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."
Clinton live in FL.
http://www.local6.com/video/17598426/index.html
October 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton that is.
October 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's actually using his name. What a change!
October 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with his analysis, but the trends we're seeing are sure as hell encouraging.
October 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...voter disenfranchisement plans the GOP will execute."
And what are these "voter disenfranchisement plans" you speak of?
October 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
...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.
October 1, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 2, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 2, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm sorry, wallace could you speak up? i can't hear you when your head's in the sand...
October 1, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
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...
October 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remind me again of how many votes Bush supposedly beat Gore by in FL?
October 1, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
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...
October 1, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
...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.
October 1, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that a halo around Obama's picture?
:-)
Mike
October 1, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
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!
October 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee thanks.
I could have skipped this, thank you. Now I can worry about the election again as well the economy.
October 1, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
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 -
October 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, Tena. That doesn't sound good . . .
October 1, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
90 years old, he might not make it to election day!!!
October 1, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately Schmedley, I could have predicted you'd say that - you tend to concentrate on all downsides - so no surprises.
October 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
October 1, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
... 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.
October 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sort of agree with this.
October 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
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:
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
October 1, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very similar to the Times piece:
Labor trying to convince undecideds
October 1, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every troll in the universe is bound to come out for this post.
October 1, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. You mean like this:
Click on link above for more. The NY Times published this Monday.
October 1, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
the union has been working extremely hard to do that, with mailers, phone calls, knocking on doors, etc etc
October 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
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...
October 1, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Labor did a bio-oriented piece over the summer (shortly after Obama was nominated) and is doing a issue oriented piece now.
October 1, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep looking up but I'm just not seeing the sky falling.
Do I need to look harder?
October 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's all lower our expectations.
ok.
October 1, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think i need to learn to be very very small and very very quiet because every time i am encouraged, someone tells me that the universe is exploding, Obama's too black and we're doomed.
I'd rather take the doom as it happens instead of living through it 15 times a day.
October 1, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm interested in is the undecideds here. I assume if they were racist, they'd be decided. And I'm guessing that mcShame is like an incumbent here, since he's so closely tied to bush. If that latter case is correct, then it makes me wonder if the undecideds are simply waiting for a good enough reason to vote for Obama. Those reasons must be legion. But I can't help but wonder if that's the case - that undecideds are looking for a reason to vote for hope and change.
October 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put Tena. I try to remain skeptical, not cynical or pessimistic. Skeptical doesn't rule out optimism.
October 1, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this news on top of the McCain campaign's plan to start attacking again, with Rev. Wright very likely to be rolled out this time around, along with Rezko and Ayers.
It's not over folks, not by a long shot. (unless Obama Camp has prepared for the Wright blitz that everybody should have known was coming)
October 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
They deal "Wright."
We play "Keating 5."
October 1, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...Keating will work for sure...
ROBERT BENNETT:"You know, I'm in a pretty unique position to talk about John McCain. First, I should tell your listeners I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not on his side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five...And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest and honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him..."
October 1, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try. He screwed up, he was punished, and that scandal is very relevant to this campaign and appropriate for Obama's campaign to raise, given the current deregulation-fueled meltdown of the U.S. financial system.
October 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
...if they thought it would work, it would be out there already. They already tried Melanoma as an excuse to not vote for him for goodness sake!
October 1, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would seem, "SFC", that as time passes more and more voters are finding their own reasons to not vote for McCain.
Mine? Well, he's unhinged, physically, psychologically, and emotionally damaged, thinks starting another war is the answer to every question (wonder how he deals with "Would you like fries with that?"), is clueless on the economy, and picks a demonstrable moron like Caribou Barbie for his running mate.
And still you show up here as a paid troll to annoy people. Bet those checks look good from the security of your mom's basement, don't they?
October 1, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well inasmuch as McLame has gotten no end of negative PR on his negative campaigning, and the CNN live poll during the debate backs this up - his numbers dropped every time he attacked Obama,
I hope he does bring up the whole thing - all of it and as nastily as possible.
October 1, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't they sort of forfeit the ability to use Wright by picking Palin? That video of her church is pretty fucking crazy, and now that Obama has cut the 527's loose, you can sure as hell bet that they'll respond to any ad featuring Rev. Wright in turn.
