Obama more electable than Clinton

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is it really true that Obama volunteers are actually told to avoid discussions about policy with potential voters?

That sounds like utter nonsense for sure. Its possible in some context they have been told to try to talk to allot of people and not get bogged down using up all their time in detailed policy conversations with one person, but that's not the same thing at all.

There is a false meme going around that Obama doesn't actually have specific policy positions. You can certainly find plenty of information on that point when you go look carefully through his website for instance.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Its true he won't always go into great detail on all his policy positions during his speeches, but that is partially due to the limitations of that kind of format. You don't want to put half your audience to sleep going into extreme details about a specific policy position for half an hour. Hillary by no means covers all the details of her proposed policies during her speeches either.

 

[Gaard]

Everyone is telling me to hate Hillary, so I guess I will.

 

[aidanjm]

apparently that is what Obama volunteers have been told do, refer people to the website or book, and avoid actual dicussion of policy. According to these articles, at any rate:
http://article.nationalreview....U2ZjFiNTRjODQ5MDBjN2U=
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/649427.html

I guess it makes sense, policy discussion would bring potential voters back down to reality, whereas Obama is more about promoting a feel good fantasy.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Everyone is telling me to hate Hillary, so I guess I will.

LOL

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
apparently that is what Obama volunteers have been told do, refer people to the website or book, and avoid actual policy. According to these articles, at any rate:
http://article.nationalreview....U2ZjFiNTRjODQ5MDBjN2U=
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/649427.html

I guess policy discussion brings people back down to reality, whereas Obama is more about promoting a feel good fantasy. the fantasy is what sucks people in

One of the two articles simply mentions the other article and doesn't have any apparent first hand information on this issue.

Looking at the other article, the context and how the statement was actually made is not clear at all. Significantly there is no direct quote on what was actually said on that point, so they may have actually advised them to avoid taking too long talking to one person about Obama's detailed policy positions rather than going to the next person of the phone calling list. We can say though that the point is closely associated with the advice to go with "something they could compress into 30 seconds on the phone."

Basically the narratives delivered by the callers actually specifically can involve policy positions of Obama, the concern appears to be primarily about talking to allot of people versus, spending a huge amount of time talking to one person.

The fantasy is that Obama doesn't have policy positions or there is something inherently flawed about the positions he has. (To be sure some people won't like his policy positions on some issues, but that will be true of any politician period.)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The fantasy is that Obama doesn't have policy positions

the fantasy is that by voting Obama you can "heal" america and "repair" the world.

i.e.,

"We are the ones we have been waiting for... We know that what began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus that cannot be ignored, that will not be deterred, that will ring out across this land as a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, make this time different than all the rest."


I'm sorry, but anyone spinning that much bullsh1t has to be a charlatan. No, voting Obama will not "repair" the world. What's not clear is whether Obama believes his own spin. Does he really think he can "repair" the world - and if so, how will the repairs be done? By dropping bombs on Pakistan as he has threatened? That belief that America can remake the world is the same kind of crazy you got with George W. Bush.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: yllus
John is a priest. John isn't a priest. He is. He isn't. He loves Marlena! But Marlena is possessed.

I'm not gay, but I did work in a bank surrounded by women.

Gawd, Marlena is still around?

I feel for ya. :laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

What a pointless thread. Sorta like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when asked if Obama will run stronger than Hillary.

There are now only three facts that matter.

1. Barring a minor miracle, McCain is going to be the GOP nominee.

2. We have a remaining political primary process to get through for the dems. And some combination of the people and super delegates will select either Hillary or Obama. And regardless what a given poster thinks on P&N about who will run stronger, the dems will run the person selected to be the democratic nominee.

3. What the world looks like on 2/9/08 may not be the way the world looks when the democratic nominee is selected. Its the unknowable future factor. So its maybe advantage Democrats in that area. Big danger for Republicans, Iraq flares into renewed protracted violence, and then McCain looks like an idiot because he has the wrong position on the stay in Iraq forever.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is it really true that Obama volunteers are actually told to avoid discussions about policy with potential voters?

