« Can the Polls Accurately Predict an Obama Win? | Main | Clinton Campaign in a State of Denial »

Obama Campaign in a State of Collapse

Well, not really -- but I couldn't resist having some fun with this blog post headline at the expense of my blog-mates Larkin and Steve Crickmore, both of whom revealed a strong anti-Clinton, pro-Obama bias in their blog posts and comments over the last few days.

No question that a lot of Democrats are operating under the illusion of polls; conclusions made by others and served up as gospel, like the polls in New Hampshire the last few day showing Barack Obama with a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton. Rumors followed, promulgated either by the Obama and Edwards camp or by the GOP opposition, of Clinton folding her tent and returning to her castle a defeated candidate.

We Americans -- both Democrat and Republican and all of those shades of gray between and at the polar ends of the political spectrum -- are such a self-defeating lot. If we don't have Karl Rove to lead us around and tell us what to think we'll let the pollsters like Rasmussen and focus-group pundits like Karl Lutz make our decisions for us.

They don't tell us how to vote, of course, they just tell us what to think about when we vote.

So you'd hope that when we're shown that the conclusions we arrive at as result of the analysis based on the inaccurate opinion measurement systems so prevalent in the politics today you'd think we'd learn from that experience.

Sadly, no... we get results such as this:

As for myself, I'm "hoping" for something other than four years of bitterness and divisiveness that we are guaranteed to have if Hillary is elected. She is a polarizing figure, 45% of the electorate would never vote for her, and her presence at the top of the ticket limits the coattails for Democrats down the ticket.

With Obama we have a chance for a larger victory, a stronger coattails effect and the opportunity to broaden the franchise of the party by pulling in younger voters who could become Democrats for life (studies show the first voting experience typically sets a pattern for life)

That analysis, in the form of a comment , was added to my post last night by Larkin -- a post which questioned whether we could truly judge Obama's electability based on polling information.

Despite a stunning example last night that the answer to that question is a resounding no, Larkin's comment shows that it's too late. He's chosen to make his decision going forward after last nights turnaround based, at least in large part, on the polling data showing "45% of the electorate would never vote for her," despite the fact that one hour earlier we were shown how hugely wrong polls can be.

If the polls saying she would suffer a huge defeat in New Hampshire were wrong, then why aren't the polls suggesting 45% of the electorate wouldn't vote for her wrong as well?

Heavy sigh...

We need to choose the best-qualified candidate, based on whatever criteria we personally want to apply to that decision, and stop letting polls make our decisions for us. If we Democrats can't figure out who the best-qualified candidate is then we deserve another eight years of Republicans in the White House. I can't imagine thoughtful Democrats allowing that to happen, but that's exactly where we're headed unless we stop defeating ourselves and make some intelligent choices.

Barack Obama has, in my opinion, done this country a great disservice. When his supporters booed his opponent at the New Hampshire 100 Club Dinner a few days ago Obama didn't apologize. Instead he signaled his tacit approval for such tactics when he defended protesters who were chanting anti-abortion slogans at a New Hampshire Obama rally a few days later.

Well, "gloves off" is fine if that's how the Man of Change would like the Democratic primary to be run, but I'd hoped for better -- I was hopeful that Mr. Obama would live up to his promise to run a clean campaign of hope -- but I guess when you're 30 points down in the national polls, as Obama was last October, it's time to take off the mittens and come out swinging.

It'll be a sad testament if Obama's decision to do so marks the end of rational thought among liberals and progressives in America during this very critical juncture in our history. We should be building a platform and team that will win the election in November. Instead we'll be fortunate if the Democratic candidate left standing after the bloody primary battles are over will have enough national sway to carry the election.

I'm skeptical... but I guess we'll just have to wait for the pollsters to tell us what to do next. Whatever the result, we won't have Karl Rove to blame this time.

Related: I just came across this spot on analysis by Michael Fauntroy that is screaming to be read and understood by Democrats all across the country.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.5/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (7)

Steve Crickmore:

The public may have responded to the 'new voice' of Hillary and Hillary seems genuinely uplifted with the connection. She is no longer going just through the motions. The last thing America needs is another president in a bubble. You really can learn more in life from your defeats than your victories.

If Hillary wins the nomination (she is back again as favorite) let's hope she incorporates much of Obama's theme about about giving Americans hope that they can change the future, and a little less of the "I" word because if she contiunes to talk about her "35 years of experience" as the chief qualification for being the president, Republicans are going to go after 8 of those years very closely.

scorchednuts[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I say if Hillary wins the nomination, she incorporates more than Obama's theme. How about Clinton/Obama '08?

Lee Ward:

I've suggested the very same combination, that ticket looks very strong, and I'd say that the ticket is created with the understanding that Obama would run for President in 2012 -- opposing Clinton if she decided to seek re-election -- but no... the Obamamites are power-hungry, crazed zealots (burp) who can't wait to get their hands on the purse strings of America. Obama supprters say no, they want their guy at the top of the ticket. Obama will probably choose Jimmy Hoffa as his Veep....

Or something...

Steve Crickmore:

Why Hillary will say no to Obama...Unless we've misread Hillary, it will difficult psychologically even for 'the new' Hillary to team herself with someone who is more popular than she is and Bill and Barack don't seem on the best of terms at present, as well.

Lee Ward:

So then, Steve, you're saying Barack won't be able to work with Hillary principally because Barack doesn't like Bill?

Wow, there's that whole "hands across the great divide to heal America" hypocrisy of Obama's surfacing again. (wink)

I suspect Barack could manage to work with Bill in order to be VP, but maybe he'll choose not to. He'd rather let Mike Huckabee or John McCain into the White House, and then Barack will take another run at the Pres job in 2012.

That makes a lot of sense... he'd be pissed off and he'd give Republicans a better chance at the White House instead. Inexperienced ego-maniacs would react that way, you're right (double wink)

Steve Crickmore:

I really don't think either candidate is thinking of the VP job, at this point..But Lee subconsciously if you are pushing hard for Obama as Veep you really don't want to see all that charisma be made redundant/ or retired. You know it would sweep alot of Democrats in on its coat tails and be impressive on the world stage. Who is going to come in Hillary's coat tails a few more women candidates, maybe that's probably all. Everyone says that she is polarizing but don't hear much from people that are polarized toward's her.

The New Hampshire lady who asked that question of Hillary because she had a lot of sympathy and admired Hillary, ended up voting for Obama and being very unhappy election night because when she went to hear Obama on a Portsmouth stage he brought her to tears twice in his speech, and she said there was so much electricity at the hall. Hillary brings tears to her own eyes and Obama brings tears to other people's eyes, a big difference.

scorchednuts[TypeKey Profile Page]:

The whole reason I got behind Obama is because of George W. I think Hillary would make a fantastic president, and if she is the nominee, I will proudly vote for her. I'm just sick of the disgusting sniping and polarization in this country today. Obama is a guy, I think, most Americans could get behind on most issues, while Hillary would start day #1 in the White House with 35-40% of the country already hating her guts, just like Dubya did. I also think it might be nice to have a president whose last name isn't Bush or Clinton, as it has been since I was 8 years old.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.