The damage to Clinton and Obama so far

[andym]

Among the general population the primary process has so far reinforced
the following general negative impression about the candidates (mostly through direct and indirect attacks):

1) Obama= inexperienced
big turnoff to older voters (>50) among others

2) Clinton= classic politician (triangulating, poll conscious etc)
big turnoff to younger voters (<50) among others

After the nominating process ends, can the damage be undone?
If so, describe how.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Neither is "damaged". On the other hand the Republicans...

:evilgrin:

[andym]

3. Well just listen to the opinions in this forum, to see the damage first hand

Also, I have seen and heard many examples. For example, in talking to my parents who are octogenerians, fairly apolitical, TV viewers, they could were absolutely convinced that Obama was too inexperienced to be president (especially after the damage caused by Bush). They could not easily be convinced that both candidates were qualified to be president. I think their opinion has been strongly shaped by the campaigns and the messages received through media.

I've heard similar problematic opinions from some friends (less than 50) about Clinton.

This kind of damage worries me. This forum is an example of the effect of the painting upon people who are generally more informed
about the election. A lot of ugliness here.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. The "damage caused by Bush". If they totally believe Bush, they'll vote McCain.

Personally, I think it makes either Dem candidate look good if Bush doesn't like them. :-)

[Bicoastal]

2. This is an unfortunate poll...

...I think most of us would want to vote more than once.

[andym]

4. OK, you're probably right-- I'll split up the polls later.