Writing for McClatchy, Steven Thomma reports on a recent Zogby poll, which indicates that “Barack Obama has lost ground among some of his strongest bases of support, including young people, women, Democrats and independents.” Let me quote at length from this article:
Zogby called the results a “notable turnaround” from a July survey he did that showed Obama leading by 46-36.
“McCain made signifciant [sic] gains at Obama’s expense among some of what had been Obama’s strongest demographic groups,” Zogby said.
His findings:
-Among voters aged 18-29, Obama lost 16 percent and McCain gained 20. Obama still leads, 49-38;
-Among women, McCain gained 10 percentage points. Obama now leads 43-38;
-Among independents, Obama lost an 11 point lead. They’re now tied;
-Among Democrats, Obama’s support dropped from 83 percent to 74 percent;
-Among Catholics, Obama lost the 11 point lead he had in July and now trails McCain by 15.
Zogby said Obama also lost ground among minorities.
Zogby attributes Obama’s declining numbers to “McCain’s criticisms of Obama as inexperienced in the wake of Obama’s trip to Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq and to Obama’s flips on some issues.”
But it seems implausible that McCain’s attacks on Obama’s inexperience have been very effective, at least among Obama’s base. Did former supporters of Obama not know about Obama’s relative experience level? They knew. Was his relative newness to the political scene not in fact an asset to his campaign? It was.
It seems more plausible to me that Obama’s base is dissatisfied with his apparent reversals on issues they care about.
This new data convinces me more than ever that defensive and post-partisan campaigning is a serious mistake. Republican campaigning tactics–of the sort used even against McCain by Bush in ‘00–may be vile. Using character assassination or deploying patriotism as a bludgeon to destroy political enemies is disgusting, but I think the general idea of being aggressive-as aggressive as possible–is a good thing. We can learn that much from our political opponents.
I like Obama’s ad that claims McCain is “in the pocket” of big oil. It shows that the campaign is toughening up and developing a so-called “populist” line of attack. The campaign should never give ground to McCain. It should pound on him again and again, on the war, on health care, on the environment, on immigration, on internationalism. Be unapologetically liberal.
These are issues that put McCain on the defense. These are issues on which Obama can win, if the polling numbers are right.
You say Obama’s popularity is dropping because “Obama’s base is dissatisfied with his apparent reversals on issues they care about.”
In other words, you think these voters are losing their enthusiasm for Obama because of Obama’s position on the issues — his recent shifts on campaign finance, for example, or FISA, or drilling off the coast, or the strategic petroleum reserve.
Maybe you’re right — maybe Obama’s changes on these issues are causing voters to say they’re undecided, or to say they’ll vote for McCain.
What’s clear, then, is that these particular voters must not care AT ALL about withdrawing from Iraq — since Obama wants to get out and McCain wants to stay in. This must not be one of the issues these voters care about.
It’s also clear that these voters don’t care AT ALL about health care, either — since Obama wants affordable health care for everyone as a matter of policy and McCain wouldn’t significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
It’s clear, also, that these voters don’t care AT ALL about repealing Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, since that’s what Obama wants to do, while McCain wants to keep the cuts in place.
It’s also clear that these voters don’t care about the environment, since Obama and the Democratic Party is clearly more committed to fighting global warming than the Republicans are.
If these voters cared a whit about these issues, they wouldn’t be abandoning Obama, who needs them now.
So why on earth would it help Obama to pound McCain on these issues when the voters don’t care about them at all?
In case it’s not obvious, I think the post above is wrong. I agree that Obama needs to attack McCain aggressively, and I believe he will. But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that if Obama would just be “more liberal,” the country would suddenly rally around him.
If Obama’s positions on health care, on the war, on taxes, on social security, on education aren’t “unapologetically liberal,” enough for you, then I’m baffled.
Comment by Ian — August 5, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
I think the models are wrong. So the polls are undercounting the vote of people born after 1980 if not 1975. Then again there is a slight Obama overcount due to the Bradley Effect.
What is underplayed in all the talk about race is how much Obama’s relative youth bothers some Baby Boomers. They are not ready to vote for someone younger than them.
Comment by John — August 6, 2008 @ 8:19 am