Poll: Voters See McCain As The Negative Campaigner By Six To One
Here's some good polling news for Obama. It appears voters are accurately perceiving John McCain as far and away the more negative campaigner in the race...
By a nearly six-to-one margin, voters say Republican presidential candidate John McCain is running a negative campaign against his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.Nearly three in 10 voters, 29%, pointed to McCain as the candidate running a negative campaign, compared to just 5% who said Obama is running a negative campaign. McCain's 29% rating is the highest of any one candidate in the previous two presidential elections according to the WSJ/NBC News survey.
This lends some comfort to purveyors of the "rope a dope" theory of the campaign, which holds that Obama is waiting for McCain to firmly define himself as the dirty campaigner, thus giving himself cover to go after McCain in earnest after the conventions, when voters are really paying attention.
Well, that's something...
August 20, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I repeat: McCain has spent $50 million in July and August trashing Obama and he's gained ONE POINT! Not a wise investment.
August 20, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, at least (some) voters can figure out some things. Although it still points to 70% of voters being complete idiots...so...bah...
Fuck it, we'll do it live!
August 20, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!
This made my day.
Fucking thing sucks!!
August 21, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something? When you're running on being the candidate who wants to change our politics and our governing it's far more than just something.
It's August. McCain has had months all by himself on the Rep playing field and he hasn't moved his numbers one bit. Could that be because McCain has already reached his ceiling and Obama, who's numbers haven't moved all that much, is standing on his floor?
And again, it's August. If the attacks McCain has been using up to now haven't moved the numbers that much, how negative is he going to have to get by October and what will that do to his own numbers?
August 20, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure this means very much. I recall Clinton was seen as the most negative in Texas and Ohio, and she took those primaries.
August 20, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you still buying into that crap that Clinton won the Texas primary?! It was Obama who "won" because he got more delegates!
August 20, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, Limbaugh interference was pretty significant in my state of TX, and I think in Ohio and PA too...
August 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won the caucus and took more delegates overall, but Clinton most definitely did win the primary.
August 20, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So 70% don't think he is running a negative campaign?
August 20, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
41% said neither and 19% said both.
August 20, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They mention in the article that Bush was seen as being negative by 15% in October 2004. McCain is nearly doubled that. I think the problem for McCain is that he won't admit he's being negative so it undermines his straight-talking image.
August 20, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, that's a fairly thin silver lining. If the Obama camp couldn't get this one, even when it's practically straining a muscle to present its candidate as The Nice Guy, I just don't know.
August 20, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they did get it. McCain is now perceived as a dirtier campaigner than Bush ever was, and Obama as a cleaner campaigner than either Kerry or Gore.
August 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet: only 30%. Even a good number of Obama supporters either don't believe McCain is running a negative campaign, or responded "both" to that question. The silver lining is fading away even as we watch. This is just about the most pathetic "Well, at least..." I've ever seen in polling data.
August 20, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The head-to-head has been released and it shows Obama ahead by 3. So, yet another national poll showing Obama retaining his lead is such a dark cloud that it needs a silver lining? You realize that it's not actually possible for him to win until November, right?
August 20, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't care about national polls when Obama was ahead by a lot, don't care about them now. State-by-states show Obama giving ground in tons of states he needs to win. OH, CO, MN, NH, IN, PA. All have negative trendlines for Obama in the past week of polling. About the only place he's holding approximately steady is VA, but it's not clear whether that's because it hasn't been polled as recently or if it really just isn't moving in line with other states.
I do realize it's not possible for Obama to win until November. But I'm pretty sure it's possible for him to lose before that, if he cedes control of the media narrative to McCain as he has been doing.
August 20, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I do realize it's not possible for Obama to win until November. But I'm pretty sure it's possible for him to lose before that, if he cedes control of the media narrative to McCain as he has been doing."
Can you please explain the logic of that?
So Obama can't win now, but McCain can?
August 20, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving ground in the last week?
Polls do fluctuate, don't they? Is there graphing done for these states that shows a sustained *giving ground*?
Has anyone figured out what the consistent 10-15% that aren't reported in these polls are doing? Virtually all the numbers reported add up to only 85-90%. Is there a reason McCain, the far better known candidate, doesn't have those folks already just on name recognition?
