While I said earlier that it’s foolish to believe Obama can’t win the Presidency, and I stand by that observation, it has long been obvious to me that as a candidate he has significant weaknesses. In Brack Obama, Democrats appear to be rushing to nominate someone they haven’t thoroughly vetted, which was their huge mistake in 2004 with John Kerry. Despite all the claims that Camp Clinton is being very nasty toward Obama, I’ve long thought they’ve been quite civil and restrained. John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei, who have very little respect for what they call the “right wing freak show,” nevertheless take a hard look at what the Clinton campaign could say but don’t say. Harris and Vendehei say that the Clintons are trying to be civil just to avoid hurting the party, and I think they’re right.
Yes, Obama does make the occasional remark that makes him look like a liberal elitist, but that’s not all that big a deal. It’s his association with Chicago politics, including former terrorists like Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers, as well as firebrands like Rev. Wright, and the kind of corrupt people routinely found in Chicago politics, along with his very shallow resume for a Presidential candidate, that are his true vulnerabilities.
This doesn’t mean he can’t win, but anyone who thinks that Clinton is being hard on Obama is being foolish; when the gloves really come off, which they will once Republicans begin campaigning against him in earnest, Obama is going to have his teeth rattled repeatedly. He may be able to stand up to it and win anyway, but I find it remarkable just how gentle the Clinton people have been with him so far, knowing all this.
{ 17 comments }
Dean:
Obama’s association with shady hyper-liberal anti-American activists and corrupt influence-shapers, along with his thin veneer of experience might be his true weakness to people who actually care to look for and understand such things. But the fact is that is a very small minority of voters in either party.
The bulk of voters are going to be swayed this year by whatever narrative gets wrapped around the candidates. Obama’s narrative three months ago was “Hope and Change”, that has now rapidly started veering to “Racist, anti-American snob.”
Whether it should be or should not be reality, it nevertheless is reality that more people react to that narrative than to the actual rational analysis of candidates.
So in a properly rational world where people are engaged in politics from a sincere desire to find the best possible candidate, your analysis would be spot on.
But we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where candidates battle to define their narratives, and right now Obama is losing control of his. The chance that Hillary can nail this long enough to lodge it in the public gestalt just makes it easier for McCain to pick up the baton and beat Obama with it like a drum.
When the Wright thing came out, I predicted that it was just the tip of an iceberg of elitism, anti-Americanism and racism that is still to be found in Obama’s life. I would be surprised if this is the last revelation, and each one just drives another nail in Obama’s coffin.
Of course McCain has his own vulnerabilities, but right now he’s got a lot fewer nails being driven into his own coffin.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?
Clinton may be asked to step aside soon.
http://tinyurl.com/66rcdx
[If we include Edwards, we're starting to see the line-up for the 'backroom deal' now]
I do see what you’re getting at when you say O’s elitism isn’t all that big a deal – I may think you’re wrong, but I see it – as among Dems and Libs it plays as unremarkable.
And I see, too, what you mean about the larger issue of his dealings with Ayers, Rezko, etc.
I just think that this issue of elitism is the current theme, maybe the over-arching one that will put Ayers, Rezko, etc. into a coherent context for the voter to oppose in the booth.
We didn’t know any great deal about Mr. Hopeychangey before, and the contradictions were only pointed out by folks who said “impossible” things, like that he was covertly racist or socialist. It didn’t hang together well in the mind of the voter.
The snobbish remarks about gun-rubbin’ snake-handlers does fit a theme, though.
WRT the General and Republican ‘exploiting’ of the theme: Um… how, exactly? McCain-Feingold did away with 527s, didn’t it? And I can’t see McCain going hammer and tong on it.I think he’ll be just as gelded as Clinton.
Cosmic: There’s a bit of irony in your observations; you appear to think of the average voter as an irrational rube who is easily led around by the nose by whatever the campaign spin doctors and press put in their mushy skulls. Indeed, I suspect that if an Obama campaign staffer made the exact same observations you did in your comment above, you’d be condemning it as a deplorable example of typical cynical out-of-touch liberal elitism.
