August 27, 2008
McCain, Obama and Clinton Favorability
A little interesting movement in views of the candidates has taken place since the end of the primaries in June. All three candidates, McCain, Obama and Clinton, have seen rises in their favorable ratings and an initial decline in unfavorable views though with a slight upturn recently. McCain and Obama are enjoying essentially identical ratings, with 60% favorable and only 35% unfavorable. Even after a significant amount of negative portrayals of him in RNC and McCain ads, Obama's rating has risen over the summer, and so has McCain's. (According to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which monitored and coded all 100,000 ad airings in June and July, one third of McCain's ads contained negative information about Obama and 100% of RNC ads were negative. In the same two months, 10% of Obama's ads mentioned McCain.)
Whatever happens after the conventions, both candidates enjoy an enviable standing with voters as attractive figures instead of a pair of lesser evils. The fall capaign may alter this, but even after a hard fought primary season the nominees remain attractive figures.
Meanwhile, Senator Clinton has also enjoyed an upturn in favorable ratings and a decline in unfavorable ratings since the end of the primary season. While improved, Clinton remains a more polarizing figure than either McCain or Obama, with slightly lower favorable but noticeably higher negative ratings.
Senator Clinton is far more popular among Democrats than among either Independents or (especially) Republicans. In that sense, her speech to the Democratic Convention last night was an example of speaking primarily to the party and her supporters, rather than to the broader public. The contast between former Virginia governor and now Senate candidate Mark Warner's speech and Clinton's is a good example of this difference. Warner stressed unifying themes and appeals across political groups, which was greated warmly but which fell short of electrifying the Democratic delegates. In contrast, Clinton played to the party and produced a predictably enthusiastic response within the DNC convention hall. Conventions contain both elements. Monday, the party celebrated Sen. Kennedy's life and family legacy, primarily an inside the family affair, perhaps touching some independents but not likely to attract Republicans. In contrast Michelle Obama's speech could have easily been given at the Republican convention, with its themes of family, hard work, pulling oneself up from working class circumstances. Hers was a speech designed to reach out beyond the party.
The one remaining question from the Clinton speech is whether her supporters also resepect her enough to follow her lead. For Clinton to be a power in the party includes the requirement that she be able to deliver her supporters for Obama. If any significant number of her supporters refuse to be delivered, they reduce her status as a result. This is hard to judge from the cable news coverage, who can easily find individual delegates willing to say they are unpersuaded. But what effect the Clinton speech has with her supporters outside the convention hall will be critical.
By Charles Franklin on August 27, 2008 10:47 AM | Permalink
Comments
Hillary gave a truly terrific, gracious, unifying speech. It was better than Obama deserved given his recent treatment of her and her 18 million supporters. But her supporters know she had to do that. Many of us (hopefully enough to tilt the election) will still vote for McCain with the hope that Hillary will come back in 4 years and take the White House. We can't vote for a candidate who just isn't qualified (and received fewer votes from Democrats than she did) just because Hillary is forced to tow the party line.
"The one remaining question from the Clinton speech is whether her supporters also resepect her enough to follow her lead. For Clinton to be a power in the party includes the requirement that she be able to deliver her supporters for Obama. If any significant number of her supporters refuse to be delivered, they reduce her status as a result. "
Mr. Franklin:
Mrs. Clinton will continue to be a power in the Democratic party - and in the nation - because she is (1) the democratically elected Senator from the state of New York, and (2) because she is a brilliant and talented leader.
The idea that she has to deliver something for Senator Obama "or else" is repugnant.
Has Senator Biden's status been reduced now that polling shows (to the extent possible) he hasn't "delivered" any additional votes for Obama?
Senator Obama has to earn his own votes. If he can't do that, it is his failure and no one else's.
Patrick,
You are very immature and you do not truly care about Hillary's values. There are no guarantees in life, and I would bet you if Obama lost, Mark Warner would get the nomination. It's divisive comments and whining like yours that cause Democrats to lose Presidential elections. Just because your candidate lost, you will vote against everything you stand for? Even Republicans recognize the stakes of this election and despite their disdain for McCain, will vote for him.
GROW UP!
Fake PUMA alert. Back in February on this site Patrick said:
"Personally I think it's likely that McCain will beat either Obama or Clinton."
