CNN/UNH Poll: Obama Rockets To Ten-Point Lead

Comments (88)

Chris G. wrote on January 6, 2008 6:48 PM:

Amazing. I was skeptical of the two polls showing a 10+ point bounce, but the CNN/WMUR poll has confirmed it.

This is huge for Obama. Even more free press for this and even more media will be talking about a Clinton collapse.

I don't think Clinton can survive a double-digit loss in NH. Maybe if it stays at 10 points, but there is no sign of Obama's growth stalling...at this rate, he could be in the upper teens by tuesday.

Micheal wrote on January 6, 2008 6:50 PM:

Part of the reason for the big jump may have to do with the notorious weekend effect Mark Blumenthal described here

Also a good take-away from that post, from the WMUR poll that showed the race tied:

For example, among the 82 respondents that are "still trying to decide:"

*92% rate Obama favorably, only 3% unfavorably

*81% rate John Edwards favorably, only 5% unfavorably

*75% rate Clinton favorably, only 5% unfavorably

Clinton is in trouble.

FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 6, 2008 6:53 PM:

What a difference a day makes!
This WMUR sample didn't include Friday night, when young voters are dramatically undersampled. It's the first poll that includes Sunday, when voters are most likely to be reached. That's the difference here, not a Saturday-night conversion of a tenth of the electorate.
The real message is that these polls are understating Obama's support. They're relying on past turnout models to shape their sample. WMUR rejiggles for geographic distribution, gender, and other factors. Undersampling of young voters hasn't been much of an issue in years past, because they don't vote, anyway. But Obama is remaking the electorate, drawing in younger voters in dramatic numbers. If WMUR says ten percent, we can count on the current margin being at least fifteen.

Josh wrote on January 6, 2008 6:55 PM:

Wow. That, cats and kittens, is a bump.

Noonan wrote on January 6, 2008 6:57 PM:

BOOM goes the dynamite!

Keith wrote on January 6, 2008 6:59 PM:

Can you post the Penn memo?

Dan wrote on January 6, 2008 6:59 PM:

There is some evidence that the Iowa results are... helping Romney, rather than hurting him!

Dan wrote on January 6, 2008 7:01 PM:

There were actually 5 polls from NH today, and most of them show a big Obama bounce. Check the full roundup here.

Keith wrote on January 6, 2008 7:04 PM:

Never mind. I found it (I snipped this from the memo).

Contrast that with the 17 points John Kerry gained in 2004 in the Boston Globe poll, which catapulted him from a 17-point deficit to a 20-point lead in New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses. Or with the 7 points Al Gore gained in 2000 in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, increasing his lead in New Hampshire from 5 points to 18 points.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=20479

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 7:13 PM:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/obama-up-by-13.html

ava wrote on January 6, 2008 7:18 PM:

Obama has also opened up a 13-point lead in the new USA Today/Gallop Poll:

Obama 41%, Clinton 28%, Edwards 19%

*Obama: 41%; up from 32% in the last USA TODAY/Gallup New Hampshire poll, taken in mid-December.
*Clinton: 28%; down from 32%.
*John Edwards: 19%; up from 18%.
*Gov. Bill Richardson: 6%; down from 8%.
*No one else above 3%.

This is the 4th poll in 3 days to show Obama opening up a double-digit lead.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/obama-up-by-13.html

kaspian wrote on January 6, 2008 7:18 PM:

FlyOnTheWall: Good points -- though I wonder if there may have been a bit of Saturday night (or Sunday morning) conversion as a result of the debate. The dynamics were interesting and somewhat surprising -- Edwards coming stoutly to Obama's defense, in effect standing shoulder-to-shoulder against Hillary. I've been really curious how it might have played with the electorate.

Keith: We all remember Kerry, though, don't we? And we remember that there was nothing resembling this kind of electricity about him, regardless of what the arithmetic might suggest. He seemed a good, solid, seasoned (if unexciting), and above all electable war hero who'd run well against the GOP hate machine. We were wrong then, and we may be wrong now (though I doubt it).

I think Obama is sui generis. I've never seen anything like him, and I've been voting since 1972. This isn't an endorsement; it's just a fact.

Michael wrote on January 6, 2008 7:19 PM:

Kerry got a 17-point bounce, eh Penn?

Well, all these polls still include Saturday, which is, like Friday, also notoriously difficult to poll. So they're only showing 1 solid day (the Sunday sampling)...polls from Sunday/Monday (which should be released tomorrow night) will give us the best idea of where things stand, and that could be big for Obama

Chad wrote on January 6, 2008 7:23 PM:

This is not your typical Iowa boost. This is an awakening of consciousness, of what is politically possible.

