Cdog: “Unfavorable ratings - while not unimportant - measure the strength of opposition, not of support.”
Ok, glad we’re straight on that. So, what was I wrong about? My argument = Hillary + very unfavorable = support for opposition that is further right (see Thompson, Fred). Would an I hate Hillary campaign garner her even more support and funding from half the nation? Probably, I didn’t really cover that. But given the choice, I’d prefer my candidate had the numbers in their favor when it comes to favorability poles.
And if you still think there’s a lack of Hillary/Clinton (and there’s an important synergy there) hate after you click here, here, here, and here…then I don’t know what else to tell you.
Thanks, ODB (yeah, you know me!) for bringing up one of my favorite points. ‘Cuz you’re wrong.
Unfavorable ratings - while not unimportant - measure the strength of opposition, not of support. In the end, it’s the people that like you that matter, not those who don’t. After all, on November 4th, 2008 it’s the ones that pull your lever - or push your button that matter. As such, a non-entity like Kerry (despite his many positiveattributes
with virtually no national opinion, positive or negative, before his nomination) could still lose to George Bush, who in the run-up to the Big Day was trailing in favorability.
If divisiveness was the end of the story for electability, John Kerry would be the one dealing with removing troops from Iraq right now.
One thing to bear in mind - if you see everyone harshing on your candidate, you may be more willing to support her. Working for a previous campaign, any big uptick in the opponent’s advertising triggered a flow of money into our coffers. People hate to see their people attacked.
On a second note - I’m curious why should anyone be desperate to keep the Clintons out of office? Is there a substantive argument there? I know that “people hate the Clintons” - but “Clinton Fatigue” is eight years out. It’s my opinion - equally unsubstantiated - that people now look back on this as our salad days as opposed to the carnage and chaos that has since ensued.
As usual, my favorite national newspaper The Onion has the core problems with the Clinton administration documented with sober political consideration and astute political analysis.
According to the latest Gallup poll, 50 percent of the country has an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton. Neither John Kerry nor Al Gore achieved such a high negative rating in the Gallup poll during their failed presidential bids. In other polls, her unfavorable ratings are as much as 12 points higher than those of any other candidate running in either party. Favorability is an imperfect measure of voters’ fondness, because it also captures the way voters think about policy positions, but in surveys that ask specifically about likability, she does horribly. This dim view is confirmed in less-scientific focus groups—and in my notebooks, which are filled with interviews with Democrats, some of whom support her, who express doubts about her electability without any prompting.
The Clinton candidacy poses a fascinating question for the ongoing debate among political scientists over whether emotion or reason drives voters. Many Democrats still debate whether in 2004 they should have picked Howard Dean, the flawed candidate who thrilled people, rather than John Kerry, who was stable, sensible, and safe. As Bill Clinton has said, Democrats prefer to fall in love with their candidates and Republicans fall in line. But now his wife is the fall-in-line candidate—the front-runner with the résumé, discipline, and organization. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate of the heart.
My take: desperate to keep the Clintons out of office, the wing of people who find Hillary not-so-favorable will salivate at a star who, despite being substanceless, is definitely likable. In terms of actual policy (not that anyone cares), I’d say a Fred v. Hillary race also opens up the widest void for an independent to rise from. I wonder if there’s an independent out there just waiting for such an opportunity?
The Financial Times brings up some good points regarding the candidates’ foreign policy positions:
In America and in many parts of the world it is assumed that the US will make an abrupt change of course after January 2009 when whoever replaces President George W. Bush takes the oath of office. To judge from the evolving platforms of the leading Democratic candidates, that assumption might prove overblown (given that most of the Republican candidates recently said they would consider the use of tactical nuclear strikes to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, this piece focuses on the Democrats).
But goes on to rightly conclude that really, the next President’s foreign policy won’t be all that different - but their reasoning behind this is a bit surprising:
But perhaps the most accurate response to those who are expecting a big change in the way the US engages with the world is to point out what has already happened. Whether it is its approach to Iran, North Korea or the Israel-Palestinian dispute, the Bush administration has quietly made 180-degree turns over the past 18 months. The difference between Condoleezza Rice’s approach to diplomacy and that of Vice-President Dick Cheney is larger than the one that divides Ms Rice from Mrs Clinton. The Bush doctrine has been abandoned, even if the Bush administration pretends it has not.
Not sure about this whole “abandoned” thing (see Somalia, war funding veto…), but there has been a definite shift recently that manifests itself in Condi’s rising influence and ability to avoid the Powell-esque alienation that she seemed to be headed towards for a while. So which candidate might continue loosening the leash on diplomacy? Well, barring a really strong Sec. of State, I don’t see any potential among the Republicans and I agree with the FT that a Democrat wouldn’t take many more steps in that direction. But the FT only hints at another shock that might hit the rest of the world in 2009: U.S. Democrats are, well, let’s say a bit more susceptible to the Israel lobby:
By Edward Luce, Washington Bureau Chief
Published: June 17 2007 18:44 | Last updated: June 17 2007 18:44
In 1999 Hillary Clinton almost sunk her New York Senate seat prospects when, then first lady, she had the temerity to kiss Suha Arafat, the wife of the late Palestinian leader, on the cheek. The resulting furore taught her a lesson about the strength of America’s pro-Israeli lobby and the imperative – in the words of a Bill Clinton foreign policy adviser – of “never allowing your competitors to get to the right of you on Israel”.
