Obama's Broad Appeal In Iowa

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:46:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Iowa entrance polls demonstrate that Barack Obama had wide appeal across Democrats, Independents, Republicans, conservatives, moderates and liberals. What is most interesting is that his strongest appeal was with self indentified Independents, Republicans AND the liberal and very liberal.

What to make of this? Some say it shows that Obama was perceived as a strong progressive. Some say it shows that Obama is selling progressivism to Independents and Republicans.

I have a different take. I think it shows that Obama is able to convince people that he agrees with them or that his views are not anathema to them. How did he do it? I believe he did it by blurring his policy views, which are largely mainstream Democratic. Indeed, I find that Obama's views match up with my own more than any other candidate.

More . . .

But, as I have noted, it seems to me difficult to create a mandate for a progressive agenda if a candidate does not run forcefully on that agenda. Of course when you do that your support will necessarily be less broad. But the upside is that you claim a mandate for your agenda if you win. Change is a pretty word that any voter can fill with his own definition. When the specifics of the change are filled in is when the rubber meets the road.

This is always the tradeoff politicians make in a campaign. In this campaign it seems to me, the tradeoff is much less necessary and indeed, may even be counterproductive.

I for one do not doubt for a moment Obama's personal commitment to a progressive agenda. I do doubt that his political style is the most conducive to enacting a progressive agenda.

< Ground Reporting From NH | The Iowa Bounce Begins: ARG NH Poll >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Broad Appeal In Iowa | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think his broad appeal, among Dems, (none / 0) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:58:06 PM EST

relative to Edwards and Clinton, is because we've been there, done that with Edwards and Clinton and their dirty laundry is better known.

I think his broad appeal among non-Dems, relative to the Repubs, it's because we've been there, done that with the Repub party for the past 7 years or so, and their dirty laundry is better known than the Dem's.

Fascinating. Did I miss the (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST

breakdown on educational level? Obama garnered big support from people in the upper middle class, and from young people and Republicans.

I'd say a large part of his appeal (none / 0) (#3)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST

is that he is not Hillary Clinton and that attribute is popular across many divides hence the broadness of it.

Being black and "safe" at the same time also explains how people who describe themelves quite differently prefer him.

: Agree. (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Obama 08 (none / 0) (#5)
by HeadScratcher on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:20:53 PM EST

He's young, energetic, NEW to the scene, and charismatic. He's liberal, no doubt, but can sell the liberalism in a non-threatening to manner to independents and republicans (which is why Sullivan is supporting him). This also worked a bit for President Clinton.

Is Obama a progressive? No. Not yet, maybe not never. But if he is he will be able to sell it to the opposition much easier than any of the remaining candidates.

Hillary won't get anything by without a fillibuster proof congress. Edwards doesn't have the gravitas...Obama certainly does at this point...

Assumptions (none / 0) (#6)
by koshembos on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST

Big tent assumes that Obama is mainstream Democratic. I cannot make this assumption based on the campaign so far. I also have difficulty with "blurring." There is a difference between being not very clear and using empty slogans. This morning I heard the following slogans from Obama: no more fear (who is afraid and of what), hope (hoping for what; better pay for the poor?) and of course change which is the most misleading slogan ever to be devised (are we supposed to be more Republican).

I find Obama repulsive, arrogant and very Republican.

I agree (none / 0) (#7)
by along on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:33:39 PM EST

but I think it's possible the way he runs could mature over the year, and in a general election we might see him stressing his policy positions more, as he would then be the one candidate speaking for the party.

as to a mandate: if he were to win a general with the broad appeal you describe, that could earn him 55% of the popular vote, or more. if that happened, wouldn't he be able to claim a mandate for his programs, no matter how forcefully he ran on them?

I think he does it (none / 0) (#8)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:37:51 PM EST

by blurring his policy views AND by distracting people with a rhetorical style that makes them spend their time wondering who he reminds them of - is it JFK? Is it MLK? Is it RFK? By the time they stop thinking about it, the moment is passed and they don't know what he actually said, but they remember it sounded wonderful.

He also has something intangible. He has that rare ability to reflect back at people what they project onto him.

None of which is very good for building a mandate, as you say. But it might be useful when he has to explain to his vast constituency why he implemented something they didn't expect (or failed to do something they expected).

My prediction: If Obama is elected (none / 0) (#9)
by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:49:59 PM EST

he will dismantle Social Security, with Republicans help. Of course, he will not say that's what he's doing, anymore than Bush did, when he tried.
Liebman, Obama's top economic adviser, is pro-privatization. If the payroll cap is raised, that will create a short-term surplus. This will create a call for the creation of private accounts.

That's Not Going to Happen (none / 0) (#10)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:29:25 PM EST

Whatever else Obama does, he won't be dismantling social security, at least not directly. That's political suicide.

Now, he might weaken public support for it and give Republicans an opportunity to do it in 2012, but that's so much conjecture, I don't think it's worth worrying about.

My problem isn't that Obama will do bad things, it's that he will do nothing because the Republicans will block him at every turn. We'll be reliving Bill Clinton's first term (which would be ironic).

[ Parent ]

: I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#12)
by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:16:55 PM EST

Social Security privatization, if proposed by a DEMOCRAT, would be unstoppable. It's very easy to make privatization sound like a good idea, and much harder to show the problems.
Obama could be seen as a hero by the center for initiating a privatization program. This is just what the moderate Republicans would go for.

[ Parent ]

Blurring his policy views? (none / 0) (#11)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:57:18 PM EST

For heaven's sake - the man is running on making "health care affordable and available to every single American," ending "tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas," putting "a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of working Americans," "freeing this nation from the tyranny of oil," and "ending the war in Iraq."

It may be wrapped in cotton candy, but the boiled-down positions don't sound very blurry to me. No Republican would promise any of those things.