« Polls: Obama Way Up, Palin And Economy Dragging McCain Down | Home | Obama Holds Sizable Lead In Today's Tracking Polls »

Top Obama Labor Supporter Warns Race Remains Volatile, Says Voters Lack Clear Sense Of Obama

In an unusually candid interview, a top official for the largest union backing Obama said that internal union polling shows that the race remains much more volatile and fluid in key battleground states than public polling suggests. He warned that low-information swing-state voters are saying they still don't have a firm enough grasp on Obama's life-story, character and record for the Illinois Senator to close the deal with them.

The comments by the official, AFL-CIO deputy political director Mike Podhorzer, are surprisingly frank and seemed intended as a reality check at a time when polls show the momentum has clearly swung in Obama's favor.

"This election remains extremely volatile in the battlegrounds," Podhorzer told us. "The public polls are giving a false sense of precision about where the race is. That's a story that's not really being told."

Strikingly, Podhorzer said that his union's internal polls -- which push voters hard on the question of whether people are really firmly committed to their pick -- show that as many as "15 to 20 percent" of battleground state voters remain "persuadable," as he put it, despite what public polls say about the level of undecided voters.

"There are more voters than you'd expect who are just starting to pay attention to the election," he said. "And there's a lot of room for people to go back and forth."

Podhorzer stressed that he is impressed by Obama's gains and is convinced Obama is on track to win right now. But he said that the union's interaction with battleground-state voters, combined with extensive internal polling, indicate that this dynamic is anything but fixed and that there's much more fluidity than is generally acknowledged.

Podhorzer ascribed the fluidity to two factors: The uncertain and rapidly shifting political landscape created by the financial crisis, and the relatively little time Obama has spent as a politician in the national spotlight.

"Low information voters who haven't been following this don't know very much about Obama, in a way that might be different from other elections," he said. "Voters are saying, `I really don't want another four years of this, but I don't know much about him."

"One of the things we find is that there's no sense of where he came from, what he's achieved, and that he's had to work hard for what he's done," Podhorzer continued. "People have much less of a grasp on Obama's biography than they do of McCain, who has created a persona of POW, survivor, independent, fought honorably for his country."

To be sure, union officials also see the vacuum in voter knowledge as a big opportunity. The union has launched a massive campaign in the swing states to educate voters about what McCain's policies would mean for them in the real world and how Obama is much more in touch with their problems than McCain is. And the polling shows that these voters are very receptive to this argument, Podhorzer says.

"When we lay out McCain's economic policies, like taxing health care benefits and privatizing social security, these voters abandon him readily," he said. "That's not what people assume McCain is about."

But Podhorzer cautioned against complacency. "Obama has definitely pulled ahead of McCain, but there's softness," he said. "With the financial crisis, and with surprises we can't imagine yet, there's a lot of work to do."


144 Comments

| Leave a comment

Bill Clinton that is.

He's actually using his name. What a change!

I agree with his analysis, but the trends we're seeing are sure as hell encouraging.

user-pic

Most important thing is for supporters to show up to vote! Obama will need at least a 10pt cushion to account for the voter disenfranchisement plans the GOP will execute. Make sure you are registered, know your polling place, have read the ballot, and show up early with ID.

user-pic

"...voter disenfranchisement plans the GOP will execute."
And what are these "voter disenfranchisement plans" you speak of?

Well one in Michigan is to use the lists of those who received eviction notices (and thus not yet evicted) to slow down lines and take some people off the lists.

In Ohio (which failed) they tried to stop same day registration and voting.

user-pic

...ok, suppose for a moment that your assertion that verifying the residency of a voter is "disenfranchisement" (which it's not, but stay with me). According to one of the nut websites that is pushing this BS, http://www.workers.org/2008/editorials/2008_elections_0925/
"60 percent of all subprime loans—the ones more prone to default—were made to Michigan African Americans..." (an amazing statistic on its own) "One in every 176 households in Wayne County, which includes metropolitan Detroit, received a foreclosure notice during July. In Macomb County, the figure during the same month was one household in every 285, meaning that 1,834 homeowners received foreclosure filings." So even if every one of those homeowners (or former homeowners) is registered to vote, and their spouse, and half have an additional adult registered to vote living there, that's 4,585 votes (even though you realize that there's no way the number's that high). Now 594,398 were cast in the Michigan Dem primary that Obama wasn't even on the ballot for and many didn't think would count... While any "disenfranchisement" is reprehensible (not that this even would be), slanting all of the numbers in your direction, less than 1% of the Obama vote would be "disenfranchised"... Y'all need to worry more about that 6% of Racist Democrats out there.

