat her.
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 11:55 AM:And, oh, I forgot to draw your attention to the date for the favorability numbers shown for John Kerry in the Obama slide: 10/16/2004, i.e., just one month before the general election day, after he'd already be thoroughly swift-boated! That, ladies and gents, is the John Kerry that the Obama Camp is drawing comparison with. I hope some astute reporter would notice how pathetic and desperate that is and call them out on it...
Does anyone find this move of essentially calling Gore and Kerry "losers" to be just a tad condescending toward the party's past standard-bearers, who'd served the Dem party and progressive causes honorably, long before Obama had even learned to walk?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 12:01 PM:I find it interesting that the daily tracking polls continue to show that Hillary has regained her lead, which contradicts those who say that Obama supporters were under-polled during Christmas.
Not really. Plenty of people who travel out of town for Christmas stay out of town through Jan 1. I think that if Obama really does come in two points behind Edwards and one point behind Clinton (as Mason Dixon shows) then we will have to say that there was no holiday effect on these polls. On the other hand, if he really does win then the holiday effect will be the most plausible hypothesis to explain his sudden drop but eventual win. As others have said already, we will see in a few days time.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 12:06 PM:dc, way tooo funny. I find a "tad condescending" clinton II's claim of " more experience" than the other candidates, clinton II supporters referring to her as "madam president" and not one primary vote has been cast, clinton II's claim that she has been "tested and vetted," clinton's attitude regarding the war and people who are opposed to the war, etc. Also, clinton II laughing at obama in that one debate. You want to talk about condescending?
On tested and vetted, just because she said it and supporters repeat it ad nauseum doesn't make it true. She has refused any disclosure about her white house years. How is that being vetted? She started taking a little heat about a month and a 1/2 ago and the campaign started spinning out of control. That's her testing? Give me a break.
obamaoverrated wrote on December 31, 2007 12:07 PM:HAHAHAH.. OBAMA's favorability ratings according to Rasmussenreports as of 12/31/2007 is 43 favorable, 55 unfavorable
clinton 48, 50
edwards 49, 43
Mitt Romney and OBAMA have the highest level of unfavorables
www.rasmussenreports.com
daily presidential
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 31, 2007 12:07 PM:There he goes again using right wing dc establishment talking points, the only way to win elections is who ever has the most money wins. Its all about the message, one needs only have enough to get their message out. John Mccain also has taken public funds and i still believe he is the one to beat on the other side. At the end of the 4th qtr filing statements, obama and clinton will have spent much of what they had on all these elaborate offices everywhere through iowa and NH were as Mr. Edwards has been using huge amounts of volunteer labor that have come in from near by states and union personal on the ground there.
Pandora wrote on December 31, 2007 12:07 PM:Obama is playing a dangerous game here. Think about what he loses Iowa or even comes in 2nd or 3rd behind Edwards or Clinton then what is he going to say. What happened to all the crowds? What happened to the electibility?
At this stage as the race in Iowa is so tight I think the best strategy is to keep the expectations low so if you lose you still have a way out. I think if Obama comes in 3rd it will be a much bigger story than whether Edwards or Clinton wins. He is unnecessarily putting pressure on himself to win.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 12:09 PM:Oh, dc one other condescending act was her whole inevitability campaign. That was extremely condescending. She didn't think that she had to persuade people to vote for her. She was inevitable. Just get on the bus and everyone shut-up. Don't question or probe her policies, just vote for her. That's condescending.
Radha wrote on December 31, 2007 12:09 PM:Does anyone find this move of essentially calling Gore and Kerry "losers"
No, that is not what he is doing: he is saying that even if dem nominees with lower disapprovals "lost" to the thugs, then, Hillary, with higher disapprovals than theirs, is...
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 12:16 PM:thegolux wrote on December 31, 2007 11:50 AM:I was wondering about the crowds. We have seen from many different sources that Obama is drawing larger crowds than the other candidates. However, the polling data has not suggested that it translates into a lead.
Good point. Obama drew a much larger crowd at his Washington Square Park event here in NYC than HRC ever has drawn [some contended that the Obama camp had inflated the turn out numbers, and I suspected that might be the case here too]. Would that translate into more votes for him in NY? Fat chance. I suspect that many in those larger crowds are there primarily out of curiosity to see this electrifying black man in action. When they find themselves in the voting booth, I thnk they will wonder about the "experience" thing and vote for someone else...
waka waka wrote on December 31, 2007 12:16 PM:The Obama people say they are for change, but criticize Edwards for taking public financing? This bizarre attitude toward "only" spending $50 million on the primary is fueled by a stronger belief in money than in ideas. A candidate "constrained" by only spending $50 million on the primary is less beholden to monied interests than one who is not. Furthermore, any nominee is the nominee of a party that has absolutely no restrictions on what it can spend. This entire argument is a straw man and an invention of the people who profit from the unlimited spending outside the publicly financed campaign limits: dc consultants and the other "insiders" who have produced a flaccid leadership in Pelosi and Reid and a capitulationist attitude among most Democratic members of Congress. No thanks! Had enough of that bullshit. I think I'll stick with the guy who is actually interested in changing the corrupt DC based system instead of just talking about it and then screwing the little guy again for another 8 years. Fuck that!
Obama is just trying to make people realize that Edwards would get CRUSHED in the general election. The GOP will spend his piddly $17 million in a month.
And that's not even talking about his populist demagoguing. That is a sure loser in the general as well.
Edwards wouldn't stand a chance. Wake up Dems!
dcshungu, excellent posts.
I've read several posting where people say they couldn't support Hillary under any circumstance. Let's remember that Gore arguably won the presidency in 2000 and that Nader was a spoiler. It would have been a cinch without Nader. And I don't think anyone here would argue that Gore would not have been a much superior president to Bush. Elections do matter AND they have consequences.
Hillary would be a disaster for the Democrats. Just look at the last month of her campaign. She's gone from "inevitable" to "electable" to "experienced" to "likable" (hah!) to "change" (double hah!) and back to "Experienced."
Anytime things don't comport with Mark Penn's playbook, she totally loses control. She's the most unspontaneous, brittle candidate out there and as such, is the least likely to be elected.
Contrast Hillary's spasms with Obama's slow and steady message of "change." He has maintained his focus throughout the entire campaign, knowing that he'd be proven right in the end, as he has done on issue after issue (Iraq, Pakistan, talking to foreign leaders, not using nukes against terrorists). Once again, people are following his lead.
Hillary's pitiful 4th quarter attempt to coopt Obama's "change" message was transparently calculating, as is everything she does. THe GOP, as battered as it is, would make mincemeat out of her.
