How Voters Think

[The Leaper]

That is an ASTOUNDING statistic. Could you please provide a link to that survey?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...arys_nega.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28639/Gal...ermometer.aspx

The first one is more dated...but there is clear evidence that 45% or more of Americans feel strongly NEGATIVE toward Hillary Clinton. She is a very polarizing figure, and I think she would find it difficult to improve her favorable numbers much higher than 50% even if things really fell her way. Her spats with Obama aren't helping her image right now either.

So claiming the Democrats practically have the White House in the bag is a real stretch at this point. They couldn't beat one of the weakest (if not THE weakest) incumbent presidents in 2004, so why anyone would think they have it wrapped up in 2008 is beyond me.

[The Leaper]

My view is that McCain & Clinton are battle-tested, their flaws are already well-known, and they will gain support over a general election campaign.

As is pointed out in the Gallop poll I posted, only 8% of Americans did not have a positive or negative feeling about Clinton.

I don't see how she is going to gain a ton of support outside those firmly entrenched on the left. People don't like her, regardless of how well she does in debates. Her spat with Obama could alienate some AA voters if it continues to be intense through the convention.

Also, the American people have a recent history of putting one party in the White House and the other in Congress. With the Dems currently controlling Congress...and likely to gain more control...I wouldn't be surprised if people view the GOP candidate more favorably.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Any strong female candidate will have high negatives. People don't like an assertive woman.

John McCain is famous for having a bad temper. And he can be very aggressive, even insulting, in debates & speeches. Ever hear anybody say they won't vote for him because he's too bitchy?

I expect people will have misgivings about Hillary, but will vote for her in the end when she is contrasted with a Republican. And her base of support is rock solid.

[Joemailman]

I don't think those Gallup numbers look that bad for Clinton. Her unfavorability was 44%. That's not that bad for someone who has been in the public eye as long as she has. She's actually done quite well at luring independent voters from upstate New York in her senate races. Democrats are very fired up for this next election, and if she could keep her unfavorability numbers in the mid-40's, she would win.

[Freak Out]

I think I know how you feel about McCain HH but check out his daughter. Brick House.

http://mccainblogette.com/index.shtml

[BallHawk]

[Harlan Huckleby]

I always thought McCain's wife was his daughter or grandchild.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The latest attacks by Clinton on Obama rub me the wrong way. He mentioned something positive about the Republicans and Clinton started bashing him for it. Gee, I guess she doesn't like someone who is willing to cooperate with the other party.

[hoosier]

The latest attacks by Clinton on Obama rub me the wrong way. He mentioned something positive about the Republicans and Clinton started bashing him for it. Gee, I guess she doesn't like someone who is willing to cooperate with the other party.

I don't think Obama meant his comments to be a positive assessment of Reagan's politics. I think he was just stating that Reagan's presidency did more to transform the political arena than any other administration in recent memory. Transformations can be good, bad, or a mixture of the good and the bad. Bill's problem with Obama's comment seems to be ego driven: can't accept that Reagan made a bigger mark on politics than he did.

[Joemailman]

Obama didn't say the Reagan policies were good ones. The Clintons have been able to take his comments out of context to make it appear that he did. That's not admirable, but is fairly common in political campaigns. Obama will probably want to refrain from talking about Republicans (unless he's criticizing Bush) for the rest of the primary season. Presidential campaigns can get a bit rough, and Obama's having a tough week. He'll either be stronger for it, or succumb to it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The mudslinging has actually been quite tame so far in both parties. I'm not at all worried about any longterm splits.

The crowd at that South Carolina debate was very pro-Obama. They groaned whenever Clinton landed a punch on their champion. I think that's why some people thought Obama "won" that debate. The harsh exchanges that were replayed are about 6 minutes out of a 90 minute debate.

Obama went into the debate looking to pick a fight. (Which Hillary emphasized the next day.) Every negative interaction was inititiated by Obama. I think Clinton beat him on facts, but Obama looked a little better.

Obama accused the Clintons of lying about his opposition to the war. Clinton came back by acknowledging Obama's initial opposition, then named three ways he later equivocated. Hisses from the crowd at the dragon woman.