Sorry about the disrespect. Some of us are for Obama precisely to restore respect and civility to American discourse.

Disenfranchisement and the Republican party have a long history. A typical tactic is robo-calls to low-income black and Latino neighborhoods warning people not to come to the polls if they have any unpaid parking tickets. They hang doornob signs in Spanish or among the elderly reminding people to vote on Wednesday.

These tactics, as McCain might say, are nothing compared to the strategies. The new laws about "voter fraud" require expensive forms of I.D. that many poor voters don't have or don't care to get. (Not too many residents of Watts need a $100 dollar passport. And if the homeless could vote...) Add in voter roll purges of tens of thousands of voters in at least 19 states. (Remember why they fired the Mississippi DA?) Putting the tight Senate race at the very bottom of the ballot in violation of state law was a tiny thing in comparison.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6453

That's the disenfranchisement you can prove. Republicans work kiaboshed a plan to extend voting hours.

I leave you with the fruits of the Help America Vote Act, linked below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/how-to-hack-a-diebold-vot_b_26301.html

So, that's just the basics.

If you are a conservative, or even a Republican, thanks for taking the time to check out other people's viewpoints. Ignore the idiots. Our democracy's only hope is intelligent, skeptical people who listen to one another. People like you are going to save this country.


Sorry, the whole section about sketchy stuff at polling places, the stuff you can't prove, somehow must've been typoed away.

Republicans work hard to get volunteers in polling places and to control where voting machines are placed. I went to college in Colorado Springs, and in '04, our school's polling place had so few machines there was a 4 hour wait to vote, while a team of volunteers scrutinized, (slowly) each voter to find discrepancies between the spelling of names on the ID and names on the rolls, or addresses, etc. Voters who registered with school addresses (and come on, they live there 9 months out of the year, some for longer) got notices that their registrations hadn't processed in late October. (They called it P.O. boxes as an address, which wasn't true, but could be construed.)

Then, in '04, prop i, for gay civil unions, narrowly lost after voting machines in Denver shut down all afternoon, and judges put the kibosh on extending poll hours.

So, there's that too, I'm saying. Best to ya.

i'm sorry, wallace could you speak up? i can't hear you when your head's in the sand...

user-pic

Sorry for the delay....contrary to popular belief, responding with the opposing view here doesn't pay too well, I work it in between customers...

the comment wasn't about the delay in your response it was about your apparent denial (or what now seems to be a non-denial) about republican efforts to drive down voter turnout in democratic/minority districts and precincts.

user-pic

I deny the premise but go on to show that the claim, even if true, would have a negligible effect on the outcome of the election.

Remind me again of how many votes Bush supposedly beat Gore by in FL?

Moreover, challenging voters at the polls has cascade effects at the polling places where it is done; lots of challenges mean long lines, long lines mean fewer votes from those precincts, and if you target precincts for this treatment who you expect to vote for the other guy, the impact is broader than the number of votes you challenge.

Keep in mind that this is only one of multiple methods used to suppress votes, including misleading lists of felons and caging.

But the head in the sand comment is on point. If it won't have any effect on the election, why do the repubs do it? Are they just woefully incompetent? Oh, wait...

user-pic

...for every case of, what you consider "deisenfranchisement" attempts by Republicans, I can come up with an "ice cream for mental patients" "cigarettes for homeless" vote buying or just plain dead people voting scheme by Democrats. I guess whose head's in the sand depends on which side of the dune you're standing on.

you are just ignorant.

ohio was won by bush because of voter surpression.

do your homework if you want to learn.

and remember my prediction.

Obama will carry Ohio by 5 points min. because a dem. is now in charge and the votes will not be stolen.

sit baack and watch.

Is that a halo around Obama's picture?

:-)

Mike

No time for complacency, indeed. We've got 34 days left to get this thing done. My wife and I are heading to NW Indiana from Chicago this and next weekend to register voters in La Porte and South Bend (and I DESPISE Notre Dame, but this is too important). We all must do what we can to get out the message. My personal goal -- other than the Cubs to win the World Series -- is to help flip Indiana. Let's all do whatever we can!

user-pic

Gee thanks.


