DailyKos: Focus Group Tests the Early 2008 Democratic Field

[AtomicKitten]

from http://www.dailykos.com/

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

1. Don't feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don't want to be told what's wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They're not looking for the diagnosis - they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on "solutions" will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don't like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it's time for a change. They're looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don't want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they'd be Republicans.

4. Don't tell me what's wrong with America unless you can tell me what you're going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don't already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won't sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,' they complained. Tell us what you're going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It's also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion - yes passion - is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn't generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

[derby378]

1. They forgot the 11th Commandment...

Be a pro-freedom Democrat. That means no "Patriot" act, no CIA black site prisons, no torture of prisoners (whether citizens or not), no "enemy combatant" status, no domestic wiretapping unless thoroughly cleared through FISA, no spying on the Internet, no intimidation of media outlets, no snooping in public libraries, etc.

[BootinUp]

2. Must be fabricated, I don't see the spine meme. /sarcasm

[Adelante]

3. It was a tough audience - only Warner did well

Interesting that the question asked about Richardson, about success with a small state translating nationally, was not asked about Warner. He does seem to know how to get over. Everybody else was pretty much panned as a candidate.

Support for Hillary Clinton "disappeared by the time the night was over, and she won virtually no new converts. Only Edwards faired worse."
...

Sen. John Kerry "has a lot to live down. There is no public outcry for a second candidacy, and we heard loud and clear from many pained Democrats still angry by his loss to Bush."

...

Ex-Sen. John Edwards: "Of the nine candidates we tested, none began with positives and expectations as high as former Senator John Edwards. And none fell farther as fast.

...

Joe Biden's "stage presence drifts dramatically between all-star and below par.

...

Ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner starts "with a clean slate." ... after the sessions, when all the candidates had been heard for ten minutes and all the positives and negatives of each candidate discussed by the participants, Warner had gained more ground than any other opponent. There is something real happening here."

...

Gov. Bill Richardson's story "is the complete package. The question is, is that enough? ... and his greatest challenge is to prove that what he did in the small state of New Mexico can translate to a national stage.

...

Sen. Russ Feingold "may well become the Howard Dean of 2008. ..Primary voters appreciate his principled positions, but they aren't ready to award him their vote."

...

Sen. Evan Byah "is probably the single toughest Democrat to analyze. ..After seeing 20 minutes of Evan Bayh, there wasn't much love or hate.

...

Gov. Tom Vilsack "is too focused on religion and spirituality for New Hampshire Democrats, and his home state doesn't take him seriously.



http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/03/luntz_focus_gro.html

[Roland99]

5. From the names you listed, it doesn't look good if those are our choices.

Warner? Christ. We're all doomed.

[Adelante]

7. They were the only ones considered

So it's pretty skewed.

[Roland99]

10. We need someone with that passion who's not part of the establishment

Dean was the best hope but the "liberal" media lampooned into obsolescence.

[WhiteTara]

18. My thoughts. Feingold and Boxer

I think the two of them would be dynamite. She has a very high poll rating and is smart and principaled. The two of them together might be able to shift the ship of state to a life affirming administration and we could address real problems instead of who is marrying whom.

[sandnsea]

26. Distortion of Luntz's analysis

Warner started out as a complete blank slate, so there really wasn't anywhere for him to go but up. There isn't really any way to say one did well and another didn't because the actual document listed positives and negatives for each person tested. It's pretty easy to say everyone was panned if you only list the negatives and omit the positives. Read the actual analysis, not the way people spin it.

If the Party itself hadn't decided to use "blame the candidate" as a political strategy, Kerry would be doing alot better based on the comments and his own ten-point plan:

"It was the highest tested soundbite of both sessions, and the comments indicate just how effective it is:

-- “Wow! He is now my pick. I forgot a lot of his views. I think a Kerry-Edwards or a
Kerry-Clinton ticket would be awesome.”
-- “He has warmed considerably since 2004.”
-- “Human, funny, visionary, smart, great ideas, has a plan. Great ’10 things’ list, likeable,
solid, experienced.”

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Luntz_2008.pdf

[Adelante]

28. Wow, that is different

I hadn't seen the analysis. Thanks.

[Roland99]

4. Sounds like a pretty good hit-list to me!

Esp. #2 and #9.

[Strawman]

6. Screw Frank Luntz

And his stupid focus groups. Electability? WTF does that even mean anyway? How about some coherence? I'm so sick of these goddman focus groups and these finger in the wind asshole politicians I could puke.