October 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Hagee, anyone?
October 1, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain needs the Catholic vote if he is to stand a chance in places like PA.
October 1, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I flip on Rush for a few minutes every afternoon as I'm driving around for work (I listen so you don't have to!) just to hear what that asshat is up to, and yesterday the Wright thing was in full bloom, sound bites and all. Also, on the Howie Carr show (local to Boston right-wing douche I'm sure you have all heard of) the same stuff was being played and dissected.
In other words, it's back, or it has never gone away.
But the McCain campaign can't go there, only surrogates. It's possible they've used up all the negative they can without turning off more more voters.
October 1, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with KY Yellow Dog above. Really? 18 months of almost non-stop coverage of Obama's Kansan mother, his reverend, his Kenyan dad, his education, his poor beginnings, his childhood in Hawaii, etc etc etc & you STILL don't know enough about him? WTF does it take to get Americans away from American Idol for five minutes so they can learn about the candidates for President?
October 1, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "I don't really know him" is code for "he's not like me" - whatever that is.
Reflects the stupid portion of the electorate (spread all across the country and all classes) who want a president to be someone they can relate to - whatever that means. As if any president is going to be spending any time with you, unless you are a fellow world leader.
October 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not like me" is a big part of it. I'm convinced the reason the Repub convention was so "successful" is because a lot of (white) people decided being tolerant was too demanding and wanted to spend time with people "like them." Thus the sudden rise of Palin.
Then when their retirement accounts lost 25% of their value - along with Palin's proving to be a gibbering dolt - they decided being tolerant was a lot less demanding than going completely broke.
October 1, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! Yup! It's hard to be an intolerant wanker while working 3 jobs just to keep food on your family!
October 1, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, I'm not sure if OH is going to matter in the grand scheme of things. And why would we believe that a union's polling firm is better than say Marist, Rassmussen, SurveyUSA, Quinnipac or any of the other reputable pollsters that are in the field right now?
October 1, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This vindicates the Obama campaign's preference for a getting-to-know-Obama strategy over the cut-down-the-adversary tactics.
October 1, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is why VA, FL and CO are so important. It allows Obama to win while carrying only two of the three battle ground states of PA, MI, OH.
I think it is a stretch to say that MN and WI are truly battleground states.
October 1, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree with it. What the hell is it that they don't know or can't find out at this stage of the game if they really and truly want to?
And therein lies the issue, I suspect: they are not really sure they want to, because they are not comfortable with the idea of being disabused of numbskull nitwittery they've had hard-coded into their brains for so long.
October 1, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
(That was supposed to be in reply to CT Voter and KY Yellow Dog.)
October 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
With just 35 days to go, narratives like this will hopefully just make the Obama ground game work that much harder, and that's not such a bad thing. No time to get complacent, even if things are looking rosier electorally-speaking the last week or so.
On a different note, Greg Sargent, like many a journalist/blogger/pundit before him, needs to understand a simple basic fact---the AOL-CIO is not a specific, single union as he at various points states and implies in this piece. Rather, it is a federation, an umbrella group comprised of different unions, each with varying occupational trades, parochial interests and membership bases. See this basic all the time when reporters reference the AFL-CIO.
October 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is it not a bad thing, but every point added to Obama's total in contested states ALSO means a boot for the down-ticket candidates and a step toward taking real, effective control of the Senate. Even if we're positive Obama will win 9and I'm getting pretty close), work for a landslide!
October 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
BOOST, that is. It's the Repukes who need to get the boot!
October 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree. Podhorzer's analysis sounds pretty reasonable to me and even though the trends are good, we all have to work our asses off to win this thing.
Ditto. It's a sign of how little most journalists pay attention to labor that this mistake gets made repeatedly. Plus, now (unlike in 2004), there are six major unions not even in the AFL-CIO -- UFCW, SEIU, Teamsters, UNITE-HERE, Laborers and Carpenters, with the first three representing well over 1 million members each. What these unions do will also be absolutely critical.
October 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, that would be AFL-CIO in my post above...mea culpa.
October 1, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I didn't know they'd been taken over by Time-Warner.
October 1, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who "don't know enough about Obama" but are giddy with Sarah Palin are tried and true Republicans in disguise(saying they're undecided) or flat out racists who use "unknown" as a code word.