Plus, the media loves to talk about national polls from any number of organizations that have entirely different weighting models, methods (respond by pressing numbers, answering a real person, etc) as though they are all comparable. Do you think they are?
Isn't it more wise to pick one poll and follow it for a period of time to see if there are sustainable patterns rather than reactionary movement?
August 20, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the percentage who say "both" is 19%. So another way to state these results is that 48% of Americans say McCain is running a negative campaign while 46% say he's not. Meanwhile, only 26% of Americans say Obama is running a negative campaign, while 60% say he's not.
This is not a bad place to be at all. It gives Obama a lot more license to be negative against McCain without losing the luster of a clean campaign.
August 20, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
29% sounds low to me.
McCain runs a negative campaign while Obama runs a campaign about negative capability. I hope the convention kicks off a radical shift in team Obama's strategy, otherwise it's gonna be a long, cruel autumn.
August 20, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one that sees that the "rope-a-dope" strategy is EXACTLY what Obama's doing?
McCain has wasted valuable time and millions of dollars on NOTHING but attack ads and he's STILL losing. He's totally forfeited every ounce of integrity and moral authority.
After the convention, when Obama gets his bounce and everyone is paying attention, he WILL wallop McCain pretty much daily with is dignity and moral authority intact. Not to mention a massive nest egg of funding.
Am I the only not worried at all?
August 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to carry the metaphor a bit further, look at what's become of Muhammed Ali.
August 20, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Ali was only heavyweight champion of the world for three and a half years after he successfully used the rope-a-dope strategy. He used it to beat George Foreman, a larger man and a heavier puncher. After Foreman got tired, Ali knocked him out.
When McCain has nothing left to say besides he's not a real American, have a guess as to what's going to happen.
August 20, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ali is now a vegetable.
What you describe is comparable to a Faustian pact; not a good analogy in my book.
August 20, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a bit skeptical that McCain is now "losing" in any meaningful sense. This campaign is a dead heat. That's a painful reality to acknowledge, but skate on over to 538 and tell me it's not so. Indeed, I suspect Obama's victory chance over there will tick down further on today's polls.
So basically, McCain spent millions of dollars to go from hopelessly mired in second to basically tied. Money well spent, I'd say, although we've got to give due credit to the Obama campaign. Without its hesitation and terrible instincts, the opening never would have been there. Good work, Axey! Attaboy, Plouffeazoid!
August 20, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dead heat? Have you looked at the Electoral College figures, or do you let TV give you the nonsense they want you to have?
Obama is far ahead.
August 20, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't say "not worried at all," but seriously, this freaking out is way over the top. There is going to be a lot of up and down in the next 2 1/2 months, and panicking over one week's results (when our guy TOOK A VACATION!!!) is just unnecessary. I'm watching the Olympics right now, and the "rope-a-dope" is like watching a runner who hangs back and then kicks it in at the end. It's nail-biting, but man it's fun to cheer at the finish. Not counseling complacency, or saying Obama doesn't need to kick it into gear, but come on, we're just getting started.
August 20, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
well then why in the world are they still voting for him
August 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the Obama campaign was stupid to take voters seriously when they say they don't want a negative campaign?
August 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you up to a point, but I don't think pure negativity is what Obama supporters want. They want someone who answers McCain negative attacks with biting and incisive logic. Obama is capable of this, but is letting McCain's childish talking points go unanswered. For example, every time McCain comes out with "Obama doesn't want us to drill," our nominee should respond, "Why doesn't my opponent tell the oil companies to drill on the millions of untouched acres they have already leased?" This is simple logic that everyone can understand. McCain's strengths are all based on emotion and can be undermined with logic. It is in this area that Obama has missed and continues to miss so many opportunities.
August 20, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest part of the problem is Obama IS saying a lot of what you advocate, but we never hear his words, we hear the media heads spouting off on whatever shiny new object the McCain campaign floats to them.
If folks are really worried about how this thing is going and you still want to support Obama, why not put some of the Obama organizing tools to work and go after the vacuous media? They will talk about what we demand they talk about, but it would require a lot more of the energy that's being wasted worrying now redirected toward getting the media to actually tell us what these two stand for.
When was the last time you heard anyone in the media analyze McCain's stance on anything much less his shifts in stances? Why not call, email, write just generally bug them until they do that?