As an Obama supporter since before he entered the race, I can tell you that with most people I talked to, their biggest obstacle to supporting Barack was whether or not he could actually do it. With his win in Iowa, he has opened the flood gates of all those people.

Next stop: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Bill G wrote on January 6, 2008 7:28 PM:

But wait, Marc Penn told us there was no boost SUCKAH.....

Marc Penn Lies wrote on January 6, 2008 7:29 PM:

See Marc lie.
See Hillary get embarrassed in Iowa.
See Marc lie again.
See Hillary get shellacked in NH.
See Marc lose his job.
See Marc's legacy make Bob Shrum's look good.

Keith wrote on January 6, 2008 7:30 PM:

Kaspian:

Solid Obama support long before the Iowa victory. I just posted that section of the memo to give context to how much of a bounce Obama has received. It explains why Clinton has gone out of her way to distort Obama's record and try and step on his message so aggressively. She's counting on him not responding directly (most frontrunners don't); I'm just not sure she has enough time to make up the deficit (or change enough minds).

eorse wrote on January 6, 2008 7:33 PM:

I love Mark Penn. I admire him. I think he is a true American polster and strategic thinker. I would put him in the same stage as A. Burr. I am a fan. I want him to continue his direction of HRC. I really love the Clintons, and all their friends. For me, world without Clintons would be a world without oxygen. Mark is the reason I have hope.

kaspian wrote on January 6, 2008 7:36 PM:

Chad, I feel the same way. I know it's irrational, and it's way early -- we could both look stupid in 48 hours -- but I really have a sense that this is the man of the hour.

I think, too, the GOP will have a hard time figuring out how to run against a phenomenon like this. It will be a weird inversion of Reagan's "Morning in America," with the Republicans this year trying to figure out how to counter sunshine and hope and optimism. A fresh dose of fear? Play the race card? Put up their own fresh face in the person of Huckabee, who will lead us smiling into the 19th century? Nothing they do will work -- and meanwhile they lose not only Hispanics and other growing minorities, but also the whole Millennium Generation, who will be casting the first votes of their lives for Barack.

I'll betray my 60s roots by saying that I hope the Secret Service can keep this man alive.

ava wrote on January 6, 2008 7:46 PM:

The new Strategic Vision poll has Obama up by 9 points, 38% to Hillary's 29%, with John Edwards at 19%.

Obama is on a TEAR through NH.

Josh wrote on January 6, 2008 7:49 PM:

And, really, her last chance to slow him down was last night.

Oh, I hope he beats her by 10.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 6, 2008 7:54 PM:

Thinking of the incredible surge Sen Obama is seeing in NH, does anyone know where recent polls from NV and SC might be found? The last data on RCP for NV come from Dec 6 and the last from SC come from Dec 18. Surely somehing more recent than that must exist?

Michael wrote on January 6, 2008 7:56 PM:

Greg, they probably won't poll there again until after NH.

All the polling firms were focused on Iowa/NH in Dec. And hten just Iowa in early Jan, and just NH since Iowa.

It'll switch to NV and SC on Wed. I imagine Obama will be up over 50 in SC

Michael wrote on January 6, 2008 7:57 PM:

ava--got a link to that poll?

ericlnelson wrote on January 6, 2008 8:02 PM:

"Chad wrote on January 6, 2008 7:23 PM:
This is not your typical Iowa boost. This is an awakening of consciousness, of what is politically possible."

You people really are in some kind of Obama cult - "awakening of consciousness"? When Obama talks is vague platitudes about hope and this great once in a generation opportunity, etc., it strikes me as cult-like talking. Others remark about this "trust me" kind of attitude... you just have to BELIEVE in Obama.

Oh my. I am REALLY worried about this "movement". Yikes.

paul wrote on January 6, 2008 8:07 PM:

It was great the way Obama praised Bill Clinton's balancing of the budget and then pointed out that they left too much unaccomplished. What was left unsaid is that the Democrats lost a long-term solid hold on the House of Representatives after one two year term under Clinton. A disaster! Which Hillary contributed to by her terrible handling of health insurance reform. Do we really want to go back to that?

JGabriel wrote on January 6, 2008 8:07 PM:

Chris G.: "I don't think Clinton can survive a double-digit loss in NH."

Ultimately, I think Obama will end up with the nomination.

That said, the speculation that 'Clinton can't survive a double-digit loss in NH' is kind of ridiculous.

