Obama '08?

That's the truth, Butrfly- I watched that mess. Stephanopolis should never have been the moderator - he spent the whole debate - especially the first several questions - trying to set up a shallowassed pissing contest between Clinton and Obama. He exercised no control over those who wanted to meander and not answer questions. I got so frustrated watching him ask questions then accept a bunch of unrelated garble as an 'answer'.

POLL: GALLUP 08 FAVORABLES
August 10, 2007

Additional analysis from the recent USA Today/Gallup national survey of 1,012 adults (conducted 8/3 through 8/5) finds:

• [..] Combined results from the four most recent Gallup surveys finds 92% of Democrats with a post-graduate education rate Sen. Barack Obama favorably while 86% rate Sen. Hillary Clinton favorably. Among Democrats with a high school education or less, 66% rate Obama favorably while 86% rate Clinton favorably.

POLL: GALLUP FRONT-RUNNERS, DEM SUPPORT
May 24, 2007

New analysis from recent Gallup national surveys finds: [..]

• Among 3,089 Democrats and Democratic leaners, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama among blacks (41% to 33%), women (40% to22%), hispanics (39% to 21%), and Democrats (40% to 21%); Obama runs even with Clinton among college graduates and those earning more than $75k, (conducted 3/2 through 5/13; video).

CLINTON'S APPEAL TO THE NON-COLLEGE EDUCATED.

Survey after survey shows Hillary Clinton wiping the floor with Barack Obama when it comes to attracting non-college educated Democratic voters, especially white women who haven't gone to college. At Iowa State Rep. Polly Butka's 12th Annual Corn Boil fundraiser on Saturday, the reasons for that appeal started to become clearer. Namely, Clinton is using her stump speech to specifically recognize the non-college-educated as a constituency that needs help. Said Clinton:

And one more thing we'll do is were going to have work opportunities for people who don't go to college, because -- you know what? -- most people of any age group don't go to college and graduate and I'm tired of them being left out. Let's have more skills programs and apprenticeship programs. Let's help hard-working young men and women who built things like this [gestures around stadium] and keep our economy going, that were going to take care of them as well.

This statement was met with stronger applause from the audience of several hundred, arrayed in the stands of a Little League baseball stadium, than was her speech's section on making college more affordable.

After her speech, Clinton was mobbed by people trying to get her autograph and to take pictures with her. I talked with some of them, and found that she is -- just as Tom Schaller has predicted -- attracting new women into the political system. [..] "She's great," said Determan, a purchasing manager at a long-term health facility. "She's so much for the middle class, too. She's not just for the wealthy." [..]

THE DEMOCRATS' POLLING PUZZLE

April 27, 2007

[..] I noted recently that the competition between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the two top contenders, is following an upstairs-downstairs pattern familiar from most Democratic primary races since 1968. Obama, like past Democratic hopefuls such as Eugene McCarthy and Bill Bradley who stressed reform and railed against politics-as-usual, is running best with college-educated voters; Clinton, like predecessors such as Walter Mondale and Al Gore who emphasized bread-and-butter concerns, polls best among voters without college degrees. [..]

A recent Times/Bloomberg Poll of likely Democratic voters allows us to explore in the greatest detail yet how race, gender and class are interacting to shape the competition. [..]

Obama and Clinton are each strongest at the point where their class and gender advantages intersect. Clinton runs best among white women who have not attended college, a group often described as waitress moms. In the Times/Bloomberg Poll, Clinton led Obama with those women by a resounding 16%. Each candidate is so weak in the other's stronghold that Edwards runs ahead of Clinton among college-educated men, and ahead of Obama among waitress moms.

More closely contested between Clinton and Obama are the groups where gender, education and race pull in competing directions. Clinton led Obama among white men without college degrees, though only by three percentage points. Obama led Clinton among white women with college degrees, but only by five percentage points. With both of those groups, Edwards runs a distant third.

African-Americans preferred Clinton over Obama by 9%. And although the sample was too small for definitive conclusions, the survey found an interesting pattern: While Obama led Clinton comfortably among black men, she trounced him even more decisively among black women. Largely because of the broad appeal of Clinton and Obama, Edwards did not get off the ground with African-Americans: just 1% of those surveyed backed him. Finally, Clinton also led Obama and Edwards among other minorities, predominantly Latinos, though the number surveyed was also too small for definitive conclusions. [..]

