Why Voters Thought Obama Won (And Why the Pundits Didn't Get It)

[babylonsister]

Why Voters Thought Obama Won (And Why the Pundits Didn't Get It)


TPM has the internals of the CNN poll of debate-watchers, which had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. The poll suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness.

Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters. Per the transcript, McCain never once mentioned the phrase “middle class” (Obama did so three times). And Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.

Something as simple as Obama mentioning that he’ll cut taxes for “95 percent of working families” is worth, I would guess, a point or so in the national polls. Obama had not been speaking enough about his middle class tax cut; there was some untapped potential there, and Obama may have gotten the message to sink in tonight.

By contrast, I don’t think McCain’s pressing Obama on earmarks was time well spent for him. One, it simply not something that voters care all that much about, given the other pressures the economy faces. But also, it is not something that voters particularly associate with Obama, as the McCain campaign had not really pressed this line of attack. If you’re going to introduce a new line of attack late in a campaign, it has better be a more effective one that earmarks. And then there was McCain's technocratic line about the virtues of lowering corporate taxes, one which might represent perfectly valid economic policy, but which was exactly the sort of patrician argument that lost George H.W. Bush the election in 1992.

Meanwhile, voters thought that Obama “seemed to be the stronger leader” by a 49-43 margin, reversing a traditional area of McCain strength. And voters thought that the candidates were equally likely to be able to handle the job of president if elected.

These internals are worse for McCain than the topline results, because they suggest not only that McCain missed one of his few remaining opportunities to close the gap with Barack Obama, but also that he has few places to go. The only category in which McCain rated significantly higher than Obama was on “spent more time attacking his opponent”. McCain won that one by 37 points.

more...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/27/why-voters-thought-obama-won-and-why-the-pundits-didn-t-get-it.aspx

[Danger Mouse]

1. EXACTLY...the pundits did NOT get it.

[xiamiam]

2. not until they saw which way the wind was blowing...different story this am..nt

[babylonsister]

5. I agree, but I know I'm biased, so to see this article that

agrees with me is good.

[SDJay]

3. I thought it was nothing short of fascinating

how the MSM IMMEDIATELY started with the bullshit of "McCrap won that one" until the very minute the flash polls started to appear that showed voters clearly favored Obama. It was totally hilarious how the asshats who tried to push the McCrap performance suddenly started to change their tune and, you know, report the damn news instead of the spin that will help their company's share price. Did this happen in 2004? I can't remember, but the deluge of pro-McCrap reactions was predictable - the 180 turned by so many after the polls came out was not expected. It was not only funny, but showed how the MSM is basically worthless intellectually.

[babylonsister]

8. Yes it happened in 2004, and was so obvious to me.

Kerry won the debates, yet m$nbc had 3 rethugs on to discount his performance. It was maddening.

[glowing]

4. Like Biden said, the American people are smarter than McCain's tricks..

Its been a long 8yrs and its sucked for most of America...

[Pirate Smile]

6. Polls other then this CNN poll have shown a huge gap in this "connectedness":

"And in a finding suggesting the difficult terrain Mr. McCain needs to navigate as Congress considers the Wall Street bailout 52 percent of respondents said that Mr. McCain care more about protecting the interests of large corporations, compared with 32 percent who said that he cared most about protecting the interests of ordinary people. By contrast, 16 percent of respondents said that Mr. Obama was more concerned with protecting the interests of large corporations, compared with 70 percent said he was more concerned about ordinary people. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin

52/32 v. 16/70

(I know I keep posting this but I think the gap is enormous and striking.)

[babylonsister]

10. Keep posting, Pirate Smile; I hadn't seen that. Glaring differences! nt

[LiberalAndProud]

7. McCain's earmarks theme fell flat.

Three million dollars doesn't sound like much when we're hearing about a 700 BILLION dollar bailout. He was talking about a snowflake on an iceburg and we all know it.

[Pirate Smile]

9. He is fixated on a tiny shrub and ignoring the forest.

[babylonsister]

12. What struck me was McCain pulling topics out of his hindquarters

when another topic was on the floor. He just rambled and talked about what he wanted. It wasn't a 'debate'.

[Danger Mouse]

14. Earmarks is a non-started. I commented several times during the debate that...

McCain is making valid points, but they're too technical and wonky to mean much of anything to LIV. Meanwhile, Obama is speaking clearly and directly to the people. The contrast was stark.

[starroute]

20. McCain needs "earmarks" to justify tax cuts for the rich

McCain's line is the same one we used to hear from Reagan -- that there's a huge amount of pork and waste in the federal budget and that as Mr. Pork-Cutter #1 he could easily find it all and slash enough unnecessary spending to make it possible to give corporations another $300 billion in tax breaks.

Wasn't true then, isn't true now -- but that doesn't stop him from saying it. Or from taking on Sarah Palin to reinforce the supposed anti-earmark message.