Clinton has tons of money. When Bill ran, he didn't win a primary until the 5th or 6th contest - Hillary definitely won't pull out any earlier than Bill did.

So, she's in it at least until Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.

Clinton will probably stay on until the end anyway, unless she comes in a weak third on ST, if only to collect delegates and maintain her position in case Obama craps out late in the game.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 8:07 PM:

The Clinton attack dogs are very quiet. Hard to call opponents idiots, morons, wingers, moonbats, most of the polls agree on a double digit lead.

The true Hillary is being revealed and voters don't want her for president.

ava wrote on January 6, 2008 8:11 PM:

Michael,

Strategic Vision Poll:
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/66423

PPP wrote on January 6, 2008 8:16 PM:

Acropolis Review has some interesting thoughts on what an Al Gore endorsement could do for the race.

Michael wrote on January 6, 2008 8:18 PM:

Thanks ava!

Triple Deuce wrote on January 6, 2008 8:25 PM:

Happily, this year it appears we will get a real primary season at least through February 5th.

There is no logical reason on God's green earth that a race should be over after Iowa, or after Iowa-New Hampshire, or even after Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 8:38 PM:

I'm actually quite curious to see what happens if these polls are accurate and Clinton loses big in NH. Yes, technically she has the money to keep on. But what if national polls (and California polls) start showing her seriously behind? How is that supposed to change before Super Tuesday?

Of course, all this is hypothetical at this point, but I do wonder if a point will come where continuing to campaign is no longer in Clinton's long term political interests.

bridoc wrote on January 6, 2008 8:43 PM:

Mmmmmmm....I can't wait for Tuesday =)

After African-Americans in SC realize that America is more than ready for a black president you can expect the same kind of ass kicking in SC, can Hillary come back from 3 huge double-digit loses in a row?

Doubt it.

Fired up, ready to go!

Bob Smith wrote on January 6, 2008 8:43 PM:

New liberal anti-Hillary ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBPMKyyaBA

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 8:49 PM:

Where is Greg Sargent, Kefa, Tara, dcshungu, Colin PowPow? Where did they all go?

John McCutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 8:54 PM:

Death by Inevitability

Clinton's done

Paul wrote on January 6, 2008 9:04 PM:

Ericnelson, you're just repeating the Clinton message of the day. There is nothing vague about Obama - take some time to read his books or his speeches. He goes into great detail in his thinking.

colonpowwow wrote on January 6, 2008 9:06 PM:

Dear "too lazy to write their name" @ 8:49:

I'm here. My goal in life is to someday be as witty and insightful as you think you are, especially this early in the nomination party.

Too bad you're not 1/10th as classy as the guy you support. Hey, not to worry, like we always said (all the names you mentioned and mangled so cleverly) - we'll support any of the fine Democratic candidates that our party chooses.

So, I guess you've already won (something, I guess) - so why are you so happy acting like a total loser?

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 9:10 PM:

It is a little premature for post-mortems, but I sometimes think the Clinton campaign gets a bad rap on the inevitability stuff. I suspect that was really a fundraising strategy, and although Obama surprisingly matched their fundraising, they probably needed the inevitability meme to just stay even.

And I think the Clinton campaign's real problem is that Clinton just isn't much of a politician. So the inevitability strategy wasn't a bad idea insofar as it tried to end the contest before it really got started. It didn't work, of course, but I'm not sure there was a better idea available.

Nickal wrote on January 6, 2008 9:17 PM:

OK, now. Breathe deeply into the paper bag. Josh and the boys (where are the women, Josh?) at TPM, following the lead of the rest of FOX and the MSM, have decided that Obama will be the Democratic standard bearer. Fair enough. The only remaining question is why. Obama has done very little for his constituency in Illinois. Why should we believe he will be any more effective once he gets to DC?
Why doesn't TPM do an analysis of the legislation he has sponsored and how it has impacted the folks who have elected him rather than just side with the those who are as distracted by pretty promises of hope and change as a raven is to something shiny. I like Obama but his box of achievment is as empty as his rhetoric.

Michael wrote on January 6, 2008 9:19 PM:

DTM--I disagree. I've read multiple blogger/reporters who say that Penn was pushing "inevitable" memos on them for months.

I think it was a legit attempt to intimidate other candidates into dropping out, and also kill enthusiasm for the other candidates.

John McCutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 9:21 PM:

DTM...That IS the inevitablity rap! At least, that's mine. Clinton is a horrid candidate. She could never compete in a real race with Obama and so the Clinton campaign enlisted pliant media and HillShill's in an Inevitabiity Campaign - Hillary's going to win - stay home. The whole plan was to kill off Obama and Edwards in November, December. The race would be over before Christmas and the horrid candidate would get the nomination without a real campaign

Incredible yes. But they were counting on Bush hatred and Clinton nostalgia to bring it off. They lined up all the elected officials they could find for nominal endorsements (and superdelegates) and poor sods like Larry Johnson and Wes Clark among others eager for new jobs.

It wasn't just a fundraising strategy it was Clinton's campaign strategy.

Live by inevitability
Die by inevitability.

When the inevitable no longer is, death comes quickly

At least that's how I have seen this race since it began

jhv wrote on January 6, 2008 9:22 PM:

good post, DTM. i hadn't thought like that.

it helps me put a face back on clinton instead of just seeing the campaign machine she's built.

CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 9:24 PM:

You know what else surged in this poll was the number of independent voters saying they would vote it the Republican primary rather than Democratic. That's down 31% in the past two weeks now if this poll and the last one can be believed.

For 12/27-30 it was 67% Dem, 33% Rep (Dem +33)

Yesterday, 1/4-5, it was 56% Dem, 44% Rep (Dem +12)

Today it's down to 51% Dem, 49% Rep (Dem +2)

The independent vote of course is a significant source of Obama's current strength in NH. Among actual Democrats the margins seem to be much closer. So presumably, if we were still looking at the same number of independents for the Dem primary as in late December, Obama's number would be well into the 40s at this point.

pepkoka wrote on January 6, 2008 9:29 PM:

Sweeeeeeet!!!!!!

Sittin Bull wrote on January 6, 2008 9:32 PM:

I can see the banter now--"Well ______(choose your pundit), you have got to wonder what Democratic voters were thinking when they decided experience didn't matter. You know, this was their election to lose and they seemed out of touch with ordinary americans who looked at the problems this country is having and this dangerous world we live in. It just shows how out of touch they are. You can't expect to put this young guy up against an old "straight talkin' war hero with all that experience and expect it to look like anything but the teacher schoolin' the snot nosed kid".

Can't you picture that? It's another one of those classic moments when the pundits pretend they didn't sell you that bill of goods.

CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 9:34 PM:

Clinton has actually turned out to be a much better candidate than I ever thought she would be. I still wish Mark Warner would have run but I'm pretty convinced at this point that she would have a better than even chance of winning the White House. I'm a less confident of Barack Obama's chances.

Nicholas wrote on January 6, 2008 9:36 PM:

"Put up their own fresh face in the person of Huckabee, who will lead us smiling into the 19th century?"

That is a great quote Kaspian! Fighting glitter and hope is like wrestling Jello, as if the GOP has anything resembling a hope this election year.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 9:41 PM:

Oh, I agree the inevitability meme had a political dimension as well. I just think in the original conception, Clinton was supposed to end up with way, way more money than anyone else, and she was supposed to use that money to out-staff and out-advertise everyone else.

Incidentally, in part I think that because I am giving them enough credit to know that far too many people make up their minds in the last few days for it to be possible for them to actually cement their numbers back in the summer and early fall. But fundraising is something you can literally put in the bank (or invest in staff) and then use in those last few days.

Anyway, I guess this is all just speculation on my part. Maybe someone will write a book someday.

mike2 wrote on January 6, 2008 9:46 PM:

What we forget here is just how little the average voter takes in about a candidate. Obama is vapid, boring and repetitive, and he's way too smart for that to be anything other than a brilliant and calculated strategy stemming from his quite correct insight that policy proposals and nuances don't matter at all to the vast majority of voters... they are looking at body language, poetry, and a feeling.

Clinton (who I dislike) and Edwards (who I would prefer over both) have both gone for voters with ideas and policy preferences. That's always going to be a minority. Obama is a veritable Democratic Reagan ( I fear ) full of bromides and vapidities, full of sound and fury, appealing to the heart and not the head. I'm pretty much sure that he'll do the right thing if he gets power , but I don't know whether to admire or despise the fact that he has grasped and is using the most effective means to gain power.... empty pleasing rhetoric.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or is it only a good or bad thing depending on whether Reagan or Obama happen to be doing it?

Hmmmm.

Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on January 6, 2008 9:46 PM:

Obama has done very little for his constituency in Illinois.