Personally, I’ve long had much greater faith in the voters than this; I think that in the end, while they may occasionally get confused, and there are some obvious fools in every pollbooth line, the average voter is far more sophisticated and thoughtful than he’s generally given credit for. I also believe, fairly firmly, that as a group the voters almost always make the right choice in the end.
Urthshu: Meh. We’ve been seeing stories for weeks now about party elders pressuring Clinton to get out of the race. I’m sure they’re all (basically) true. I’m equally sure that Clinton is no more badly damaged goods than Obama is, and still has every reason to at least wait until Pennsylvania before calling it quits.
Agreed. They’re all waiting to see PA results before speaking.
After PA, it’ll be more interesting to me to watch the downticket Dems to see the degree to which they’ll position themselves as allied with the candidate or rather more independent.
Dean:
Here’s the difference. I didn’t say voters are stupid, I said they are swayed by narratives that are created as a result of the combined efforts of all the different “packaging” that is done, and that the bulk of voters respond to that narrative, not to an exhaustive analysis of the issues and facts. I did not say they are “ignorant rubes.” It is not necessary to be ignorant nor a hick to allow your political opinions to be heavily influenced by a slick campaign. If slick narrative-creating campaigns didn’t work, we wouldn’t see an absolute unanimity of such campaigning from the candidates and their staffs. I don’t think a person has to be stupid to respond to a pizza ad either Dean. To say that advertising works is not to say that people are stupid, it is a simple observation of fact. In today’s world there is very little difference in packaging a new product in a nationwide marketing campaign and in packaging a candidate. The same techniques are used and they are similarly effective.
Do you dispute this Dean? Seriously? If so I would say you are either being disingenuous, purposefully naive or amazingly ignorant of politics. Since I don’t think you are ignorant or naive, I will have to conclude that you are simply being disingenuous.
Another point. First I do not concede that I would be critical of Obama’s campaign for saying word for word what I just said. However I will say that I could be critical without any hint of hypocrisy because I am not running for President. And as such, I am not building a narrative for myself as Obama and his surrogates are doing. So for me to say that voters are easily swayed is a completely different thing than for Obama to say the same thing. Because from me it’s an observation, from Obama it’s a campaign message.
I think this is so blindingly obvious Dean that I have to conclude that you are just looking for ways to criticize my message because you don’t like it.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?
If Clinton wins Penn and Indiana, it will be hard to ask her to step aside.
HB
Nah. You said pretty clearly (to me) that most people react to the constructed narrative of the campaigns rather than rational analysis of the facts. I think rational analysis of the facts does, in fact, drive most voters.
I think advertising works, but that Pizza Hut would not be successful, no matter how good their advertising, if most people who tried their pizza found it awful. You yourself may not care for their fare, but if in a large group there was a vote on where to go for pizza, Pizza Hut would win out as the choice people found least objectionable.
I think that voters will by and large hear and read about all these things we’re talking about, unless these things completely disappear from the press, the campaign speeches, and the advertising.
Dean:
I did say that most people respond more to the constructed narrative than to the rational analysis of facts. I stand by that. I think, as I said, that it is blindingly obvious. In fact I think if you were to argue otherwise in a serious academic analysis of American political dynamics, you would be (quite properly) laughed out of the room.
Let me ask you this, do you think rational analysis of brands drives what people purchase? If so, do you then conclude that the multi-trillion dollar Madison Avenue marketing industry is just wasted money?
As I said, I still choose to believe that you are being disingenuous, but you are beginning to construct a narrative that may convince me that you are instead being purposefully naive.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?
On your comment about Pizza Hut advertising working only because their product is not “awful”, I think that’s worth pursuing. Basically if we apply that to politics, then you are saying that advertising works when the alternatives are “not awful.” But once the choices get above the “not awful threshold” then the advertising becomes effective.
Now, I think that you have a point, but it’s a point that only works if the political candidates are so un-electable that they fit into the “awful” category. Like, say, Ron Paul. (
) But as much as I dislike Obama, Clinton and McCain, none of them could be truly described as “awful” candidates, so your whole point becomes moot.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?