I noticed, in particular, that at some point in the debate, McCain cited Citizens Against Government Waste -- the group founded in 1984 that's been ranting about pork barrel legislation ever since.

Here's an early account of that group from 1991:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001020094216/www.alternatives.com/library/env/envattak/mask0010.txt

CAGW also states that it is "dedicated to educating the American people about the work of the Grace Commission," and that its work represents a "continuing push for implementation of Grace Commission ideas." The group even describes itself as "an outgrowth of the famous... Commission."

This "famous Commission," officially known as the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (PPSSCC), was a committee appointed by President Reagan in 1982 to look into ways of cutting govemment waste. It was led by J. Peter Grace, chairman of the board of W.R. Grace and Company, "a $6.7 billion dollar a year conglomerate."

After an extensive six-month investigation into Peter Grace and his activities, Public Citizen concluded that "both the Grace Commission and Citizens Against Waste represent the narrow interests of the country's wealthiest corporations intent on redirecting federal policies." Authors Peter Ajemian and Joan Claybrook point out that while the Grace Commission was originally meant to find ways to cut costs in the management of govemment, 75 percent of the recommendations the Commission made required legislative policy changes. All of these changes had the hidden goal of weakening the power of the federal government over the interests of private corporations and would have "profound implications for the health and well-being of most Americans."

In general, the Grace Commission's "implicit philosophy" was that "if American corporations were free of various federally-mandated environmental, health and safety regulations, they could operate in a more cost effective and publicly responsible manner."

Not much has changed since 1991, except that CAGW has come to be particularly notorious for its support of the tobacco industry and of Microsoft. And naturally, they're heavily behind McCain. (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/citizens_against_government_waste_obama_isnt_the_worst_senator_on_waste_bid)

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. The "pundits" dont get it because its not in their best interest

to "get it". They need this thing to be close in order to make their jobs relevant. And to make their companies more money.

www.wearableartnow.com

[1corona4u]

13. Nice!!!

People get it, I think....well, the ones being honest, and paying attention.

[Emit]

15. I, for one, was ecstatic when Obama was able to elaborate on his tax plans and challenge

McCain's false claims about his tax plan. Here in Nevada for several weeks, McCain has been running an ad claiming that Obama will raise taxes on those earning $42K, and will target senior citizen's life savings. The ad is scary and has confused a lot of voters who are otherwise just not paying attention. Those of us who are totally into politics. or at least keep abreast of the issues, are fully aware of this, but forget that the average voter doesn't live on DU, Kos and other progressive websites. They are woefully ignorant about the facts. Also, Obama ran several ads last night on all channels during and after the debates that were positive, very specific and I think optimistic - no negative attacks, etc. - about his tax plan and about his economic plan. This is just what undecided voters need to see, imho.

[babylonsister]

16. Emit, I'm so glad to read that. Obama might have put those

untruths to rest. That's been a thorn in my side, too, though living in TX, we hear nothing as far as ads go. But if a gazillion people tuned in, Obama did good by bringing it up.

[Emit]

17. Btw, Obama's coming to Reno next week

He'll be at our local university - free to the public and no tickets required. It'll be interesting to see this - the news said he is wanting to have a discussion with local voters, so I am uncertain what to expect as far as the format is concerned. The location is on the quad - a large open area. Kerry/Edwards came to that venue in '04 and a huge crowd showed. I expect a huge crowd this time, as well, but with a more town hall feel.

Anyway, I'll be launching two walks today, so it'll be inter sting to see what the voters will be saying now that, hopefully, they've seen the first debate and a few of these excellent and informative Obama ads have aired.

P.S., I spent 10 years there in TX, as a kid/teenager - just outside Houston! :hi:

edit spelling

[dmr]

18. I was happy when he told Americans McCain was going to tax health benefits

a bit of information McCain fails to divulge in his stump speeches.

I'm glad the debate's viewership was high. Finally people could hear the truth about Obama's tax plans. This also showed the American people how far McCain and his ads will go to lie to them about taxes. Once you get caught lying, people find it hard to believe anything you say.

All McCain could do at this point was rudely sneer, he had nothing to defend.

[Jade Fox]

19. Love this response in the comments section....

I've fired a lot of McCains in my career.

I grew up working for these guys - smart, terrible listeners, can't work with women or in teams - and when I took over the company I fired them or moved them into finance. Only Republicans and folks stuck in an authoritarian my-way-or-the-highway groove (i.e., fundamentalists, extreme right-wingers, guys obsessed with keeping that lawn tractor spotless, Talk Radio hosts, cigar store owners, etc.) resonate to that kind of command-control style of management.

I watched as someone who hires managers, looking for leaders.

No one today wants to work for the McCains.

I can see millions of young (and old) people wanting to follow Obama: He listens, he can inspire, he can change his mind, he can formulate a plan of attack, he can delegate, he can lead. We've seen it with his own campaign.

I felt I was watching Bush debate Obama. Only the generational issues were more stark.

Time for a Change.