And as Hillary continued to lob petty attacks at Obama, he's emerged unscathed and she's looked increasingly foolish. He would display the same invulnerability to GOP attacks as well. He is a likeable person and a natural political talent, the kind that will bedevil typical GOP gunslingers who won't be able to make contact with the same old tripe. Just look at how unscathed he is after Hillary's petty attacks.
Obviously, if there was something else, some skeleton in the closet that Hillary could have used, she would have used it. He's already been battle-tested and his vulnerabilities are NOTHING compared to Hillary's and Edwards'.
Edwards is the most electable of all the Democrats--by quite a margin. Obama's next most electable and then Hillary, in which she beats just about every candidate except McCain (I believe) and does better than Obama in red states.
Edwards is our best bet in terms of electability. If you think money is the determining factor in an election check out the Romney campaign. I have no doubt Obama could win--unless he goes up against McCain. But if Obama does win, progressives lose to "bipartisanship" (i.e. getting owned by the conservative movement). Edwards is the only one who has a chance against them in Washington. Besides, he has been setting the policy agenda throughout the campaign and his policies are the most sound and progressive of all the candidates.
Keith wrote on December 31, 2007 12:25 PM:Shocking that none of Obama's detractors finds his memo persuasive. Absolutely shocking.
John Edwards is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 42% and Hillary Clinton is the only other candidate with favorable above 43%. She is viewed favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 50%.
Barack Obama earns favorably reviews from 43%, Fred Thompson from 42%, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani from 40%. Mitt Romney has the lowest total at 38%. Fifty-one percent (51%) have an unfavorable opinion of the former Massachusetts Governor. That unfavorable rating is matched by Obama and topped only by Giuliani at 55%
OBAMA 43, 51
Clinton 48, 50
Edwards 49, 42
Romney 38, 51
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Waka waka you have no idea what you are talking about. The dems won the senate back mostly from the "populist demagoguing" you so dispise, most all of it in clearly red states like ohio, missouri, virginia and montana, the only loser in that election from the senate was the corporate apologist harold ford from tenn, clinton and obama clearly stand on that side of economic theory, the loser side. Neither obama or clinton can compete in the south, NO dem has won a GE election from the north since 1960.
JHo wrote on December 31, 2007 12:32 PM:Right on the money Michael A. "Tested and vetted"? How so? What do we really know about her White House years? The Republicans will want to find out and will press her on her experience claims. They will eat her for breakfast.
Also, one thing that cannot be overlooked - what's Bill been up to since they left the White House? Where's he been sleeping? Who's he been... Who knows? It's not like he has Secret Service personnel following him around 24/7. Actually he does and if you don't think the Republicans will press that then you're being naive. The Clinton's have 16 years of Washington baggage - it won't work in a general election.
If you're a Democrat and you want one in the White House then you need to get a grip and nominate someone (Obama or Edwards) that can win!!!
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 12:33 PM:How about that! Posted 32 minutes on the Rasmussen Website
John Edwards is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 42% and Hillary Clinton is the only other candidate with favorable about 43%. She is viewed favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 50%.Barack Obama earns favorably reviews from 43%, Fred Thompson from 42%, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani from 40%. Mitt Romney has the lowest total at 38%. Fifty-one percent (51%) have an unfavorable opinion of the former Massachusetts Governor. That unfavorable rating is matched by Obama and topped only by Giuliani at 55%.
Oops! They've now gotta go back and fix those slides! LOL. The string of unfavorable news must be driving them crazy so close to caucus night, but when it rains it pours [just ask TeamClinton]! No wonder CampObama has abandoned the "politics of hope" in favor of mudslinging as usual.
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 12:33 PM:How about that! Posted 32 minutes on the Rasmussen Website
John Edwards is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 42% and Hillary Clinton is the only other candidate with favorable about 43%. She is viewed favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 50%.Barack Obama earns favorably reviews from 43%, Fred Thompson from 42%, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani from 40%. Mitt Romney has the lowest total at 38%. Fifty-one percent (51%) have an unfavorable opinion of the former Massachusetts Governor. That unfavorable rating is matched by Obama and topped only by Giuliani at 55%.
Oops! They've now gotta go back and fix those slides! LOL. The string of unfavorable news must be driving them crazy so close to caucus night, but when it rains it pours [just ask TeamClinton]! No wonder CampObama has abandoned the "politics of hope" in favor of mudslinging as usual.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 12:36 PM:Now this is the second false post crowing about the republican rasmussen reports. I checked the site after the first one and obama's favorability is 54% and unfavorable 43%. Clinton favorable was 45 and unfavorable 54%, edwards favorable was 48% and unfavorable 44%. Regardless of the problems with rasmussen. These are the numbers being reported on the site, not what is being said by clinton II people.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 12:37 PM:Here's the rasmussen link http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election
CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 12:37 PM:Crowds, money and favorability ratings. Compelling arguments. If you don't believe him, just ask president Dean.
But didn't Bill Clinton have a net negative favorability rating in '92? Obama probably just didn't have room on his chart to include that.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 12:37 PM:Re: Edwards and money
I think Waka Waka is slightly off base, because Edwards has accepted matching funds in the primary, not the GE. As such, it is hard to see how his present limitations would lead us to conclude that he "would get CRUSHED in the general election."
Meanwhile, in response to "It's the future stupid" all I can say is good on, you guys. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that Edwards can really be competitive with so little money, volunteers and unions notwithstanding. That said, I am a scientist, and thus think that a milligram of actual results are worth a kilo of theory. If you guys can volunteer and 527 your way into keeping Edwards viable past Iowa, I will be both impressed and gratified as all get out. That said, for the moment your argument still looks to me like one of those "alternative" physics papers where the author uses a bunch of slantwise mathematical inferences to prove that e=mc instead of mc^2.
Re: the crowds and money
This point which Obama is now making vis-a-vis his chances in IA sort of dovetails on a paradox I have noticed for the last 2 months. I live in St Louis, which is the most democratic area in MO. I have been canvassing in a variety of neighborhoods in the city of St Louis and have met (in person) dozens of self-professed Obama supporters, a handful of Edwards backers and one (ONE) real-live Clinton supporter. When I drive on the highways, I see three or four Obama stickers per trip. I have seen one Edwards sticker in all of my driving so far. I have seen no (NO) Clinton stickers on any cars in any neighborhoods or on any highways in this area. Despite that, the Post-Dispatch polls repeatedly show Sen Clinton ahead of Sens Obama and Edwards in MO.
So, if most of the democrats in MO are in St Louis (and you need only look at the county election maps from 2004 to see that this is the case) then how can Clinton be so far ahead and yet her support be so invisible? It is a paradox, much like the paradox of Obama's crowds being so much larger than the other candidate's even as his poll numbers lag behind theirs. So, either the polls are really missing something, or else my experience (and those of all of my friends, because I have been asking around) are severely atypical. I guess that the good news is that in a few days I will have some actual data with which to decide between those two hypotheses.
