Let's hope it lasts (4.00 / 1)

 Granting that "bounces" based on big media events tend to be short-lived and somewhat hollow -- we're measuring the ficklest of voters, after all -- these polls tend to suggest that the support Obama lost by "moving to the center" (actually the right) generated no corresponding compensation in "centrist" voters switching to Obama in the process.

 In other words, it's (another) giant hole in the DLC theory on how to win elections.

 If Obama learns to trust his instincts more and beltway CW less, he'll start pulling away from McCain for good.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 15:24:29 PM CDT

I think the long term effects will be significant too (4.00 / 2)

Simply put, it is now easy to imagine Obama as a successful President on the world stage.  I think that will be important for some wavering voters in the fall.

And I'd like to agree that I too am feeling more proud and inspired.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 15:39:28 PM CDT

Commander In Chief threshold (4.00 / 11)

Way back when Clinton made her famous "Commander In Chief threshold" comment, she also said (when pressed about Obama as a VP choice) that Obama might cross the threshold before November.

Well, as stupid as that comment was, it some sense we just saw it happen on national TV.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 15:55:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's a great way to put it (4.00 / 2)

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 15:56:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A little o/t here . . . (0.00 / 0)

Now that you mention Hillary, can anyone imagine her drawing a throng of 200,000 to hear her speak in Germany?  I can't.

---

by: gas28man @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 23:56:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that says more about media treatment of her (4.00 / 1)

Than it does about Obama.

We in Europe receive less coverage of US politics, and so inevitably most people have less nuanced views. The view of Clinton as a shrieking harpy is therefore accordingly still strong on this continent, because we simply haven't seen that much positive coverage of her.

Obama is certainly totemic, but had Hillary got the nomination and had some positive coverage seeped over here then that, combined with McCain's craziness, would have guaranteed her a warm reception, if not necessarily of such size.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:15:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Step 2 (4.00 / 1)

For those of us who hope that we are in a 1980 style presidential election (see numerous threads today, for example), this could be a very important event.  Voters long ago now completed Step 1, reject of the "incumbent."  But to complete the sale, Obama has to complete Step 2, being embraced as the alternative.  

Hopefully, this was a very good first step, to be followed by the convention and then the debates.  And good for him for not waiting to plant that seed in voters' minds.

BTW: Can anyone think of good examples of American candidates (preferably presidential) who demonstrably were past Step 1, but did not complete Step 2, and lost (or, I guess, almost lost)?  I can mostly think of foreign examples: mainly, Labour (under Neil Kinnock) narrowly failing to win against John Major in 1992.  The 2005 UK election may also fall under this rule, but only time will tell that.

---

by: tilthouse @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 15:56:31 PM CDT

Tom Dewey, 1948 (0.00 / 0)

Bill Clinton might well have failed, but for Ross Perot.  He never got a majority. JFK had been a war hero (saving the men in his PT boat), but he was derided for lack of experience and only won by a hair.q19

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:09:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perot '92 (0.00 / 0)

Dewey, I'll buy.  I'd have to know more about how the Nixon/Kennedy campaign went to concur there, but that could be the case.  I also grant that, if this campaign is very close at the end, 1960 might be the historical example it most resembles.

I don't really buy the Clinton analogy, mostly because I think ultimate impact of Perot is overstated.  I blogged about this here.  

While Perot appears to pull a lot of Bush voters in, the ultimate effect was to pull in a lot of unsatisfied voters (from everywhere), many of whom would ultimately either stayed home or voted for the challenger.  This is seen in the VNS exit poll, which asked actual Perot voters for their second choice.  Bush and Clinton split them exactly evenly (with a lot of "would not vote" or "other" answers in there too).  It's also true that by simply campaigning at the level he did Perot had an effect, one which probably helped Clinton.  But the data I have seen does not support the notion that Perot was responsible for Bush losing.

Perot did, of course, keep Clinton under 50%, but Bush would have had to pull a very large percentage of the Perot vote to win, and the exit polls show did would have done nothing of the kind.

Also: Two-party preferred result, 1992: Clinton 53.5% / Bush 46.5% (not accounting for the 0.64% of the vote for other non-Perot candidates).

