Posted on 07/28/2008 4:59:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
Even with the “we are the world” euphoria attending Barack Obama’s international tour last week, Democrats have reason to be worried. Europeans may embrace Obama like he’s a rock star, but unfortunately for them – and for his campaign – it’s the American voter who has the final word. And so far, despite the best efforts of assorted elites, the press and the citizens of Europe, he has yet to close the deal with the only audience that really matters.
Even after showering American voters with some of the most dazzling political images ever featured in a presidential campaign, the Real Clear Politics poll average yesterday showed Obama leading John McCain by a lackluster 5%. According to a Quinnipiac poll released on July 24, McCain is figuratively breathing down Obama’s neck in important states like Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota.
Now consider that around this time in 1988, with a similarly enthused Democrat electorate eager to support a “change” after eight years of a President that many of them despised, Michael Dukakis was leading George H.W. Bush by a whopping 17 points in the polls. So what’s going on?
Certainly Obama’s failure to stake a decisive lead can’t be attributed to tough press coverage. Even at its apogee, the Dukakis campaign never dreamed of the kind of media attention – and adulation – that Obama has received. In the primaries, fully 69% of Obama’s coverage was favorable, compared to 43% for McCain, according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.
Likewise, between June 9 (when Obama secured the nomination) and July 13, Obama dominated news reports decisively compared to McCain, Pew/Shorenstein research found. In The New York Times alone, of the 90 Obama stories running between June 4 and July 5, fully 40 of them were positive (and only 13 negative), as noted by NewsBusters’ Times Watch. In contrast, only 9 of the 57 McCain stories appearing during the same period were positive, while 24 were negative. Journalists even favor Obama when it comes to campaign contributions – by a remarkable 20-to-1 margin, according to an analysis in Investors’ Business Daily.
t would seem that the media’s “crisis coverage” of events, in particular economic and environmental issues, would also help Obama. After all, in 1992, the press’ largely uncritical reporting of Bill Clinton’s claim that the United States was enduring the “worst economy in 50 years” went a long way in persuading Americans to choose a young, less experienced and more charismatic national newcomer over a better-credentialed, much better-known opponent.
Certainly, conventional wisdom assumes that when conditions are presented as almost uniformly negative, voters are more likely to take a gamble on the candidate who best personifies “change.” But is it in fact possible that this year, by creating a crisis atmosphere, the press is actually hurting Obama, rather than helping him?
After all, it’s a delicate task to stoke the desire for “change” by amplifying voters’ concerns, without frightening the same voters so much that they decide to stick with a tried-and-true leader. In 1992, the economy was in a trough, but overall, things were good; in particular, no foreign threat lurked in the forefront of voters’ minds. It was an acceptable risk to roll the dice on a relatively untried Arkansas governor, who was largely able to pass the Commander-in-Chief test simply by playing down foreign policy issues. This year, that technique simply won’t work, as Obama himself implicitly acknowledged by taking a foreign tour last week.
In 2008, Americans know soldiers are confronting terrorists abroad and – if they take at face value the often-overheated coverage of economic and environmental news – it seems that their well-being is profoundly threatened at home, as well. At such times, qualities like leadership, experience, character and principle are at a premium. And perhaps that’s why the Obama campaign has reason to be nervous about the results of an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted just last week.
Sure, it found that people preferred Obama over McCain when it came to "improving America's standing in the world," "being compassionate," "offering hope" and "being likable, easygoing." But on qualities like “being knowledgeable, experienced” and “being Commander-in-Chief,” McCain beat Obama decisively. And by a 20-point margin, Americans consider Obama the “riskier choice” for President.
There’s no doubt that Americans are willing to take risks like electing Barack Obama – but only when it’s prudent to do so. If America is in crisis, as press coverage these days so often suggests, will voters really decide that it’s the time to gamble on an inexperienced President, who will inevitably require on-the-job training? How ironic would it be if – in its zeal to fan the flames of “change” for its golden candidate – the press is actually making his job more difficult?
I think I’m beyond liberal criticism when I say, “I agree with Jesse”.
How could agreeing with Jesse Jackson be racist?
Did I mention exactly “which” statement of Jesse’s I agree with?
If I still had my ‘57 Chevy, that bumper sticker would be on it!
Since when have the Democrats let something so trivial get in their way? Remember, Obama is from Chicago where the dead-American vote has been a key constituency for the Democrats for many, many years.
Gallup has Obama up by 9 now. No, I don’t think the press is “hurting” Obama. What, he should be up by 20?
The American people by in large have great built-in BS detectors. The harder the press pushes Obama the harder the American people will push away.
Translation:
Don't change horses midstream.
In the past,young socialists had Daddy protecting them from the big bad world as they attacked everything Daddy stood for.
They knew,no matter how stupid,or even how dangerously they behaved,Daddy would always keep the real world wolves from their throats.Alice’s Wonderland had Daddy’s United States Marine Corp to keep the predators out.
Until these children grow up the adults cannot grow old—unfortunately,it’s taking too damn long and it’s getting harder to hold on!
exactly, and how many liberals did Gallup poll compared to conservatives. Surely more liberals and liberal leaning independents
I'd like to believe that, but then I remember that Bill Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating.
He left with 66% because the economy was good and the nation was asleep to the dangers we were facing. He was the lucky beneficiary of conditions then, imho.
It's a given that he's totally unqualified for the job by the basic resume standards: no executive experience, no military experience, hardly any time in government at all, and most of that devoted entirely to running for the next higher office. So he tried to defuse that by asking us to forget his resume and vote for him based on his intelligence and judgment. But in the past few weeks, he has...