[Awsi Dooger]

8. Sounds like the blueprint I've been advocating for at least a year

* Ignore Bush. Every cent spent knocking him is wasted. Big hint: the country has heard of Bush and isn't impressed

* Emphasize positives, a few major themes. Voters are desperate to vote FOR, not against. Especially the type of voter we need to sway, white women who became security moms in the aftermath of 9/11

* Nominate Mark Warner, the candidate who provides the most margin for error in 2008, via Virginia's 13 electoral votes and how they dramatically change the political landscape. Let me put it this way: it's basically the difference between a 10 point lead with 3 minutes to play in a basketball game or a 10 point deficit. Take your pick. Warner can lose, but he tilts the country toward the D side for a change, in a 50/50 popular vote landscape. With Virginia, we don't need Florida or Ohio.

[Fabio]

9. I found it interesting...

As a John Kerry partisan (who agrees that there is currently no major, broad based outcry for a second nomination), I think JK faired pretty well. If you look at the attributes people are seeking, I think he lines up incredibly well. He has his challenges, and needs to earn any second chances.

Meanwhile, I am surprised about Edwards 'end of the night' poor showing and Richardson's strength. Richardson has done some interesting things and does indeed have a strong resume -- but he strikes me as incredibly political. Warner continues to be a dark horse in my mind -- unattractive in some meaningful ways, but disarmingly with "it" and approachable, and yet still a cunning pol.

Meanwhile, I hold no grudge against hillary (I basically subscribe to the "you go girl" philosophy) and wish her good luck, but the comments reflect my personal experience reacting to her as a orator.

thoughts?

[incapsulated]

11. LUNTZ!? I could care less..

What that Republican whore's company comes up with. It MUST be bullshit.

:puke:

[Jai4WKC08]

12. It's no accident

That a Repug whore like Luntz would leave Clark out.

[incapsulated]

13. Nope

I trust his motives not a whit.

Edit to add: And since his people did the focus group, am I surprised that at the end of it they had turned everyone off to almost every possible nominee? NO. Honestly, I would take anything they came up with and do the exact opposite, I think it's a pure mindfuck for the dems.

[OzarkDem]

24. John Edwards has them worried, too

They were way over the top in criticizing him. No doubt candidates like Clark and Edwards are giving them a lot to worry about.

[xkenx]

14. That's because the Rethugs truly fear Clark the most--

he takes it to them on national security, where it hurts the most.

[calmblueocean]

15. Some good, some completely wrong.

Let's see, in reverse order:

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing.
Bzzzt! Yes, I want to win, but I want a true opposition party more than anything. Take a stand, speak the truth, even if you're afraid it's costing you votes.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope.
Hope, schmope! You said "Hope is on the way" last time, and you didn't deliver. Frankly, I'm sick of "hope". It sounds desperate and weak. Give me vision and give me strength. Yes, negativity is part of vision and strength. I know it, and so does every other voter in the country.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical.
Sounds like they're describing Feingold, doesn't it? Yes, this is a laundry list, but I like it.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence.
The 2008 Agenda: Energy independence, the War, the Constitution, Outsourcing, Education, Prescription Drugs.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat.
Can we get a better name? This sounds like we cause deficits, not fix them.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don't already know.
Listen to Rahm Emmanuel and Howard Dean, for starters.

4. Don't tell me what's wrong with America unless you can tell me what you're going to do to make it right.
Bzzzt! Look, half the problem is that Americans don't understand what's wrong. This is because Republicans do everything short of outright hypnotism to confuse the issues. I want to hear a plan, I want to hear solutions, but more than that, I really want someone who can get the American people to understand what's at stake. And, to be honest, I don't think any Dem can "make things right" after what Bush has done. Don't promise rainbows when all you've got is a broom and a dustpan.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it.
I found the "if they really cared about religion, they'd be Republicans" crack ignorant and shortsighted. But I thought Hillary's latest attempt at characterizing the Repubs immigration policies as trying to "criminalize Jesus and the Good Samaritan" physically painful. Don't pull scripture out of your ass, and don't use it to pander.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don't like him. Tell us why we should like you instead.
I think this is just restating number four. "Leave Bush out of it" is silly to me. You can't talk about the future without talking about the legacy Bush has left us. But don't ONLY talk about Bush.

1. Don't feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it.
Yeah, yeah. Everyone wants solutions. Me too. But do both. Show that you do feel the pain, THEN give me your solutions. Look at the Gulf Coast, for instance. Why have we not engaged some sort of WPA-like program in that region to train and employ residents to rebuild their own cities? These people are miserable, and Bush couldn't give a damn! I want someone who sees the America Bush has tried to sweep under the rug.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. I would totally agree with the part about a positive message

I'm convinced that it was why Kerry didn't do well enough to overcome the cheating. He brought out the people who really hated Bush, but he did nothing to convince the people who were neutral towards Bush that they would be better off with him in the White House.

[politicasista]

17. He is a repuke pollster. Focus on 2006

He is just coming out with this 2008 story to distract us from Bush's incompetence and the GOP Congress' failures and yet, we are playing right into the hands of Roveboy by talking about it. Go Figure.