That said, I agree with Pandora that it seems a strategic blunder to be trying to boost expectations in the run-up to Iowa. Of course, Obama is the successful U.S. Senator, while I am just an interested observer, so I am inclined to defer to his wisdom in this instance, but I hope that he is right. I feel somewhat uneasy with this approach.
Kefa wrote on December 31, 2007 12:43 PM:Heres the new one.....I'm winning but..... INDIANOLA, Iowa (Reuters) - As the Jan. 3 vote in Iowa to choose U.S. presidential nominees nears, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama is making an unusual plea to voters -- pick me second if you don't pick me first.
Alot of confidence there buddy. I'm beginning to smell toast burning.....
But didn't Bill Clinton have a net negative favorability rating in '92?
Is that supposed to stand as a counterargument? In an ordinary election Clinton should have lost '92. Unless you are counting on Perot to make another run in '08 this simply serves to bolster Obama's case.
vena wrote on December 31, 2007 12:45 PM:They all think they are on their way to winning.....
Obama has just as good a chance as Edwards and Clinton. Thursday can't get here quick enough.
BluePuppy wrote on December 31, 2007 12:47 PM:"She's the most unspontaneous, brittle candidate"
I dispute the fact that she's brittle. That's Peggy Noonan's talking points. I think Hillary is a tough as nails. In fact, much tougher than her opponents. However, would you refer to a man as 'brittle'? I think not.
Here's a something to ponder. Suppose the next president had a chance to take Osama Bin Laden out with Tomahawk missile strike. Killing Bin Laden was certain. The only problem was that it was a sure thing that some civilians with Bin Laden would be killed. What's the right answer? For me, there's no question. Order the strike. My gut tells me that Hillary would do it, but Obama and Edwards are too 'brittle' for the realpolitik of the presidency.
bluepuppy, mr. bill didn't, why do you think that clinton II more likely do it than edwards or obama?
Obviously, the times were different in the 90's, today, I think that there is no doubt that all three nominees would take him out given the chance and regardless of the collateral damage, including political ramifications. That's why obama said that he would take him out in pakistan, uh, what was clinton II's position on taking out bin laden in pakistan?
CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 12:56 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote:...That said, I agree with Pandora that it seems a strategic blunder to be trying to boost expectations in the run-up to Iowa. Of course, Obama is the successful U.S. Senator, while I am just an interested observer, so I am inclined to defer to his wisdom in this instance, but I hope that he is right. I feel somewhat uneasy with this approach.
My guess is he's trying to stem the flow of people going toward John Edwards at any cost. The final Des Moines Register Seltzer poll is also due out tonight, which is always considered a pretty big deal. This could be a preemptive strike in case he comes in third on that. People attribute magical powers to that Seltzer poll.
Jenna L wrote on December 31, 2007 12:58 PM:BluePuppy,
That's a pretty asinine comment you just made. Obama has talked about (and been criticized for) his exact opinion of doing targeted strikes against known terrorist havens in Pakinstan.
But let's take another situation. Shall we say, that a particularly flimsy case for war has been presented to Hillary. Would she have the good judgment to read all the data, ask all the right questions and make the right choice? Well, we don't have to wonder. While Obama spent 2002 vocally and intelligently arguing against "a dumb war" Hillary and Edwards were authorizing it. And it wasn't until LAST YEAR when just about everyone had gotten a clue, that Madame Prez decided she was against the war as well. I will never understand why people have let her off the hook for these choices. But I never, ever will. I know our standards have fallen quite a lot but surely that is an example of someone who shouldn't be president.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 12:36 PM:Now this is the second false post crowing about the republican rasmussen reports
The link I had provided leads to the LATEST Rasmussen Report, posted just over a half hour ago. They just might not yet have updated the info at the link that you provided...
Clearly both sets of numbers cannot be valid, so, therefore, one set must wrong. I am inclined to go with the latest...
BluePuppy wrote on December 31, 2007 1:01 PM:"bluepuppy, mr. bill didn't, why do you think that clinton II more likely do it than edwards or obama?"
On August 20, 1998, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at the camp and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by “a few hours.”[37]
One thing to understand about the Iowa polls is that they all end up with a projected likely voter percentage that is probably far higher than the real turnout percentage will be. That is one of the real problems with polling Iowa, and why someone would look at event turnout as an alternative indicator.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 1:06 PM:Yeah, I know there was that one time. However, there were other occasions when he had a shot and didn't take it because of collateral damage. Like there was the hunting trip being take by UAE prince's with bin laden and he didn't launch because of the princes. And there were others. Again the qualifier in my statement is that times are different today and I think its disingenuous to state that clinton II would launch and any of the other candidates wouldn't.
DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 1:09 PM:Oh, and I am not sure what is going on with Rasmussen. But if you want a lot of polling data on favorable/unfavorable, it is being collected at pollingreport. Here, for example, are Obama and Clinton:
http://www.pollingreport.com/l-o.htm#Obama
http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary
Note that Clinton's negatives have been consistently much higher than Obama's, including in the latest NBC/WSJ and Gallup polls.
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 1:09 PM:This just in at Pollster.com:
December 31, 2007NCSteve wrote on December 31, 2007 1:10 PM:POLL: Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Iowa Caucus
The second in a succession Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby statewide tracking surveys of likely caucus goers in Iowa (conducted 12/27 through 12/30) finds;
* Among 899 likely Democratic caucus goers, Sen. Hillary Clinton runs at 30%, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards both at 26% in a statewide caucus; Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Joe Biden both trail at 5%.
* Among 876 likely Republican caucus goers, former Gov. Mike Huckabee runs at 29%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 27% in a statewide caucus; Sen. John McCain trails at 13%, former Sen. Fred Thompson at 8%, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Ron Paul both at 7%.
* All other candidates receive less than five percent each. The margin of sampling error is 3.3% for both subgroups.
-- Eric Dienstfrey
But didn't Bill Clinton have a net negative favorability rating in '92?DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 1:14 PM:Yes, and Bill also did not win the popular vote in that election. Clinton I won because of Perot, remember? Is that what Clinton II is counting on? A third party (i.e.Bloomberg) candidacy that steals more votes from the Republican than her? Sounds kind of dangerous, what with it depending upon the actions of someone totally outside her control and all.
Oh, and I think the NBC/WSJ and Pew polls are interesting because they include more choices (such as Very Negative and Very Unfavorable respectively). If you look at those polls comparing Clinton and Obama, you will note that Clinton's higher unfavorability numbers mostly come from the more extreme "very" columns. That suggests that not only do more people hold a negative view of Clinton, but also that such people have a more intensely negative view of Clinton.