I'm not sure which metric you're using for this analysis. Compared to say, a Robert Byrd, he's not done much, but that's perhaps because his pushed for legislation to dampen the kind of earmarks that Byrd has built his career around. What he did request, in fact, is listed on his Senate web site, so you can easily see what monies he's sent back to IL in the last year. mann wrote on January 6, 2008 9:53 PM:

What a panic and hysteric reactions from Clinton camp! Cool down people and control your emotion.
Since the poll started showing Obama leading Clinton by digit there is a lot of panic out there! I never believe to so call “national poll” that showed Clinton with 20 or 30% lead over Obama. It means nothing!
No matter what anti-Obama is claiming here, the man is the only one capable to defeat any Republican in the general election. So, Clinton supporters seat tight and watch your next defeat coming this Tuesday. OBAMA has my vote.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 9:53 PM:

mike2,

That is a false dichotomy. Obama has indeed appealed to people with soaring rhetoric, particularly in his speeches. But he has also detailed his policy positions and proposals in many ways and in many places (feel free to ask if you need to be pointed in the right direction).

Of course, I understand that right now his opponents are trying to make this an either/or proposition (the idea being either you are good at making speeches, or you have detailed policy positions, but not both). But logically that does not make sense, and in this case it simply isn't true.

mike2 wrote on January 6, 2008 9:56 PM:

... because, just to conclude the thought... the words you use to gain power may deeply affect your perceived mandate to exercise power.

Vague words may lead to vague policies. Or alternatively vague words, may lead to an enormous range of flexibility, and even enhance your power.

Which reality will pertain to an Obama Presidency?

eric wrote on January 6, 2008 9:56 PM:

mike2 wrote on January 6, 2008 9:46 PM:

I completely agree with you. I haven't been able to wrap my head around why I really don't like Obama...and you nailed it.

I've never been fan of the true-believer/cult of personality stuff, and in this case, it really frightens me. Supposedly, Obama will do the right thing...I hope so. But I don't believe.

mike2 wrote on January 6, 2008 10:00 PM:

DTM, I know he's got detailed policy proposals... but I know that he's not integrating them into his public presentation.... which is both clever... and perhaps dangerous. If we reflect back on what we despised about Reagan.... the vapid rhetoric alone?... or was it the vapid rhetoric in service of fascism? I come to the conclusion that vapid rhetoric itself leaves a bad taste... even if it is used to create an opening for the exercise of power in a progressive direction.

On the other hand maybe his rhetorical strategy is the only way to assemble a coalition to move toward his policy proposals. That would make him a genius. But saying someone is a "political" genius" is always a mixed complement... a genius in the obtaining and exercise of power is a mixed blessing.

NCSteve wrote on January 6, 2008 10:01 PM:

You know, half the people grumbling and griping about "cults" and "messianic so and so's" and "hope, shmope, he's all hot air yada yada yada" sound like Rick Blaine to me, injured idealists hiding behind a veneer of cyncism because they've been hurt and are afraid of getting hurt again. They'll come around.

And then there's the other half that sound like Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life."

Obama/Webb 08 wrote on January 6, 2008 10:03 PM:

Hillary is in bunker mode, hoping to ride this out. The Clintons know how to ride out controversies. But the problem here for Hillary is that the clock is against her. And if Obama wins by more than 10% on Tuesday, it makes the clock all the more her enemy.

eric wrote on January 6, 2008 10:09 PM:

Rick Blaine?

Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on January 6, 2008 10:13 PM:

On the other hand maybe his rhetorical strategy is the only way to assemble a coalition to move toward his policy proposals.

Well, yes. That's exactly what he's been working on since he seriously thought about a political background. From a '95 article on Obama in the Chicago Reader:

"We have no shortage of moral fervor," said Obama. "We have some wonderful preachers in town--preachers who continue to inspire me--preachers who are magnificent at articulating a vision of the world as it should be. In every church on Sunday in the African-American community we have this moral fervor; we have energy to burn.

"But as soon as church lets out, the energy dissipates. We must find ways to channel all this energy into community building. The biggest failure of the civil rights movement was in failing to translate this energy, this moral fervor, into creating lasting institutions and organizational structures."

So yes, he plans to use the uplifting rhetoric to actually build structures "organically", that can last past his work.

Does that help clarify?

Nickal1 wrote on January 6, 2008 10:14 PM:

Oh and by the way, Hillary is polling better than O (Obama not Oprah)in 30 states, even after Iowa. Now, she won't win them all but she has undertaken a national campaign and even if she loses NH, she will still win the Democratic nomination. If TPM, FOX and their ilk in the MSM continue to treat O (Obama not Oprah) with kid gloves while continually bashing HRC, they will do a huge disservice to the country by not exposing O's (Obama's not Oprah's) record to the scrutiny it deserves. How has he served his constituency, other than shepparding legislation that makes it illegal to bribe a senator unless he is standing up?
It's time to be fair in your coverage and to fully examine O's (Obama's not Oprah's) record.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 10:18 PM:

mike2,

Well, I would argue Obama's policy proposals are part of his public presentation, even if he does lard down his speeches in particular with a lot of wonkish details.

