Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Democrats no doubt are tempted to feel giddy about the impending election, given the fact that each day seems better than last. Consider what's happened since the weekend, for instance. In the wake of a federal trial verdict, the Republicans are now saddled with a convicted felon on the Senate ballot in Alaska; in Pennsylvania, various GOP dirty trickster apparatchiks are trying to disclaim any responsibility for an email message to Jewish voters that warned of a second Holocaust if Barack Obama is elected; in red-state Montana, of all places, the presidential race is so tight that the Republican National Committee has decided to run ads for John McCain; and as a symptom of the deteriorating mood in the GOP campaign, one McCain aide has anonymously told Politico that Sarah Palin is a "whack job," and a McCain aide has trashed her as a "diva," telling CNN: "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us...Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”

Yes, at this point, many Democrats are probably daring to entertain the thought that their candidate is home free - barring, of course, any eleventh-hour disaster, such as YouTube footage of Obama conspiring with Bill Ayres and ACORN to place a dirty bomb on the doorstep of Joe the Plumber.

But, as a hedge against overconfidence, I would suggest that Democrats call up the C-Span video library, and watch the proceedings of an Ohio focus group, conducted several days ago by pollster Peter Hart. The 12 folks in attendance were all undecided voters, all hailing from Lake County, a bellwether white working-class county in one of the most crucial battleground states. Granted, this was not a scientific sampling; indeed, as Hart wrote later in a memo, these people represent "a very, very small slice of the total Ohio electorate." Nevertheless, Hart observed, ""the purpose is not to count noses, but to hear what is going on in their heads."

And what's happening in their heads should at least give Democrats temporary pause.

On paper, Ohio should be a cinch Democratic pickup, if only because the state economy is reeling after eight years of Republican White House rule, yet the polls suggest that McCain might win it anyway (as he surely needs to do, since no Republican has won the presidency without Ohio since the 19th century). As evidenced by the mood in Hart's conference room, this is partly because Obama is still viewed with suspicion by many of the voters who have yet to commit. His persona leaves them cold. And his "change" message doesn't necessarily click with those who are cynical about politicians, particularly politicians who promise a better tomorrow.

Consider, for instance, Cookie Lo Schiavo, who works as a nanny. She has voted Democratic for 40 years, she detests with Iraq war ("We should never have been in there"), and her fear about McCain is that "he's going to drop dead and Sarah Palin will take over." Yet she will not vote for Obama next week.

Cookie offered a variety of explanations: "Something here (pointing to her heart) makes me frightened of voting for Obama...We have a Congress that's Democratic, so if we bring that Republican in, that has a defense background, a dedicated person...I just don't have the confidence in (Obama)...I know that as a person he always was for the people growing up, and, sometimes, I look at it as an act, or I see my mom - I don't know, it just seems like an act to me." (Hart wrote later: "It seems that race is a component of her reluctance to support him." I didn't detect this, but Hart is more schooled in the nuances than I.)

Cookie's answer was all over the lot - I'm not sure what her "mom" reference was all about - but her "act" theme was picked up by others in the room. Some said that Obama comes across as too "polished." Mary Lazar, a retired teacher, said: "He's too 'perfect.' Everything seems like it's rehearsed...It's like somebody already posed the question to him and said, 'This is the way you need to answer it to the American public, so that they'll buy into what you're selling.' It's like an advertising firm came along and gave him parameters and said, 'This is what you have to stay in to be elected.'"

When Hart asked his participants to describe how they would feel if Obama was elected next week, only a few people talked brightly about "change" and "a new era." The majority said they would be "worried," "nervous," "uncertain" or "frightened." And even one of the stronger Obama leaners - Brandie Adams, a medical biller, - has no expectations that an Obama presidency would somehow usher in an era of nirvana: "There are so many things that have to be addressed, and decisions that have to be made that will be hard for everybody."

Eight of these 12 undecided voters backed George W. Bush four years ago, when the president narrowly won Ohio (and thereby clinched his re-election bid). After Hart's prodding, it appeared that seven of the 12 will support McCain. All told, Hart later concluded in his memo, "Listening to these voters, Ohio may be even close than one might suspect...Looking at the fundamentals, Ohio should be clearly blue, but (its) outcome remains a question mark."

Fortunately for Obama, he has numerous paths to the magic 270 electoral votes, even without Ohio. But, if the suspicions on display in this focus group are any indication, as president he would have very little political margin for error.

