This guy was "charismatic" too. Do they really want to drink the "Charismatic Kool-Aid"?
Posted on 08/25/2008 7:23:14 AM PDT by library user
Denver — On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, in a downtown high-rise conference room lined with two-way mirrors, 21 undecided Colorado voters sit trying to decide whether they have more doubts and reservations about Barack Obama or John McCain. It’s not easy.
The group has been convened by the pollster Frank Luntz, who usually does this sort of thing on live television but has instead organized the session at the behest of the American Association of Retired Persons and the related activist group Divided We Fail. As the voters answer Luntz’s rapid-fire questions, a small group of reporters watches from the other side of the mirrors. And after two hours of talking, and a pre-convention buildup here in Denver in which Democrats have received lots of positive coverage in this critical swing state, you’d have to say that the news is pretty good for McCain. The undecideds have plenty of problems with him, and they can’t stand George W. Bush, but they seem more deeply concerned about Obama than McCain, because they have still not answered the threshold question about the Democratic nominee: Is he ready?
At first, the atmosphere seems quite friendly for Obama. Luntz asks the Democrats in the room to raise their hands. Four people do so. Then he asks for the independents; about 15 hands go up. And then he asks for Republicans to raise their hands. There are none.
That in itself seems to show a pretty significant change. In information sheets the voters had filled out beforehand, twelve said they voted for George W. Bush in 2004, while just five voted for John Kerry. (Four either voted for other candidates or did not vote at all.) What that suggests is that people who voted for Bush just four years ago have no interest in being seen as Republicans now — surely not good news for McCain.
But the undecideds seem willing to separate their dislike of the parties, and the Republican party in particular, from the presidential candidates themselves. When Luntz goes around the room, pressing each person to give his or her best one-word description of Obama, these are some of the answers:
“Scary.”
“New.”
“Terrifying.”
“Charismatic.”
“Unknown.”
“Innovative.”
“Inexperienced.”
“Change.”
“Hopeful.”
“Smooth.”
“Unaffordable.”
“Apocalypse.”
Yes, one guy did say “apocalypse,” which suggests he might not be all that undecided. (On the other side, a couple of people say they’ve recently made up their minds to vote for Obama.) Then Luntz turns the one-word question to McCain:
“Scary.”
“Dependable.”
“Strong.”
“Patriot.”
“Veteran.”
“Bush Two.”
“Older generation.”
“Experienced.”
“Honest.”
“Older.”
“Integrity.”
“Repeat.”
At first, Luntz thinks the man who had said “repeat” had in fact said “creepy,” which seems a little odd. But he had actually said “repeat,” as in McCain would be a repeat of Bush. But listening to all the answers, the bottom line is, if you were a political consultant, and you had your choice between the voters’ impressions of Obama or McCain, you would choose McCain.
And then there are the issues. Before the session, Luntz asked group members to name the things that mattered most to them in a presidential candidate. He came up with a long list and asked them to pick eight. And the number-one concern, which made it onto the lists of 17 people, is: “Ending wasteful Washington spending and balancing the federal government,” which is, of course, a signature McCain issue. No other topic comes close. Next up is “reducing inflation and keeping costs down,” with ten votes. “Ending American dependence on foreign oil” gets nine votes, as does “bringing accountability and honesty back to the federal government.”
Could those concerns be more accurately described as Obama-friendly or McCain-friendly? Not strongly tilted either way, but certainly not tilted against the Republican. Reading the list, McCain would not be unhappy.
The undecideds also seem to be sending messages to the aficionados of hot-button issues both left and the right. For example, “improving our global image and public support internationally,” a favorite in Democratic circles, gets all of one vote. “Holding President Bush accountable for all his mistakes and failures” a huge issue among the netroots, gets two. On the other hand, “putting justices on the Supreme Court who will respect the law, not rewrite it” gets two votes, and “pro-life on abortion” gets one. (“Pro-choice on abortion” gets five votes.) And precisely zero voters assign great significance to “addressing the issue of gay marriage.”