But anyway--so how do you feel about FDR? By all the accounts I have read, he ran a very similar campaign when he was first elected, and was certainly a master of rather unspecific rhetoric (e.g., "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself"). Does FDR's use of these rhetorical techniques also leave you with a bad taste in your mouth?

In general, I am enough of a realist to think it is self-defeating for progressives to be complaining about Obama using the same sorts of rhetorical techniques that have been working in political speeches since Ancient Greece. Indeed, to insist progressive politicians abandon those techniques is basically like insisting they show up at a gunfight without a gun, because you can be darn sure their opponents are not going to be disarming themselves rhetorically.

Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on January 6, 2008 10:19 PM:

Forgot to provide the link to that Chicago Reader article:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 10:21 PM:

Sorry--that should have read that he does NOT lard down his speeches with a lot of wonkish details.

benjoya wrote on January 6, 2008 10:22 PM:

Rick Blaine, the hero, ultimately, in Casablanca.

mike2 wrote on January 6, 2008 10:34 PM:

You may have a pretty good point there DTM. I'll meditate on it.

eric wrote on January 6, 2008 10:39 PM:

Rick Blaine, a bitter and cynical American expatriate in Casablanca, who owns "Rick's Café Américain." This upscale nightclub and gambling den attracts a mixed clientèle of Vichy French and Nazi officials, refugees and thieves. Although Rick professes to be neutral in all matters, it is later revealed that he had run guns to Ethiopia to combat the 1935 Italian invasion, and fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War against Francisco Franco's fascists.

Never saw the movie. Although apparently, this Rick Blaine character is like people that find the Obama "movement" a bit creepy in the Jim Jones sort of way.

W Action wrote on January 6, 2008 10:55 PM:

OK, settle down, rookies. The words "change" and "experience" are memes or slogans. They are frequently adopted by candidates to create a shorthand for how they think they are perceived anyway! What election hasn't had a candidate who wants to "change the way they do things" and another who says they have "more experience?" The MSM fasten on these distinctions because they have no insight into what's happening and why. One of John Edwards problems has been his meme of "passionate" was rejected by the MSM: they shortened it to "angry."

When you use these words in your posts, you show that you have little idea of what's happening either. You might as well say "Obama acts young and Clinton acts old," or "Clinton is mature and Obama is immature," because it's the same frame--the Establishment and the New Guy. It's not a very interesting thought, actually, and doesn't mean squat in terms of what each intends to do if elected. Tell us something new.

wes2 wrote on January 6, 2008 10:56 PM:

On the "cult" question -- I've always wondered how much it is campaign strategy, and how much it is the influx of supporters who tend not to articulate preferences in traditional political language. Personally, I am much more comfortable with policies over personalities. When it comes to Obama, I think there is a fair amount of policy there (though often distressingly small-bore, imho), but it's not what people take away and talk about. For me, the turn off is the metaphors *some* supporters use -- Obama as healer, as therapist, as great soul, as great leader, and (my favorite so far) as boddisatvha. The enthusiasm is touching, but ultimately disturbing because all of these figures (leader, preacher, healer, therapist) are top-down models of authority. You don't argue with your healer or your boddisatvha, you just do what they say. What I try to hold on to is a distinction between the campaign and the supporters. I'm really not sure it's fair to hold the campaign responsible for the rhetorical excesses of its supporters. I think... though I may feel differently after I've been jumped on by the true believers for my inability to appreciate world-historical greatness.

Chad wrote on January 6, 2008 11:02 PM:

ericlnelson,

Yes, an awakening of conciousness. Listen to the talk of the people who were on the fence before Iowa, and its as plain as day. It seems that only you cynics don't see it.

And while Barack may speak in vague platitudes on the stump or in acceptance speeches, he is thoughtful and open-minded when it comes to the policy process, offering unique solutions to the problems we face.

I recommend watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY2BhrOxDjE

this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNt_pV2RNk

and this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oejqR8-9r-k

Perhaps, rather than being the fluff candidate you so want him to be, Obama simply understands what kind of language to use in different occasions. Kind of like, you know, all of the greatest presidents in the history of the country.