 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 11:07 AM  Permalink | 267 comments
Comments   
Posted 11:28 AM, 10/28/2008
psv
Brandie Adams is absolutely right - things aren't suddenly going to get better under Obama. In fact, I think whoever wins this election, their party will suffer four years from now. We're only at the tip of the iceberg; there's somewhere north of $50-60 trillion in CDS that haven't been brought to light yet. McCain losing here is probably a win for Palin in 2012 if she decides to run again. Speaking of Palin, she's right to jump ship. She didn't get vetted, which is on McCain, but at the same time she didn't even get a chance to be prepped for the spotlight. Take Obama from last year and now - he's much more polished than he was last November. He had the benefit of running an improbable campaign under the Clinton juggernaut so his missteps weren't nearly as magnified and dissected as Palin's. In a nutshell, Obama voters (myself included), don't get too excited.
Posted 11:32 AM, 10/28/2008
psv
LostDemocracy, you're absolutely clueless. Socialist agenda? Where did the earned income tax credit come from? Ronald Reagan! Was he a socialist, too? Oh, and to quote the father of capitalism, the venerable Adam Smith: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." From the seminal text "wealth of nations". Finally, if you're better off looking at McCain's friends and asking questions of him.
Posted 11:34 AM, 10/28/2008
CD75
If Obama wins as the polls predict, he will have a big problem notwithstanding the mess he would he inheriting. Obama has created such high expectations for himself of which it is impossible to meet. Thus, he is writing his own demise right now. Second the far liberal left, which is on display in this blog every day, will be Obama's own worst enemy. With control of congress, the far left will demand action on their agenda. If Obama moves there, he will turn off most of America and it will be the beggining of the rise of the republicans again (see 1994 i.e. Newt.) Thus, Obama is destined to fail because he has raised the bar to high for himself and his leftwingnut supporters will be the cause of his demise as they demand that America turn into the United States of San Francisco.
Posted 11:35 AM, 10/28/2008
what is truth?
If we are going to go with this ridiculously small sample, let's go to the logical conclusion. 8 of 12 voted for Bush in 2004 = 66.6 %. 7 of 12 will vote for McCain = 58.3 %. So Obama is 8.3 % ahead of where Kerry was. Bush beat Kerry by 2.1 % in 2004. Conclusion? Obama wins Ohio by 6.2 %.
Posted 11:36 AM, 10/28/2008
SteveMG
And when the character of your candidate is gibberish, you make up imaginary freinds for your opponent. BTW, how come McCain doesn't have a spiritual advisor? And have you seen Palin's "spiritual advisor"? If John McCain was so horrified about the "socialistic agenda", why isn't he advocating a flat tax? "Country first" my a--
Posted 11:41 AM, 10/28/2008
liberal
CD, your first post that I agree with. The very liberal left is as much a threat to the democrats as the far right is to the republicans. However, as far as fearing the US of San Francisco, it doesn't bother me too much. SF is one of the most prosperous, optimistic, diverse and beautiful cities we have; people have been flocking there from all over the world since the Gold Rush of 1849. Most of the people I know there have quite moderate political views. Could you specify exactly what's wrong with the place that makes it such a Satanic spot for the right wing? Well, I'll grant you earthquakes.
Posted 11:41 AM, 10/28/2008
what is truth?
As a follow-up to my post above - RealClearPolitics average of all polls shows Obama up by 6.0 % - real close to this sample, oddly enough.
Posted 11:45 AM, 10/28/2008
vc bear
Lets look at the bright side. Hillary won't win.
Posted 11:46 AM, 10/28/2008
yoda
So now the argument is that Obama is "too perfect?" God forbid we should elect someone who's overqualified, eh?
Posted 11:50 AM, 10/28/2008
Phrossty
I'm pro-Obama. I'm feeling like the Dems are counting the chickens before they're hatched. (Kinda like Philly planning the parade before the final out is recorded.) The only polls that matter are 04-Nov and "white, blue-collar, non-college-educated" voters simply aren't lining up to vote for B. HUSSEIN Obama. We get what we deserve. Negative campaigning works or else folks wouldn't buy the Socialist, terrorist-pal, muslim malarkey. I'm sure the hard right will come and talk tax-and-spend liberal, but their party has overseen the largest increase in gov't and public debt EVER!!! (Plus, the moderate, maverick from 2000-2006 has disappeared for the "agents of ignorance" endorsement.)
Comment removed.
Posted 12:02 PM, 10/28/2008
Djoko Pritza
As an elitist, I would say the Hart panel from Ohio is racist and dumb. As I've said all along, it won't be easy electing a man considered black in what, until it proves otherwise, is a country still bedeviled by racism. There are many, many ignorant people out there; otherwise how did George Bush get elected -- twice?! This country is in the toilet because of the Repubs, but some people are more comfortable swimming among the turds than voting for someone different!
Posted 12:11 PM, 10/28/2008
Phrossty
Xi - you're cherry picking the polls (again). You omitted Newsweek (12%), Gallup - Expanded (10%) and Pew Research (15%). Nonetheless, none of the polls matter, only the final tally from 04-Nov. Vote for hope, purpose and a bright future (Obama) over fear, indecision and a gloomy past (McCain). SOURCE = http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Posted 12:33 PM, 10/28/2008
tom - wilmington, de
phrosty...the Gallup Expanded poll includes likely voters that have never voted before....a real realiable polling source. Obama is basically guaranteeing his tax cut...he said in Pittsburgh "you can take it to the bank" that he will cut taxes for those under $250K, or is it $200K, or what Biden said...$150K. Regardless, Obama is guaranteeing it more and more, and unless Reid and Pelosi agree with it, it will never happen. I wonder what will happen when the more conservative Democrats that have been elected in the 2006 election and this year have to vote for an Obama political agenda. Will they be dooming their 2010 re-election status? Who here remembers Marjorie Margolis Mezvinsky and what happened to her when she cast the deciding vote on Clinton's tax increase in 1993? It would be an interesting debate and an interesting vote.
Posted 12:35 PM, 10/28/2008
jmc
Poor Cookie, she doesn't know that if you possess anything other than 100% devotion to Obama, your providing the matches that set the crosses ablaze. Your not a cross burner Cookie, are you?
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.