I believe that politics works more or less like Open Source software does, and that many eyes smooth errors. I also believe that, in the aggregate, the voters by and large get what they ask for, warts and compromises and all, based on the choices available. And that the choices are by and large rational. And that few people are brainwashed by advertising or spin.
I think being a condescending elitist gets a Presidential candidate in trouble mostly only with a certain subset of people. Others like and appreciate condescending elitism, or simply find it annoying but not impossible to live with–and if that weren’t so, Franklin Roosevelt wouldn’t have been elected to the office four times (amongst other examples).
I think that in the end, most voters will be more concerned about Obama’s shallow resume and the questionable characters in his background than they will be mad that he’s a bit of a pompous elitist. You can believe me or not when I say that’s what I believe, but it’s what I believe.
Shoot, I had a wonderful response typed in and it got lost to a “connection error”. Crap I hate that.
OK, to try to recreate it…
Dean, there are no doubt a large number of voters who believe they are making a rational choice based on their understanding of the issues and the candidates, but the bulk of those people are so committed to their ideology that they aren’t really after the “best” candidate, they are going to vote for the one that most closely reflects their ideology, period. That means Democrats are by and large going to vote for a Democrat and Republicans are by and large going to vote for a Republican. I could argue pretty easily that such patterns are proof that most voters don’t vote the candidates at all, they vote party or ideology.
However, that’s not enough votes to win elections. The votes needed to win an election are precisely those voters who are NOT bound to ideology or party, and as such will “swing” either way based on analysis, conscience or whim. It is these voters that are being targeted by the candidates brand-marketing efforts. And whoever wins that contest generally wins elections. So even if it’s not a “majority” it is still the key group of voters, and I think it is very clear from analyzing behavior and doing interviews of such voters that those voters react quite well to the marketing of the candidate.
I think you are confusing “elitist” with “condescending elitist.” Yes people will vote for elitists. In fact Ronald Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush have all been accused of being “elitist.” But being “elitist” is not the same thing as being “condescending.” And Barack’s comment was clearly condescending at best, and downright insulting at worst.
All I’m trying to tell you is that it may not hurt him terribly in the nomination contest (although Hillary’s camp clearly thinks it will) but it will hurt him terribly in the general campaign, unless McCain is an absolute fool. Which is arguable…
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?
Now I’ve had my comment lost twice. Third try coming…
Shoot, I had a wonderful response typed in and it got lost to a “connection error”. Crap I hate that.
OK, to try to recreate it…
Dean, there are no doubt a large number of voters who believe they are making a rational choice based on their understanding of the issues and the candidates, but the bulk of those people are so committed to their ideology that they aren’t really after the “best” candidate, they are going to vote for the one that most closely reflects their ideology, period. That means Democrats are by and large going to vote for a Democrat and Republicans are by and large going to vote for a Republican. I could argue pretty easily that such patterns are proof that most voters don’t vote the candidates at all, they vote party or ideology.
However, that’s not enough votes to win elections. The votes needed to win an election are precisely those voters who are NOT bound to ideology or party, and as such will “swing” either way based on analysis, conscience or whim. It is these voters that are being targeted by the candidates brand-marketing efforts. And whoever wins that contest generally wins elections. So even if it’s not a “majority” it is still the key group of voters, and I think it is very clear from analyzing behavior and doing interviews of such voters that those voters react quite well to the marketing of the candidate.
I think you are confusing “elitist” with “condescending elitist.” Yes people will vote for elitists. In fact Ronald Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush have all been accused of being “elitist.” But being “elitist” is not the same thing as being “condescending.” And Barack’s comment was clearly condescending at best, and downright insulting at worst.
All I’m trying to tell you is that it may not hurt him terribly in the nomination contest (although Hillary’s camp clearly thinks it will) but it will hurt him terribly in the general campaign, unless McCain is an absolute fool. Which is arguable…
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?
Well, I’ve tried three or four times to respond to this, and after typing long and detailed rebuattals, they’ve been lost every time.