BluePuppy wrote on December 31, 2007 1:14 PM:It was my response to the suggestion that Hillary is 'brittle.' I think Hillary would be most confident with international affairs. I think Obama and Edwards, because of their inexperience on the international stage, would be steamrolled by Putin and others.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 1:17 PM:I don't get rasmussen either. Something strange is going on. It seems odd that the numbers would be so dramatically different on their own site. I don't like rasmussen anyway. Also, by the way dc, I was commenting on the other posts that didn't provide a link, not your's.
Helter wrote on December 31, 2007 1:18 PM:Bluepuppy,
Any candidate would approve an airstrike with a guaranteed hit on Bin Laden. The president who gets Bin Laden will be a hero, hands down. Your gut is a terrible judge of character.
AJM wrote on December 31, 2007 1:20 PM:Michael A at 12:51: The Clinton II people are correct: you didn't check the rasmussen site carefully enough. The new numbers are from their Daily Presidential Tracking POoll:
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Monday, December 31, 2007
With Iowa and New Hampshire just days away, Rasmussen Reports has taken a look at what’s at stake for each of the Republican and Democratic candidates. See analysis from others in the Rasmussen Reports Political Commentary section.
As 2007 comes to end and the Presidential campaign has already dragged on for a year, only one leading candidate in either party is now viewed favorably by more than half the nation’s voters. Stunningly, especially given the status of his campaign six months ago, that candidate is John McCain. He is now viewed favorably by 53% of all voters (a total boosted by the fact that 56% of those not affiliated with the major parties have a positive opinion of him. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters nationwide have an unfavorable opinion of him.
John Edwards is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 42% and Hillary Clinton is the only other candidate with favorable about 43%. She is viewed favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 50%.
Barack Obama earns favorably reviews from 43%, Fred Thompson from 42%, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani from 40%. Mitt Romney has the lowest total at 38%. Fifty-one percent (51%) have an unfavorable opinion of the former Massachusetts Governor. That unfavorable rating is matched by Obama and topped only by Giuliani at 55%. See other key stats for all Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates.
...
Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 750 Likely Democratic
Primary Voters and 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Rasmussen Reports provides a weekly analysis of both the Republican and Democratic race each Monday.
Each Monday, full week results are released based upon a seven-day rolling average. While the daily tracking result are useful for measuring quick reaction to events in the news, the full week results provide an effective means for evaluating longer-term trends.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
...
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
This survey includes approximately 750-800 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
...
Bush Job Approval at 35%
...
Iowa: Clinton 31% Obama 27% Edwards 22%
©2007 Rasmussen Reports Inc.
AJM, so there's been a 10 point swing in his favorable vs. unfavorable rating???? That seems odd. If that was true, don't you think that would be the headline! Also, wouldn't they change the daily tracking portion of the site that I linked to? I think it's a mistake.
NCSteve wrote on December 31, 2007 1:25 PM:DCS,
Interestingly, when you click the link on the Rasmussen Favorable/Unfavorable write up you posted about, the numbers on the table don't line up with their commentary. Those show Obama with a 52%/45 favorable/unfavorable rating and Hillary at 45%/54%.
Jenna L wrote on December 31, 2007 1:26 PM:DTM,
Thank you for pointing that out. Hillary has a considerably higher number of people who extremely dislike her.
Also, I think this new poll posted above is encouraging for Obama supporters. He and Edwards are both at 26% among likely democrats and Hillary is at 30%. I suspect that the influx of support from Independents and Republicans, 2nd choice voters and young people who are not represented by polls could be JUST enough for him to win. Edwards has more support from 2nd voters so maybe he can beat Hillary for second place?
I really still think Obama will win.
DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 1:29 PM:With respect to Rasmussen, one problem is that we are looking at a narrative roundup, not the actual poll report.
In any event, those numbers are way out of line with the other polls available at pollingreport, and apparently with other Rasmussen polls as well. So, I personally would be hesistant about relying on this one particular poll.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 1:31 PM:Bluepuppy, she has limited "experience" on the international stage. Primarily photo-ops. Your gut says she has this experience and that's about it. The facts point to the opposite conclusion. My gut tells me I would rather have obama leading foreign policy than someone that will promote the king's philosophy of foreign policy. See Iraq and Iran votes. They evidenced terrible judgement and the kind of judgement that I don't want running foreign policy.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 1:31 PM:Crowds, money and favorability ratings. Compelling arguments. If you don't believe him, just ask president Dean.
This is a very good point. I do not say that because I like the implications of it (quite the contrary), but there is no getting around the fact that there is extensive precedent for the idea that a candidate can generate all sorts of highly visible entheusiasm and still lose to someone with far less visible indications of popularity.
Incidentally, while we are on the subject, Bradley had much more evident appeal than Gore, but Gore steamrolled over Bradley and then went on to lose in the general election. Dean had much more evident appeal than did Kerry, and yet Kerry prevailed and then went on to lose an election which ought to have been a democratic victory. So, presently we are poised to nominate Clinton, the weakest of the three major contenders so that we can once again snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Maybe I am being overly pessimistic here. Maybe Obama really will beat out Clinton. Or maybe Clinton will take the nomination and then go on to win it all. On the other hand, I would not be the least wise surprised if Clinton wins the nomination and then loses to McCain (whom I am predicting to win the GOP nod). It is probably too late to do anything about this now, but perhaps if we do not win this election we democrats might want to take a good hard look at the means by which we select our nominee, because we have an appalling track record of late for picking real duds.
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 1:31 PM:NCSteve wrote on December 31, 2007 1:25 PM:DCS,
Interestingly, when you click the link on the Rasmussen Favorable/Unfavorable write up you posted about, the numbers on the table don't line up with their commentary. Those show Obama with a 52%/45 favorable/unfavorable rating and Hillary at 45%/54%.
We know about that discrepancy already. Possible explanations include the possibility that they have not yet updated the table or that there was a typo or some kind of mix up...
Until that is clarified I am inclined to go with the latest Report, which supports my "narrative" :-)
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 1:33 PM:What a shock dc, supporting the poll that supports your narrative. I got a good laugh out of that one. Thanks.
concerntrol wrote on December 31, 2007 1:34 PM:I know many argue that Obama and Edwards are the most electable democrats and point to various polls showing that they outperform Hillary at the national level. On the state level though, Hillary outperforms Obama in states like Massachussetts, Minnesota, New York, Kentucky, and Virginia according to SurveyUsa. McCain and Giuliani do surprisingly well against Obama in states like Minnesota, Massachusetts, and New York, despite the fact they are relatively progressive. I know people point to IOWA polls and say, well yeah, Obama has been in Iowa, and he hasn't been to states like Massachussets and Minnesota. However, Massachussets and Minnesota are amongst the best educated states and its not like nationally people haven't been paying attention.