Obama said Clinton was a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wallmart while he was a poverty activist in Chicago. Hillary responds that she was working to bring healthcare for children in Arkansas while Obama was working for slum lord Rezko in Chicago. Loud groans and boos from the audience.

OK, here's the truth: neither of the accusations are that significant, but Obama's situation was more embarrassing. Rezko turns out to be quite the gangster, and he was courting Obama for many years. They have a string of small connections - contributions, job offers, Obama did some legal work for him, Rezko bought property next to Obama's mansion and transfered it to him.
Clinton a "corporate lawyer" for Wallmart? Ridiculous. As first lady of Arkansas, she was an honorary member of the board of directors briefly back in the 80's. Wallmart is the largest employer in Arkansas. And this was back before they became the notorious evil empire.

South Carolina is hopeless territory for the Clintons, Hillary is wise to have curtailed campaigning there. African-Americans have coalesced in racial solidarity, and even though the Clintons are their former champions, any friction they have with the Obama camp is being recast in a very ugly light. See her factual comment about the role of Lyndon Johnson in civil rights.

[Freak Out]

The mudslinging has actually been quite tame so far in both parties. I'm not at all worried about any longterm splits.

The crowd at that South Carolina debate was very pro-Obama. They groaned whenever Clinton landed a punch on their champion. I think that's why some people thought Obama "won" that debate. The harsh exchanges that were replayed are about 6 minutes out of a 90 minute debate.

Obama went into the debate looking to pick a fight. (Which Hillary emphasized the next day.) Every negative interaction was inititiated by Obama. I think Clinton beat him on facts, but Obama looked a little better.

Obama accused the Clintons of lying about his opposition to the war. Clinton came back by acknowledging Obama's initial opposition, then named three ways he later equivocated. Hisses from the crowd at the dragon woman.

Obama said Clinton was a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wallmart while he was a poverty activist in Chicago. Hillary responds that she was working to bring healthcare for children in Arkansas while Obama was working for slum lord Rezko in Chicago. Loud groans and boos from the audience.

OK, here's the truth: neither of the accusations are that significant, but Obama's situation was more embarrassing. Rezko turns out to be quite the gangster, and he was courting Obama for many years. They have a string of small connections - contributions, job offers, Obama did some legal work for him, Rezko bought property next to Obama's mansion and transfered it to him.
Clinton a "corporate lawyer" for Wallmart? Ridiculous. As first lady of Arkansas, she was an honorary member of the board of directors briefly back in the 80's. Wallmart is the largest employer in Arkansas. And this was back before they became the notorious evil empire.

South Carolina is hopeless territory for the Clintons, Hillary is wise to have curtailed campaigning there. African-Americans have coalesced in racial solidarity, and even though the Clintons are their former champions, any friction they have with the Obama camp is being recast in a very ugly light. See her factual comment about the role of Lyndon Johnson in civil rights.

Many Dems are going to vote for Edwards in SC...who is the forgotten man now.

[The Leaper]

John McCain is famous for having a bad temper. And he can be very aggressive, even insulting, in debates & speeches. Ever hear anybody say they won't vote for him because he's too bitchy?

Bill Clinton has just as bad of a temper as McCain...didn't seem to hurt him when running for president.

Hillary's negatives are remarkably high...it is not unprecidented, but they pose a challenge that she will need to overcome. She is DESPISED by many on the right...and her nomination would actually energize the Republican base which is currently not very excited about politics at the moment.

The Democrats probably would have a better chance with a candidate that could just fly under the radar this year...because more Democratic voters are likely to vote than Republican voters in November. However, with a polarizing figure like Hillary running, that gap probably shrinks considerably.

And regardless of how well Hillary might appeal to NY moderates, there is no questioning the fact that McCain is viewed far more favorably by moderates as a whole than Hillary is. Hillary is viewed as a cut-and-dry liberal. McCain is viewed as a maverick who is willing to stand for his beliefs, not toe a party line. That appeals to moderates.

[The Leaper]

The mudslinging has actually been quite tame so far in both parties. I'm not at all worried about any longterm splits.

Huck, you are nuts.

The mudslinging between Clinton and Obama is at a very high level considering we are just a couple weeks into the PRIMARY season. Sure, mudslinging in the summer between the two parties can get intense...but it usually is never this bad this early.

