What percentage of the vote will Obama lose because of the following "issues"?

[Keystone Phil]

OK, now respond to the point about Hillary's 9-point margin of victory.

Uh, what am I responding to? My prediction that it would be at least a nine point victory? OMG I WAS WRONG!!!11 Now go whack off to that, Zachy. I know you didn't get much action tonight.

No you weren't wrong actually. My point being then that Obama did the absolute maximum he could do in PA.

And that's not that great when it's still almost a double digit loss.

Which is moot at this point because Obama is the nominee.

But not a moot point when that's still a wide enough margin to include plenty of people that absolutely won't vote for Obama and can have a great impact in a swing state.

And it's not showing up in polls. (Watch Phil resort to the Bradley Effect excuse again.)

Or watch Phil say that it's four months before the election. How's former President Dukakis doing?

Oh, and if you believe that there is no Bradley Effect in the General then you really are a horse's ass.

[JSojourner]

-Those "bitter" comments made 4 months ago (and almost 9 months before the election.)

So McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comments won't be an issue, right?

It should be.  Since McCain has yet to answer the questions ---

If you meant 100 years, only if Iraq is safe for our troops, as you later claimed -- then when and how will it be safe?  At what point would you accept that it is unsafe and remove our troops to honor your clarified claim?  Ten years?  15?  25?

[Keystone Phil]

-Those "bitter" comments made 4 months ago (and almost 9 months before the election.)

So McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comments won't be an issue, right?

It should be.  Since McCain has yet to answer the questions ---

If you meant 100 years, only if Iraq is safe for our troops, as you later claimed -- then when and how will it be safe?  At what point would you accept that it is unsafe and remove our troops to honor your clarified claim?  Ten years?  15?  25?

Then why shouldn't Obama's comments be an issue?

[JSojourner]

-Those "bitter" comments made 4 months ago (and almost 9 months before the election.)

So McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comments won't be an issue, right?

It should be.  Since McCain has yet to answer the questions ---

If you meant 100 years, only if Iraq is safe for our troops, as you later claimed -- then when and how will it be safe?  At what point would you accept that it is unsafe and remove our troops to honor your clarified claim?  Ten years?  15?  25?

Then why shouldn't Obama's comments be an issue?

I'm not sure those remarks shouldn't be an issue.  I think it would be quite reasonable to criticize Obama's comments as possibly indicative of a jaded or elitist attitude.

[Lunar]

Obama's "bitter" comments clearly leave a distaste in people's mouthes. While it's not an issue like abortion where many voters will say "I'm voting for X because he's pro-life," it's part of a larger macro-issue of personality.  Some people WILL vote against Obama because he seems like an overly-educated, out-of-touch, elitist, black man.  These comments reinforce this perception and will hurt him somewhat, but are hardly fatal anywhere, as we can see in the current polls.

Most of the rest of these non-issues either help Obama, are non-factors, or contribute insignificantly towards this macroissue of personality.

[Stranger in a strange land]

-Those "bitter" comments made 4 months ago (and almost 9 months before the election.)

the only one that will actually hurt him is this one, because RNC and 527 ads will pound it relentlessly.

[J. J.]

-Him refusing public funding.

Some, because it might make him ultimately look to big donors and it was perceived as a flip-flop.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It playing into the elistist perception.  Maybe 1-2 points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly 21 electoral votes of PA (though Clinton on the ticket will put those back into play).  It may hurt him MI and OH as well.  I've known some dyed in wool Clinton/Gore voters that will vote for McCain over it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

possibly MI (and FL is gone).  It gives people MI a reason not to vote for him.

[J. J.]

I forgot to mention what percentage in Ohio and Colorado are going to vote against Obama out of disgust at his arrogance for campaigning in North Dakota and Alaska.

J.J.?

No, but I would note the perception of both elitism and arrogance on Obama's part.

I would point out that campaigning in 50 states was tried by Nixon in 1960 (and abandoned in 1968 and 1972).

I do think Obama is quite correct in putting the money and manpower into OH (and more of the Rustbelt).

[JSojourner]

Obama's "bitter" comments clearly leave a distaste in people's mouthes. While it's not an issue like abortion where many voters will say "I'm voting for X because he's pro-life," it's part of a larger macro-issue of personality.  Some people WILL vote against Obama because he seems like an overly-educated, out-of-touch, elitist, black man.  These comments reinforce this perception and will hurt him somewhat, but are hardly fatal anywhere, as we can see in the current polls.

Most of the rest of these non-issues either help Obama, are non-factors, or contribute insignificantly towards this macroissue of personality.

Right.  Some voters fear we are electing Cornel West.  Others fear we are electing Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.  In fact, Obama doesn't fit into any mold -- any more than McCain does.  But I agree -- Obama's "bitter" comment was and is worth criticism and scrutiny.

[Nym90]

I forgot to mention what percentage in Ohio and Colorado are going to vote against Obama out of disgust at his arrogance for campaigning in North Dakota and Alaska.

J.J.?

No, but I would note the perception of both elitism and arrogance on Obama's part.

I would point out that campaigning in 50 states was tried by Nixon in 1960 (and abandoned in 1968 and 1972).

I do think Obama is quite correct in putting the money and manpower into OH (and more of the Rustbelt).