Nickal1 wrote on January 6, 2008 11:07 PM:

Make no mistake about it, DTM. BO is no FDR. FDR, though a "featherduster" in his youth, came to the White House with years of experience in a variety of roles inside and outside government. A more credible comparison would be to JFK. JFK overcame opposition to his Catholocism, inexperience and less than impressive legislative record to become the President of the United States. Once in office, JFK found that his keen oratorical skills were not enough to sway either Washington or Congress to move much of his agenda. In fact, the reason he was in Dallas on that fateful day in November of 1963 was because despite having LBJ (from Texas) as a VP, he had lost the confidence of many supporters there and with the election of 1964 looming, he was there to build/shore up support. He very well may have lost in '64 because rhetoric does not mean meaningful action.

blackstar wrote on January 6, 2008 11:17 PM:

The enthusiasm is touching, but ultimately disturbing because all of these figures (leader, preacher, healer, therapist) are top-down models of authority. You don't argue with your healer or your boddisatvha, you just do what they say. What I try to hold on to is a distinction between the campaign and the supporters. I'm really not sure it's fair to hold the campaign responsible for the rhetorical excesses of its supporters. I think... though I may feel differently after I've been jumped on by the true believers for my inability to appreciate world-historical greatness.

--------------------

and i'm sure some of Obama's supporters do support him on the basis of his outstanding speechmaking alone, and the feelings of inclusion he gives them. just as i'm sure some of Hillary's supporters help her just because of her husband, and some of Edwards' supporters support him simply because he's combative.

but i don't see any reason to believe any more Obama supporters have gravitated towards him for banal, non-substantive reasons than any other candidate. perhaps you'd like to offer some EVIDENCE for this assertion, beyond fitting the narrative of his opponents that he is without substance.

his policy proposals and basic ethic are there, as is his record of public service. if you don't see it, you're not looking. there are those of us that would support him on the basis of this alone, while of course accepting that his speechgiving skills add a vital dynamic to his candidacy and message.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 11:26 PM:

Nickal1,

I am actually not particularly fond of broad analogies between current candidates and past Presidents--the set of possibilities is too small, and history too variable, for such analogies to tell us much. Indeed, you might note I was raising FDR only for a limited point about rhetoric (and only in response to a similar analogy being drawn to Reagan).

That said: Obama has also had "years of experience in a variety of roles inside and outside government." Of course the bulk of that was at the state and local level, although interestingly so was FDR's experience (except for his stint as Assistant Secretary of the Navy).

kozmik wrote on January 6, 2008 11:28 PM:

Jeebus. No wonder the Hillary machine is so desperate.

If Obama goes up any more, look for Hillary to release a press statement that Obama secretly fathered two black daughters.

M Miller wrote on January 6, 2008 11:29 PM:

Do not listen to these CNN polls. I don't care if they tell you that the sky is blue!

On this site, here is the polls for Iowa:
Clinton 33%, Obama 31%, Edwards 22% ..
We know Clinton came in third and Obama won.
Romney 31%, Huckabee 28%, Thompson 13% ...
We know that Huckabee won handily.

Doing a little research as to how well polls did in the past, CNN was wrong 4 out of the 6 times here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
I'll summarize what that page says. I'll put a + next to the state if they got it right, - if they didn't.

Kerry
- PA
- WI
+ MN

Bush
- FL
- OH
+ IA

Kerry would have been president....

WCG wrote on January 6, 2008 11:30 PM:

It's kind of funny, but there are some people here who seem to want a candidate who's a terrible campaigner, someone wooden and stiff, a policy wonk. Hmm,... anyone remember the last couple of presidential elections?

Getting ordinary Americans fired up, enthused about the possibilities for themselves and their country, is actually a GOOD thing, you know. It's certainly a good thing for the Democratic Party! Let's face it, Obama could bring a surge of votes for Democratic candidates running for other offices, too. Clinton is really disliked in many places, and many Democratic candidates up for election in 2008 would be hesitant to tie themselves too closely to her. But they'd gladly jump on a popular Obama bandwagon. He has almost no negatives at all, even among most Republicans. (And Edwards is campaigning on an us vs. them platform, which will only increase the polarization.)

I don't know if he's going to win this thing or not, but I certainly hope so. He's the kind of person we need right now. He's the only Democrat with a chance to absolutely hammer the Republicans, just smash them flat, not just in the presidential race, but in races for Congress and state positions, too. He has the potential to rearrange the political landscape, especially given the help that two terms of Bush/Cheney would give him.

M Miller wrote on January 6, 2008 11:35 PM:

Also, unfortunately, I would have to disregard it if said my candidate was winning by 1 or winning by 25. I'm not saying what I did about CNN's polls because I don't like what they say, I am saying it because they are as reliable as Fox Noise's polls are in general (where Kerry would have won FL and thereby would have been president).

kozmik wrote on January 6, 2008 11:38 PM:

btw, while Obama is certainly has the momentum, don't assume it's in the bag or even close.