After the voters discuss issues for a while, Luntz hands out little electronic dials and asks them to rate a series of Obama and McCain campaign commercials. First come the positive spots. One of McCain’s “country first” ads gets a rating of over 80 from the Republican leaners and about 70 from the Democratic leaders. The McCain ad describing him as the “original maverick” goes even higher. And an ad in which McCain argues for more oil drilling also hits 70.
Obama’s ads seem a bit less effective. His highest-rated one is his first biographical ad, the one in which he claims to have moved people from welfare to work; it tops 60 percent. Other ads score a bit lower.
Then there are the negative ads. While most voters, when surveyed, say they don’t like attack ads, Luntz asks the group to say which ads they find the most “impactful.” What follows is a bit of real-time research on the utility of negative advertising. And the winner, again, seems to be McCain.
Most people don’t like the idea of McCain’s famous “Celebrity” ad. “Ridiculous,” says one person. “Crap,” says another. “Really didn’t like it,” says a third. But most seem to think the ad had an impact, and when Luntz asks, “Who thought the ‘Celebrity’ ad made Obama look worse?’“ twelve people raise their hands. When he asks, “Who thought it made McCain look worse for running it?” five hands go up. Advantage McCain.
Then Luntz plays Obama’s ad attacking McCain on the “seven houses” issue. Nobody much likes it; the meters stay below 50 for both Republican and Democratic leaners. After that comes McCain’s response ad, the one featuring Tony Rezko. Republican meters shoot up to 80, while the Democratic meters climb slightly above 50. Asked later, people think Obama’s attack ad was good, but the Rezko response raised new questions. “For Barack to get money from someone else — and who knows where he got that money to get his house?” one woman asks. In general, says another woman, in McCain’s ads, “the issues were a little more clear.”
After a few more questions, everybody goes home. In the end, the striking thing about the undecideds is the problem they’re having translating their dislike of President Bush and the Republican party into a vote for Barack Obama. They’re simply not there, at least not yet. The presence of McCain seems to have given them just enough reason to grant him an exemption from their deep unhappiness with the GOP. If Obama instilled more confidence, it would be no contest. But for now, it couldn’t be closer.
Mrs. Clinton, after this convention, must listen to followers and form her 3rd party. History awaits.
I just don't get it.
Obama is quite different. People don't know him, they just know his image. Once people start to understand who and what he is, they will recoil. I think McCain will win very big. I just wish the GOP had picked a better candidate.
A friend who is a historian made a witty comparison between the DNC in Denver and an event that happened in the year 532 in Constantinople, called The Nika Riots.
Justinian I, the emperor, was a somewhat weak willed character, much like Bill Clinton. His wife, the empress Theodora, however, was very strong willed and fearsome, not unlike Hillary.
Constantinople itself was divided into four factions, ironically what today we would think of as sports fans, but far more political. Each of the four factions were associated with a color, whose shirt they wore.
Now Bill Clinton, or really Justinian I, was a supporter of the blue faction, or the blue States, as it were. Aligned with them was the more radical green team, that maybe today we can think of as the far left, environmental-agitator type anti-war Moonbats.
The other two factions, the red States, or team, and the white faction, which Howard Dean pointed out recently, were far more conservative, and less inclined to make trouble.
Some of the blues and the greens, who broke the law and got away with it, and were protected by the church sanctuary movement, were also protected by the Democrats, or blues and greens, who demanded that they be given pardons for their crimes, which Bill Clinton was willing to do.
Well, the blues and the greens, with the help of some treacherous congressmen, or really senators, tried to impeach him while President Bush was trying to negotiate peace with the Iraqis, or in this case, the Iranians, who were called Persians at the time.
Their leader, Hypatius, or Obama, that the extremist greens wanted to become the new emperor, met at the great gathering at the Hippodrome in Denver, called by Theodora, Hillary, as peace and unification talks of their two factions.
