Limits To The Kumbaya Schtick

Rassmussen Reports provides these favorable/unfavorabe numbers:

Hillary Clinton 48 FAV, 50 UNFAV
Barack Obama 43 FAV, 51 UNFAV
John Edwards 49 FAV, 42 UNFAV

How do you like "unity" now?

< What To Look For In Iowa: The Expectations Spin | Expectations Game: Obama Campaign Predicts Win In Iowa >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    what gives (none / 0) (#1)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:01:25 PM EST
    this screen has him at 52-45

    Old news (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    click the link.

    echoes (none / 0) (#8)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    I did. I was looking for the trends, to see when things went net negative.

    This is alot like Kerry's 2004 campaign.  He started out ahead of Bush, but from the get-go Bush went negative (the speech to the Governor's conference).  Kerry stayed positive and never defended himself.  The best defense would have been a good offense, keeping Bush tied down.  By the end of August, Kerry was down by double digits.

    Interestingly, Markos seemed to favor Kerry sunny 2004 campaign.

    Now we already do know why Bush has been relentlessly negative. As the incumbent, Bush is well under the 50 percent mark in polls, and undecideds traditionally break toward the challenger. Bush is the ultimate incumbent, better known than any other this cycle. Those inclined to vote for him are already in his camp. The rest are clearly unhappy, and are looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to cast their vote for the other guy. Hence Kerry's "play it safe" approach.


    what's the context? (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    is this Iowa or nationwide?

    Nationwide (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    OBAMA EDWARDS electibility (none / 0) (#5)
    by sammiemorris on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    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.

        * virginia4kerry's diary :: ::

    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.

    Clinton Vindicated (none / 0) (#6)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    Whatever else folks may think of her, she is absolutely right that whoever the Democratic nominee is, they will have high negatives.

    The thing that struck me about these numbers is that the person with the lowest negatives is the one who has gotten the least amount of MSM coverage.  Coincidence?  I think not.

    Instead of trying to game the press, we should be trying to crush them.  There should be calls to MSNBC every time Matthews pulls his schtick.  Same thing with other hosts.  They are out of step with most of the American public.  They should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity.  They are not our friends.  They've learned nothing from 2000 and 2004.  If anyone thinks it's just a matter of nominating X - that it's not the press, it's the nominee - they're mistaken.

    There are, of course, lots of reasons why someone might support Barack Obama.  Media love and with it the promise of low negatives is not one of them because it is never going to happen.  Same thing for Edwards and Clinton.  This issue, IMO, is a wash.

    Where Are the Negatives Coming From (none / 0) (#7)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    The other question regarding Obama is where did the increase in negatives come from.  Has it been folks generally reacting to some of the negative coverage of the Bhutto and "present" vote coverage and its fallout?  Or is it from progressives and liberals who specifically don't like his kumbaya message or are leery about all the nice things those convervative commentators keep saying about him?  

    I'm not surprised that his negatives have gone up, as I said I expect them all to have high negatives by the time this is over, but I'm curious as to why now and if there is any particular group that is accounting for the change.


    good question. (none / 0) (#9)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    He was recently net positive 52-45.

    Right Wing Talking Points (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    I wonder if things like this from Atrios today has taken its toll with liberals and progressives:

    Is there a right wing talking point Obama hasn't rushed to embrace? Going after trial lawyers?


    Certainly there has been sustained criticism on the left about his framing.  It's a fair criticism to my mind, but I wonder if that's what has hurt his negatives or if it's something more across the board like concerns over his experience.  

    It seems the rightwing talking points hurt him in the primary since presumably Republicans won't mind him using those.  So if that's the cause of his negatives, they might settle back down after he's the nominee.  If, on the other hand, it's concern about his experience or something like that, then that's a much bigger problem for him because those negatives probably hurt him a lot in November 2008, especially after the GOP pounds him on experience for the next year.


    Rasmussen Reports didn't do too well in the poll (none / 0) (#10)
    by jaman12 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    edwards (none / 0) (#12)
    by skippybkroo on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    i haven't endorsed edwards, and i sure wish he'd done better as a campaigner, but i haven't written him off, either.

    notice his margin between his favorables and unfavorables is the widest (highest favs, lowest unfavs).

    If you beleive (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    these numbers then you also accept that republicans party ID is surging.  I think this poll probably oversampled republicans.  Hey, but if it gives the people on this site an excuse to say something negative about Obama, we can accept any poll no matter how ridiculous it is.