Zogby and ARG have been pretty lousy as this study of pollsters shows: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_pollsters_rating_the_i.php

There have been allegations ARG has ties to the Clintons and fluffed their numbers in Iowa.

Another strategy is if you think your opponent can beat you pretty badly, make it look even worse, so that they hopefully let their guard down or you can claim later they were over-hyped when they beat you by less, or even not at all.

So, it's not done yet! Make sure Obama wins big. Don't presume it.

W Action wrote on January 6, 2008 11:43 PM:

I tend to be a "give the new kid a chance" person by nature, so I'm a sucker for the "we can do it if we try because it's never really been tried like I'll try" rhetoric of Obama. The enthusiasm of some of his supporters demonstrates he has pushed the "I'm different" message well, though if you closely study his platform, you find there's not a lot there to really energize old school progressives.

I grieve that Clinton may be following advice to go negative, and hope none of the good guys do so. The reason Rovian tricks work is because most voters believe that both sides do it. Right now all the Dems are pretty clean. Keep it up and it's going to be obvious in the fall which party has to go negative to win. The similarity of our candidates (including their reluctance to go out on any limbs...) and their good behavior is a huge party strength in 2008. I prefer Edwards because I think he's the least likely to be concerned with his popularity when the chips are down. But I might be wrong. It's what keeps so many of us saying, "but I would ultimately support any of them." Compare that to the chaos and dissembling of the other guys' contest and you gotta feel confident.

mike2 wrote on January 6, 2008 11:44 PM:

OK. Never mind all that. This is really impressive.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNt_pV2RNk

I guess I was listening too much to the mass rallies which really do bore me. But I'm a 47 year old tech guy, not a 25 year old enthusiasts.

Among the many things to like about the style in that video is the absence of excessive smiling. This Obama acts like he's serious and like he means what he says and like maybe he even knows what he's talking about and isn't just mouthing words from a speech writer. Very impressive.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 11:47 PM:

M Miller,

I think it is worth noting this poll was actually conducted by the University of New Hampshire (not the typical arrangement for CNN outside of NH). And it was actually the second-rated NH poll in pollsters' poll of pollsters (after ABC/Post). Interestingly, the Boston Globe/UNH poll was rated slightly worse, which is odd since it is really the same people taking both sets of polls.

Anyway, I mention all this just because whatever one thinks of CNN polls in general, I would hesitate to apply those conclusions to UNH polls (which are generally well-regarded in NH).

M Miller wrote on January 7, 2008 12:23 AM:

Anyway, I mention all this just because whatever one thinks of CNN polls in general, I would hesitate to apply those conclusions to UNH polls (which are generally well-regarded in NH).

Interesting. The polls from the 2004 election was CNN/USAT/Gallup and the ones from this last Iowa caucus is Opinion Research Corp.

I looked this stuff up and found on CNN's site:
"With 97 percent of precincts reporting, the U.S. senator from neighboring Massachusetts was at 39 percent, followed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at 26 percent."

This is what I found that the UNH had during the last NH primaries (2004).
http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/primary2004_tr12604.pdf

It shows they were just about dead on, very accurate.

I think I'm going to check and see who CNN has do these polls and when I see the first-mentioned names, I will not take them seriously, but with UNH I will... Good pollsters. (I feel dumb now).

Jim wrote on January 7, 2008 3:47 AM:

All the handicapping and horse-race stories in the world won't change the fact that this time next month--after Super Tuesday--Hillary will be the nominee.

bnb wrote on January 7, 2008 9:23 AM:

Our MSM is insane. Iowa sweep? The delegate tally is 14-15-16. Out of a total of4183. This thing has just started. Efforts to end it by corporate media are attempts to get around the democratic process.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 7, 2008 11:20 AM:

The best part Obama's homoerotically named 10% surge is that folk might pay actually to his words and platform . . . then he can go the way of Clinton and Guiliani and Brownback and Tommy Thompson and Tancredo.

lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 6:09 PM:

Note to Mark Penn, Kerry was basically in a two-person race in NH in 2004, not a viable 3 person one, so any double digit lead by a candidate is huge.

The real question is can Edwards move up at all and knock off Clinton?

DOesn't look like it as it looks like he is actually losing support to Obama.

lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 6:11 PM:

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 7, 2008 11:20 AM:

ROFLMAO

I can now know I need never take anything you post seriously.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)