I could have skipped this, thank you. Now I can worry about the election again as well the economy.


user-pic

C'mon, be positive!  With BigO up in the polls, that "softness" represents a huge opportunity to increase his lead.

Leave it to Axelrod and Plouffe.  I'm sure they'll be able to firm up those soft spots.

user-pic

O I am not that worried.

I've known all along that the last barrier was going to be race.

It was always going to be difficult.

user-pic

I read this as a "don't get cocky" warning -- always work as if you're behind, especially when you're ahead. The polls are looking good, but it all depends on us continuing to work our asses off.

Unfortunately, this still doesn't surprise me. It took generations for racial policy and standards to become engrained into the American ethos, starting from the very beginning; it'll take a few more generations before the remnants get winnowed out.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG.

I'm talkin' to you from KENTUCKY - the "racist Democrat" capital of the universe. And I'm telling you this right now:

Anybody who is not voting for Obama because of race never had any intention of voting for the Democratic candidate - no matter who it was.

We are surrounded here in Kentucky by registered "Democrats" who are certified racists and who have not voted for an actual Democratic candidate since LBJ.

They're not potential Obama voters he could lose; they're dead-set McCain voters who are so disgusted by Palin they probably won't vote.

And I say that as a personal friend of two of them who are going to do precisely that.

user-pic

Thank you. I would certainly rather hear this at this point.

I don't need any more bad news - the entire rest of my life is really and truly hanging by a thread right now -

"the entire rest of my life is really and truly hanging by a thread right now"

Hmmm, Tena. That doesn't sound good . . .

user-pic

On the other hand: an old friend in PA told me his 90 year old father-in-law (whome he loaths) is a lifelong blue-collar Democrat and, using the N word, said point-blank he's voting for McCain. I hate to say it but there are still a lot more of these jerks around than we'd all like to think.

So let's not get complacent in the last weeks: Mission Not-Yet Accomplished.

90 years old, he might not make it to election day!!!

Not sure what I'm so Wrong, wrong, WRONG about: that racism was woven into the fabric of the Republic ab initio, or that it remains recidually today? The fact that you hail from "the 'racist Democrat' capital of the universe" kinda restricts the possibility of my mistake to the former proposition. History tends to support me on that.

user-pic

Unfortunately Schmedley, I could have predicted you'd say that - you tend to concentrate on all downsides - so no surprises.

What I could predict about you could fill volumes and still be as meaningless as any prediction you could posit. Nonetheless, I'll offer one: I'm guessing your knowledge of race relations doesn't come from specific personal experience. Put another way: when was the last time you were called "nigger" to your face?

user-pic

I hear you Schmedley, but I still say your track record is there - you always see the downsides to things.

And as meaningless as I am - and god knows, I am - I don't think that that means automatically that you're right.

You read selectively: my posts are no more negative than the average poster's.

As for my being right about racism: I know whereof I speak.

user-pic

Yes, love I feel ya on the race issue.

I always knew it would be difficult to elect Obama - we're doing smashingly, actually.

And ok - I'll just leave you alone. I do your read comments and have all time we've been here.

I know who is a pessimist and who isn't on the board. It's really that simple.

Some people confuse a healthy awareness of reality with "pessimism." For me, being a racial realist is entirely necessary for survival. I'll leave it at that.

... they still don't have a firm enough grasp on Obama's life-story, character and record for the Illinois Senator to close the deal with them.

That is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. That's stupider than Sarah Palin.

People who are saying that after 18 fucking months of non-stop repetition of "Obama's life-story, character and record" never had any intention of voting for the Democratic candidate and never will.

Notice this blithering idiot never explains whether these delicate flowers are claiming to be leaning toward Obama. My mortgage says they're not.

user-pic
People who are saying that after 18 fucking months of non-stop repetition of "Obama's life-story, character and record" never had any intention of voting for the Democratic candidate and never will.

I sort of agree with this.

I completely agree with it. How can a serious (or even semi-serious) voter claim to not know Obama's story at this point? It's interwoven with virtually all that's happening in the country these days, from the economic crisis to the cover of People magazine.

Please. These people either have no intention of voting for O or they're not voting at all.

user-pic

MPC, I don't think you're right. I think a whole lot of people who DO vote don't follow things as closely as, say, people who read TPM.

And that's what this guy was saying:

"Low information voters who haven't been following this don't know very much about Obama, in a way that might be different from other elections," [Podhorzer] said.