[OzarkDem]

23. Wonder who paid for the focus group?

The GOP? Seriously, I hope the Dems didn't pay for it.

[AtomicKitten]

19. I was curious to read the DU response to this.

First of all, Luntz has been very effective for the Republicans, so it would be to our disadvantage to summarily dismiss the findings of his focus groups.

I try to visualize red state dwellers, the folk that live in the rectangular states in the middle of the country. It's hard for me sometimes sipping lattes in the Haight; my perception is based entirely on glimpses on TV or what I read. It's hard to fathom, but most Americans haven't a clue what has really transpired in America the last 6 years. They are oblivious to the outrages de jour we suffer daily; BushCo and the MSM have seen to it. We need to understand them to market a national candidate.

The 10 points listed above are a starting point for discussion for any election.

The impression I'm left with of Kerry's campaign is the feeling that I wanted to give him a swift kick to the groin every time he didn't answer a question in a short, concise fashion; he would meander off into a complex equivocation. Bill Clinton, in contrast, would answer a question with "yes" or "no" and " ... and I'll tell you why." And his explanation was easily understandable and well thought out.

Most of all, I don't want Democratic candidates taking any shit from the GOP wrecking machine.

But that's me.

[tkmorris]

20. I love the first 9. They don't imply #10 at all though

The problem is that a candidate who does those first 9 items there isn't playing by the established handbook. The "safe" play is not to risk putting out your own ideas to be criticised, just poke obvious holes in the other guys. Telling people that more tax cuts for the rich is a bad idea is safe, they already agree with that, but putting out your OWN tax plan will be sure to piss somebody off.

Telling people what we need to do to fix America is problematic. See, things really are a lot more messed up than anyone wants to admit. No candidate wants to be the bearer of that news.

I could go on but I think you see my point (I hope so anyway). I think you are going to have to accept that anyone who actually satisfies those first nine criteria is going to be a bit of an outsider. He or she is going to be telling people not really what they want to hear, but more what they NEED to hear. Such a candidate is not going to look like an established "electable" frontrunner. He/she is going to be more a firebrand, a people's choice, someone who tells it like it is then tells people what he/she wants to do about it with no weasel words. Someone who catches the public's fancy through their chutzpah and plain speaking. Someone who inspires them to believe that there IS hope for a different kind of politician, and a brighter future for America.

You know, I think I just described Howard Dean. Swear to God I wasn't trying to, but damnit it all there he is.

[DFW]

21. My ideal ticket right here and now would be Gore/Dean

But that is so highly speculative and Utopian, it hardly
is worth mentioning.

I have seen Frank Luntz every year at a thing we both attend
in South Carolina. He is the closest thing I have ever seen
to Dickens' Uriah Heep I have ever seen, and the guy's IQ must
be over 200. The true embodiment of an evil genius. I wish he
worked for our side--I think.

He was truly gloating over the election results after November 2004.
By the time I ran into him a year later, he no longer seemed too thrilled
with the fact that his love-child had turned into Rosemary's Baby.
Not exactly remorse, please don't get me wrong, but the start of
a "what have I wrought?" nonetheless. Maybe it was all for show,
too, who knows? But if it suddenly becomes politically correct in
circles like his to start covering their bases with our side "just in case,"
I won't object. He'll always be suspect, but then how many people who
voted for Nader really and truly regret their vote in 2000? Even the
most committed and dedicated of activists, including those who do it for
the money as well as for their political convictions (if any), can have
a change of heart. Not always for the better, either (remember Dennis Miller).

[OzarkDem]

22. Frank Luntz?

I hope the Dems didn't pay money for this.

Please tell me they're not that dumb to actully believe anything Frank Luntz tells them. That's like hiring Karl Rove to help plan Dem races in 2008.:eyes:

I can't believe there isn't another firm somewhere in the US they could hire who conducts focus groups. Why choose one of the most evil GOP dirty tricksters around?

[AtomicKitten]

25. it's unfortunate

that people summarily dismiss information like this; trying to persuade others to follow suit is indicative of someone trying to keep the lights off.

Be skeptical if you must, but I posted this for discussion. Our system is broken and we need to try to understand people from other parts of the country to recruit new voters and persuade others to abandon the sinking ship we are on.

If you don't open your mind, nothing new flows in.

[Cocoa]

27. I've seen Frank Luntz manipulate his focus groups

he briefly had a program where he televised his focus groups and he distorted them in front of our very eyes.

He had a half-republican and a half-democrat group, and when a dem said something that didn't fit his own framing, he simply overrode them. He asked a slanted question, which the intelligent dem successfully foiled, and then Frank Luntz turned to us and told us that the answer we all heard wasn't representative of what dems think.