The Risky Obama Strategy

[Chilly]

I've said a couple times on this forum that I find Obama's strategy risky for the general election. Today, on the WSJ's site was an excellent article explaining why political scientists agree:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/...obama/#more-87/

[olivier in france]

I've said a couple times on this forum that I find Obama's strategy risky for the general election. Today, on the WSJ's site was an excellent article explaining why political scientists agree:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/...obama/#more-87/

 

 

If politics were a science we 'd not need elections...

[Kelly the Dog]

The difference to me, that completely whitewashes the recent history, is four-fold:

 

1] Every year the democrats try to sign up these new voters, mostly kids who of course at that age are more liberal minded, but then they almost always don't give them what they want: Someone who speaks to them. When they did, JFK and Clinton, they won. When they didn't, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. they lost. The lone exception was Carter, but he won because of Nixon not because of Carter. This year, they signed up WAY more than they ever have and gave them exactly what they want. Not to mention that the rise of the Internet has made that bond 100x greater.

 

2] The percentage of black voters going to the polls because this is a black candidate will be ridiculous, and way higher than any other group.

 

3] The opposition doesn't have the rallying cry issue that won them the last few elections, IMO, that brings out the niche voting blocks like the evangelicals, and the base isn't as excited and driven as a whole as they have been all other years (due to countless factors including Bush, the war, the economy, the last eight years). That combination of the excited new versus the sluggish old should do it alone in a closely divided nation, which we are.

 

4] The Democrats have a good if not great candidate. Of the last 5-6 candidates the Democrats have nominated, only Clinton was a good candidate. Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale and so on were simply abysmal. That doesn't mean Obama will be a great President. But he is clearly a good speaker, charismatic, good personality, and good politician/organizer.

[Chilly]

If politics were a science we 'd not need elections...

 

Erm, its not referring to the use of Science as a shorthand for the term "Natural Science", but rather as an indication of a soft science ("Social Science").

[olivier in france]

Erm, its not referring to the use of Science as a shorthand for the term "Natural Science", but rather as an indication of a soft science ("Social Science").

 

whatever you call it, those political analysis based on history are b...s... , elections (and before all presidential ones) are won with charisma, emotions and momentum, nothing that can be repeated, analysed or simply explained in rational ways.

"the meeting of a man and the people" as the presidential elections are called around here sometimes is not a science

[Chilly]

The difference to me, that completely whitewashes the recent history, is four-fold:

 

1] Every year the democrats try to sign up these new voters, mostly kids who of course at that age are more liberal minded, but then they almost always don't give them what they want: Someone who speaks to them. When they did, JFK and Clinton, they won. When they didn't, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. they lost. The lone exception was Carter, but he won because of Nixon not because of Carter. This year, they signed up WAY more than they ever have and gave them exactly what they want. Not to mention that the rise of the Internet has made that bond 100x greater.

 

Not quite. Young voters (18-29) actually broke with Gore (48% of 17%) and Kerry (54% of 17%) more than they did with Clinton in 92 (43% of 21%), although Clinton got a slightly higher number because he drove more out, but not enough to make much of a difference. In 1996, Clinton drove out the usual 17% young people (and received 53% of it).

 

2] The percentage of black voters going to the polls because this is a black candidate will be ridiculous, and way higher than any other group.

 

So will the people who are motivated to vote against that black candidate. Don't think theres a reasonable way to estimate either one.

 

3] The opposition doesn't have the rallying cry issue that won them the last few elections, IMO, that brings out the niche voting blocks like the evangelicals, and the base isn't as excited and driven as a whole as they have been all other years (due to countless factors including Bush, the war, the economy, the last eight years). That combination of the excited new versus the sluggish old should do it alone in a closely divided nation, which we are.

 

We'll see, but the Republicans are experts at using wedge issues to drive out their base. I don't see that slowing down.

 

4] The Democrats have a good if not great candidate. Of the last 5-6 candidates the Democrats have nominated, only Clinton was a good candidate. Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale and so on were simply abysmal. That doesn't mean Obama will be a great President. But he is clearly a good speaker, charismatic, good personality, and good politician/organizer.

 

Which remains to be seen if this will win over the middle of the electorate. Right now they are split 40-40, and Obama has fallen fast with the middle of the electorate.

 

whatever you call it, those political analysis based on history are b...s... , elections (and before all presidential ones) are won with charisma, emotions and momentum, nothing that can be repeated, analysed or simply explained in rational ways.

"the meeting of a man and the people" as the presidential elections are called around here sometimes is not a science

 

I suggest you do some research into the techniques used by political science in the US and the power of Party ID, among other things.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not quite. Young voters (18-29) actually broke with Gore (48% of 17%) and Kerry (54% of 17%) more than they did with Clinton in 92 (43% of 21%), although Clinton got a slightly higher number because he drove more out, but not enough to make much of a difference. In 1996, Clinton drove out the usual 17% young people (and received 53% of it).

Percentages aren't the issue at all. Pure numbers are. The numbers this year are astounding, and dwarf previous years.