But Al Gore, the popular eunuch, named Narses, passed out gold to
Hillary’s supporters, so that at a given moment they walked out of the convention, leaving behind the surprised Obama supporters in the middle of Obama’s coronation and nomination as the new emperor.
Then imperial troops led by retied General Weseley Clark stormed the Hippodrome in Denver and slaughtered 30,000 Obama supporters.
Hypatius was executed, and the offensive congressmen Pelosi, Murtha, Reid and others were exiled for supporting the riots outside the convention hall.
Then after some lesser riots in cities around the nation, John McCain was able to restore order and the rule of law as the new President.
Because of her vicious and treacherous supression of the greens, Hillary, or Theodora, insured that her nation would continue for many years, even though she herself never got to really rule, since the empire didn’t permit female rulers.
Agree with everything you said.
LOL...
This guy was "charismatic" too. Do they really want to drink the "Charismatic Kool-Aid"?
Mrs Clinton will be the nominee of the d’RATS. There is a coup d’etat going on and she will not be denied.
I’m undecided about how I should feel about this. /s :)
Given the dislike of Bush and Republicans as evidenced by that focus group Luntz assembled, that may be the best we could have done this year. We may be thankful down the road given the anti-Bush sentiment out there. And I say that as a conservative Republican who is not a McCain supporter but who will hold my nose while pulling the lever.
I like 2 of the dems ONE WORD answers about McCain
“Bush Two.”
“Older generation.”
FAscinating - I have a read a historical novel about Empress Theodora ,by Gillian Bradshaw who is also clasical scholar, and your parallels are really stunning.
“Once people start to understand who and what he [0bama] is, they will recoil.”
What will bring such an understanding....and when will it occur?
My son’s friend’s mom said she’s voting for Obama because he will “bring us change”. During our short conversation I mentioned Giuliani, Romney, and Reagan and she said she liked all of them. Obviously this woman knows nothing about any issues and votes on personality.
I think that's the wrong question. Of course he's ready to do what the Democrats would like him to do....to turn us into Cuba. To think that asking if he is ready or not is going to score points with the Dems is wishful thinking, in my view, and it's the wrong thing to attempt to get the independents, the undecideds, to ponder.
I think the "threshold question" is two-fold, they are: 1-"Do you want a socialist America?", and 2-, "Is Obama a socialist?
Obama and Biden achieved the dubious distinction of being the most, and second-most liberals in the Senate. They finished AHEAD of Bernie Sanders. Sanders admits to being a socialist, something these two would deny.
We need to stop asking people to ponder whether he's "ready" or not and ask them to think about whether or not they want to ditch capitalism, because that's what a vote for these two commies will do.
That might happen DURING the convention.
It really depends on which way the wind is blowing.
It may be blowing stronger against Obama than we are aware
of, we NOT being Democrats who might well see their party going down the drain. Just consider how conflicted this party is right now, with a pretty even division between Hillary and Obama, and YET, a whole lot of buyer’s remorse and backtracking showing its face at literally the last minute. Yet they have to put on a good show to the rest of the nation at the Convention, and depending on how they pull that off, Obama may squeak through without a challenge. BUt I would DEARLY love to see the challenge I have been predicting for months, and a Hillary coup at the convention. THough all news reports in the last few days suggest it will be something less.
Obama's only hope is to hide and remain secretive as the election approaches. That, by itself, will turn people off. He has no choice but to step out and say something. Much of what he says will be a lie. And he will be called on it (again: McCain's ads have been harder than I expected).
I'm feeling good.
I too think McCain will win very big, like 60/40 AT LEAST.
But I recently had dinner with relatives who chuckled at the idea that Obama would NOT win in a landslide. Wanting to enjoy seeing them for the first time in 2-3 years , I quickly found a way to call a halt to that conversation.
They like many many others are going to be brought face to face with REALITY on Election Day. “BUT......everybody said he was going to WIN!!!! IT’s not FAIR!!!!!”
**21 undecided Colorado voters sit trying to decide whether they have more doubts and reservations about Barack Obama or John McCain. **
This is good news for the McCain campaign.
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.