Obama made a choice that he wasn't going to play the game the way they do a long time ago and many, like me signed on to that wholeheartedly. We went through this in the primary when many of his supporters were freaking out he wasn't hitting the Clintons hard enough. It's not the way he works, I think and would it work to attack if he's not comfortable doing it?
This election will be won on the issues if and only if we insist it be won on the issues. The media and even blog writers will have to hear from us loud and clear if we're going to get them off the lazy and easy reporting back into the harder but far more revealing reporting.
Just a thought.
August 20, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are the voting for him?
Because people don't punish negative campaigners!
When will the Democrats learn that "we're running a positive, ethical campaign and their not" is not an argument that wins you any votes, even if you make it stick?
August 20, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rope a dope theory would make sense if they didn't release that Jack Abramoff ad.
You'd think Obama would be the last person to play the questionable association card.
August 20, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me guess, you voted for Clinton in your primary?
August 20, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think it's time you changed your name since your new role is to denigrate everything Obama does? You don't want him as the nominee. We get it.
August 20, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has Obama done lately that's worthy of praise? Am I supposed to talk up his excellent "ground game"? Lmao.
Election Central itself has been nothing but bad news for Obama. That includes this post.
I've read TPM's rules and there's nothing about members having to say positive things to mask their disappointment in Barack Obama. There is nothing in my post history to suggest I'm a troll or closeted Hillary/McCain supporter faking the funk.
I sometimes consider changing my name but it's a reflection of where I was when I signed up here. A moment of my life frozen in time. So I'll keep it, despite my buyer's remorse.
August 20, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Change your name. It'll make you feel better. And me too, frankly.
August 20, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stick to the topic, FreeRider, and stop launching personal attacks against posters who don't follow your agenda.
August 20, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Telling you to change your name is a personal attack? LOL.
Buyer's remorse is a waste of time Obama is the candidate, like it or not. You have a choice: Obama v. McCain. Judging by your posts over the past week, it's clear it won't be Obama so you should . . . CHANGE YOUR FUCKING NAME and go fishing until mid-November.
August 20, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted this below but didn't want you to miss it.
Michael Hussein is a repug troll. Now, is that personal enough for you ?
August 21, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is the voters keep rewarding the sleazy liars and yet complain when the sleazy liars get in office and things like Iraq and Katrina happen.
August 20, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more of these polls I read, the more convinced I am that they are full of crap!
August 20, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The important thing is that this storyline is going to stick no matter what Obama does. All the articles about McCain's 'good month' mention that he got there by attacking Obama personally. This sets the storyline in stone -- McCain can't get a toehold if he doesn't smear Obama personally. Look for the percentage of people who say McCain to go up even as Obama starts attacking harder and more frequently.
August 20, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure hope this little tid bit from Taegen Goddard gets more attention:
Bonus Quote of the Day
"Ma'am, let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said."
-- John McCain, responding to a woman in a town hall meeting earlier today, who concluded her comments with the line "if we don't re-enact the draft, I don't think we'll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell."
What tell the rich find out John McCain wants to send their sons and daughters to war!
August 20, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we need a draft to find Bin Laden? McCain is going to hunt him down personally.
August 20, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously! Chuck Todd was asked about what that statement would do to McCain's numbers and he sloughed it off with a *I'll give McCain the benefit of the doubt*. I ask why is McCain always given the benefit of the doubt when he screws up? Imagine if Obama had said that or half the crap McCain has.
Hound the blogs with that quote. Hound the MSM on all the quotes. Apparently it will be up to us to change the narrative on McCain as Obama would be chastised for it by that same media and they sure won't do it on their own.
August 20, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is negative, sleazy campaigning works. Ask Mike Dukakis. Ask John Kerry. Ask Harold Ford Jr.
It's time for Obama to take the gloves off.
And for the love of God, someone please tell him to stop beginning every attack on McCain with "First off, I deeply admire his service" or "Although John McCain is a patriotic and brave man, he...". All any undecided voter hears is service and patriotic. Not anything after it.
August 20, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying that for months! Why he keeps praising McCain is beyond me. It's so wimpy. Geez!!!
August 20, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree, Tyler. It's really REALLY getting on my nerves. There's nothing honorable about John McShame. Nothing.
Michael Moore: "How The Democrats Can Blow It ...In Six Easy Steps"
Step 1....