 

My point, and I think this is where pollsters and posters are slightly misguided, is that in 2004 the youth went mad over Howard Dean on the Internet. He got them all excited and the Democrats, stupidly, thought this is our year the kids are going to really come out. Look at 'em all! Then Howard Dean imploded, Kerry -- the stodgy old guard antithesis became the candidate -- and the Democrats stupidly thought (or just hoped) they would still get the huge numbers because so many had signed up and became politically active. Then, since their guy wasn't the guy, the youth sat home like they often do (as witnessed by the 17% in your numbers).

 

This year, their guy is the man, and the opposition is the old guard and old guy. I fully expect the numbers to be more like 22-23% or even higher.

 

There's surely a way to estimate the black vote by black people, as evidenced by the leap from the time they thought he couldn't win, 60-70%, to when they thought he could win 90+%. What's impossible to gauge is how many will vote against him because he is black. My guess, and this is surely a guess, is that the amount of people that WOULD HAVE VOTED for the Democrat, that don't simply because he was black, is relatively small and canceled out by the number of people that are going to vote for him because he is black, which are significant.

 

The Republicans do often find a wedge issue and they're great at it. I have trouble finding one this time.

[Chilly]

Percentages aren't the issue at all. Pure numbers are. The numbers this year are astounding, and dwarf previous years.

 

Yes, I understand what you are saying. My point in all of that (with the of % number) was that even on prior years where candidates have "driven out" the youth vote, the increase was not all that significant.

 

Clinton winning the base of the party combined with a large chunk of the middle had much, much more to do with him winning in 92 than anything that 21% of the youth vote did.

 

My point, and I think this is where pollsters and posters are slightly misguided, is that in 2004 the youth went mad over Howard Dean on the Internet. He got them all excited and the Democrats, stupidly, thought this is our year the kids are going to really come out. Look at 'em all! Then Howard Dean imploded, Kerry -- the stodgy old guard antithesis became the candidate -- and the Democrats stupidly thought (or just hoped) they would still get the huge numbers because so many had signed up and became politically active. Then, since their guy wasn't the guy, the youth sat home like they often do (as witnessed by the 17% in your numbers).

 

This year, their guy is the man, and the opposition is the old guard and old guy. I fully expect the numbers to be more like 22-23% or even higher.

 

I don't really see the "youth" vote breaking out all that much. I do think it'll be more along Clinton in 92 with around 21% of the vote, and the split will likely be around 60-40. So, lets say you're accurate, and its 22%. 60% of a 5% increase is a 3% increase in the vote. *If* Obama is able to drive out the base to vote for him, and such a vote actually happens, it'll be significant. However, Obama is facing record defection rates, between 13-17% right now. That 3% increase is dwarfed by that 13-17% defection rate, in a party with historically high defection rates.

 

He's relying on a risky group of voters to overcome the loss of traditional democratic voters, which is highlighted by the fact that he's only breaking independents at 40-40 margins. Right now, that's not a good sign. If he can get the Democratic base to rally around him better, THEN getting the youth/AA vote for him will be successful, as long as he stays about even with Independents.

 

For Obama, its tricky, he needs to:

 

A.) Secure the Democratic base better

B.) Keep independents about even with McCain

C.) Bring in new voters

 

McCain, on the other hand, needs to:

 

A.) Secure the Republican base (which he has so far - he's looking at an 8% defection rate, exactly along history's lines for McCain)

B.) Win over the Independent vote or win over a large portion of defected Democrats

 

Its certainly possible for Obama to do all three things; he's off to a good start with B.) and C.). A) might happen when Hillary drops out, and if it does, then Obama will be in good shape.

 

There's surely a way to estimate the black vote by black people, as evidenced by the leap from the time they thought he couldn't win, 60-70%, to when they thought he could win 90+%. What's impossible to gauge is how many will vote against him because he is black. My guess, and this is surely a guess, is that the amount of people that WOULD HAVE VOTED for the Democrat, that don't simply because he was black, is relatively small and canceled out by the number of people that are going to vote for him because he is black, which are significant.

 

Basing estimates in a general election turnout on primary turnouts has been historically sketchy and inaccurate, so its pretty hard to tell.

 

The Republicans do often find a wedge issue and they're great at it. I have trouble finding one this time.

 

Its quite easy to find some to bring out the niche groups you were talking about: Gay Marriage and Abortion

[Kelly the Dog]

Its quite easy to find some to bring out the niche groups you were talking about: Gay Marriage and Abortion

Yeah, abortion is really going to work, McCain is consistently wishy-washy on whether he is pro-life or not, and he is no longer going to get away with it. Plus he's for stem-cell research. That's another reason why I think this is a whole new ballgame when the general election starts. When people start to hear all the crap on McCain he's going to be put in a lot of difficult corners.

 

My main problem with him is that he plays up this maverick and straight shooter crap and he's not, he's only out for John McCain (in a political stance). I lived in AZ for 11 years and had a lot of friends in politics there, on both sides. A lot of McCain's own staff hated him because he was such a phony. I really think some of that is going to come out. Obama will be abused, too, but McCain has gotten at least as much or more of a free ride than Obama has.