October 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton just gave a helluva speech for Obama in FLA. Maybe he's pissed that McCain used him in an attack ad and/or how Republicans were trying to lay blame to the economic meltdown to the Clinton White House. Big Dawg is fiercely protective of his legacy.
October 1, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's just my hazy memory, but....
In 2004, there was a lot of handwringing among Democrats late during the campaign that Kerry was not the best choice, that he wasn't really going to be able to galvanize support broadly enough, and the polls were showing him neck-and-neck, or even behind Bush by a couple points nationally, and in a few key battleground states.
And here it is in 2008, there is still handwringing among Democrats late during the campaign, that Obama may not be the best choice, that he isn't going to be able to galvanize support broadly enough, and the polls are now showing him UP 6-9 POINTS NATIONALLY, and ahead in almost EVERY BATTLEGROUND state.
I just have to ask, where are articles about handwringing among Republicans? Are they confident about McCain's chances? Really? Why is it always the Democrat who generates worry, even when they're now flirting with winning by a goddamn landslide?
I swear, it's gotta be in our DNA. There's just no other explanation.
October 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe anybody is saying Obama wasn't the right choice. Edwards would have been a disaster and Clinton would have been right in the middle of this economic meltdown as the Gramm bill for deregulation did pass in the Clinton years.
October 1, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol... Very sensible post. I think the phrase Obama used was "congenitally worried." I'll look for the interview.
October 1, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, there's been some handwringing among Republicans that Palin might really be an idiot. Just sayin'.
October 1, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It goes with being part of the reality-based community.
October 1, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A union statement kicking us in the butt to not get complacent is about the best thing that can happen to us right about now. Getting a black guy born on a tropical island with the name Barack Obama elected POTUS is going to be a challenge until the day of the election.
This election is a tipping point in American history. It is quite possible that 200 years from now sociologist and historians will view an Obama presidency as the official end of the racial-strife chapter of American history. So yeah, we need to fight dilligently until the last vote is counted. We are literally changing 400 years of American inertia and history.
October 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The beginning of the end, maybe.
When Obama took his "victory lap" in MN in June, I asked a local political reporter (I have met and talked with him on multiple occasions) if he thought he'd see this in his lifetime. He admitted it had taken him somewhat by surprise, and I caught a solid note of happiness, albeit one tinged with some real concern.
Still, forward...
October 1, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
And wow, think about this again:
"Getting a black guy born on a tropical island with the name Barack Obama elected POTUS"
If we pull this off ... wow!
October 1, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that Obama's debate performance in which he came across as a likeable guy was calculated because the Obama camp knew that the smnearing would start in October.
If Obama comes across as a nice guy that one can trust in front of millions than people would be less likely think that Obama is like Wright or Ayers.
October 1, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
And he will - that's just him and Obama is authentic. Interestingly enough -most people who support him whom I talk to get that from him just like I do - he's authentic. He's sincere.
October 1, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep.
angry black man vs angry old white guy --> angry old white guy wins, advantage: mccain
sensible and agreeable black man vs angry old white guy --> draw, advantage: obama
obama played the debate exactly as it needed to be played. sad to say, but if he was any more aggressive or forceful, the latent racism of white america would have tanked his chances for sure. (and obama's mild-mannered post-partisan gobbledyguck is why i didn't support him in the primary - this election posed a unique and timely opportunity for the dems to make a forceful push back to the left. instead we'll all just be lucky to get things closer to the center and avoid the absolute disaster that would be a mccain presidency. interestingly though, obama's bi-partisan sincerity is proving to be a nice match to mccain's phoney bi-partisan baloney.)
October 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Surprises"? Well, here's one thing to look forward to, and no surprise at all: a massive wave of smear attack Ads from the deep pocketed GOP 527s. They're coming.......
October 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
soon as they extract their money from those hedge funds...
October 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This economic situation may make even some of them reconsider who they want to win the election.
October 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Race will remain America's akilies heal, but deep down inside even the most luke warm-bigoted voters acknowledges Obama is the better candidate in this election. In the end those voters who are bothered by Obama's race (for what reason, who knows) will vote for him, some not all.
October 1, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure as H*ll wish I could remember the name of the reader who posted this, (or, rather, their nom de'Net,) so I could credit him/her, but to paraphrase:
'The polls look good, but we need to act like Obama is five points down.'