"1. Keep saying nice things about McCain.
If you want to help elect McCain, keep blessing him as if he were the white knight who accidentally hopped on the wrong horse. Keep reminding a country at war that he, and he alone, is a war hero. That he's been "good on global warming" and campaign finance. Say that enough, and you know what happens? People start to believe it! You've sold them on the idea that McCain isn't a bad egg, and they do not hear the rest of what you have to say: "But John McCain is four more years of George W. Bush."..."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22249602/how_the_democrats_can_blow_it_in_six_easy_steps/print
August 20, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. What you say is true in the short term, but we should know by now, after the looooong primary season, that Obama (and his really, really bright strategists) think long-term.
I think they know EXACTLY what they are doing, and if there's any merit to this poll it may demonstrate part of their gain.
Once McCain is painted into a corner, Obama can dance around the room.
August 20, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then, what ever McCain does -- whether he pouts or just gets nastier -- Obama can send out his message while STILL complimenting McCain for his "service." The kind words will sound more and more ironic to a suffering nation.
August 20, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this good news for Obama supporters, most of whom are whining that Barack is not being negative enough?
August 20, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet Obama's lead is shrinking.
Proof that negative ads work, sad to say.
August 20, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
More from the full poll, which shows Obama ahead 45-42 (the same poll found it was 47-41 last month):
the poll shows McCain holding advantages over Obama in handling terrorism (51 to 23 percent), international crises (52 to 27 percent) and the war in Iraq (46 to 36 percent).
It's hard to see Obama getting much worse on these issues, or McCain getting much better on Obama's best issues (economy, energy, health care), and yet with this state of play, Obama's still ahead.
No reason to panic. Let Chicago do its job.
August 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
These so-called "advantages" that McCain has over Obama are nothing more than perceptions, right? They are not based on anything that McCain has done, only on what some voters think he WOULD or MIGHT do. A smart campaign would do everything it could to sow doubts in these areas. How? Play to the voters fears by painting McCain as a warmonger. Tell them that he would reinstate the draft. Have the courage to state that McCain's experience as a POW does not in and of itself qualify him to be commander-and-chief. Increase the pressure on McCain to release a full report on his military service so the public could decide on just how relevant that service is to his being president. I understand that there are a lot of unflattering details there (he crashed five planes, endangered the lives of his fellow servicemen through reckless actions, etc.,etc.)
August 20, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the dope part of the rope a dope? We still have Sept and Oct when regular voter who aren't geeks like us tune in.
August 20, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR MCCAIN!!!
!!!JohnSidneyMcMENTUM™!!!!
August 20, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see you back. Or have you been for a while?
August 20, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The results of this poll are irrelevant unless there's good evidence that voters don't vote for negative campaigners, and I don't think there is. I think voters are more influenced by the negative portrayals that become fixed in their minds than by abstractions such as who is meaner. "McCain is pretty negative, but I ain't votin' for no Muslim celebrity who wants to raise my taxes and force doctors to kill babies".
Negative ads work as long as you end with 5-10 seconds of positive message about your candidate (along with the uplifting music) before they have to say "my name is Blah Blah and I approve this message". The subconscious effect is that people think, "Gee, Blah Blah seems like a nice guy, so it must have been hard for him to have to speak what may be the awful truth about Bleh Bleh".
August 20, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush held a small lead in 2004 and never trailed. A lead is a lead.
August 20, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Dukakis was ahead by about 20% at one point.
A lead is a lead...until it's not.
August 20, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, a lead is bad? I don't get what your point is.
August 20, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you get it neil? Everything is good news for McCain.
Unless it's good news for Veruca Rodham Salt.
And sometimes it's good news for them both -- at the same time!
August 20, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A lead is a lead...until it's not."
..also, 1988 is not 2008. Dickhead.
August 20, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like an endorsement. Every seasoned politico will tell you that negative ads work.
August 20, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The negative ads were inevitable. His problem alas is the same problem that plagued Gore and Kerry. He's unwilling to risk a strong signature stand on any issue. He doesn't define himself so the opposition defines him.
I hate the Reagan Revolution but there was a guy who laughed in the face of negative attacks and sold himself and far worse sold a radical, extremist agenda.
But we're postpartisan dontcha know. The other side is not.