Suppose you skipped the convention coverage entirely and you just tuned into the news for the weather, would you get a lot of bio on Obama??

Turns out, that's how most people live.

But the good news is that these people start to pay attention late in the game. So Obama and his ground game still have a good chance to convince these people that he's the better choice. And we can all help with that.

-- ARG

i don't know...

obama really hasn't been running a bio-based campaign.

certainly not when compared to mccain's powpowpow, did you know that i was a pow? campaign.

obama's campaign has been much more message-based and issue-based. and this has been deliberate. imagine how much more of the 'uppity negro' counter-message would be out there if obama had been focusing on his life story the same way mccain has.

I agree. He has moved off biography and values as he's come out of the primaries and into the generals. So, if people weren't paying attention in the primaries--or knew they were voting Clinton--they may not have paid much attention to Obama's personal story. I think he's eschewed it for fear of the exoticism of his upbringing. I think the campaign has tried to be very disciplined about sticking to issues. Unfortunately, low information voters sort of by definition don't vote on issues. So, yeah, I can believe that 15-20% of a segment of the electorate doesn't know Obama's biography well. He hasn't been trumpeting his post-racialism for awhile now.

But again, I don't think this would charm those voters. The only way he'll bring them to his side is, as this guy points out, to show them how much McCain's policies will screw them every single day.

user-pic

I know Mike Podhorzer personally, and he is anything but a "blithering idiot". The man is a genius, and he's been the driving force behind a lot of innovations in the progressive community with regard to voter targeting. He's not knocking Obama here...he's warning all of us against complacency, and he's right.

user-pic

This is very similar to the Times piece:

Labor trying to convince undecideds

user-pic

Every troll in the universe is bound to come out for this post.

Apologies for not communicating clearly.

The point I obviously failed to make is that the concern over racist voters is misplaced.

Worrying that racist Democrats won't vote for Obama is like worrying wingnut freakazoids who own oil companies won't vote for Obama.

Of course they won't, but it doesn't matter. Obama doesn't need them to win; he doesn't need them to win by a landslide.

We need to stop wasting time, money and energy trying to persuade people who will never, never, never vote Democratic, and concentrate on the thousands of people who would willingly vote Democratic if only one person would knock on their door and ask them nicely.

Well then, here's a radical idea.

If their polling is showing that "low information voters" are reluctant to commit to Obama because "there's no sense of where he came from, what he's achieved, and that he's had to work hard for what he's done," how 'bout the union trying to give these "low information" voters" they've pinpointed some information on where Obama came from, what he's achieved, and that he's had to work hard for what he's done, rather than just "lay out McCain's economic policies, like taxing health care benefits and privatizing social security?"

Just a thought.

user-pic

Hmmmm. You mean like this:

Other union leaders said that some members had acknowledged opposing Mr. Obama because he is black, and that canvassers had heard racial slurs against him.

To increase Mr. Obama’s chances of winning, labor’s field marshals have sought to make sure that canvassers, when distributing fliers and visiting union members, focus on economic issues, like Mr. Obama’s calls for cutting taxes on the middle class and repealing tax breaks for companies that invest overseas. The canvassers also emphasize protecting Social Security, problems with trade agreements and the need for change.

Click on link above for more. The NY Times published this Monday.

user-pic

the union has been working extremely hard to do that, with mailers, phone calls, knocking on doors, etc etc

user-pic
... make sure that canvassers, when distributing fliers and visiting union members...

All very good, but not enough.

Low-info union members are a problem, but they're only a part of the low-info-voter population.

Educating that part will help, but it leaves out the rest of the low-info voters.

But aren't those AFL-CIO mailers the ones (like we've seen posted here on TPM) that don't mention Obama by name? I believe that they will work on this, but it seemed to me that to date they've had a more circumspect, "Don't Vote For McCain" approach, rather than "Obama is A-OK" approach. Although strategically, now might be the best time to segue into that sort of friendly, "everybody's doing it -- vote Obama!" kind of tone....starting that too soon could've left enough time for a backlash, I suppose.

Ah, dealing with those undecideds sure is tricky...

user-pic

They've done several pro-Obama flyers as well, talking about his bio and trying to clear up misperceptions. They did one piece that was all about the false rumors being spread about Obama. It's a pretty effective program, because members tend to trust their union as a source of information.