---

by: tilthouse @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:28:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

1960 (4.00 / 1)

In 1960, JFK and Nixon weren't actually that far apart in age.  IIRC, both had been lieutenants in the Navy.  It wasn;t like McCain-Obama in that respect.  Nixon had been VP, but there was that agonizing momnet in the campaign when Ike was asked to name one thing Nixon had done as VP and he couldn't.  People hads questions about JFK, but Nixon wasn't well liked and there were questions about him too.  To some extent it was experience, but also willingness to do the dirty work and his sliminess.  But as Rick Perlstein says, he obviously was a hero to many lower-middle class people who saw him as a striver just like them.  

JFK tried to emphasize change ("Get this country moving again!") and the fictional "missle gap", but the fact is that a good part of the country was definitely ready to break out of '50s conformity and trends like greater racial equality were pushing the narrative. Some found this exciting and some found it profoundly disturbing.  So it was similar but different.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:44:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dewey v. Truman (4.00 / 1)

From Wikipedia:

Indeed, given Truman's sinking popularity and the Democratic Party's three-way split (between Truman, Henry A. Wallace, and Strom Thurmond), Dewey had seemed unstoppable. Republicans figured that all they had to do to win was to avoid making any major mistakes, and as such Dewey did not take any risks. He spoke in platitudes, trying to transcend politics. Speech after speech was filled with empty statements of the obvious, such as the famous quote: "You know that your future is still ahead of you." An editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal summed it up:

No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

Part of the reason Dewey ran such a cautious, vague campaign was because of his experiences as a presidential candidate in 1944. In that election Dewey felt that he had allowed Franklin Roosevelt to draw him into a partisan, verbal "mudslinging" match, and he believed that this had cost him votes. As such, Dewey was convinced in 1948 to appear as non-partisan as possible, and to emphasize the positive aspects of his campaign while ignoring his opponent. This strategy proved to be a major mistake, as it allowed Truman to repeatedly criticize and ridicule Dewey, while Dewey never answered any of Truman's criticisms.

---

by: mcc @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 19:19:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think 2005 definitely fits (0.00 / 0)

I don't know anybody who enthusiastically voted for Labour that year. But Widdecombe's comment that Howard had "something of the night" about him was certainly accurate. It wasn't so much that the public didn't think he was ready to lead, it was that they didn't want him to lead.

Then again, I'm not sure Kinnock fits the theory.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:24:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kinnock (0.00 / 0)

Certainly, the media treatment of the '92 (UK) election result seems to suggest it fits:  Public not happy with the Tories, but scared of voting Labour (The Sun headline playing to those fears).

I'm not saying the media are right.  :)  What's your take?

---

by: tilthouse @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:32:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was five years old at the time (0.00 / 0)

So don't trust me implicitly. Nevertheless, I don't think you can portray The Sun as following public fears - they were still pushing a radical right agenda at the time and trying to create the doubt, not to strengthen it.

There's also the colossal failure of Labour's pre-election rally in Sheffield to consider - it was widely panned for being too American in style.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:38:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd be more impressed if... (0.00 / 0)

Obama had made some forceful statements against the McSame campaign while stateside - calling him on the bs instead of using namby pamby language like "we're disappointed...".  

Moreover, he could have restored some of that pride you're talking about by simply standing up for what he was during the primary.  That FISA vote was stupid and it's not moving left to stand up for what he is - a Democrat.

That said, I was very happy with the speech and his performance overseas.

---

by: pbriggsiam @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:05:13 PM CDT

Your comment seems out of place for the subject matter (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 17:14:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

New theme: The Grumpy Old Party (4.00 / 5)

I never bought into the "lurch to the center" as much as many here, but I do think Chris is right that the overseas trip and especially the Berlin Speech gave the Obama campaign a new burst of energy and confidence, and made people feel good about supporting Obama again.  The visuals of him with Petraeus and world leaders vs McCain with Poppy Bush and the sausage and creampuff eaters were priceless. Meanwhile, McCain just goes on and on ad infinitum about the surge like a broken record. Chuck Hagel is right that the issue is what we do now.  

The changes Chris writes about are very real, and they started almost immediately after the 2004 election.  The country, especially the part under 40, is even more ready for something new than they were in 1960, when they were tired of old Ike and the conformity of the 1950s.

I think this needs to be highlighted: The GOP is the Grumpy Old Party.  Conservatives are hopelessly out of time.  The times are changing, people are ready for challenges and responsibility.

If Obama can pivot to domestic issues next week, particularly energy, the economy and his vision of an opportunity society, he will win this thing.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:06:18 PM CDT

Exactly Right (4.00 / 3)

Now Obama has to hit the ground running talking about economic issues, and I think if he wants to use his trip as a segue into this new phase of the campaign, he can begin by speaking to Bowers' idea of the winning message of this campaign, which is that one of the first things we need to do to fix the economy in the United States is to stop plowing billions of dollars into Iraq.

Then he needs to say the second thing we need to do to fix the economy in the United States is to stop plowing even more billions of dollars into the Middle East by being reliant on oil for fuel and power production and that he will take the savings from getting us out of Iraq and put that money into wind, solar, and the development of low-emitting and alternative fuel vehicles.

And then he goes on from there. The plan should be to lay down the technical details of his economic and energy agenda crescendoing up to the convention. Get the prose in front of the American people now, and then deliver the poetry in Denver.  

---

by: ecotect @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:26:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which he only does probably once in every speech? (4.00 / 1)

he can begin by speaking to Bowers' idea of the winning message of this campaign, which is that one of the first things we need to do to fix the economy in the United States is to stop plowing billions of dollars into Iraq.

Then he needs to say the second thing we need to do to fix the economy in the United States is to stop plowing even more billions of dollars into the Middle East by being reliant on oil for fuel

It is so utterly draining to see even people who should know better, keep repeating media memes -- Barack Obama has been saying both these things in just about every town hall that I have seen -- he gave two speeches back to back on the economy, both of whose themes were these ideas...

---

by: Obamamama @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 18:47:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Connecting the Dots (0.00 / 0)

You're missing my point. He's just made a trip to the Middle East, and he has the media following him around with baited breath. He's got their attention. This is an opportunity for Obama to make the link more explicitly and segue from foreign policy into the economy and energy issues in a way that resonates beyond the constraints of a town hall meeting. It's also an opportunity for him to get more detailed about his energy and economic plans and prove he has chops in these areas the same way he just proved he has chops in foreign policy. He's got the spotlight, he now has an opportunity to dictate the terms of the national debate for the next week or two.

---

by: ecotect @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 23:50:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's wait a few days... (0.00 / 0)

Before we all start celebrating Obama's "bounce" in the polls.  Gallup had a bit of a bounce a few days ago too where Obama hit +6%, and then it immediately receded.

Not to try and extinguish the excitement, but there's more work to do.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 17:39:39 PM CDT

Since "Move to the Center" was never true in the first place (4.00 / 1)

maybe this overall arc was an overall plan.  More people say that Obama is in the mainstream than did before according to a poll released this week, and now he's back on top with soaring speeches and stuff.  If it holds, the good news is that he got to REINTRODUCE himself - his real self - to the American people, seem rather ordinary to them, and then reassert his specialness with the media blitz.  

In the long run, an ordinary guy who isn't all that different from everyone else, who's views are in the mainstream, but who has this special quality of connecting with people and making them feel proud to be American, and reengaged with a sense of civic responsibility - is a guy who can win.

QT

Visit the Obama Project

Searching for John McCain?

---

by: QueenTiye @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 19:47:50 PM CDT

Antidote (0.00 / 0)

    The overseas trip was an antidote to the "move to the center" anti-bump, not an anecdote. An anecdote is a humorous story.

---

by: Ron Thompson @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 20:59:38 PM CDT

The move to the center did not cause a poll slide (4.00 / 2)

Chris, if you review your own posts, you'll see that there was exactly one bad cycle of polling after Obama's "move to the center" - and that you yourself commented on how in the subsequent cycle, his numbers had completely recovered. Basically, the pandering coincided with a poll blip, and that's nowhere near enough to show causation.

Every observer knows that this repositioning was tactical (and a bit sleazy), but its negative effects on polls had been already erased a long time ago. The point of the pandering was to inoculate Obama from attacks that will come closer to the election, not to win a news cycle in June.

---

by: spork @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:01:03 AM CDT