Campaigning within your party typically is far more civilized than when the gloves come off against the opposing party. Occasionally, you'll see primary candidates have a couple days of bickering in a particular state. However, the spat between Clinton and Obama has spread over several states and weeks at this point.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I agree with Leaper, it's gotten testy real quick between these two.

There was the whole "inevitability" claim by Clinton's campaign and I really think they thought they were going to coast through the primaries. Obama has given her way more of a fight then she expected and now she's got to really push hard to put him down.

It's almost like Apollo Creed (Hillary as the more polished and pure politician) vs Rocky (Obama as a scrappy fan favorite).

Now, it's just a matter of if the ending will be from I or II.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

John McCain is famous for having a bad temper. And he can be very aggressive, even insulting, in debates & speeches. Ever hear anybody say they won't vote for him because he's too bitchy?

Bill Clinton has just as bad of a temper as McCain...didn't seem to hurt him when running for president.

Hillary's negatives are remarkably high...it is not unprecidented, but they pose a challenge that she will need to overcome. She is DESPISED by many on the right...and her nomination would actually energize the Republican base which is currently not very excited about politics at the moment.

The Democrats probably would have a better chance with a candidate that could just fly under the radar this year...because more Democratic voters are likely to vote than Republican voters in November. However, with a polarizing figure like Hillary running, that gap probably shrinks considerably.

And regardless of how well Hillary might appeal to NY moderates, there is no questioning the fact that McCain is viewed far more favorably by moderates as a whole than Hillary is. Hillary is viewed as a cut-and-dry liberal. McCain is viewed as a maverick who is willing to stand for his beliefs, not toe a party line. That appeals to moderates.

You are little off base if you think Clinton has as bad a temper as McCain. You would be hard pressed to find any examples of his temper prior to his election or even when he was prez.

Don't interpret standing up to Chris Wallace as a temper.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree with Leaper, it's gotten testy real quick between these two.

The only really ugly, damaging moment was when Clinton was depicted as disrespecting Martin Luther King. Both parties have pulled back sharply from creating that racial divide, which could seriously f-up the democratic party. Initially, Obama said he was "deeply disturbed" by her Johnson-King statement. Within two days he was emphatically praising the Clintons for their longstanding commitment to civil rights and economic justice.

The Obama folks are painfully aware that they are walking on the edge of a trap. The minute he becomes "the black people's candidate" ala Jessie Jackson, he is done.
Don't you think it is a little curious that Oprah Winfrey has been withdrawn from the frontlines of South Carolina? She was drawing HUGE crowds of (mostly) African Americans two weeks ago.
Notice that Black celebrities and politicians are not speaking out publically on Obama's behalf. James Clyburn, the big cheese black politician in SC, has stepped back from his implicit support of Obama.

Obama has given her way more of a fight then she expected and now she's got to really push hard to put him down.

I think your analyis works for New Hampshire, where there was a whiff of desperation about the Clintons. But since then, it is Obama and supporters who are throwing most of the punches. Clinton has a strong lead in the national polls, which should return results on February 5. If you watch the last debate, Obama initiated every single one of their testy exchanges.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Many Dems are going to vote for Edwards in SC...who is the forgotten man now.

Finishing third out of three is hard to characterize as "many". The only story out of S.C. is that Obama is gonna win by 20 points or so.
This is the state that Edwards had to win to be a serious candidate. Edwards will stay in the race on a shoe-string budget and continue to pickup delegates, he might have a role to play at the convention.

It was interesting to see Edwards on Letterman this week. He was loose, funny, engaging. Two months ago he went on Letterman and was defensive and stiff as a board. Now that the pressure is off, guess he can let his well-coiffed hair down. (Letterman reached-over and messed it up at the end of the show.)

I'm also glad to see that Elizabeth Edwards is not traveling and campaigning anymore. She did not look so well, I think that lady needs regular sleep and a regular schedule.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just saw a new poll on MSNBC.

Barak Obama is getting 10% support among white democrat voters in South Carolina.

That's 10 percent. Ten.

[Joemailman]

What's really interesting about that poll is that Edwards beats Clinton among white voters 40%-36%. However, Edwards only gets 4% of the black vote. Are blacks in South Carolina unwilling to vote for a white man from the south? Or is it just that he is up against two candidates that have a lot of popularity among black voters?