August 20, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This poster jd has a really good idea on taking McCain. How can this be transmitted to Obama?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/more-free-advice.php
August 20, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it.
August 20, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I think about it, the stronger it seems to be. Exaggerate carefully but forcefully to turn his strengths into a caricature, then feel sorry he has to stoop so low. Sorry is good and could fit quite well with Obama's message.
August 20, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, its pretty brilliant.
August 20, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and keep hammering on economy jobs and gas prices in the meantime, non-stop.
August 20, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that McCain does not come across as pathetic. He comes across as forceful, resolute, assured and feisty.
Obama tries to feel sorry for that he's just whining. For the small percentage that don't see McCain that way, Obama will just seem like a bully and disrespectful.
Good luck with that experiment.
August 20, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't need to come across as pathetic. I think maybe you missed the point?
August 20, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 20, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The line you quote doesn't require him to come across as pathetic fogu. Obama doesn't need to use pity and mockery in a mean-spirited and negative way. You can laugh someone off without making it backfire. Watch your copy of Celebrity again, for clarity on what I mean
August 20, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woody Allen? Woody Allen as political advisor? Celebrity? Did you actually suggest that? Excellent.
August 20, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Whatever you say, fogu
I must admit I like your mean bitchy loopy snappy one-liners more, they can be pretty funny.
And where are you getting all these avatars?
August 20, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I make 'em. Want some?
August 20, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like mine, it changes its meaning depending on the viewer's predisposition. Don't you like it?
August 20, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I've seen some Obama supporters who admire the imagery and some who find it offensive. Interpretive controversy makes the world go 'round.
August 20, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see, Kos is reporting there are fake messages flying all over that Obama chose Gore, Clinton, Edwards, Paris Hilton, McCain, etc as his running mate? Too funny
August 20, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's part of the point. McCain knows wars and he's sticking to it. It's not fake, it's true. McCain *shines* when he talks about war and is boring as hell when he's addressing the topics Americans care most about...well, save his foot stomping drill here, drill now nonsense.
All of us, including Obama, have to connect this imperialist tendency we have now and will have if McCain is elected to the economy. How much are we spending a month over there and what could we do with it here.
McCain does have his story and he is sticking to it. We have to get the media talking about that and keep the money spent on the front burner.
It's the economy stupid.
August 20, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It could work. But it has to be done right.
August 20, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to know, that all of us here understand what it is to be negative, that McCain's eloquence will continue to grow and Obama will continue to fade. NPR's Roberts( the mother) had it right, I guess, it was the visit to that strange place called Hawaii; Obama had the nerve to take a vacation during the Olympics, while Russia invaded Georgia and spend time with his kids. Not very presidential as Bush in China, I guess. That Obama has to do more than raise $50 million monthly; certainly, we would all agree that $75M is far better. Now, what was this thing on being negative!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 20, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then we have this:
Talking about "The Obama Nation," Obama said author Jerome Corsi was just making "stuff up."
Obama said GOP attackers have "been very good at campaigning,” and he added that they'd try to make him out to be scary and risky.
“Now I must say: I don’t find myself particularly scary or particularly risky," he said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12680.html
He will never agree to an honest in depth interview to get his true biography out there, never has, never will.
August 20, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
(OK, screwed up the blockquote)
And then we have this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12680.html
He will never agree to an honest in depth interview to get his true biography out there, never has, never will.
August 20, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coolest avatar yet. Can you keep that one until november. Very cool. Bizarre comments, but I love that avatar.
August 20, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like she's in the bathroom at a club offering up a bump.
August 20, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone bothered to take one step back and ask
What are the two stories that the media are covering 24/7 and which have Obamans near apoplexy???
1. VP selection
2. Obama's slide in the polls
Rope-a-dope's only a part of it....but next Friday morning we'll either be fired up and ready to go or not
August 20, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This narrative is the media's attempt to get Clinton on the ticket. Because it will give them drama and something to talk about, not only for the election, but during the White House years. "No Drama Obama" doesn't fill air time all that well.
August 20, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. I also think one of the reasons the McCain campaign wanted to go at Obama so hard before the conventions is because they knew if Obama had a slip in the polls before then the media would do exactly this and complicate the convention. (The McCain campaign knows full well Hillary isn't going to be on the ticket.) They wanted there to be uneasiness with Obama right about now.