That sounds like utter nonsense for sure. Its possible in some context they have been told to try to talk to allot of people and not get bogged down using up all their time in detailed policy conversations with one person, but that's not the same thing at all.

There is a false meme going around that Obama doesn't actually have specific policy positions. You can certainly find plenty of information on that point when you go look carefully through his website for instance.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Its true he won't always go into great detail on all his policy positions during his speeches, but that is partially due to the limitations of that kind of format. You don't want to put half your audience to sleep going into extreme details about a specific policy position for half an hour. Hillary by no means covers all the details of her proposed policies during her speeches either.

I hate that meme

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...BlueprintForChange.pdf

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The fantasy is that Obama doesn't have policy positions

the fantasy is that by voting Obama you can "heal" america and "repair" the world.

i.e.,

"We are the ones we have been waiting for... We know that what began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus that cannot be ignored, that will not be deterred, that will ring out across this land as a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, make this time different than all the rest."


I'm sorry, but anyone spinning that much bullsh1t has to be a charlatan. No, voting Obama will not "repair" the world. What's not clear is whether Obama believes his own spin. Does he really think he can "repair" the world - and if so, how will the repairs be done? By dropping bombs on Pakistan as he has threatened? That belief that America can remake the world is the same kind of crazy you got with George W. Bush.

Can you link me to where he said the quote, "drop bombs on Pakistan"?

I don't think I've seen any speech where he said "drop bombs on Pakistan"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: yllus
John is a priest. John isn't a priest. He is. He isn't. He loves Marlena! But Marlena is possessed.

I'm not gay, but I did work in a bank surrounded by women.

Gawd, Marlena is still around?

I feel for ya. :laugh:

90s DooL rocked. Marlena with the psycho green eyes, stephano torturing john black, john black turning his head slightly and cocking one eyebrow..and the perfect woman Krista Allen with a brief stint. I have sisters. "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Anyway, 6 months ago, HRC in the same poll was 20 points higher than BO in polls on who would best defeat the Reps. It was wrong back then to cite a poll 12 months before the election as evidence of who should get your vote based on electability, and it's still wrong to do so 8 months before the election, especially when we're talking about a few percentage points. If we've seen nothing else this cycle it's vast shifts between candidates, more than one campaign pronounced DOA, some several times even. I feel bad for any kid 20 years from now trying to figure out what the hell happened back in 08 from a wikipedia virtualization machine or whatever they'll have then.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is it really true that Obama volunteers are actually told to avoid discussions about policy with potential voters?

Obama and Hillary aren?t very different on the issues so there is no reason for them to discuss them.

That is the main reason Obama is able to do so well. He is running on the ?We are the ones we have been waiting for? type message and people are falling for it.

The problem Obama is going to have in the general election is that him and McCain are not similar when it comes to issues and Obama will have to enter a real debate over the direction of the country.

There is a HUGE difference between arguing over whose Universal Healthcare plan is better and trying to convince the American people they need a Universal Healthcare plan in the first place.

 

[Moonbeam]

I just hate it when somebody runs for President and wants to do good. Nobody can save the world because I hate myself and my hate can't be appeased if I owned everything and was bathed is love from now on. I am sick and I hate any thought there can be any hope. Kill the saviors please. Put them on the cross and gut them. I fucking hate hope, optimism, and any talk of change. I am a piece of shit and that's how I want to stay. Fuck you assholes who have any hope, optimism, or ideals. Fuck you, I say. Don't you dare poke around in my grave. I'm in a deep depression but if you poke me I'll turn into blinding rage. I'll lose my mind and burn the earth. Please please let me sleep. Please please, no hope. Anything but hope, please.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is it really true that Obama volunteers are actually told to avoid discussions about policy with potential voters?

Obama and Hillary aren?t very different on the issues so there is no reason for them to discuss them.

That is the main reason Obama is able to do so well. He is running on the ?We are the ones we have been waiting for? type message and people are falling for it.

The problem Obama is going to have in the general election is that him and McCain are not similar when it comes to issues and Obama will have to enter a real debate over the direction of the country.