Nothing like a Republican leaner telling true Hillary supporters how they should vote.
The fact is that Hillary has the biggest net negatives in Republican and Independent identifiers of all of the candidates, and having Hillary at the top of the Democratic ticket (or even second on that ticket) would have turned off more voters than it would have gained.
Republicans have been trying to nominate Hillary for the top of the Democratic ticket going back to 2000 when she first ran for the Senate. It's obvious why they wanted her, and obvious why they are still pushing that story.
I don't doubt that Hillary would have her own Independent and Republican strengths apart from Obama, but they would not be a net gain over Obama. No way, no how.
Now let's stop pretending.
Wow, I had no idea people actually remembered my quotes from February! Now I feel truly "important"! :-)
Actually, I may be opinionated, but I'm not a "fake PUMA". In fact, I'm a lifelong Democrat (have voted for every Democrat since McGovern when I was 18), have donated the maximum allowed by law to every Democratic presidential candidiate since Dukakis, and I actually WORKED FOR MICHAEL DUKAKIS in the Massachusetts State House from 1986 until 1990. I saw what happened to him from a front row seat and I know more about the realitities of presidential campaigns than most people.
When I said that I thought McCain would beat either Clinton OR Obama, I meant it. The party was becoming so divided, I felt strongly that we needed both Clinton and Obama on the ticket for them to win. As you may recall, Clinton strongly suggested (practically said it outright right before the Mississippi primary) that she would select Obama to be her running mate. She knew she would be able to put her personal feelings aside, unite the party, and win. Obama did just the opposite. He never even considered Hillary. So he chose not to unite the party.
The honest to god reason I am voting for McCain this time is because I have studied Barack Obama's record IN DETAIL. And believe me, it's not impressive in the least! I'm not a mindless partisan. I vote for the candidate I honestly think will do a better job overall. And in this particular case, I honestly think it will be worth one mediocre McCain term (he's a true moderate, after all, and will have a Democratically controlled Congress!) to attain 8 to 16 years of strong Democratic leadership in the White House. At the same time, I'm a student of history and I strongly believe that Obama has ALL the same demographic problems that Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern, and arguably Gore had when they ran. That's why I believe Hillary was much more electable than Obama. The fact that he's only running even with McCain in national polls at a time (when any Democrat should be way ahead) shows this demographic weakness. And believe me, it's NOT racism.
I'll have to take your word on that. But this question begs of me...Will you vote for McCain because he is your favored candidate, or because you see McCain being elected as Hillary's best chance to be elected in 4 years?
What you said indicates to me that you are more of a swing voter, regardless of your history.
Regarding the two candidates on the same ticket, it would have been a natural thing to do, and generally has been, but when one campaign becomes so negative and questions the qualifications of the other candidate so frequently, it really wasn't a choice. Clinton might have needed Obama on her ticket, but the opposite wasn't true as Hillary loses more votes among Independents than she would gain in real PUMA's.
Mr. Franklin's final comment fundamentally assumes that the two key contenders' backers were personally attracted to their respective candidates, rather than being issue-oriented.
It's true that the two key candidates have publically espoused similar positions on many issues. I don't know of very many Hillary backers, though, who don't see her core belief-set as fundamentally similar to that of her husband, which is to say, moderate and even in some respects conservative-leaning by Democratic standards.
Those same individuals generally perceive Mr. Obama's beliefs, as indicated by his selection of advisors, his Senate voting record, his leading political allies and his past activities, as being significantly more liberal and appealing more to the Democratic Party's left wing.
All of which is to say, the Hillary-Barack contest has been about the Democratic Party's ideology. As such, it's nonsensical to expect the supporters of the defeated ideology to support the different ideology of the other candidate.
My view is that both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been far too willing to see their candidacies in egocentric terms. Likewise the media. It's about *ideology*, folks.
This is by far the most intriguing thing I have seen written about the contest. It has been so long since any presidential candidate has seemed worthy of respect that I'm not sure that we know quite what to do with either of them. The apparent lack of effect of campaign attack ads on Obama's favorability rating is also the most hopeful sign I have seen so far of the possibility of an America healed and restored after 15 of the most depressing and degrading years in our politics.
Posted on August 27, 2008 1:03 PM