Also, Obama and Edwards have largely been aggressive and sought to differentiate themselves from Hillary by attacking her ties to the same old system and the same old Washington elites, while Republicans have hammered her in their debates as well. Although there have been substantial disputes on foreign policy, and minor disputes amongst the candidates on health care, we haven't seen the kind of attack ads the Republicans have used against each other, and have used even against Hillary Clinton.
So my question is this, on the national level, when respective candidates will be hit with direct attack ads, do you still think they will maintain their comparable edge over Republican opponents?
I mean Hillary Clinton votes with the Democratic party 91% of the time, while Barack Obama votes with the Democratic party 95% of the time, or something to that sort. When you see ads tying Obama or Edwards to Pelosi, Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, how will they still maintain that sort of Republican or Independent support?
On some issues like Social Security, Obama is to the left of Clinton and his position is controversial even amongst progressive bloggers. Obama has argued that we need to eliminate the cap on contributions. Edwards has advocated for a bubble where the contribution starts again past 200k, but Obama is furthest to the left on that issue. No doubt, conservatives will label his position as a massive tax increase, and it might not even play well in states like Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, etc. where people who strive to be in the middle class feel they need to make between 100k and 200k. Democrats were pressed to act on the AMT precisely for this reason because this is where their base resides.
Obama's record as a state legislator also offers up red meat for conservatives on votes relating to medical assistance for fetuses, prisoners frivolous court costs, gun bans, sex shops near schools and religious places, etc.
Obama is also furthest to the left of the candidates on immigration in advocating drivers licenses for illegal aliens absent comprehensive immigration reform (which 20% of the country agrees with) and then there is the Obama-grassley-baucus amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration reform act which was never debated, but the Bush administraton and Michael Chertoff vehemently opposed because they felt it lessened the burden on employers in verifying status. Even Claire Mckaskill of Missouri has been arguing about the need to hold employer's accountable.
My point is this, although Hillary may be despised by the conservatives, by the time the election rolls around, wont Obama or Edwards or anyone else be painted as a generic Democrat and wont it be a much closer election, like the numbers we see with Clinton? In addition to a candidate's positions, I know likeability, perceived experience, and other variables come into play, which may benefit Obama and Edwards. I just remember that the public had a much better perception of John Kerry around this time four years ago, but the perception changed once the Republican machine began its attacks on his record, experience, and policy positions.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in Iowa, candidates have largely been able to define themselves, and Obama has done a tremendous job. However, he will not always be able to define himself and avoid topics that might not play well with conservatives and independents. Even in New Hampshire, the live free or die state where tax raises don't play well, I would guess that most people if polled would have no clue that Obama advocates eliminating the contribution cap. Obama has been able to frame it as strengthening social security in his ads, but thats about it.
Also wouldn't Obama's positions on Immigration and Social Security make some of our reps in conservative districts vulnerable? Wouldn't his position on Social Security not really play well in states like Connecticut or New Jersey, especially if the GOP nominee was MCcain or Giuliani?
By the way, I think Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would lose to McCain, and I think Clinton might be the only one to beat Giuliani because she wouldn't have to worry about New York and New Jersey and the rest of the northeast, while polls show that Obama would. I'm not sure how John Edwards would play in the northeast against Giuliani because I haven't seen head to head polls. For some reason or the other, GIuliani does well in the northeast, in Pennsylvania, and Florida against Obama, while Clinton fares much better in comparison in those states. However, if Romney was the nominee, I think Obama and Edwards would handily defeat him, while Clinton Romney would be slightly closer.
One should probably add Mondale over Hart as yet another example of the establishment candidate winning against a more exciting challenger. And that also is further confirmation of Greg's pattern, since Mondale went on to get crushed in the general election.
Interestingly, the only arguable break in this pattern is Bill Clinton beating Bob Kerrey in the 1992 primaries, and that was a close call made possible in part by things like most of the top establishment candidates staying out of the race and Harkin and Tsongas splitting Iowa and NH as the relevant local favorites. And of course Bill Clinton is the only Democratic winner since Carter. So that is also roundabout confirmation of Greg's hypothesis (that for whatever reason, for a long stretch now the Democratic nomination process has favored establishment candidates who end up losing the general election).
DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 1:48 PM:concerntrol,
Well, it turns out that on most issues, the American people actually favor the Democrats, including with respect to most of the real issues related to immigration. And in fact the Republicans tried to make a big deal about immigration in 2006, and got crushed. So I am not sure why the Democrats would be worried about someone running on their "generic" platform, because right now their platform is relatively popular.
Interestingly, if you look at what happened to Kerry according to polls taken during the 2004 general election campaign, his loss of support wasn't a matter of the American people turning against him on his policy positions (again, they generally liked his policy positions). Rather, between the GOP attacks on his alleged flip-flop on Iraq and the infamous "swiftboating" (which painted Kerry as a liar with respect to his war record), people stopped trusting Kerry to deal with Iraq and stopped believing he was honest.
So, I think the lesson to be learned from Kerry (in combination with the 2006 election) is not that Democrats have to worry about their policy positions on the issues. Rather, they have to make sure to nominate someone who has not flip-flopped on the key issues of the day (which in fact still include Iraq), and who in general comes across to people as honest and trustworthy.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 1:54 PM:Excellent post dtm. Your point is well taken on the platform especially in light of a generic dem presidential candidate crushing a generic republican presidential candidate.
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 1:58 PM:DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 1:38 PM:One should probably add Mondale over Hart as yet another example of the establishment candidate winning against a more exciting challenger. And that also is further confirmation of Greg's pattern, since Mondale went on to get crushed in the general election.
Except for a candidate named 'Clinton', every Dem nominee over the past 30 yeats, establishment or otherwise, has gone on and gotten crushed. Was the Michael "Duke" Dukakis considered an establishment candidate? Kerry might have been in the end but he did not start out that way.
I am not sure what point your post is supposed to be making other than maybe trying to repeat your ill-fated attempt to draw a non-existent parallel between Obama and Bill Clinton. Don't go there...
Over at TNR Noam Scheiber who is on the ground in IA just posted on...
Decoding the Obama Conference Call
Like other people on that Obama conference call today, I noticed campaign manager David Plouffe spending an awful lot of time talking about why a vote for John Edwards is essentially a wasted vote, since (Plouffe claimed) he doesn't really have the resources or the organization to compete after Iowa. It's possible that the Obama people see Edwards as the candidate with momentum in the home stretch. Or it's possible that Obama and Edwards are just competing for the same bloc of voters--pro-reform, skeptical of Hillary. (Or both.) Tough to say, really.