Amen. Volunteer to register new voters, canvass; come election day help out with the GOTV effort, like Obama is down five points. We have got to win this thing. Here are two words for any who need further motivation: President Palin.
Robert
October 1, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a former union member who is retired, I only have this to say: I'm tired of making excuses for the bigots in unions. If these people are so racist and/or uninformed on the issues that they would support McCain and Palin (both of whom never say a union they liked) over Obama and Biden, then I say they will get what is coming to them. If McCain wins and this scenario plays out, the next time I hear a union guy whining about losing his job to a company who shipped his job overseas, I'm going to ask him who he voted for in the 2008 election. If he says, "McCain" then my response will be, "Congratulations. Go tell President McCain about your problem because you got what you deserve.
October 1, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is, if they get what they deserve, then WE also get what they deserve. Which we don't deserve.
So keep on working for a landslide.
October 1, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: "Fuck McCain and everybody who looks like him. Yes the big, good-looking, really smart black guy shrinks my weenie a little - but fuck it, my weenie was never all that big to begin with. Go Obama."
I say relax, everybody. This means nothing.
October 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, Eric has a poll post above this one and it's all excellent news.
The world is upside down - Greg is throwing cold water while Eric is posting awesome good news. Ouch = my brain hurts.
I don't care what the union says - this does not jive with the polls. Just scroll up and look - he's still going up.
October 1, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, the point he's making isn't that the polls now don't look good -- he says they do -- but that the polls aren't registering just how fluid and mutable people's allegiances are
October 1, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes. and very important to keep in mind that polls under-represent undecided voters, pushing them into one column or the other by posing the obama or mccain question in terms of 'if the election were held today...'
October 1, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are these low-info voters watching FOX News? Otherwise, they should have a fairly clear understanding of Obama by now.
Are these the same people who are Pro-Palin?
They hypocrisy and underlying racism never ends.
October 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
I live in Illinois (and voted for Obama in 2004 as well as this year's primary)and I can tell you he's honest and forthright.
Definitely not a kiss your butt and tell you what you want to hear politician.
Not a pie in the sky, idealistic, ivory tower, utopian liberal. His ideas and policies are reality-based. Which I think is the reason Republicans have to resort to such absurd attacks. He not giving them any ammunition.
October 1, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But,
How can that be? I thought polls like these could be extrapolated to represent the larger populations' opinions.
I've always thought polls didn't represent the entire picture.
Aren't we poll-tired yet anyway? Enough with daily polls. Why can't we just wait until election day?
October 1, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The amazing thing is that there are apparently "low-information voters" out there who still aren't sufficiently familiar with Obama to feel comfortable voting for him.
That may be true, but even if you're not all that familiar with Obama, you sure as hell know what the last eight years look like, and that ought to be enough to persuade any half-conscious person.
sheesh...
October 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will give some McCain talking points for them!
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1
October 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What union members lack is common sense.
Stop worrying about the color of his skin and REALLY pay attention to what he is saying.
October 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bobby Kennedy is saying that massive amounts of voters are being tossed off the rolls in Colorado and New Jersey, and perhaps elsewhere where Obama is leading. One of the provisions of the dreadful HAVA legilsation (Help America Vote) is the "perfect match" clause, where you can be stricken from the rolls of legitimate voters for having one letter mis-spelled in your name, even if the elections office clerk made the mistake and it's not your fault.
October 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may not be doable but if Obama could do some longer ad spots, say 2 - 5 minutes, in which he talks about who he is and what he wants to do as president, they might help break through the noise machine. A fireside chat format would be ideal.
They would need to get the word out about the commercials in advance to get the maximum number of viewers.
October 1, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other news, another poll finds that 95% of people who lie and explain they are not sold on Obama because "they do not know enough about him" in order to avoid admitting something else to themselves say that they are not sold on Obama because they do not know enough about him.
October 1, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
have you guys seens this new video of Palin's interview with Couric? Palin does not even know who Hamas is: Watch and pass on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y1oYThKts
October 1, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yellow Dog and MarciaJ720:
I'm not "on the ground" in Ohio/Pa and other places where union member support for whether or not those who "do not know" Obama were ever going to "know" him.