August 21, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Abraham's Verdict (which I can't wait to its replaced by the Rachael Maddow show) had Pat Buchanan and two democratic weaklings on (I say weakling because they always poorly defend Obama), Dan pushed the idea of Obama-Clinton, which Pat jumped on it as the only solution for Obama that will calm Hillary's supporters, ignoring the fact that Schuster 2 days ago had those PUMAs on Hardball who said they weren't voting for Obama regardless of his VP choice. The Democrat weaklings incapable of making an argument to defend otherwise agreed lock and center to Pat and Dan's idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket.
August 21, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain gained one little point and Obama lost 2. BFD. The GOP base - and most of them still hate McCain - are coming home. They know he wants it bad so, therefore, they have him by the balls - no more maverick for you if you want to be president. Again, they don't like they fact that he's their guy but they are smart enough to know that staying home hands the election to Obama in a cakewalk.
By comparison, 48% of Hillary supporters either say they are voting for McCain (21%) or staying home (27%). Let the 21% vote for McCain - I don't care. I think most of the remaining 27% will eventually come home. And if they do, this won't even be close. I have to think they are smart enough to not hand this election to a guy who believes in almost nothing Hillary stands for.
And if they don't wise up? Fuck 'em. I'll laugh at them as McCain shoves 2-3 wingnut SCOTUS appointees up their ass. I'll be devasted about this as well, don't get me wrong...but it won't be my freaking fault. Had Hillary gotten the nod, I would have supported her and voted for her in a second after feeling sad about my guy losing for about 1/2 a day. I don't even care if Obama picks here as veep - heck, I'd welcome it if it would make the WATBs happy. If these childish Hillary deadenders don't wake up, they can, in the words of Tom Friedman, "suck on this." And ifMcCain does win because of these holdouts, good luck seeing your gal as the nominee in 2012. Inf fact, good luck seeing her win back her senate seat in 2012.
But again, they'll come home. They'll eventually follow her lead. (she seems to have gotten over it) This poll really doesn't worry me that much. Obama is still ahead by 3 and he's got a nice portion of his base who are still not committed but who likely will be - to him - in November.
Again, I think most of 'em will come home. The convention will be the start of their return.
August 20, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And . . . . uh, let me see, the king was the most negative in probably the last 20 plus years and he lost, right. The last 8 years have all been a dream. The king lost going negative. The american people always say that they hate negative adds, but they always buy into them. What this tells me is the playbook is working again. Ugh.
August 20, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess what? Two new Obama attack ads:
"Dangerous", about nuclear waste in Nevada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXl2nR-2jxY
"Better Off", round two of "Fix the Economy":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCA2Zr3I0B4
Along with the taxes ad and the one linking McCain to Ralph Reed, that make four attacks on one day.
The gloves are off! Be prepared for what's coming...
August 20, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like that Nevada ad. And I'm not too sure how McCain can answer it.
August 21, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it me, or is all this hand wringing about polling ups and downs in the month of August just a wee bit silly?
Now, I'll admit that I'm eager for a more aggressive approach by Obama. McCain has pretty much defined him this month as a shallow, inexperienced cad who'd rather lose a war than a campaign.
The good news is that Obama seems to be stirring from his August siesta. Today's trial balloons were reassuring. Susan Rice and Richard Clarke tag teamed McCain on what I consider to be his biggest vulnerability: his temper. If we can develop this theme into a man who is erratic, addled, and trigger happy, we will make this election a referendum on him rather than Obama. This is the right approach.
Elections are overwhelmingly won or lost at the gut level and not so much on policy, although that plays a lesser part. If people begin to see a McCain presidency as a stepping stone for more foreign adventurism, then we win.
So, let's be consistent Obama team. Don't let this be a one day thing. Let's see some Dr. Strangelove ads. Hell, we know McCain likes humor. Juxtaposing his image over the missile riding Slim Pickens, with a banner reading "To Russia With Love" would be a good start. Let's keep the guns firing. Because if you ain't on offense, you're on defense.
August 20, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, are you stealing the theme of my avatar. I had it first. I want to see the daisy ad by the way.
August 21, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL Michael. Imitation is the finest form of flattery!
August 21, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What an insightful poll. They should also do a poll to find out which candidate the voters think is older.