Obama faces a stark mathematical dilemma: The groups that now prefer Clinton comprise a larger share of the Democratic primary electorate than the groups that favor him. College-educated voters often cast a majority of the votes in Democratic primaries along the two coasts; Obama, for instance, would find favorable terrain in New Hampshire or California where about three-fifths of Democratic voters hold college degrees. But overall, the Times Poll found that among likely Democratic primary voters nationwide, whites without college degrees still outnumber those with degrees by about two-to-one. Part of Obama's problem is that he isn't as well-known among non-college voters, who are not paying as close attention yet as the upscale Democrats. Still, most experts agree that [Obama's] message, with its heavy emphasis on political reform and overtones of a crusade to transform politics, is targeted more at the Volvo than the Chevy set.

"Obama is a very compelling guy; he has a very compelling story [..]," said Mark Mellman, who polled for John Kerry in 2004 [..]. "But … his base right now is a fairly narrow upscale base. And I think that Bill Bradley and Paul Tsongas and Gary Hart [and Howard Dean, I'd add - nimh] have all demonstrated that that is enough to create a lot of excitement but not enough to win the nomination. Obama has a need to expand his base." [..]

OBAMA'S APPEAL TO WELL-EDUCATED NOT CONDUCIVE TO WINNING NOMINATION
August 16, 2007

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is a clear second place behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but he is highly competitive with Clinton among the most educated segment of the party. That appeal may be one reason he has met or surpassed Clinton's fundraising totals despite not gaining much ground in voter support this year -- well-educated Americans tend to have greater income.

An analysis of historical Gallup Poll data on rank-and-file Democrats' nomination preferences shows that at least one candidate has exhibited a pattern similar to Obama's education skew in each election cycle since 1988, but that candidate usually does not end up winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

Obama's Support

According to combined data from Gallup's national Democratic nomination trial heat polls conducted in July and August 2007, Obama's support rises from 19% among Democrats with a high school education or less, to 28% of those who attended college but did not finish, and 33% among college graduates.

By contrast, Clinton's support shows a downward trend by education level, as 51% of Democrats with a high school education or less, 45% of those with some college education, and 33% of college graduates support her. Thus, while Clinton leads Obama by 32 percentage points (51% to 19%) among Democrats with the least formal education, she merely ties him among the most educated Democrats.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' support is a consistent 14% among Democrats of all education levels.



Analyses of historical Gallup Poll data leading up to the Iowa caucuses show Obama's support pattern by education is not uncommon. The analyses rely on combined results of available data from national polls conducted in the November, December, and January months prior to the Iowa caucus, usually held in mid-to-late January of the presidential election year.

[The article continues with an interesting analysis of the data of previous election cycles, which shows that Obama's support so far appears to mirror that of Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, Paul Simon and Michael Dukakis - nimh]

I dare say the data below reflect a preference like mine, among working class voters, for someone who presents him/herself as an unabashed fighter for their interests who'll go bare-knuckled if necessary, over a philosopher-king who wants to bring the nation together.

POLL: CBS Dem Primary
August 16, 2007

Additional results from a recent CBS News national survey (story, results) of 1,214 adults (conducted 8/8 through 8/12) finds:

• [..] Among 1072 registered voters from both parties, 29% say Obama has "the right kind of experience to be a good president;" 51% say he does not. 59% say Clinton has the right kind of experience while 35% say she does not.
  
  
• Among registered voters, 62% say Clinton can win the presidential election; 29% say she can not. 46% say Obama can with the presidential election while 39% say he can not.

I have felt for some time now that Obama is naive about how sharply effective a mobilisationary (is that a word?) force strident Republicanism is. I think he doesn't get how stiff a will and well-prepared a resistance will be needed to counter and overcome it, if the Democrats are not just to win the elections, but actually push an alternative policy agenda through.

I see that feeling echoed in this Plank item, and I agree with its thrust. Obama probably would call it unrealistic, or even by definition undesirable, to want to push through an all too radical progressive program if the Presidency is achieved: he'd probably shake his head and say that stridency and polarisation are not the way to go, incremental and consensual change is the ticket. But I think that it's Obama's vision of such consensual change that's naive and unrealistic.

One can not just wish away the entrenched partisan powers that eight years of Bush and a previous six years of Gingrich c.s. will have begotten; they won't fade out just through unifying speeches and good intentions. They will have to be batted out, with determination, if any success is to follow.

Not just do I think Obama's rhetorical sweeps about "healing the divide" naive, I also consider it, at this point, an undesirable priority. The strident Right will not blanch in the face of unifying discourse, and its hold on in between a third and half of American voters will not fade any time soon. They will remain steadfast. Trying to adjust our policies to visions of cross-partisan consensus just comes down to a pointless give-away at this point in time, as the intransigent Republican minority in Congress is demonstrating.

Instead, the Democrats should use the opportunity that the voters might just give them in 2008 to push for whatever they can achieve by themselves or with the help of moderate Independents, without wasting time on some high-minded attempt at healing the whole nation and winning over Republicans.