Also, Ambinder says some reporters are speculating that the call was intended to pre-empt what will be lousy numbers for Obama in tonight's Des Moines Register poll. For what it's worth, I did get the sense Plouffe was basically saying: Don't read too much into the polls. We have the best organization, which is going to be the difference here.
Relatedly, Plouffe said at one point, "We've consistently led ... among those definitely attending [the caucuses] in our internal research… We're focused on how we're doing among those deadset on going to that caucus room Thursday night." In my contemporaneous notes, I wrote, "Probably trailing among likely voters"--which, obviously, is what polls report.
That said, don't reflexively discount the importance of what Plouffe's saying here. Having a lead among definite attendees is not nothing (though it does somewhat muddle the CW about a big turnout being good for Obama.)
--Noam Scheiber
Posted: Monday, December 31, 2007 4:52 PM
dcshungu,
Yes, in fact Dukakis was also an establishment pick. I didn't include 1988 this time just because there wasn't a single clear challenger who emerged that year (meaning no Hart, Clinton, or Bradley). Although arguably that is true in 2004 as well, since Dean was effectively replaced by Edwards as the chief challenger to Kerry after Iowa.
As for the point of all this: I think Greg L. already explained it quite well. But in my own words, I would suggest that since Carter, the Democrats have mostly picked "safe" and "competent" candidates who have the backing of the party establishment in terms of money and organization, but in so doing have actually shot themselves in the foot by picking nominees who were handicapped by a lack of likability, sincerity, optimism, and other basic attributes one would prefer in a political candidate.
As for why the Democrats keep doing this: I think it is not a coincidence this pattern goes back to Carter. I think that after Reagan crushed Carter, many Democrats internalized the idea that there is something fundamentally unpopular about Democratic politics. So those fearful Democrats tend to lack the courage to nominate someone who would boldly promote their platform, and instead try to choose someone who will focus on competence rather than ideology (again on the assumption that a Democratic ideology is unpopular). Frankly, you can even see that in the post of concerntrol above, who, despite all the evidence available from the polls and the 2006 election, still worries that it is the Democratic platform which is the problem.
Again, though, Clinton in 1992 was an exception to this pattern. But as I noted above, arguably it was the exception that proved the rule, since 1992 was a uniquely favorable campaign for a challenger, and of course Clinton did in fact actually win the general election.
obama4eva wrote on December 31, 2007 2:40 PM:
This is why Republicans liek Obama, despite his otherwise very liberal position. I mean, he has offered big tax raises to fund social security, he believes in drivers licenses for illegal aliens, and he votes exactly the same way my boy Teddy Kennedy. The reason they like Obama is because he is black, but hell put BLACK people to their place and tell them to stop speaking EBONICS and saying thinks LIKE CAN I AX You a question
As for why the Democrats keep doing this: I think it is not a coincidence this pattern goes back to Carter. I think that after Reagan crushed Carter, many Democrats internalized the idea that there is something fundamentally unpopular about Democratic politics. So those fearful Democrats tend to lack the courage to nominate someone who would boldly promote their platform, and instead try to choose someone who will focus on competence rather than ideology (again on the assumption that a Democratic ideology is unpopular). Frankly, you can even see that in the post of concerntrol above, who, despite all the evidence available from the polls and the 2006 election, still worries that it is the Democratic platform which is the problem.
I agree with most things in that post, especially with the fact that there is nothing wrong with the Dem platform/ideas/policies for America [Krugman just argued it in Slate or somewhere else recently]. What is not clear to me is the relevance for the current race, in which all the Dem candidates are almost exact clones of each other in terms of policy, Obama's empty rhetoric and sloganeering about "new ideas" notwithstanding. In fact, I believe that this makes a case for "experience" and sure-footed leadership and not for a novice who would have a hard time getting these superior policies through congress and into law!
DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 2:57 PM:dcshungu,
Right, the problem isn't the platform. But of course mostly the Democratic nominees have lost (with the exception of Bill Clinton), so there is in fact a problem.
The common denominator among those nominees is that they in fact made the same sort of argument you are making: they were "experienced" and "sure-footed" (also "hard-working", and a bunch of other themes that together I call "competence"). The problem is that "competence" isn't a great selling point in Presidential politics (with respect to "competence", the President just has to meet a pretty low minimum threshold). Rather, the American people like their President to have vision, to be inspiring, to be optimistic and sincere, and so on (I will call this all "likability", but it is really much more than that).
So, that is the real essence of the mistake Democrats keep making: picking a "competence" candidate (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry) versus a "likable" candidate. Again, though, the one big exception is Bill Clinton, and of course he actually broke the pattern and won.
Ok dc, being a scientist and all, if the dem candidates policies are exact clones of each other. Therefore, according to your analysis the distinguishing factor should be experience and sure-footed leadership and the time is not right for a novice, how on earth can you possibly be for clinton II. The most experienced people are biden, dodd, and richardson. Why aren't you for them, if experience is so important to you?
Clinton II doesn't have more experience than those three. Her experience is more in line with obama than biden, dodd and richardson.
So obviously, the issue is not experience, but the ability to implement policies. Clinton II won't get a thing done. The republicans will stop her in the senate every step of the way. Why on earth do you think all of a sudden they will see the light and want to cooperate with your candidate? I highly doubt that would ever happen in a million years.
If you want to get things done in washington, it would have to be any of the dems but clinton II. If you want more partisan gridlock and stagnation, then clinton II is your candidate.
BluePuppy wrote on December 31, 2007 3:00 PM:Don't respond to obama4eva. That's a troll if I've ever smelled one. Maybe he/she will go away.
POLLS:
I know everyone is anxious about the DMR/Selzer poll tonight. Pollster has a new rolling estimate with a current sensitive estimate. With that estimate Clinton is at 29.6, Edwards 26, and BO at 24.5. I looked at the last Seltzer poll ending November 28. It had BO at 28, Clinton 25, Edwards 23. My interpretation of the data is that this was Obama's high point in the race. Polls from the same time confirm that. ARG: BO 27, Clinton 25, Edwards 23. Stragetic Vision: BO 32, Clinton 25, Edwards 25. Because all these polls track one another and ARG, Zogby and others are showing a reversal from that trend in November, I suggest that DMR tonight will track very similar to other polls which show Hillary climbing and Obama in third. As others have speculated, Plouffe's conference call was an attempt to head off a third place finish.
Coincidence? The following two posts followed each other ordinally on TPM-EC. We know for sure that Rudy has collapsed and is trying to put a good face on his eventual demise, but could the Obama camp sensing something that I am sensing; that they are rapidly unraveling? They have been relentless in recent days in attacking Edwards and the timing of this T-CON by the Obama camp now looks awfully suspicious in the light of this rumor:
Also, Ambinder says some reporters are speculating that the call was intended to pre-empt what will be lousy numbers for Obama in tonight's Des Moines Register poll.