I agree that Nixon's 50 state strategy hurt him, but not because of any perceived arrogance that turned voters off....rather the fact that he took a crucial campaign day and a half in the final week to go to Alaska to fulfill his pledge, as he was afraid of being perceived as dishonest and distrustful if he didn't (hard to believe anyone could ever think of Nixon as dishonest of course, but hey....).

It probably won him Alaska, but if he had gone to Illinois instead, it might've won that state for him.

If Obama has the resources to do it, I think it makes a lot more sense to run at least some ads in every state, rather than spend 10 gazillion dollars in Ohio and Colorado. Law of diminishing returns and all that.

[J. J.]

I agree that Nixon's 50 state strategy hurt him, but not because of any perceived arrogance that turned voters off....rather the fact that he took a crucial campaign day and a half in the final week to go to Alaska to fulfill his pledge, as he was afraid of being perceived as dishonest and distrustful if he didn't (hard to believe anyone could ever think of Nixon as dishonest of course, but hey....).

It probably won him Alaska, but if he had gone to Illinois instead, it might've won that state for him.

If Obama has the resources to do it, I think it makes a lot more sense to run at least some ads in every state, rather than spend 10 gazillion dollars in Ohio and Colorado. Law of diminishing returns and all that.

Don't get wrong.  I don't Obama is arrogant for proclaiming a 50 state campaign.  I think he is stupid for doing it.  Either he will have keep the promise and waste time and resources in UT or back off, looking insincere.

I think there are things that make Obama look both elitist and arrogant, but this isn't one of them.

[Lunar]

Obama has simply promised paid staff in every state.  In many states, that will constitute one low-paid staffer for publicity's sake (it won't hurt to improve local fundraising, support congressional races, support national '50 state' publicity, or improve national poll numbers).  He's only really committing to campaign/fundraise in probably a third to half that number of states.

It's awfully bold for you to preemptively declare, as a random dude, that Obama's macro strategy is unquestionably flawed.  Surely there is at least SOME non-stupid justification, however flawed, for his reasoning such that many non-stupid advisers (who propelled his win in the primaries against the inevitable Clinton)  would suggest such a strategy?

I mean, I'm not saying it's the right strategy yet, but, yeah, it seems kind of cocky to declare that it's 'stupid' before we see what form it takes.  Obama has a lot of non-stupid people advising him to do this inherently stupid idea, why?   Shear ignorance?  A bluff?   Shear arrogance?  How much they commit to every state will probably still depend on their internal polling's calculation of odds * the electoral college value of the state, I imagine.  Just because Obama has promised to appear in Omaha and Alaska does not mean that he will, will do so more than one time, won't do it just to help the local senate candidate (AK), or isn't just doing it to improve his odds in a neighboring state in the media market (IA).

[7,052,770]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It playing into the elistist perception.  Maybe 1-2 points.

Wait, you actually believe that his logo or accepting in a stadium will cost him votes?!

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It playing into the elistist perception.  Maybe 1-2 points.

Wait, you actually believe that his logo or accepting in a stadium will cost him votes?!

I think that both reinforces the image that Obama is elitist, and that image will cost him votes.

There is a good historical example.  In 1992, GHW Bush was campaigning in a grocery store and expressed surprise on how bar codes could read products.  This was widely reported and helped reinforce the image that Bush was out of touch, and elitist.  He wasn't like the "common people," or so the story went.

Now, in reality, you don't really expect the President or VP to be making runs to local 7-11 for beef jerky, but it still created the image that Bush was elitist. 

Obama has a similar image problem.  The logo, in a minor way, helps create the image.  The stadium has the potential for really doing it.  There have been a string of events that have helped create this image of Obama, and it is ultimately a political negative.

[Lunar]

You think even 1-2% of the electorate would even have seen the logo (he only had it for one speech, right?), and the entirety of that 1-2% will vote against him for it when they would not have otherwise?  That seems like a tall claim.

[NDN]

-Him refusing public funding.

Some, it does make him look like a hypocrite.

-His old campaign logo looking too much like the Presidential seal.

No, and the sort of people dumb enough to be swayed by this probably don't couldn't recognize the seal if you showed it to them.

-Giving his acceptance speech in a stadium.

This will HELP.

-Those "bitter" comments made 4 months ago (and almost 9 months before the election.)

This will hurt the most, possibly enough to cost him Ohio.

-The DNC FL/MI crisis that even Hillary accepted the resolution on and no one outside of Hillary is 44 cares about anymore.

No.

[Albus Dumbledore]

His being a muslim will be a bigger vote loser.

[J. J.]

You think even 1-2% of the electorate would even have seen the logo (he only had it for one speech, right?), and the entirety of that 1-2% will vote against him for it when they would not have otherwise?  That seems like a tall claim.

No, but you will notice that I've been referring to grouped things.  The seal alone has very little impact, but it goes on the list of things that make Obama look elitist and arrogant.  He was right in dropping it immediately.

If you are running for president, you do not want to look arrogant and elitist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh, and if you believe that there is no Bradley Effect in the General then you really are a horse's ass.

possibly MI (and FL is gone).  It gives people MI a reason not to vote for him.

The only person who could possibly make Dick Morris look like a solid political analyst.

[TheresNoMoney]

Great thread.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Great thread.