 

The defection percentage right now is just foolish IMO to look at. It's the worst time to try to get its pulse.

[Chilly]

Yeah, abortion is really going to work, McCain is consistently wishy-washy on whether he is pro-life or not, and he is no longer going to get away with it. Plus he's for stem-cell research. That's another reason why I think this is a whole new ballgame when the general election starts. When people start to hear all the crap on McCain he's going to be put in a lot of difficult corners.

 

There are plenty of morality issues to drive out religious voters, and they'll paint Obama as the devil, so you better vote for McCain. They'll turn out (some of the most reliable voters of all time).

 

My main problem with him is that he plays up this maverick and straight shooter crap and he's not, he's only out for John McCain (in a political stance). I lived in AZ for 11 years and had a lot of friends in politics there, on both sides. A lot of McCain's own staff hated him because he was such a phony. I really think some of that is going to come out. Obama will be abused, too, but McCain has gotten at least as much or more of a free ride than Obama has.

 

Both of their records are going to hurt them: Obama's continual voting along Democratic party lines, and McCain's "not so straight" talk. This will be where the battle will be that wins the election: Who is going to get these middle of the road voters?

 

The defection percentage right now is just foolish IMO to look at. It's the worst time to try to get its pulse.

 

Most likely, the Obama campaign doesn't agree with you, sees those numbers, and recognizes that he will have to spend some time this month appealing to the base (much the same way McCain was last month).

 

Should those numbers come down? Most likely, yes, but it does depend on Obama's actions.

[olivier in france]

I suggest you do some research into the techniques used by political science in the US and the power of Party ID, among other things.

 

 

oh yes escuse me i was not aware you're american and have such incredible political scientists in your two big parties that can manipulate voters at will!! i'd better take care of my third world country old school politics .... (sarcasm)

[Wacka]

This is going to be another McGovern. Big Republican win. Obama is the most radical candidate EVER.

 

He already said today that he will basically heal the sick, fix the planet, put everybody to work.

Rev Wright, the wacky priest, Ayers, and his Wife (Whitey speech?), he surrounds himself with kooks.

 

These alone have alienated a lot of people. What other skeletons are in his closet- Resko is coming up.

 

If, god forbid he gets elected, he will make Carter's term look good.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is going to be another McGovern. Big Republican win. Obama is the most radical candidate EVER.

 

He already said today that he will basically heal the sick, fix the planet, put everybody to work.

Rev Wright, the wacky priest, Ayers, and his Wife (Whitey speech?), he surrounds himself with kooks.

 

These alone have alienated a lot of people. What other skeletons are in his closet- Resko is coming up.

 

If, god forbid he gets elected, he will make Carter's term look good.

Actually what he said was:

 

"America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past... our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.

 

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge -- I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

 

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless...

 

... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...

 

... this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

 

This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals."

[ExiledInIllinois]

IMO, believe it or not... Hillary staying in is a good thing! What purpose does it serve to get out? She is a master at race to the bottom (ie: her WalMart fame)... Most of the educated Dems have been flocking to Obama... Most of them (if not all) would vote for Hillary... Not so with the less uneducated white voters... They will flock in numbers to McCain.

 

What does this say? It points to systemic white racism (don't get all mad, it is there the other way around, but it is not quite working with the same "Hillary dynamic" that exists in place like WVA and KY.)

 

Hillary has to keep the white, less educated (and in essence racist becuase both Clinton and Obama's message is the same) hangin on... As long as she does that she gives Obama a chance to reach them and rid them of their racist tendancy when voting.

 

Again... The issue is that Clinton and Obama have the same beliefs... Why is there a problem with some voters that they would abstain or vote 180 degrees the opposite direction?

 

WTF? Is Hillary REALLY that much in the middle? Hell no! She is just duping her people for her own personal advantage.

[Chilly]

oh yes escuse me i was not aware you're american and have such incredible political scientists in your two big parties that can manipulate voters at will!! i'd better take care of my third world country old school politics .... (sarcasm)

 

 

Ah, yes. The ol' switcheroo - if you can't discredit what you originally wanted, try to use sarcasm to focus on something else instead (this time the system).

[GG]

Actually what he said was:

 

"America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past... our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.

 

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge -- I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

 

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless...

 

... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...

 

... this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

 

This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals."

 

How's that different from what Wacky summarized?

[olivier in france]

Ah, yes. The ol' switcheroo - if you can't discredit what you originally wanted, try to use sarcasm to focus on something else instead (this time an arrogant "know it all").

 

 

corrected

[Chilly]

corrected

 

Right. The one who discredited Political Science as complete BS isn't the arrogant know it all, I am.

 

Its obvious you didn't do any research, or you would have realized what I was talking about.

[Wacka]

I see the lib talking heads are already trying the McCain=Bush line of BS.

[PastaJoe]

I see the lib talking heads are already trying the McCain=Bush line of BS.

 

You can't deny that McCain agrees with Bush on the majority of policy issues, especially Iraq and the economy. He might have some tactical differences, but in general has the same strategic view.