Eight years later, the Democratic presidential frontrunner is following that advice to the letter.
So are her competitors for the nomination. This year Barack Obama was widely pilloried for suggesting that “no one has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel, renounce violence and get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region”.
All that was quoted back at Mr Obama by his critics was the non-italicised portion of the passage.
At a recent Democratic debate on religion, Mr Obama was careful to avoid repeating his mistake. When asked about his faith in the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, he said he hoped that Israelis would have it in their hearts to forgive the Palestinians. “And that is where I think faith can inform what we do,” he said.
[Note: The article requires a subscription, so the FT doesn't get a link]
I think that ODB might be a bit too blase about the viral potential of YouTube clips for the candidates.
The problem with typical campaign ads is that they are boring. Perhaps it’s that they’re all focus-grouped to death, or maybe just that they rotate incessantly in the same commercial break during the final stretch until you are willing to throw your shoe through your TV and move to Zanzibar to get away from the damn repetition driving you crazy.
*Ahem.* Flashbacks to ‘04. I’m better now.
YouTube vids are cheap to make - and they can be distributed for free!
Let’s give it a shot. Kids, do try this at home.
First, we had the very clever dig at Hillary’s inevitability inserted in the greatest commercial of all time. Extremely well produced, and spawned a week of comment before being attributed to someone working for Obama.
Then, we had a pair on Richardson. Some thought them inane, but I liked the sly humor and his ability to poke fun at himself. Clever way to put his info out there without sounding pompous.
Following Hilljunkie’s post calling for suggestions of Secret Service names for the candidates, and in light of the recent uproar over Hillary Clinton’s choice of campaign theme song, let’s get some suggestions for the rest of the field.
Here are a few of my own ~
Romney - Livin’ on a Prayer
Clinton - Bitch (lyrics here) * and for those of you not familiar with the song, no, it’s not as patently offensive as the title would make it appear
The New York Times is reporting that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is quitting the Republican party and changing his affiliation to Independent. This will certainly amplify the rumors that have been circulating the past couple of weeks over whether he is planning on running for president.
Assuming he does enter the race as an independent, it’s pretty clear that his campaign would be more of a concern to the democratic contenders than republicans. He supports the pro-choice movement, is for gun control , and has a progressive approach to health care - and on, and on. Maybe someone else can help me figure out what makes him “independent” and not a democrat-previously-in republicans-clothing. Not to mention tht he was a lifelong democrat before switching parties when he ran for mayor.
Here’s what I don’t get, though. Normally when there’s a third party candidate running, it’s because a sizeable number of voters are unhappy with the mainstream party candidates. But so far, this cycle’s crop of candidates seems to have the political spectrum covered. From “conservative’s conservatives” like Romney and Thompson, to the more middle-of-the-road Giuliani on the right, and from Edwards’ populist pitch to Obama and Clinton’s battle for the just-left-of-center, there’s a reasonably strong candidate for everyone. So until the field gets narrowed down, it’s hard to imagine just where — and why — Bloomberg would fit in.
Since it’s Monday, and Mondays always stink, I thought I’d write a lighthearted post to lift the spirits of all the other cubeconvicts out there. The WaPo published an article it its Sunday edition discussing Secret Service names for former presidents and other elected officials. Some of the names are pretty funny, but I think we here at the 8oh8 can do much better. So, why don’t you all start throwing out some names for our eight-plus candidates? Feel free to rename Clinton and Obama. I’ll start by giving Rudy Guiliani the code name “Scarlett,” a Nathaniel Hawthorne reference. After all, he’s had three wives.
Keep in mind, this game is funniest when picturing big burly men dressed in black whispering these code names into their wrist mics…
The way these candidates are trying to penetrate the world of viral video is almost laughable - it’s like your dad trying to skateboard. I haven’t seen anything yet that’s candidate-produced that doesn’t appear either desperate and obvious or overly-polished. Let’s face it, Dick in a Box was neither of these (Box in a Box on the other hand…). My basic summary of a few candidates and their YouTubing so far:
McCain: Barely had a legit and productive website until a few months ago and has since attempted to elbow his way into the Internet. He will go down like Homer on Bart’s skateboard.
Romney: Hollywood on the web. These are some well-produced videos that will have an impact on your casual web-surfer who is as new to the Internets as John McCain.
In the end, I think web-based initiatives in campaign advertising will have more effect if CNN covers them and delivers news of the hippest candidate to those who aren’t spending all day on blogs (who would do that?). The rest of us will continue to be unimpressed by anything we don’t produce.
Good news today regarding the next debates: Anderson Cooper won’t be doing much. And the first of many mass-media “Youtube = Google” campaigns will begin - they’re now competing with “Cingular is the new AT&T.” And the candidates will probably have to answer more questions about immigration (oh how some of them wish this bill would just die).
Perhaps citizens asking questions via YouTube is a good thing too, but I suspect these questions will be well vetted, censored and cleared by the candidates - don’t expect any ninjas on the mic. Personally, I think things will get interesting when YouTubers get creative with the results of the debate and create the answers and not just the questions. Looking forward to the mash-ups…
Posted by Andrew Bennett
Posted by cdog
Posted by Andrew Bennett