[commenter] G.mcentire wrote, "What makes him think the rest of them, Democrat and Republican alike, would be willing to compromise so much?"

Exactly. Obama really seems to believe that he has a unique talent, a gift, that will allow him to bring people together who would otherwise never talk to one another. But while it is one thing to win over even the most sceptical individual farmer in southern Illinois, it's quite another to play ball in the battle-hardened lions' pit of Washington DC, or deal with the concerted conservative media and punditry machine. I think he underestimates the challenge ahead, and therefore loses himself in flights of fancy about healing the divide, even as he admonishes those who aim for a tougher and more combative course as unrealistic.

Not actually a Paradox... A balance. Between idealism and realism. The concept that we need a President who inspires us as a nation to the endless possibilities to change for the better...and a cool-headed President with his/her feet firmly on the ground, ready to work hard at the difficult tasks ahead. Most politicians can do one or the other...Obama is the exceedingly rare candidate with the ability to do both at the same time.

I do think there's a subtext in Obama's commentary that while Hillary has strong ability/work ethic, she lacks the "vision thing"...while Obama has both. He's certainly ahead on the "big changes" meter

One might say that Obama is less divisive than Hillary [..] also because talks about not allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good and works at finding common ground with people. I think his record in the IL state senate supports that

It is precisely Obama's intellectual realism (read: honesty) and his modesty that he believes is missing in Washington today. Can you imagine a goverment that was less arrogant and more intellectually honest? Wouldn't that fundamentally change things?

When I hear a candidate who promises fact-based policies; reality-based pragmatism; intellectual rigor and humility; a strong work ethic; and and a political strategy of coalition-building and inclusiveness -- in other words, what we used to call "Good Government" -- I see that as a transformational candidate.

Gallup says Rove may be wrong

In a polling analysis posted Wednesday, Gallup's Frank Newport, Jeffrey Jones and Joseph Carroll say Clinton's "unfavorable" ratings aren't that different from the worst that faced the last two men elected president. In the most recent Gallup poll, 48 percent of the respondents said they had an "unfavorable" view of Hillary Clinton. At the beginning of 2004 -- which is to say 11 months before he won reelection -- George W. Bush's "unfavorable" rating was 47 percent. And in April 1992 -- about six months before he was first elected president -- Bill Clinton faced a 49 percent "unfavorable" rating.

More relevant still, Gallup says: "Hillary Clinton's own favorable ratings have shown dramatic shifts since she entered national public life in 1992."

Sorry, but I'm just not interested in the old business-as-usual, go-along-to-get-along, you-scratch-my-earmark-I'll-scratch-yours bipartisanship. [..]

What I'm looking for is a candidate who will be strong and honest and angry enough to fight to save the country, at the eleventh hour, from corporofascism. Someone who will push our apathetic and complacent multitudes back from the precipice, back toward our abandoned, bedrock principles of equality under the law, and checks and balances under the Constitution, and accountability. Obama's handlers may think Mr. President Nice Guy is just what these contentious times call for, but I think they have badly miscalculated.

If it had been just anybody across the aisle, I wouldnt have had any weirded afterthought. But Coburn? I mean, it sounds like a good measure, no hesitation on that - its just - Coburn is arguably the most extremist asshoule you can find on the whole Republican side in the Senate. I dont like him being accorded this kind of bipartisan respect.

I mean, Coburn thinks that those who perform abortions should be subject to the death penalty. He described his election campaign against moderate Democrat Carson as a race between "good and evil". He's the one who went hysterical about "lesbianism" being "so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom". I mean, the guy is insane. I just wish Obama had found someone a little more worthy of bipartisan acknowledgement to sponsor this bill with.

"Racial discord, poverty, the old divisions of black and white, rich and poor, it's time to leave that to yesterday," he said.

"In rebuilding, we've got an opportunity to do more than put up a foundation that for too long failed the people of New Orleans," he said. Some snapped photos of him at the pulpit with their cell phones.

"In rebuilding, we've got an opportunity to build something better, a foundation that can put up with a lot, upon which the children of New Orleans can build their dreams."

it got me thinking about a weird element of the electability factor with Obama.

Basically, there was some poll that broke down support for Obama between whites and blacks. The black support was not that major. I was thinking about that and wondering about the many, many comments I've seen from black people saying variations of "Sure, it would be great if he won, but there's no way it's gonna happen, and I'm not going to throw away my vote." I was thinking [..] if that has something to do with the relative lack of black support [..]?

b) The difference between how the three Democrats match up are getting smaller. Hillary is now polling better against Republican opponents than she used to do, while Obama has seen some of his leads against them drop. The result is that the difference between the two in apparent "electability" now appears to be quite small.