Obama '08?

Kucinich?

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I don't think Hillary will swing many of the ind undecideds, but Obama might.

I agree. PollingReport also shows that Hillary Clinton has barely any undecideds left to swing. Barak Obama, by contrast has lots of them.

[img]http://www.pollingreport.com/images/NWK08chance.GIF[/img]
I hope Obama swings the undecideds in his favor before the Republican slime machine defines him to poison them against him.

0 Replies

Looking at that list - in spite of all the cheer over last week's victory - if Obama would not run, it really looks quite grim, doesnt it?

<grimace>

0 Replies

WES CLARK

Wasn't even on the list, sigh

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I am really happy about Giuliani!

0 Replies

Yes, it does, nimh. I'm interested in the graph Thomas posted in that the left bar is categorized as "Good/Some Chance" which means there are possibly/probably a significant number of people in the "Some Chance" group who might swing over to Obama.

Hillary is already looking at 45% "No Chance" and there's 37% Undecided in the Obama poll giving him plenty of reason to think he could grab sufficient numbers from Hillary's "Some Chance" responses.

0 Replies

Also, the question was posed in a way that responses were put into only three categories, i.e., Probable/Possiible, No Idea, and No Way which means that anyone indicating a slight possibility would have been included in the left-most bar. From the looks of it, Gore, Kerry, and Gingrich should save us all the aggravation of having to listen to them (fine by me in all three cases) and Hillary should give serious thought to the baggage she carries.

Very interesting, Thomas, and thanks for the fix. Man, I love data!

0 Replies

Me too! :-)

Thomas wrote:

PollingReport also shows that Hillary Clinton has barely any undecideds left to swing. Barak Obama, by contrast has lots of them.

Yeah, that's really marked from the graph -- people have already made up their minds about Hillary, and the news is not good for her.

Meanwhile, Obama's numbers are delovely for how recently he became a player. Especially, his "no chance" numbers are really low for how high he is on the "good/ some chance" scale. (Only Brownback [who?] and Hunter [who????] are lower, and their undecided swath is much, much bigger.)

So, Obama seems to be poised to mount a successful campaign -- people seem to be overall outright positive or keeping an open mind, and I think he's very, very good at convincing people who have an open mind. What remains to be seen is, as Thomas said, how effectively he can be slimed.

0 Replies

dys, I think you and I are the only ones that believes in Kucinich. That doesn't bode well for him winning anything.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I am really happy about Giuliani!

I don't think the Dems can defeat either Giuliani or McCain, unless it's with Obama, and that's still a big 'Maybe'.

0 Replies

Guliani's biggest liability is actually pictures of him wearing a dress...

Not that I care, but I have a feeling that there are some Conservatives who might

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Check out the cynical tone of this recent appraisal of Obama...

It seems to me that some are already stretching the Rezko thing to the breaking point, and pointing at anything else with which they can cast vague aspersions.

The scary character defamers waste no time.... We can look for a lot of this between now, and "early next year" - when Obama says he'll make his final decision.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1106/1106obamaspeedbump.htm

0 Replies

A whole lot of insinuations, but nothing bad to tack on. I wouldn't worry.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

People rode Gore before - saying how he didn't have leadership aura, and all that. I would support him, because he has good priorities and good ideas and good experience and I think the thievery of 2000 gave him backbone he was missing.

And say what you will - Obama ain't gonna head no ticket in '08.

Man, I was just skimming through the thread. I sure have come a ways in my assessment of Obama's chances - both of running, and of heading a ticket. This old dog can still learn a trick or two, I guess.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

A whole lot of insinuations, but nothing bad to tack on. I wouldn't worry.

I don't see anything concrete there either, C.I., but that's not my concern, exactly. I'm just interested in how fast and hard and lowdown the barbs start to fly, especially if he declares his candidacy.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Meanwhile, Obama's numbers are delovely for how recently he became a player. Especially, his "no chance" numbers are really low

Well, to be honest Obama's "no chance" numbers would be low, exactly because of how recently he became a player.

Gore, Kerry, Hillary and Newt - everyone's known them for ages, their "no chance" numbers have had three to thirteen years to grow. Those people have had everything thrown at them that could possibly be thrown. However tough the upcoming campaign will be, that number is as unlikely to grow much anymore as the "probably/possibly" ones.

That Obama's "probably/possibly" number is as high as it is is the good news, considering how recently he entered the game. But that his "no chance" number is low is kind of course of the par (is that the expression?) at this budding point of his possible campaign.

0 Replies

Sure, but I was talking about it in comparison to other numbers. The same goes for Brownback and Hunter, but they have significantly lower positive numbers, too. The ratio seems good with Obama. (Rather high positive, rather low negative.)

But of course it's all very preliminary and could go in any number of directions. Just heartened that it seems like those numbers could lend themselves to an exciting outcome.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
I don't think Hillary will swing many of the ind undecideds, but Obama might.

I agree. PollingReport also shows that Hillary Clinton has barely any undecideds left to swing. Barak Obama, by contrast has lots of them.

I hope Obama swings the undecideds in his favor before the Republican slime machine defines him to poison them against him.

Here's an interesting aspect.

The Republican strategy has been - when a person or issue appears on the horizon which they wish to negate - to pre-emptively define the person/image negatively. They get in fast and do a barrage and establish a negative identity which puts their target on the defensive from then on out. For example, just recall the campaign to 'define' Nancy Pelosi, unknown to most Americans. Republican strategists are, now and again, quite open and explicit regarding this technique.

Now, with Obama, consider how this strategy, through chance or planning or both, has been made relatively impotent. The man is and has been in the public eye for a substantial period garnering accolades and affinity and positives as far as the eye can see.

0 Replies

I was reading something on the weekend about Mr. Obama and his background and his wife and ... he has a Bill Clinton kinda vibe.

Well-educated from straitened circumstances. Smart as a whip wife. That sort of thing. Don't know if it's more than superficial, or if it's just the way he's being processed by/for the media.

Oh yeah - and the whole Hope thing.

found it - New York Review of Books

0 Replies

Hype will be found out soon enough; it ain't that. Obama has been out in public long enough, and his ability to articulate his ideas wins friends and influence people. He's the real thing.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know