What has been awful about the last year or so is that Obama has had to (as J. Klein wrote) make himself part of an "American" narrative. So, if some people have not been paying attention, I don't know if Obama can rewind the tape for them so they can catch up.
And frankly: People have voted for Bush and others without the info they have about Obama.
But information does not equal "knowing," I guess, which is a more "connection" thing.
And Obama (or I, for that matter) will always be a stranger/strange to some people. And there's not a damn thing he can do about it. If he went into some living rooms and sat down and told his story face-to-face, house-by-house, answered questions, had birth certificate and passport, people would still not "know" enough.
So enough: We soldier on w/out those who don't "know" Obama,trying to provide that cushion Obama will need,
P.S.: I suspect these union folk really "know" McCain and Palin. They are just not suspicious of them. There's a difference.
October 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so sick of these people with this BS excuse about not knowing enough about Obama. How about doing some freakin research? Morons, we live amongst a bunch of idiots...
Conservative Republican for Obama/Biden
October 1, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops:
editing mistake:
"I am not on the ground in Ohio/Pa and other place where union member support is "soft," but I share your question whether or not those who "do not know" obama were ever going to "know" him.
October 1, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arguably the greatest tragedy in American politics since Wallace won Michigan in '68 and showed the Republicans how to use race and other "cultural issues" to win over the white working class, has been the abject failure of unions to educate their members about their raw economic interests, if nothing else. If the unions blow it yet again, as America hangs on the brink of deep, deep recession, he unions will have to take a good share of the blame for what will be the most catastrophic loss for labor since Nixon in '68 began the deluge which has hurt unions so much for forty years. I hope these guys can finally suck it up, and somehow get their act together. For forty years, their political ineptitude has been something to see, and something for the upper classes to gloat over.
October 1, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever tried actually doing this? Trust me, it's not so easy.
October 1, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very astute comment.
In fact, Wallace did not win MI in '68, but he did win AR, LA, MS, AL, and GA. (So sez this source.)
But that doesn't take away from the point you're making:
Yes. The beginning of the Southern Strategy, no?
October 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK - so you don't want to vote for McCain, no problem.
But please tell me after reading this ..
http://redbourn.blogspot.com/
It's not about him being Muslim, one quarter black or anything similar.
After you've read it please tell us how you could even consider voting for him.
Mike
October 1, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest Obama or some 527 get an ad up comparing the two. No pictures just list their accomplishments / history.
Candidate 1 Candidate 2
Born: Hawaii Panama
Date: 1960 1936
Education:Earned Scholarship Father got him in
to Harvard Naval Academy
Graduated: Top of his class Fifth last at
at Harvard Naval academy
First Job: Worked as community Naval Aviator
organizer in poorest Crashed 5
Area of Chicago planes
etc. etc..
Then ask: who do you want running your country? and place both candidates pictures over their resume and bring Obama to the front and washout McCain.
People need to be aware Obama's life is the embodiment of the American dream and McCain's
demonstrates the elitism and privilege that pervades our country.
October 1, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
When voters say "I don't know enough about Obama" or "I don't have enough information" after 18 months of being saturated with it, that is code for "I don't want a black president, but I don't want to look racist so I'm not gonna tell you that." They'll either vote Republican or stay home.
October 1, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know next to nothing about Obama because he intentionally concealed his past and was careful not to put anything in writing.
http://redbourn.blogspot.com/
There is an expression "don't buy a cat in a sack" which you'd be doing by voting for Obama.
I'm not a McCaine supporter but wouldn't even consider voting for Obama.
Keep and open mind when you read the blog and perhaps decide not to vote?!
I strongly believe that people should vote but I wouldn't feel right about voting for either of the candidates.
Mike
October 1, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another expression: "Don't buy a 72-year-old cat with melanoma." And another one: "Eight years of a Republican Administration in the White House has made the U.S. the financial and military equivalent of a 'cat in a sack'."
P.S.: the only candidate being kept "in a sack" is Palin.
October 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the blog?
Mike
October 2, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a troll.
October 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on! This "we don't know Obama very well" stuff got old long ago, when the GOPers kept repeating it over and over. What does Obama have to do to end this nonsense? He's laid his life story bare in books, TV documentaries, his own speeches, newspaper and magazine articles -- what's left? If this is true, then a lot of our population -- a lot more than we imagined -- is both illiterate and don't have a TV.