I wonder... Look at the headlines again: Two sinking ships sending out distress signals?
Rudy Campaign Memo: We'll Win This Thing By Eric Kleefeld - December 31, 2007, 9:06AMRudy Giuliani's campaign has put out a new memo arguing that they're right where they want to be for winning the nomination, seeking to deflate the emerging conventional wisdom that Rudy has collapsed.
Obama Campaign: We're On Our Way To Winning
By Eric Kleefeld - December 31, 2007, 10:30AM
In a conference call with reporters this morning, plus a new Powerpoint, the Obama campaign is voicing confidence that they are well positioned to win the early contests, are already picking up steam in the later contests, and that Obama would be the strongest Democratic candidate.
I am "dchungu" and I authored and approved the preceding "Anonymous" December 31, 2007 3:01 PM poat
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 3:07 PM:dc, I would have bet the farm that that was your post. Your style is unmistakable.
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 3:19 PM:o, that is the real essence of the mistake Democrats keep making: picking a "competence" candidate (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry) versus a "likable" candidate. Again, though, the one big exception is Bill Clinton, and of course he actually broke the pattern and won.
I would not change our model for picking the nominee because it is a sound one, the razor-thin losses notwithstanding. Case in point: The country elected a "likable" candidate over two competent but "stiff" ones, 8 and 4 years ago, and look at the shape that we are in! It is an indictment of the public poor judgment and preferences rather than a flaw in the way we selected our nominees.
Bill Clinton was both likable and extremely competent, so that if we have to change something, it would be to send our "competent" nominees to charm school just before the GE :-)
DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 3:25 PM:dcshungu,
Well, if there is a better recipe for losing elections than refusing to give the public the sorts of candidates they would prefer, I'm not sure what it would be.
Incidentally, I think this is the flipside of the fact that many Democrats have internalized the idea their positions are unpopular: such an idea leads to a general contempt for the voters. But maybe they are not so wrong to think having a President who is inspiring, optimistic, sincere, and so on is a good idea.
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 3:39 PM:DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 3:25 PM:dcshungu,
Well, if there is a better recipe for losing elections than refusing to give the public the sorts of candidates they would prefer, I'm not sure what it would be.
LOL. The public got their preference twice: A Village Idiot. I would say that we should stick with our competence-based model. It is how fortune 500 companies do their hiring! Next, the "likable" nominee might be someone from our side (read: Obama) who goes on to be elected POTUS only to be such a disaster that whole party would be sent out greener pastures for a long time...just like the Repubs look to be thaks to GWB and if we play our cards right.
obama4eva wrote on December 31, 2007 3:48 PM:
this poll showing Clinton 30, Edwards 29, and OBAMA 22 is BIAS.. ALL BIAS. Republicans and Independents will CAUCUS for OBAMA because htey like him. They like him, despite his otherwise very liberal position. I mean, he wants high taxes to fund social security, he believes in drivers licenses for illegal aliens, and he more liberal than Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kenedy. The reason they like Obama is because he is black, but hell put BLACK people to their place and tell them to stop speaking EBONICS and saying thinks LIKE CAN I AX You a question.
dcshungu,
But as you already implied yourself, you are presenting a false dichotomy, because a person can be both competent and likable.
So to clear up any confusion, I am not arguing that Democrats should knowingly nominate incompetent people for high offices, because as you suggest those people are unlikely to govern well. But conversely, they should also not nominate people who are not relatively likable for high offices, because those people are likely to lose. Rather, they should look for candidates who possess both attributes (which are really just stand-ins for many interrelated attributes) in good measure.
Fortunately, in this case I think the Democrats have no fewer than six well-qualified and generally credible candidates available in their field from which to choose. So, it shouldn't be a problem satisfying both of these requirements.
BluePuppy wrote on December 31, 2007 3:58 PM:New Hillary ad just posted called countdown. It follows the "Presents" ad by using a holiday as a metaphor for issues, in this counting down Hillary's top 10 Dick Clark style. I have to say, pretty damn good. Oh, yeah, and she looks beautiful in that still shot.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/95.aspx
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 4:10 PM:Interestingly, the only arguable break in this pattern is Bill Clinton beating Bob Kerrey in the 1992 primaries... So that is also roundabout confirmation of Greg's hypothesis (that for whatever reason, for a long stretch now the Democratic nomination process has favored establishment candidates who end up losing the general election).
Actually, for what it is worth, I consider Clinton to be evidence, not counterevidence, for my hypothesis. In a very meaningful sense, Clinton lost the 1992 election. The only state which he actually carried outright was AK. Beyond that, every state he carried he won only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. Only by virtue of the spoiler, Ross Perot was Clinton able to succeed. In other words, except when circumstances totally beyond our control hand us a gift on a silver platter, we democrats prove surprisingly good at shooting ourselves in the foot, and Clinton's nomination is just more evidence for that claim.
We know for sure that Rudy has collapsed and is trying to put a good face on his eventual demise, but could the Obama camp sensing something that I am sensing; that they are rapidly unraveling?
I think that this is not an entirely implausible interepretation of the evidence. That said, if such were the case, then we can only conclude that Plouffe is an idiot. If your internals show that you are going to finish third, then the last thing in the world you want to do is come out and declare that you will finish first. Even worse than losing is to do worse than expeced, so if the Obama campaign really has reason to suppose that it will do poorly, this is the worst possible way to respond to that evidence. In other words, dschungu's hypothesis is only really plausible if you begin from the assumption that he and his campaign are all idiots. I find that assumption so problematic that it makes it difficult for me to credit dschungu's hypothesis, but this could simply say more about me than it says about the hypothesis. I suppose that we will see in a few days time.
BluePuppy wrote on December 31, 2007 4:22 PM:"Clinton lost the 1992 election."
Stan Greenberg, who's not uncritical of President Clinton, provides a convincing case in The Two Americas that if Perot hadn't run Clinton would have won with a majority of votes. George Bush only got 37% of the vote to Clinton's 43%. What's your evidence that Perot's 19% would have broke in favor of Bush?
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 31, 2007 4:29 PM:Hey! Did anyone notice if you substitute the name Guiliani for Obama, the last two stories posted are intrchangeable?
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 5:08 PM:Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 31, 2007 4:29 PM:Hey! Did anyone notice if you substitute the name Guiliani for Obama, the last two stories posted are intrchangeable?
Sure, see yours truly as
Anonymous writing on December 31, 2007 3:01 PM:
Coincidencie? The following two posts followed each other ordinally on TPM-EC. We know for sure that Rudy has collapsed and is trying to put a good face on his eventual demise, but could the Obama camp [be] sensing something that I am sensing; that they are rapidly unraveling?
Etc...
CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 5:10 PM:Greg DeLassus: Actually, for what it is worth, I consider Clinton to be evidence, not counterevidence, for my hypothesis. In a very meaningful sense, Clinton lost the 1992 election. The only state which he actually carried outright was AK. Beyond that, every state he carried he won only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes...
Gosh, your right! He really only won all those other states in the sense that he got more votes in all of them than any of the other candidates who were running. Of course, that kind of is the definition of winning an election...
mkolb wrote on December 31, 2007 5:14 PM:Michael A, please don't take offense, but you're getting on my nerves. Your only bit seems to be to put down Sen. Clinton by denigrating her experience.
Sen. Clinton was definitely an activist First Lady as were Roselyn Carter, Betty Ford, Eleanor Roosevelt. Would you put them down too?
If Eleanor Roosevelt were running (the most activist of the group I listed), would you be as dismissive of her?
Would you try another reason for your dislike of Sen. Clinton?
Hillary's experience as first lady
Brian in WI wrote on December 31, 2007 5:28 PM:"Obama also has oodles of money"
Yep, and many of the powerful special interests that contributed it are expecting a return on that investment. Once again, the working middle class will be *screwed* royally as he or Hillary compromises us into the Bush/Cheney light style of government.
I don't want to hear 4-8 more years of right-wing hate jocks criticizing a 'democrat' president for being wishy washy and asking why not elect a real republican rather than these wimpy half-ass ones?...
I want a real progressive President that will kick some ass and leave the hate jocks dazed and confused.
Edwards is absolutely correct in saying that wealthy and/or corporate special interests are destroying our country. Nothing in the constitution guarantees the rights of corporations and rich people to destroy a nation for their own greedy, short-sighted self interest.
It's either Edwards or I'm voting Green Party. And I did *not* vote for Nader in 2000, I supported and worked for the Gore campaign, so don't go there...
dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 5:41 PM:DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 3:50 PM:dcshungu,
But as you already implied yourself, you are presenting a false dichotomy, because a person can be both competent and likable.
[...]
I generally agree with the comments, except that we have to remember that "likability" is an elusive concept that can vanish quickly under assault from the right-wing smear machine. Using the model of nominating a candidate who would be both likable and competent could thus be a tricky endeavor (which is why it appeared that I was presenting a "false dichotomy", which I was not.) For instance (and I suspect that this was part of your point), one would be tempted to say that Obama is that "ideal" candidate. However, his relative "likability", if you discount today's Rasmussen poll, is still high simply because he has not yet been assaulted, and assaulted he would be if he is our eventual nominee. Moreover, Obama's competence is still very much an issue in my book. I just don't see it, and I suspect that nor do his supporters (e.g. Andrew Sullivan), who have resorted to touting his "mystique", "intuition", "instinct", "gut feeling", "charisma", and tremendous "oratorical skills", as his qualifications to be POTUS. Basing our choice on these ephemeral concepts could give us another Village Idiot for POTUS! Only objective and honest assessment of each candidate's record of achievements, experience, leadership qualities and, yes, "likability" could yield another Bill Clinton-type winner. Hillary is very competent and well liked by those who can see her through the fog of MSM caricaturing...just ask New Yorkers, even those in the Repub bastion of upstate NY, who have come to know and love her.
CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 5:46 PM:Could we please drop all the "powerful special interests" claptrap? I know it impresses the rubes and all Democrats running this year are really pretty clean when it comes to fundraising.
BluePuppy wrote on December 31, 2007 5:57 PM:Edwards take bundles of money from lawyers. Not taking money from PACs doesn't show that he's clean, it shows that he isn't serious about winning.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 8:43 PM:mcolb, I doubt that you will come back, but if you do, this is my point. Experience is a nice word, so are activist, tested and vetted. They are nice words too. Please, slap me down. Tell me all these wonderful things that she spear headed as first lady. Anything. I want to believe, but the words just don't do it for me. What big program did she promote? I mean I hate to say it, but nancy reagan was the war on drugs stuff. Laura is education and such. What did clinton II promote as first lady? I really don't remember. We remember the healthcare debacle and that's about it. Where is the beef?
We know she didn't read any intelligence briefings, because she didn't have clearance. That could have been accomplished with a sweep of mr. bill's pen, but it wasn't. Why not? That's very strange, especially with this constant repeating of the nice word experience.
Again, I encourage you to slap me down. Where are the treaties or international agreements that were negotiated by her? Anything? The reason why I harp on it is because she is demeaning all the other candidates' experience, but what is hers?
No offense taken. Slap me down and shut me up. Just insulting me or claiming I am a pain, just encourages me. As far as I can tell, the empress has no clothes and that's a huge problem that everyone is ignoring.
Michael A:
While we're at it, could I just trouble you a list of communities Barack Obama organized in, what actions they were able to accomplish as a result of his efforts and what changed as a result of those actions. Also, some specifics on which civil rights he protected, on how many occasions and for whom, and what changed there. Of course I know from hearing Senator Obama speak that this was all part of the right kind of experience for bring about change and all (not to be confused with the wrong kind), and it's not that I don't believe him. It's just a little thin on details and I want to be sure I know exactly what the right kind of experience looks like so that I'll know it the next time I see it. A person can only be president for 8 years and we're unlikely to run out of things that need changing in that time, so the question is bound to come up again.
Michael A wrote on December 31, 2007 10:07 PM:Obama is not running around demeaning everyone else by claiming that he is more experienced is he? Or did I miss something? Same with the rest of the candidates.
I am not asking for the kinds of specifics that you are outlining. Just give us something, anything. All we get is the word "experience" and that's it.
DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 11:31 PM:dcshungu,
Actually, I agree that a reasonable argument can be made for other candidates besides Obama. For example, Richardson is the only candidate in the Democratic field with high-level executive experience, and he generally scores well on likability measures as well. So if someone wanted to argue that Richardson represented the best combination of competence and likability in the Democratic field, I think they would have a good case.
By the way, for good or ill your preferred candidate has in fact done everything in her power to "assault" Obama. And while in general she is not a very experienced (or in my view very talented) politician, this is one sort of task we know she has long been performing with at least some success. So to the extent she ends up failing to drive Obama's negatives up to her own heights, I think she will provide us with good reason to doubt that the Republicans will prove significantly more successful at achieving the same goal.
DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 11:34 PM:CalD,
Last time I checked, Obama's wikipedia page included cites to articles discussing his time as a community organizer and as a civil rights lawyer. So if you are serious about getting more details, I would suggest you start there and click through to those articles.