I’ll try one more time, and keep it short so I don’t lose my voice from screaming at the monitor if I lose this one too…
Dean, I think you are drastically under-estimating the damage that this comment has done to Obama, just as I think you underestimated the damage his Wright association has done. This stuff is all accumulating, and if McCain wants to, he can use them both like a club on Obama for months. And it won’t be a standard club, it will be a +4 Club of Narrative Destruction, with nasty silver spikes in it.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Maddux wins again
They aren’t lost, they’re just getting caught by Akismet the anti-spam-bot, which lacks the courtesy to at least inform you that it thinks you’re a dirty stinkin’ spammer.
I released the comments. Sorry.
Oh, and by the way, I think the Wright matter is quite damaging, and is going to continue to be damaging. He’s among those questionable people in Obama’s background that’s going to bother certain voters that he would normally have an easy time getting support from
It occurs to me that a book you might helpful to understanding my viewpoint, Sean, and will also find highly enjoyable in its own right, is Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s Everything You Think You Know About Politics… And Why You’re Wrong. Using copious research from social scientists and using hard numbers, she shows a number of rather unbelievable things, such as:
Most Presidents sincerely try to keep all their promises, and do in fact deliver on most of them.
Most voters have a pretty good grasp of where the candidates stand on the big issues of the day, and decide who to vote for largely based on that.
Voters are not easily swayed by ads unless they’re already sympathetic to the message.
So-called “sound bites” contain large amounts of important data and are highly useful to voters knowing where the candidates stand on the big issues, and are in no way a distraction from the real conversation.
Political campaigns are not more negative these days than they used to be.
There’s more, but it’s a good book with lots of useful and sometimes surprising information.
Dean:
Hmm… I might read that book. I actually agree with all the points you’ve posted except the one about issues and advertising. Although the caveat “unless they’re already sympathetic to the message” is a pretty big caveat. I mean most people are sympathetic to most things in one way or another.
Besides, when I said that candidates try to create a narrative about themselves, that narrative invariably includes their position on what they think the “key issues” are, so my statement that people vote based on that narrative is not in conflict with your statement that people understand (at least some of) the candidates position on the issues.
But it is an incomplete picture at best, although it is frequently complete enough for people to cast their vote.
I know a number of fundamentalists who vote on two or three issues. Those might be abortion and gay marriage. If a candidates narrative includes their position on those issues, and there is a clear choice, then those voters have made their choice based on what they think is all they need to know about that candidate. Obviously there are other voter groups with similarly narrow objectives who make their decisions very easily.
So to say that “most voters have a pretty good grasp of where the candidates stand on the big issues of the day” is not really in conflict with my statement that a large number of voters (and usually the key deciding voters) vote based on the candidate’s narratives instead of an analysis of their positions beyond those “big two or three” issues that matter to most voters.
If the narrative didn’t sway critical numbers of voters, candidates would not spend tens of millions of dollars creating, polishing and defending theirs. And right now Obama is losing control of his.
Look for him to regain control of his narrative by trying to focus his defense of his latest gaffe on whether certain voters are “bitter” or not. Also look at the news stories because those that focus on whether voters are “bitter” are the ones in the tank for Obama.
Because the issue that matters is not whether Obama is right about some voters being “bitter.” The issue is what Obama thinks “bitter” white rural voters do when they become bitter. And in Obama’s mind they turn to guns, god and racism as a refuge against that bitterness. That’s the real meat of Obama’s comment, but just check it out and see how many stories are about whether such voters are “bitter” or not. That will tell you a lot about the reporters and editors.
Now, if Obama can get the focus on “bitter” instead of his condescending comments about those voters, he can probably regain control of his narrative, but if not, then his narrative will not only contain his position on four or five “key” issues, it will also contain a sneering, elitist condescension for, at least, rural white voters. And that sneering, elitist condescension could very well trump the rest of his narrative with enough people that he could lose some key states, like Ohio, Florida or others.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..CNN tries to help Obama out
Comments on this entry are closed.