Startling! Take a look:
Barack Obama’s Republican edge
If he can win the Democratic primary, will his fans from the opposing party help take him all the way to the White House?
By Michael Scherer
Aug. 24, 2007 | It was sort of like finding a Christmas tree in a cornfield. In late July and early August, Iowa Republican voters were asked to name their choice for president in a University of Iowa poll. Mitt Romney, who leads most Iowa surveys, got 22 percent of the total. Rudy Giuliani came in second with 10 percent. But third place went to a Democrat, Barack Obama, who got nearly 7 percent — more than Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Sam Brownback combined.
Not to worry: The Obama campaign isn’t likely to join the Grand Old Party, and pollsters are convinced that Obama has exactly zero chance of winning the Republican caucus in Iowa. But something is going on. “I don’t want to make too much of it,” says David Redlawsk, the professor who commissioned the poll. “But I do think that the message Obama is putting out right now is the most likely to reach across party lines.”
There are other signs of Obama’s crossover appeal. Over the last several months, Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, has been holding focus groups for various media organizations like Fox News to find out what the public thinks of the presidential candidates. “I would ask Republicans, ‘Which Democratic candidate would you accept? Who would you consider to vote for?'” Luntz says. “Obama would get more than everybody else combined. Hillary [Clinton] and [John] Edwards have no crossover voters.”
A recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News revealed a third data point in Obama’s favor: When asked in July which Democratic candidate has the best chance to defeat a Republican in a general election, Republicans and independents were more likely than Democrats to pick Obama over Clinton. In fact, among Democrats, only 22 percent said Obama was the best general election candidate, while 54 percent flagged Clinton as the best in the general election. But among Republicans, 33 percent said Obama was the best candidate, and 37 percent said Hillary. In other words, Republicans were about 11 points more likely than Democrats to see Obama as the best shot for a Democratic White House.
Any political expert will tell you that polls don’t mean much five months before the first caucus. But a pattern may be emerging. In part because of Clinton’s high negatives among Republicans, it appears Obama is gaining momentum as a fresh candidate with a less divisive approach, by constantly appealing beyond the partisan lines of the last decade. His first television ad buy in Iowa included testimony from a Republican state lawmaker from Illinois talking up Obama and his ability to reach across party lines. As Obama reiterated in an appearance in Iowa last week, “The country is hungry for change. It wants something new. We want to chart a new direction for our nation.”
I find this story confounding, confusing, counterintuitive, and any other “c” word that’s appropriate.
Go ahead and take a look at the rest:
[Per L-HC’s reformed process, please click the link below for the complete article — but then please come on back!]
Salon.com News | Barack Obama’s Republican edge
If I hadn’t seen this story in Salon, I might suspect it’s part of a Republican dirty tricks campaign.
It’s a paramount tactic among the Roves of the world to do all that’s necessary to see that the other party nominates the candidate easiest to defeat in the general election. This explains John Kerry.
Because I have to tell you, gals and guys, it is my firmly held belief that what people say to pollsters and what they do in the privacy of the voting booth can differ astonishingly. This explains Harry Truman’s win in 1948.
I think that it’s understood that people tend to tell pollsters an idealized version of their beliefs, or a varnished version, or an aspirational version, and then they go ahead and reelect the (mainly) guys who are, deep down, the most like themselves in all the important ways (i.e., white, male, Christian).
And, I’m ready at all times to be thrilled and impressed with the maturity and intelligence of the U.S. voting public, but I can’t help but be overwhelmed by my curMUDGEonly insistence that the electorate of 2008 will not elect a black man president, nor, to be sure, the particular woman in question.
I’m disappointed with that situation, but here’s the other problem. Whatever those Iowans say, the only chance the Republicans have of having any of their motley crew of candidates win in November 2008 is if the Democrats, whose victory in Congress seems to have led to only (bloody and bloody-minded) business as usual, nominate a candidate sure to galvanize the demoralized Republican troops into the polls in (modern) record numbers.
Call me cynical, but the prospect of staying home and letting a black man, or that woman swear the oath of office on 20-January-2009 might cause even the most dispirited Republican voters to get out and vote for Rudy or Old Man McCain.
And in my opinion, the Democratic center, for all of its brave conversation, has not yet evolved so much further than their Republican counterparts.
Whatever they all say to the pollsters, in the utter privacy of the voting booth, I just can’t see the average citizen doing the right thing.
Finally, none of the candidates have much of a record of executive accomplishment. The more months go by, Rudy’s supposed turnaround of NYC is going to tarnish. Obama and Clinton and many of the rest are lawyers, managers only of assistants and paralegals. A couple of governors might have executive experience, but of small states with tiny local challenges. And Fred Thompson, you’re no Ronald Reagan!
Michael Bloomberg, we’re ready for you!
It’s it for now. Thanks,
BTW, Patrick Smith of Salon has a new Ask the Pilot column this weekend. Patrick, I don’t want to incur any further fiscal obligations to you and Salon.com, so I won’t excerpt it or comment further here, except to recommend that my fearless reader get over and check it out. Terrific as always.
Technorati Tags: polls, Barack Obama, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani, Iowa, Iowa caucuses, Republican, Democratic, Presidential election of 2008, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Michael Bloomberg, Patrick Smith, Ask the Pilot
“And Fred Thompson, you’re no Ronald Reagan!”
Enjoyed the article. I think you’re right about Giuliani to the extent that family issues (divorce and national consensus on what he stands for).
Do you have a plug in that does your technorati tags?
Thanks for the kind words.
I use Windows Live Writer for all of my blogs — it’s free and works absurdly well. One of its standard features is a basic plug-in (you can add lots of others, but I quickly realized that I don’t use them) called Insert Tags that you can configure for a number of services. I chose Technorati.
The hard part is coming up with useful, downright hooky tags, but that’s a subject for a blog post in and of itself, I think!
Thanks, again, for stopping by.
[…] denigrated by many as unelectable; this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere© characterized Obama that way many months ago. And Arkansas Huck is a joke, […]
”~ that seems to be a great topic, i really love it “-*