October 1, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is so thin on experience and disclosure of his past that it's frightening. There's a lot of glossing over and failure to check any details and dig into his history and relationships, especially in his Chicago haunts.
But the real question that TPM and the rest of the media should really consider is this.
IS OBAMA EVEN QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF ALASKA, MUCH LESS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES??
October 1, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha haaaaa! That's right! Obama is not even qualified to be Governor of Alaska.
October 1, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha haaaaaaa! That's right! Obama isn't even qualified to be Governor of Alaska.
October 1, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
These poll numbers continue to amaze. With all that has happened to the economy in the past 10 days, Obama should be up by 25 points. But it's still close. If he can't break out now, I don't think he ever can. I think Obama's gonna lose.
October 1, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not related to the above article, but if you want to hear some very sobering remarks about McCain, look up Veterans against McCain. It's much more credible than the Kerry attacks from people who have the publicized and verifiable facts behind them. There's another one by a man who spent time as a POW with McCain and talks about his volatile temper (not that we didn't know about that already) and how he would be afraid if McCain "has his finger on the button." nuclear I presume.
What I have noticed from Obama and McCain's respective campaigns, when Obama gets attacked he rises to the occasion, often with making a unifying speech that seeks to unite, not destroy, and when McCain gets attacked he becomes rude, peevish, and beligerent. Between him and Sarah P., I would expect WW III in short order. Now she is REALLY scary. In her interviews she uses vague positive symbolic concepts over and over without saying anything, like, "I support Democracy, and Tolerance, and Freedom," etc.
October 1, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I've simply had it with these people. If they pulled their collective heads out of their collective shorts and paid attention, they would see what a complete loon McCain is, how terribly unqualified Palin is, how much the Republicans want to take their money, give it to their friends, send their children to war, strip-mine our natural resources, spy on them, and otherwise trample on their rights. If they would only pay attention. Even a little bit would do the trick, and Obama would win in a landslide.
But no, no! They persist in remaining "low information voters." I work 10 hours a day, have two kids, and was out of a job for several months during the summer; I'm not a low-information voter. They have no excuse but intellectual laziness, and I've had it with them.
I'm am so heartily sick of getting the government that those boneheads deserve instead of the government the rest of us deserve. Enough already. Pay attention, you fools!
October 1, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! There should be a comma after "attacks," as in the vets against McCain have verifiable info, not the Kerry attacks.
Please excuse any spelling issues.
singoutgirl
October 1, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you can probably tell, I haven't blogged before.
I encountered Obama at the U. of Chicago, and he is amazingly impressive. I have never seen anyone unite so many disparate people like this man. He swept the Illinois election and really does restore hope, by getting people to work together in a meaningful way. Sounds pollyanna-ish but it's true. Also he is our only hope to begin to repair our standing with other countries (and with ourselves as US citizens).
I am not saying he's perfect, no one is, but he is really good.
So--we should never be complacent. The stakes are too important.
And for "Family Values" voters, anyone with real family values only has to compare Obama's family with either McCain's or Palin's to see the big difference.
October 1, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace RE: voter suppression
Yours is a woeful, almost shameful denial of the truth and certainly a big loogey in the face of recent election history.
Anyone who has read TPM for any length of time should be aware enough of this issue to make an accurate statement. And since you're not new Wallace, I have to assume your selling something: complacency. To what ends? Well that's between you and God but from where I'm sitting it smells of sulfur.
October 1, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to bring you down to Earth but I personally know people in Louisville who voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry etc. who are supporting (heavily) McCain this year and when I press them on it, they are unable to articulate why. But I know the damn truth!
October 2, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Labor is saying that it's not sold on Obama. I think this is a threat, not an objective analysis (although I also agree that "we don't know him" is code for "we're uneasy with a black President". First, does the AFL-CIO seriously believe that they're going to get a better deal from McCain-Palin? No. What they can do is threaten Obama to extract significant concessions. Remember that, although the Wall St. meltdown was prominently addressed during the first "foreign policy" debate, we do have other debates that focus more squarely on the economy. Going into these, the AFL-CIO is saying that, whatever Obama is promising, they want more.
The union doesn't have enough information on his life story and character? Please.
October 2, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink