Familiarity breeds contempt: Obama's image is unraveling at a terrifying pace (down 24% in 10 months

jackson_dem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-27-08 12:25 AM
Original message

Familiarity breeds contempt: Obama's image is unraveling at a terrifying pace (down 24% in 10 months

This is why I never bought the Obama hype. If the election were held in February or March I would have supported Obama because he was the stronger candidate then. However, as those of us who know political history know, the "new" candidate is always much stronger at the beginning when he is unknown. Then folks learn they have a wart here, a wart there. Gradually that candidate becomes less popular. Candidates who once had broad, if vague, appeal no longer become destined landslide winners (see Dukakis, Bush 2000, and Kerry) but suddenly find themselves fading fast. Is this because something is wrong with them? Of course not. There simply is not enough information upon which to dislike a politician when they first arrive on the scene. This is especially true for a presidential candidate with no record (Obama) or no national profile before running for president (Bush, Dukakis). Here is the fucking bottom line: It is a fairy tale to believe that Obama circa April 2008 will be stronger than Obama circa November 2008. The trend says it all.

Obama's favorables

Current: 53/40
4/16/08: 57/36
3/5/08: 61/28
7/07: 56/19
5/06: 34/10

Let's compare that to two much better known candidates.

Clinton's favorables

Current: 47/49
4/16/08: 49/47
3/5/08: 56/40
7/07: 55/38
5/06: 51/45

McSame's favorables

Current: 51/41
4/16/08: 52/42
3/5/08: 55/35

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134254

All three have been declining as they get more scrutiny, more vetting, and get attacked more. Still notice the relative stability. Clinton's unfavorable rating now is only 4% higher than it was two years ago. McSame's is only 6% higher. Obama's is a whopping 21% higher than it was just one year ago and 30% higher than two years ago. Obama has fucking lost a net 8% in one week. One week. The rethug machine has not even fully went after him yet, although they are cranking up and sending some salvos out now. During the same week Clinton lost 4%. McSame lost 1% in favorability but he also lost 1% in unfavorability.

2004 for historical context

Let's look at 2004 and to get a reliable gauge use Newsweek's polling. I will use the poll taken closest to this time in 2004 (4/8-4/9) and then compare that to the last Newsweek poll.

April 2004: Kerry 50%, Bush 43%
October (week before the election): Bush 51%, Kerry 45%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

Here is another revealing tidbit from 2004 from Pew that shows how the definition of "new" candidates changes as they get vetted as well as attacked. Look at what happened in just three months.

While Kerry was perceived almost completely favorably in February that dramatically changed after the rethug machine went after him.

Compare that to the relative stability for the incumbent.

Graph of 2004 polling

Notice that sharp decline for Kerry in April? That is when the RNC began running ads against him that featured the now famous "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote. ("god damn America" could be Obama's "I voted for it" killer sound bite. Obama didn't say it but notice the ad references Obama sitting in the pews for 20 years? Do you think they reached and pulled the 20 years in the pews line out of their behind? Hell no. They surely did focus groups and that was probably the thing that disturbed folks the most about Obama and his relationship with Wright.).

The graph is well-timed. The beginning of March was when Kerry clinched the nomination. He started out tied with Bush in the polls, 44.5 to 44.5. He lost by 3. He ran against an incumbent, though. Elections with incumbents are always referendums on the incumbent. The final margin reflected an increase for Bush not so much a decline for Kerry. What is important for us is to note the ups and downs. As noted previously, the first sharp decline for Kerry came when the RNC began running negative ads against him. He then recovered and reached his zenith in July and August. What happened in July? He got a bounce from the positive publicity he got from choosing a VP and then from the Democratic convention. He then tanked in the middle of August. Does anyone remember what our friends who were are going to build a post-partisan utopia with did then? Yes. That is when the infamous swiftboating happened. Kerry went from 48%--the highest he would ever poll (he wound up with 48% but that is when undecideds were forced to choose. He never reached 48% in polling with undecideds except for in July and August)--and a narrow two point lead over Bush to 42-43% and trailing Bush by 7%. He then made a final push as Bush's popularly fell again.

This was John fucking Kerry. John Vietnam movement Kerry. John I was elected to the senate two decades ago Kerry. John did you hear I was a war hero Kerry. Barack Obama is someone no one knew four years ago and no one paid attention to outside the doting MSM and political class until the end of 2006. Obama is the must vulnerable to being attacked of any nominee, if he wins, perhaps ever (usually you must achieve something to reach the national prominence running for president necessities). He certainly is more vulnerable than any candidate in the past half century. The reason is no one knows who he is. He can be defined far more easily in the negative than past candidates who had some record, some image. Even the governors who ran, while unknown outside of their states, had a record they could point to as something that would give folks concrete ideas of what they believe. What is Obama going to point to? I speech with no substance in 2004 and a speech in 2002 that no two people can recall the same way and there is no record of?

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=213