1. Flatly ruled out offshore drilling, claiming unequivocally that it would not help drivers now because it would take at least five years for the oil to come to market, and even then would lower gas prices by less than 5 cents a gallon. A week later, President Bush made a speech pressing Congress to lift the offshore drilling moratorium. Didn't even do it, just talked about it. Oil prices dropped over $25 a barrel and gas prices fell by more than a quarter a gallon.
2. Obama went to Iraq, which would have been impossible without the success of the surge he strongly opposed, predicting that it would increase violence and be a disaster. When a CBS reporter tried to give him cover by asking three times if he would vote differently if he knew then what he knows now, three times he answered "no."
So I'm supposed to elect an unqualified, inexperienced candidate based solely on his judgment, when he not only can't make intelligent predictions about the future, he can't even get the past right in hindsight?
Sorry, Barack. I'm going to need some other reason to vote for you. And sinking a three-pointer won't cut it.
No need for the “imho” friend,you have stated fact.The economy was still thriving due to Reaganomics and the peace dividends from the Gipper’s defeat of Soviet Russia were filling the Treasury—and now,Islamic terrorism is on the run because of Bush.
Any ape from Africa could have occupied the White House during that dream era between Ron and W and kept his poll numbers high simply by doing absolutely nothing—and Clinton DID nothing,except enable 9/11 and make a cathouse out of the White House.
Objective History,if not replaced by leftist revissionism,will give all three presidents their just legacies.
Actually, the economy was not good when Clinton left office. The stock market had tanked the March before he left, and the economy was going down hill. In fact, it had already delivered one quarter of negative growth (i.e. one foot in a recession).
During the election cycle of 1992, Bill Clinton hammered Bush the elder relentlessly for having caused the “worst economy of the last 50 years.” But in fact, as CNN’s Brooke Jackson subsequently reported in 2001: “Three days before Christmas 1992, the National Bureau of Economic Research finally issued its official proclamation that the recession had ended 21 months earlier. What became the longest boom in U.S. history actually began nearly two years before Clinton took office.”
This last sentence is particularly telling, since public perception is that Clinton inherited a bad economy and saved it by raising taxes during his first term – something that I don’t believe is ever possible.
By the same token, Clinton is generally perceived as having a stellar economic record during his own presidency, in spite of the fact that the economy was already starting to decline during the last year of his term after the stock market crashed in March 2000. According to a report by MSNBC: “The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP — the country’s total output of goods and services — shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000.”
When GW Bush correctly warned the American voters about the nation’s declining economic performance during the 2000 presidential campaign, the same Democrats who had loudly criticized his father for “the worst economy in fifty years” had no problem at all accusing him of “talking down the economy.”
All of which causes me to have very little faith that Americans do have a built-in BS detector.
That statement just triggered my built in BS detector.
More American people voted for Al Gore than voted for GWB.
The Left has always overestimated the size and the fighting spirit of their ranks, and nowhere is this more clear than in the "Obama is inevitable" meme.
They do have a few things going for them this time. He's a better candidate than Gore or Kerry - in my estimation, a lot better (YMMV). He's exploiting third-generation white guilt masterfully. George W. Bush has prepared the battlefield in a way which is not necessarily to our advantage. And McCain shares some of Obama's most vulnerable ideas in the realm of globalism and multiculturalism.
That having been said, Obama is the weakest candidate - on paper - that has ever run for the office. He's overconfident, so much so that it hurts. And the media, as ever, is overplaying their hand.
Nothing serious about this race will be known until late September, if then. Do not let your hearts be troubled. He can't possibly win.
It was just starting after years of pretty good times. At the end of the party, and before the hangover starts, people still think they had a pretty good time.
Conservative used to believe in the intelligence and decision making ability of the American people unlike the Left who believe them to be idiots who need to be “taken care of.” Unfortunately the line between the Left and Right on this key difference seems to have been shrinking lately.
2000 had record levels of Democrat vote fraud and more Americans voted for GWB in 2004 than any president in history.
So what is your point?
Americans do not have built in BS detectors.
What’s the difference between your attitude toward the American people and that of the Left? If you really think the American people are stupid, how can they be trusted to make the right decisions on anything of importance?
I’m often reminded of those European headlines declaring the American people stupid after Bush won reelection in 2004.
Here’s an interesting article from American Thinker:
Myth of the Stupid Voter
Rick Moran
Many of us seem to get caught up in the day to day tug of war of the presidential race, worrying whether the “people” will “understand” the true nature of this event or that one.
The unspoken premise made by many of us is that the American voter is stupid and easily misled. This is a prevalant attitude taken by both sides but especially liberals who have been whining for years that conservatives have “fooled” the American people into voting against their economic interests.
Well, guess what. It shouldn’t surprise you that the American people are a lot smarter than most of us give them credit for. They may not pay as close attention to the race as some of our readers and writers on this site, but they apparently are smart enough to see a pig in the poke when it’s offered to them.
This survey by Rasmussen should be an eye opener for those who believe the American voters is too stupid to see through the bias being shown by the media toward Obama.
The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.
Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.
Fully 27% of Democrats believe reporters are trying to help their own man while only 21% of Democrats believe that press is biased in McCain’s favor.
Among Republicans, an astonishing 78% see bias in favor of Obama with just 10% seeing an effort by the press to be fair.
Here’s a kicker:
As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.
In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.
Half the country’s independents see through the efforts of the press to favor Obama. What that means for the election no one can say. However, it could be that the American people don’t like the press being cheerleaders and will take it out on Obama unless the press starts to honestly report on the messiah and his many and varied gaffs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.