(yawn)
August 21, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Hussein is a repug troll. Now, is that personal enough for you ?
August 21, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's campaign hit it today saying McCain is a reactionary warmonger--that's the Rove tactic of using McCain's strength against him. Democrats need to keep saying it over and over until McCain has to respond, then Obama can say that McCain was noticeably irritated...bristling...in a tizzy...having a fit...
August 21, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of stupid bullshit is this. When you factor in that 19% of voters say both are negative, then the ratio is 2 to 1. And that is BEFORE his new negative campaign.
NOT QUITE THE SAME HEADLINE, HUH?
If all you Obama kool-aid drinking supporters want to believe this kind of crap, more power to you.
The new breaking news...Obama going way negative (although he was negative and race baiting all the way back to the primaries).
What happened to NEW POLITCIS, HAHAHA. Anther Obama lie..
You know what, now his negatives will go up as people realize all his talk was crap!
The trend of Obama going down in the polls is only the start.
Shoulda stuck with Hillary
August 21, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn
August 21, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there anyone out there who's as sick and tired of looking at McMajorShit's rancid dentures as I am?
August 21, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Acamus,
what an intellectual response, you must be an Obama speech writer, you put together 4 letters to make a word, not a substantive response but at least a one syllable word,
props to you
August 21, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
yawn
August 21, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good stuff here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12685.html
August 21, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain the real elitist
August 21, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am unimpresssed. So what if people say McCain has been campaigning negatively, the polls show it is working. Unless Obama is hoping for the Marquis of Queensbury award, he should ignore that poll.
August 21, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Americans are not going to vote for someone who takes abuse and won't fight back. If Obama won't fight abuse from negative McCain, he won't fight for the rest of Americans either so what good is he?. Accordingly, it's a good thing Obama is beginning to ramp it up.
August 21, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain's Plot to kill the U.N. -- Points out McCain's lack of knowledge regarding foreign affairs -- supposedly his strong point!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-john-mccain-and-his-secretive-plot-to-kill-the-un-903998.html
Unfoturnately, we have to get the truth from other countries rather than our Republican-owned main stream media -- which is a derelict of duty to the American public.
August 21, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dentists are gonna LOVE McMajorshit being in the White House. Every time that he smiles, there'll come another wave of Boomers for teeth whitening. Never mind all of the gum disease and the stench, they'll just wanna LOOK good in comparison to Ol' McNasty.
August 21, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mainstream Media: The man behind the curtain
THE CHANGING WORLD OF INFORMATION RESOURCES
In the "old days" before the internet we were confined to the information fed to us by the media organizations - television, newspapers and magazines. Digging deeper into a story meant buying a lot of books or spending time at the public library, and most likely there would not be adequate research data available until months after the fact.
Things have changed. Thanks to a boundless archive of free information available on the internet, Americans who are willing to look for it can uncover the real story behind the groomed and edited news report issued by the media, in many cases within mere hours after the story is released.
AND NOW, A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR...
It should be noted that the American public is not the naïve flock of sheep it was back around September 11, 2001. Again thanks to the wealth of resources available on the internet, we have become savvy to the influence of government and corporate funding on media organizations. What was once called Mainstream Media [MSM] is now more appropriately tagged Corporate Media.
For those of you who are not aware of these influences, you owe it to yourself to do some research. Look into the funding sources of corporate media and how these sources influence the news we watch, read and hear, particularly politics. It’s a real eye-opener, trust me. While you’re at it, do some Googling for independent news sources. Compare their version of any given political news story to the version issued by mainstream/corporate media. The differences are glaring, if not stunning.
Mainstream Media journalism is biased according to the special interests of the political and corporate sponsors attached to that particular media source. News reports are carefully groomed and edited to comply with those special interests. Our government has become the biggest political influence on the media, with strong funding and sponsorship ties.
Media bias can be and is used to alter the reality of the world around us, covertly shaping our opinions and decisions to fit into the status quo. Propaganda, cover-ups, skewed facts, manipulated polls – powerful tools used by corporate media to deceive and control the American public.
Today these machinations are working at a feverish pitch, focused on steering the presidential election to an outcome that will favor the corporate media, its special interests and the government forces controlling it.
Let’s hope that the 21st century American is indeed wiser now than it was in the fall of 2001. God save America.
August 21, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink