But here's the other side of the finding that asking national mood questions can skew survey results in Obama's favor. If the mere suggestion that the country might be on the wrong track is enough to send scores of independents into the Obama column, imagine what a concerted effort to frame the discourse that way might do. This is something that Hillary Clinton had started to tap into toward the end of the primary process. Screw hope -- things are bad right now -- and we need solutions.
Obama's "change" message, by contrast, has oftentimes been a little bit too abstract. Here's the messaging that Mssrs. Axelrod and Plouffe need to work on: Iraq's fucked up, the economy's fucked up, health care's fucked up, the environment's fucked up, and all John McCain can say is to "stay the course". If that's the mindset that voters take into the ballot booth with them in November, Obama will win quite convincingly.
It isn't simply a matter of trying to frame McCain as the next Bush. That allows voters to let McCain off the hook if they conclude that McCain isn't the next Bush, and McCain's favorables are strong enough that many voters won't bite on that one. Rather, it's a matter of trying to portray McCain as being out of touch because he doesn't recognize that these things like health care are problems when 70 or 80 percent of the country does.
55 comments
Presenting himself as the agent of change when we're on the wrong track is part of what Obama needs to do. The other thing he needs to do is to defend himself against the charge that he's too inexperienced to keep the nation safe. I believe his number one priority should be to pull together a national security team full of experience and credibility and to take the experience question off the table. Then he can talk about the fact that he can put us on the right track.
Excellent point, Nate. For a while, the GOP has been doing an excellent point framing their stories, whereas the Dems have been doing their best to run on "at least we're not the GOP." In 2006, that worked, but in 2008, it won't work with McCain the "Maverick," since he's already perceived as being an independent (even if his pesky voting record indicates otherwise). I love the summary of the necessary message, and I hope that the Dems do what you suggest. Oh, and maybe they can infiltrate the polling in order to woo people over to a certain side...
Obama's strength is on the issues. McCain's strength is on "personality." It's a sad day for American Democracy if/when someone can walk to the White House ignoring the issues important to the people but claiming their own personal greatness.
I certainly hope the issues win out.
In defending their poll, somebody from either Newsweek or the LA Times poll defended their results and suggested that they sometimes pick up "trends" before other pollsters do. At the time, this seemed like a very odd claim to make - polls aren't supposed to search for "trends" that haven't manifested themselves yet. But I wonder if this isn't what this person meant: if voters have already figured out that the country's on the wrong track but they just haven't locked into the idea that this means they support Obama. If so, I suspect we'll start to see over the next few weeks.
Obama's strength is on the issues. McCain's strength is on "personality."
I disagree. McCain's horrible rictus in the lime jello speech is haunting me. And whenever he talks, I feel like I'm being condescended to. "There there, I know Iraq, healthcare, the economy and the environment look bad to the little people. But Daddy McCain knows best. Now run along."
I think you'd need a forceful, soft spoken even, very credible Veep to paint the malaise...
Jim Webb is perfect for this. No rosy DLC crap... Jim Webb again is the Veep Personified.
Thanks for unlocking the election. this is a very insightful discovery and I hope the Obama camp reads it...
what's your traffic from Chicago lately look like?
Political scientists like to say that campaigns are about informing voters and getting them to vote the way they are already destined to vote. This is why presidential forecasting models, while imperfect, are better at predicting final election outcomes than polls of real people 4 and 5 months out. Over 80% of people thinks the country is screwed up. And I have no doubt that Obama, with a talented staff and loads of money, will be able to convey that he represents change AND relief better than McCain does. McCain's only hope is that he can convince most of these shaky low-information voters (the ones that change their mind bases on how you ask the question, for instance) that they can't trust Obama or that he's too big of a gamble on national security (and certainly these things are tied in with race biases for some of these voters, but probably not most). That's what this campaign will be about. McCain's hill is much steeper to start with, but it's not impossible.
So one of the biggest events of the post-primary period took place today with Obama and Clinton in Unity, NH, looking like a ticket (even if that isn't what happens).
Yet no post on this? Might there be tea leaves to read here?
I agree...Obama would be making a big mistake to not ask Jim Webb to be his running mate. But the recent news that his team ruled out choosing a VP based on swing states was troubling to me; I think the idea that a VP pick can roll up a state automatically is ridiculous, of course, but that almost seemed to be implying that Obama would pick a running mate from a "safe" state...like, say, New York by way of Arkansas. :/
I introduced my father to this site and showed him how Obama led by about 5% nationally, and had about a 70% chance at this point of winning it all. Yet, he continued to show pessimism and point to Dukakis in '88, who led by about these totals in June. What is there to say that will make this campaign different than '88 when the GOP successfully painted Dukakis as an out-of-touch liberal?
Have you ever read Freakonomics? There is an interesting point in that book that relates to how David Duke performed in the U.S. Senate election in Louisiana in 1990. Their theory very much relates to your study of the Bradley Effect. Nice work.
Obama should choose Strom Thurmond, that would counteract both McCain's age superiority and the southern white racist vote.
I apologize that one was not appropriate, I forgot Thurmond died a few years back, should be more respectful, meant to be funny but it was not.
I was thinking of Robert Byrd not Thurmond, please mentally substitute his name in for me.
Earth to liberal bloggers: No one likes Jim Webb as a VP pick in the real world. He's great on paper, but horrible in person. He is a loose cannon, undisciplined, used to be a Republican when he worked in the Reagan administration. Not to mention his problems with women in the past.
Well this is one thing that has been confusing me from the start of this campaign. if bush has a 28% approval rating, and only 2% thinks the economy is "very good" (that was about 70% in clinton's last year by the way) it would seem to me this would be a no brainer. maybe i'm just too smart for my own good, connecting the dots too much.
Both clintons had this technique they'd use in speeches that to me seemed very powerful. they would take right wing phrases such as "family values," and suggest it is more important to "value families."
one thing you can find if you look at some hillary clinton transcripts is this type of thing:
----
I have met too many people without health care, just a diagnosis away from financial ruin. But I’ve also seen the scientists and researchers solving the medical mysteries and finding the treatments and cures that are transforming lives.
----
or
----
I’ve seen the struggling schools with the crumbling classrooms and the unfair burdens imposed by No Child Left Behind. But I have also met dedicated and caring teachers who use their own savings to buy supplies and students passionately engaged in the issues of our time, from ending the genocide in Darfur to once again making the environment a central issue of our day.
----
I think that kind of rhetoric is really good, and strikes the proper chord with the low-infos we need to talk to.
oh and new one from hillary today:
"Senator McCain and President Bush are like two sides of the same coin and it doesn't amount to a lot of change." hehe
People, it is going to be Obama-Clinton. The Obama campaign has purposely been downplaying this so that it is more of a surprise when it happens. The only people who don't like Clinton on the ticket are Republicans that aren't voting for Obama anyway and core Obamaites, who will be supporting him because he is the nominee (!).
Polls show a unified Democratic base for Obama with Clinton and a unified GOP base unified for McCain too. Given the party i.d. this year, that is almost automatically a Democratic win. Then, a recent poll showed more independents moving toward Obama when the ticket was Obama-Clinton vs. McCain-Romney than when the choice was just Obama v. McCain.
Today's event was a clear roll-out to get people used to it. It's happening. It's good, and exciting. They are complements to one another in substance and style. A winner.
New New Jersey Poll:
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/helpobama/tab.html
Obama up by 16%
Asking the directional question first does make the LAT poll sound like a push poll.
SUSA's latest on Ohio came out. Curious finding on the running mate possibilities:
a. More undecideds
b. Obama goes from +2 to a range from 0 to -4.
c. It seems the Dem VP choices (Strickland, Webb, McCaskill) all hurt Obama's chances there.
Testing VP choices right now doesn't make sense.