There is a HUGE difference between arguing over whose Universal Healthcare plan is better and trying to convince the American people they need a Universal Healthcare plan in the first place.

I think you're right. The American people already know they need universal health care.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is it really true that Obama volunteers are actually told to avoid discussions about policy with potential voters?

Obama and Hillary aren?t very different on the issues so there is no reason for them to discuss them.

That is the main reason Obama is able to do so well. He is running on the ?We are the ones we have been waiting for? type message and people are falling for it.

The problem Obama is going to have in the general election is that him and McCain are not similar when it comes to issues and Obama will have to enter a real debate over the direction of the country.

There is a HUGE difference between arguing over whose Universal Healthcare plan is better and trying to convince the American people they need a Universal Healthcare plan in the first place.

Your right, I think it will be easier for Obama then beause McCain is more of the Same.

And We all know that "the stay the coarse" is the general McCain Position because he will be begging for The conservative vote. looks like its time to get some Gay baahing marriage amendments on the state ballots.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW just look at P&N and you will notice LOTS of people who hate Hillary from both sides of the isle, but very few who hate Obama.

how can you hate Obama when you don't know him? many people are obviously still in the "euphoria" stage of their relationship with him, where all faults are ignored or glossed over. sooner or later the press will get past the man crush, all his negative points will be dragged out.

Hillary has been trying to drag them out. Do you think that her attack machine is any worse the Republican's? His negative point is that he's not as experienced as anyone else... and all that entails. The only thing is that a lot of people don't necessarily believe that's a negative.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
how can you hate Obama when you don't know him? many people are obviously still in the "euphoria" stage of their relationship with him, where all faults are ignored or glossed over. sooner or later the press will get past the man crush, all his negative points will be dragged out.

The NYT Piece on Obama's drug use is likely an indicator of what we'll see tarnishing Obama's gloss from the press. In this case, the headline does the most damage as it bring up the drug use at all while the substance of the article makes that history sound pretty benign or even exaggerated in Obama's book from an external observer's standpoint.

Those who put forth negative spin on Obama while having professional reputations to maintain (as opposed to anonymous e-mail chains painting Obama as a flag hating muslim terrorist) are going to have to be wary of the South Carolina effect - where individuals in the voting populace have an unspoken line and when attacks cross said line the voters perceive those attacks as playing the race card, which does not endear the attacker to most moderates and independents.

That means most attacks / exposes from legitimate outlets will likely be focused on the issues, eg. Obama planning on raising taxes (or at least ending many of Bush's tax cuts). Which is all well and good, except on the whole one can make the very same policy comparisons / attacks against Hillary Clinton, as well as slinging decade old mud on her and Bill again. The republican base has pretty much accepted Clinton bashing as a celebrated communal form of free speech - I'm not sure as much of the base is leaping out of their seats to be associated with what may be perceived as racist character assassination.

As an editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal put it:

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: aidanjm
how can you hate Obama when you don't know him? many people are obviously still in the "euphoria" stage of their relationship with him, where all faults are ignored or glossed over. sooner or later the press will get past the man crush, all his negative points will be dragged out.

The NYT Piece on Obama's drug use is likely an indicator of what we'll see tarnishing Obama's gloss from the press. In this case, the headline does the most damage as it bring up the drug use at all while the substance of the article makes that history sound pretty benign or even exaggerated in Obama's book from an external observer's standpoint.

Those who put forth negative spin on Obama while having professional reputations to maintain (as opposed to anonymous e-mail chains painting Obama as a flag hating muslim terrorist) are going to have to be wary of the South Carolina effect - where individuals in the voting populace have an unspoken line and when attacks cross said line the voters perceive those attacks as playing the race card, which does not endear the attacker to most moderates and independents.

That means most attacks / exposes from legitimate outlets will likely be focused on the issues, eg. Obama planning on raising taxes (or at least ending many of Bush's tax cuts). Which is all well and good, except on the whole one can make the very same policy comparisons / attacks against Hillary Clinton, as well as slinging decade old mud on her and Bill again. The republican base has pretty much accepted Clinton bashing as a celebrated communal form of free speech - I'm not sure as much of the base is leaping out of their seats to be associated with what may be perceived as racist character assassination.

