As we countdown the minutes before the New Hampshire Democratic debate tonight, political analyst makes an excellent point about voter expectations:
But judging a candidate based on expectations isn't something justreporters do, but voters do as well. Actually, if you think about youreveryday life, you make judgments constantly based on whether apreconceived notion about someone (or some movie or some food) was trueor not. "Frog legs aren't as gross as I thought" or "For all thebuildup, that movie sure was a disappointment."
If Hillary Clinton is thought of as cold and non-human but comes across as thoughtful and warm, that will impact the opinions of voters. Usually you will not see a significant change in polling numbers unless candidates are able to surprise people. Tonight, Edwards and Obama will look to do just that.
The , submitted last month, would drastically change the result of the '08 election if it passes. It would divide up California's 55 electoral votes, instead of awarding all of them to which ever candidate wins the state in 2008.
According to the , it could make it onto the ballot this November:
That’s a lot of electoral votes, the equivalent of winning the stateof Ohio. If this proposed change makes it onto the ballot and becomeslaw, those 20 or so electoral votes could well be enough to hand theWhite House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular votenationwide.
Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, hassuggested that the initiative is a form of dirty pool. While notexplicitly opposing it, Mr. Schwarzenegger said it smacks of changingthe rules “in the middle of the game.â€
Is this unconstitutional? Or, better yet, is it yet another reason to abolish the electoral college?
Anti-war Congressman John Murtha that after the Republicans picks their nominee, the party will suddenly do a reversal and take a different stance on the war:
“As soon as the primaries are over,you’ll see Republicans start jumping ship,†Murtha said in remarks atthe National Press Club.
Murthaalso predicted that, despite the unpopularity of Congress, Democratswill make broad gains in next year’s election because voters are upsetwith the war.
On the Democrats' bid to gain US House seats, Murtha is optimistic -- maybe too optimistic:
“People arefrustrated, but you’re going to see a big Democratic increase,†he toldreporters after his speech. “I think we’ll pick up 40 [to] 50 seats.â€
40 to 50 seats? I am an optimist, but that is pushing it a bit. That means Democrats would have to win 40 seats that they weren't even able to win in 2006. I would be happy with 20 seats. Of course though, it is good to aim high, and I like to see that.
Everything went so well for them earlier this week when Bush was able to hide behind his generals. However, once Bush went front and center, a number of Republican strategists got queasy. Why have a President that already has a wide credibility problem try to make another used car sale to the American public? explains the GOP tension:
Bush's trumpeting of what he called a "return on success" could end upbackfiring. Bringing the war into America's living rooms is never asafe political bet. And if news of a slow drawdown may be popular, Bushhimself still is not. Some key Hill Republicans, in fact, were upsetthat he returned front and center on the issue at a time when the WhiteHouse had so carefully ceded the selling of the surge to Petraeus andCrocker. "Why would he threaten the momentum we have?" says onefrustrated Capitol Hill Republican strategist with ties to the GOPleadership. "You have an unpopular President going onto prime timetelevision, interrupting Americans' TV programs, to remind them of whythey don't like him." Republicans in Congress who were finallybreathing a sigh of relief after months of bludgeoning on Iraq feltBush was risking the progress he had made with those closely followingthe war by thrusting it in the faces of those who may not be payingattention. It didn't help that Bush said American forces would be onthe ground in Iraq, as part of an "enduring relationship," well pastthe end of his term in office.
, it won't matter what the American public thinks.
Throughout the two long days of hearings, a number of GOP lawmakers criticized a that challenged the credibility of General David Petraeus, who is the front-man for Bush's latest public relations push to continue the war. MoveOn is just one of many progressive activist groups that considers Petraeus as partial to the White House political strategy team.
So is Petraeus fair game? says conservatives shouldn't be shocked when people don't believe what Petraeus says, especially since the general does Bush's bidding:
Any credibility problems that Gen. Petraeus has are partly his ownmaking--because he allowed himself to be pushed forward by theadministration as kind of a front person for them and has been engagedin a constant dialogue with the press since he went to Baghdad. Had hebeen much more quiet, got on with fighting the war and told people towait for his report to Congress, it would have been less likely that hewould have had to suffer these attacks in the press and from Democraticsupport groups.
President Bush no longer has Karl Rove. Tony Snow is leaving as well. He needs a new PR guy to sell the war. The Administration is trying to wait this war out until the end of this term. Without Petraeus to hide behind, Bush would be in trouble. So when progressives criticize the general, it is no surprise that Republicans go nuclear. Petraeus is the very last guy they have to parade in front of the cameras.
Recently, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll noted that liberals read more books than conservatives. This combined with a poll noting that in the US did not read any books in 2006 indicates a trend toward sound bites and slogans. Pat Schroeder, head of the American Association of Publishers, has a theory as to why this is the case. Note: The following section may be considered offensive to our conservative readers. Fortunately, according to the AP-Ipsos study, no conservative readers will manage to read this far.
"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes. It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."
Once again, we're stuck with a generation of voters on the right side of the aisle that don't want to actually be informed of the very issues that affect their lives. The Right packages up talking point slogans and bores them into the heads of the American people. "Terrorists hate our Freedom. Iraq is making Progress. Democrats want to 'cut and run.' We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." Without context, these slogans mean nothing. But through the miracle of incessant repetition, people start to buy into it. One poll I would love to see AP-Ipsos run would be applicable only to the population of Americans that still support the president and his war. There only has to be one question; multiple choice of course! Question: Where do you obtain your information on the government and the war? A. Newspapers B. Newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch C. The Internets D. Television News Stations E. Television News Stations owned by Rupert Murdoch F. I read a book about it
See how many of these conservatives want to know more about the world than the sound bites they hear on Fox News.
As I read the latest political buzz each day from a wide variety of sources, I don't think anyone has touched on how unprecedentedly unique the Nevada primary is shaping out to be. The Nevada contest, at least so it seems, will take place after Iowa and before New Hampshire. Last week, the Edwards Campaign in that state, opening the door for second-tier candidates like to suck up the support of potential Edwards backers.
Richardson and Biden are pouring resources into Nevada, meaning it will probably be their best and only opportunity to make their move. Anything lower than a second place finish would spell doom for their campaigns, since neither of them would have the financial resources to compete in the February 5th primaries without a positive media bounce beforehand. But if Richardson or Biden do finish second, heading into New Hampshire they would establish themselves as the number one alternative to the front-runner. Then it's a whole new ballgame!
First off, this is risky move, but I'll get to that in a minute. The Obama Campaign on Saturday that their candidate would the rest of the Democratic debates until at least December:
In a posting on the campaign's ,Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe said that the eight additionaldebates to which his candidate has already agreed are sufficient, andthat Obama wants to spend time talking to voters, rather than preparingfor and participating in debates. "Unfortunately, we simply cannot runthe kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in theearly states and February 5, if our schedule is dictated by dozens offorums and debates," Plouffe said in his statement.
Like all the leading campaigns, Obama's team has felt somefrustration at having their schedules tied up by the debates and forumsalready held. They have had to share the stage in those events with sixor seven other candidates, allowing the candidates only a limitedperiod to make an impression.
Following true to form, a source close to the Hillary Clinton threw a in Obama's direction:
The spinning has already started. A source close to the Clintoncampaign fired a zinger off quickly: "So he'll meet with dictators butnot the black caucus or seniors in Iowa?"
Wow, it's almost as if that line was written by Karl Rove.
Now to the decision itself. I brainstormed the positives and negatives of this decision. You all can decide for yourselves whether this was smart.
Reasons he should skip:
If Obama is really trying to defy the establishment and campaign from the ground-up, then attending debates that are hosted by special interest groups is self-defeating. He needs to connect to real people instead.
Obama does not want to over-expose himself on television. If Obama's campaign wants a surge of good media exposure, they had better start that effort in December. If they do it too early, the hype might die down by Thanksgiving, and he will have suffered a similar fate as Howard Dean.
There have been too many debates anyway. They drain campaign money to fly to the destination, and don't make much of a difference anyway.
Reasons he should attend every debate:
Quite frankly, Obama is not the best debater. He needs to perfect those skills so that in the future, whether in December of this year or during the general election, he will be experienced enough in that kind of format and be less likely to make a verbal gaffes that could cost him votes.
Not attending debates hosted by the Black Caucus, AARP and other organizations can be considered as a snub. It might hurt Obama's chances of picking up big key endorsements.
I know that many of you are frustrated of Congress for not challenging President Bush on the war to the extent that they said they would. Still, with even lower than the Bush's numbers, more Americans in overwhelming numbers favor Democratic candidates.
The political buzz site summarizes a submitted by Stan Greenberg, who looked into four months of polling data and found "big changes" in the political landscape that are happening right now:
The "opinion elite" in the country -- those with a college education and earning more than $75,000 -- support a Democratic presidential candidate by an 11 point margin.
Independents have defected from Republican candidates and now support a Democrat for president by 19 points.
Young voters are breaking to Democrats with landslide margins.
Married women -- a key swing vote -- are breaking marginallyfor the Democrats this year after swinging strongly for the Republicansin 2004.
Unmarried women -- a key bloc of "base" voters for Democrats -- pick the Democratic candidate by two to one margin.
No, we don't have the next election in the bag. Remember, in 2008 Republicans will spend a lot of time scrutinizing the Democrats' record in Congress. I see it evening out a bit, but still favoring the Democrats by a slight margin.
Barack Obama may be down-to-earth and aware of the socioeconomic injustices that middle class Americans call reality on a daily basis. Though, when you look at who is are, they are college-educated, tech-savvy, Starbucks drinking professionals:
Of course, Obama's base of support is quite different from that of theGreat Commoner. In opinion polls, which Hillary Clinton hasconsistently led, he draws more support from professionals and collegegraduates than from working and lower-middle class people, who are themajority of voters.
Now obviously, not every Obama supporter fits this bold. We are obviously talking in percentages. But what is clearly the case is that Hillary absolutely dominates Obama among voters without a college education, which accounts for 66% of all Democratic primary voters. Obama will not win unless he reaches this group of voters.
This is how bad it is for :
According to the latest Cook Political Report survey, Hillary Clintonpolls 12 points higher among voters who haven't graduated from collegethan those who have; Obama's numbers are reversed. His problem: only 34percent of likely Democratic primary voters have college degrees. "Ifyou don't develop a solid base among downscale Dems, it's very hard toget the nomination," says demographer Ruy Teixeira. Unless Obama getsoff the wine track, he could end up the latest in a long line ofbrainy, reformist also-rans like Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas and BillBradley.
If you study political strategy, you know what is coming Obama's way. Look for Clinton to brand Obama as an elite that has not spent enough time outside of Harvard to know what is best for working class Americans. Of course, Clinton has been in Washington all of her political life, and to stop taking money from lobbyists. Obama has more than from all walks of life.
But the reality is that until Obama appeals to a wider audience, percentage-wise it will be impossible for him to win the nomination.
Recent Comments