As an editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal put it:

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

Good post.

I do think that if the Reps were to get called racist every time they say anything negative about Obama, it pisses off whites who may find some claims worth discussing, even if not entirely legitimate, i.e. the experience question. Remember, the Reps ran an ad many considered to have racial tones in TN against Harold Ford, and they still won the seat there. Yell racist too many times, it'll be like yelling wolf.

 

[Pabster]

The NYT hit job is a preview of what we'll see against Obama.

But the fact of the matter is that slinging mud at a positive candidate is a precarious situation. At some point, the number of people you alienate with such tactics begins to outnumber those sheep who fall in to the trap.

Anyone who believes Billary's baggage somehow weighs less than Obama's must be smoking some good shit. Pass it this way, please. :laugh:

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
I do think that if the Reps were to get called racist every time they say anything negative about Obama, it pisses off whites who may find some claims worth discussing, even if not entirely legitimate, i.e. the experience question. Remember, the Reps ran an ad many considered to have racial tones in TN against Harold Ford, and they still won the seat there. Yell racist too many times, it'll be like yelling wolf.

Certainly the media can trigger a backlash by yelling "race war!!!" too often, and certainly the experience vs. judgment issue should be fair game for discussion.

There's also the less attractive scenario that using a subtle but unmistakable race card can be effective (eg. Jesse Helms' final Senate campaign), but exit polls and other polls don't seem to be indicating that will be effective in 2008 (granted we've seen polls can be wrong).

What the attack machines in the general elections will need to do (and I'm sure it's common practice on all sides) is test out narratives with focus groups to see what sticks and what backfires before putting their attack out in the wild. My perception is that focus groups will find far more Hillary slandering narratives that will stick than backfire and the majority of simplistic Barak slander tacks will backfire more than they stick. There is of course the danger of Clinton attacks coming across as sexist as well, but there's plenty of available material that steers clear of overt sexism.

Even slights as mild as "fairy tale" and "naive" in reference to Obama have proven to have some unintended backlash. Personally, when I see video's of Obama's speeches and read his policy positions, I see evidence of a sharp mind that was worthy of being the president of the Harvard Law review, not a clueless Pollyanna preacher. Contrasting my impression with the caricature some posters try to portray does make me wonder about those posters' judgement/motivations, but my personal reaction matters little since I am in no shape or form a "swing voter".

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The fantasy is that Obama doesn't have policy positions

the fantasy is that by voting Obama you can "heal" america and "repair" the world.

i.e.,

"We are the ones we have been waiting for... We know that what began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus that cannot be ignored, that will not be deterred, that will ring out across this land as a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, make this time different than all the rest."


I'm sorry, but anyone spinning that much bullsh1t has to be a charlatan. No, voting Obama will not "repair" the world. What's not clear is whether Obama believes his own spin. Does he really think he can "repair" the world - and if so, how will the repairs be done? By dropping bombs on Pakistan as he has threatened? That belief that America can remake the world is the same kind of crazy you got with George W. Bush.

Can you link me to where he said the quote, "drop bombs on Pakistan"?

I don't think I've seen any speech where he said "drop bombs on Pakistan"

he has threatened to strike at military targets within Pakistan "with or without" the consent of the Pakistanis. Obama's thoughless threat set of a firestorm of anti-usa protest/ hatred within Pakistan. This, at a time when the usa desperately needs to secure the cooperation of the Pakistanis. It contributes to the already established picture of Obama as being a hopeless noob at foreign relations. And now he is promising that simply by casting a vote for Obama, the world will somehow be miraculously "repaired" in a "hymn" of unity and love. There are two possibilities. Either he is a liar - he is promising something that cannot possibly occur and he knows it - or he really believes his own schtick. The latter possibility is the more frightening possibility I think.

 

[Pabster]

Quit taking his [Obama] comments out of context.

He said that if a target of value is identified in Pakistan and they refuse to act, we will. And I agree with that 100%.

The notion that he called for attacking or invading Pakistan is intellectually dishonest.