- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- GOP
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Bobby Jindal
- |
Reporting The Obama Campaign Coast-to-Coast: Democrats More Undecided Than Polls Suggest
Reported by: Jason Barnett (Uptake.org), Al Cannistraro, Sheila Condit, Beverly Davis, Christine Escobar, Mayhill Fowler, Richard Greenwood, Ethan Hova, Saba Kennedy, Noah Kunin (Theuptake.org), Phoebe Love, Daniel Macht, Kim Mack, Laura Martin, Kelly Nuxoll, Deborah Phelan, Deborah Plummer, and Jeremy Thompson. Original reports available on OffTheBus.
As the Barack Obama campaign canvassed door-to-door this past weekend in scores of communities across the country, a snapshot of a campaign fueled by an unique mix of a non-confrontational style, a message of hope and sometimes unwitting amateurishness emerges.
This mid-fall freeze-frame also paints a picture of a Democratic electorate significantly more ambivalent and undecided than recent polls indicated and perhaps less motivated by the war in Iraq and more by domestic issues than previously suggested.
The portrait of the Obama campaign operating at ground level among national Democratic voters is a product of a new type of citizen journalism. In an unprecedented effort of campaign reporting, nearly two dozen Off The Bus correspondents monitored Obama Canvass for Change events in fourteen cities in nine crucial states during the past 48 hours and contributed to this report from venues as disparate as Keene, NH, Des Moines and Dubuque, and Minneapolis; Studio City, Corte Madera, Berkeley, Sacramento, Koreatown - Los Angeles, and Altadena, CA; from Boise, Brooklyn and Ballard; from Manhattan, KS, Memphis and Charlotte, NC. (To see all of our campaign monitor reports click here.)
Despite neighborhood and regional differences, and although the levels of sophistication and competency among the individual campaign events varied, our correspondents found several common themes, the most striking of which is to what degree Democrats still declare themselves undecided.
It's abundantly clear that, less than four months before the onslaught of decisive primaries and caucuses, many Democratic voters have just not made up their minds. "Of those that would speak to us, almost all were undecided," reports correspondent Phoebe Love who followed the Obama canvass through Ballard, Washington. She is echoed by contributor Ethan Hova in Studio City, a middle-class Democratic suburban stronghold in Los Angeles: "The vast majority of voters were very much undecided and expressed reluctance to engage in debate without conducting research on their own." Daniel Macht, following the Obama campaign in Brooklyn, New York noted the same hesitation: "They were all undecided, save one Edwards supporter." Perhaps most importantly, correspondent Beverly Davis reports from Des Moines, "Smith [ an Obama volunteer] knocks on Dan Arply's door and launches into his opening rap but Arply soon interrupts by saying, 'Thanks for stopping by, but I haven't decided on supporting anyone yet.' Arply is a typical Iowan."
It's difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions from such anecdotal material but it might suggest that the slew of recent polls giving Hillary Clinton a commanding lead in the race for the nomination may be of limited utility. Correspondent Hova found widespread indifference toward Clinton as he went door-to-door with the Obama canvassers: "This was a fairly affluent suburb north of Los Angeles and I was really surprised not to find a single Hillary supporter in the neighborhood."
It's possible that numerous Democrats who have declared for Clinton to a pollster are like the shopper who hoists a likely candidate from the pumpkin bin inside the supermarket door. Maybe a keeper, maybe not, for there's the possibility of a better find further along in produce.
Balancing this good news for Obama is the likelihood that the centerpiece of Saturday's Canvass, retelling the story of Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq, was a bust. Kelly Nuxoll reports from the Left Coast of Berkeley, "The war seemed nominally an issue, but social issues, health care . . . also came up a lot." Nominally an issue--in Berkeley? Christine Escobar in Dubuque: "Only viewed one 25 year old woman responding to the war message." Deborah Phelan in Corte Madera in liberal Northern California found similar responses: "People were very much tired of talking about the Iraq war." Ditto for Daniel Macht in Brooklyn: "All said the war wasn't the only issue they cared about."
If the war is less and less a campaign issue for ordinary Americans in California and New York (and who would have predicted this?), then what is the mindset of the less liberal Democratic voter in the heartland? From what I saw of the canvass in Memphis, not a single person cared about Barack Obama's position vis-à-vis anybody else on the Iraq War.
Instead, health care reform seemed to top the priority list for Democratic voters contacted by the Obama canvassers. Correspondent Davis in Des Moines reports: "Arply tells Smith that he likes Obama and that he's concerned about health care." Contributot Saba Kennedy in Charlotte, NC: "...healthcare was a BIG issue." Clinton, Edwards and Obama have all put forward health insurance plans modest enough in scope to seem, at least on first glance, to be possibilities. Therefore, it's not surprising that grassroots Democratic voters are beginning to shift their attention from the war to a more hopeful subject.
This past weekend's national Canvass for Change like all things Obama, carried with it an aura of transformation. As contributor Deborah Plummer found, "Obama has sparked a light in young people." Reporting from Manhattan, KS, she goes on to say, "So, 20 volunteers [at the canvass] for Obama seems a lot to me. I went to KSU for over 20 years and never met over 10 liberals/progressives the entire time and to think there could be a rising tide of 20 potential liberals/progressives who will be spanning out to Manhattan households spreading Obama's philosophy is awesome...." Laura Martin in a very red-tinged Boise found a similar glitter: "Idaho hasn't sent a Democrat to the White House since Lyndon B. Johnson, but I do believe come Super Tuesday 2008, Idaho is going blue for Obama."
Countering some this Obama magic, however, is a growing frustration among his volunteers that he is not moving up in the polls. Ethan Hova from Studio City again: "We encountered several households of fervent Obama supporters and their mood could be summed up as frustrated. They seemed mostly concerned about his perceived lack of traction in the polls...." But the grassroots volunteers slog on. As Deborah Phelan reports from Corte Madera, "Volunteer Sandy Grant laughs about the big Barack Obama supporter she talked to who showed up later to register to vote at the booth. 'Look at us, so excited about one teenager when there are millions of people across America who have to register.' Everybody nods. They're all thinking the same thing. One vote at a time."
(Indeed, Deborah Phalen and I found such contrasting pictures of the Obama campaign in Northern California and Tennessee respectivively that I will detail the differences in an upcoming report).
There were also some moments of unintended humor and general weirdness that punctuated the weekend canvass. One older street vendor in Brooklyn yelled "Take a bath!" at one earnest Obama supporter passing out flyers to passersby. At other events, the organizers sometimes outnumbered the canvassers, reminding some newbie volunteers that effective politics is really about the art of building coalitions. Make sure and read all of our ground level reports assembled in the last 48 hours by clicking here.
Off The Bus campaign monitors (Jason Barnett (Theuptake.org), Al Cannistraro, Sheila Condit, Beverly Davis, Christine Escobar, Mayhill Fowler, Richard Greenwood, Ethan Hova, Saba Kennedy, Noah Kunin (Thuptake.org), Phoebe Love, Daniel Macht, Kim Mack, Laura Martin, Kelly Nuxoll, Deborah Phelan, Deborah Plummer, and Jeremy Thompson) contributed to this report. If you'd like to work wtih us on future campaign reports, join our OffTheBus Campaign Monitors team. -END
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well, I'd rather have Obama than Hillary.
But I'll vote for either in the general election.
*
Anybody but Clinton.
It makes my skin crawl, but I would vote for Rudy before Hillary.
People seem to have forgotten how dirty the Clintons were. They were so filthy that Gore had to run away from Bill Clinton during the 2000 election - much the same way as Republicans are now running from Bush.
I, much to my everlasting shame, voted for Bush the first time because I couldn't conceive of continuing the legacy of the Clinton Sleaze Machine. I know I fucked up - hindsight is always perfect, but I won't be fooled again and I won't put the Sleaze Machine back in the White House.
Clinton could have been a much better president, had he only been a better man.
If you'd vote for Rudy, you deserve what you'd get.
Independent, this is Independent Otis and I have to agree with you.
I have strong convictions and Hillary does not meet my values or standards. Like I said many times on this board, I voted for her ass hole husband twice. I learned later what a mistake that was, I will never vote for a Clinton again.
Some idiots on this board think that by voting for Hillary they will get her husband, and that leads me to ask???, are they voting for Bill to have a third term?, If so, then why vote for Hillary? Because she would obviously not be capable of being President. It would be Bill calling the shots. Get my drift?
I will vote for any democrat except Hillary, If she is the nominee, I will either stay home or write in Al Gore.
I second that
Hugs, you cant write...Only type....
Writing takes thought.
I was given the weirdest poll last night (not sure who it was by), it included several poorly worded questions about single payer insurance plans (asking if I supported a particular plan(I didn't like that particular plan) and not asking if I supported single payer health insurance plans in general (I do). The weird part was there were 2 or 3 questions asking if I though women were smarter than men, more flexible than men and if I thought women were superior to men. Those were kind of weird questions.
It's called a push poll. Either way they get the answer they want.
It is also possible that the many "undecided" people canvassed by team Obama were being considerate (polite?) enough not to discourage their young visitors by revealing that they've decided to go for Clinton.
There are problems with this report. A lot of people will tell a canvasser they haven't made their minds up yet because they may be busy and just don't want to be bothered at the moment. Fowler also says, "From what I saw of the canvass in Memphis, not a single person cared about Barack Obama's position vis-à-vis anybody else on the Iraq War." Naturally. Why should anyone commit to any the top three candidates when all of them have taken the same position on the Iraq war; neither would commit to bringing all the troops home by even 2013!
As for Obama, win is wishful thinking. There's no fire in his blood with no passion for the presidency. He's turned out to be as exciting as a milquetoast.
When the history of this campaign is written, Edwards' failure to agree during the last debate to bringing all the troops home before 2013 will be noted as the bomb that blew apart his big chance; he surprised everyone and failed miserably. So when you have three top tier candidates in the running and all of them take the same postion on an issue that's tearing at the heart of this country, you're going to get a lot of people who just won't commit to any candidate much less even care too much about the election.
I hate this war. Was against it before and since then. But we still have troops in France and Germany after WWII. So to think our candidates should lie and say no troops there in 2013 is ridiculous when the question is "Can you guarantee...?" Too much has been made of those answers. Get real or vote for Giuliani or McCain or Romney and see how your country continues to go. Gore was far from perfect in 2000. Were the lefties who voted against him or stay home served by Bush's election. The candidates refused to make a commitment that would have been a bold-faced lie. Are you upset we still have troops in Kosovo today?
Horse feathers!!!! There is a candidate out there who HAS stated that our boys and girls WILL BE OUT of IRAQ in the first year of his administration.
That candidate is Gov. Bill Richardson. CHECK it out. Kosovo is another Hill and Billary show blunder. Just like the attack on a pharma factory in Sudan.
Then ask Mr. Putin what his intentions are?
I haven't yet made up my mind about which Democratic candidate I'll support in the primaries. The difficulty in making a decision is that they aren't really talking about a lot of issues that are very important to me, so I have no idea what their stand is. I couldn't agree more that health care, stopping the war, and doing something about the crushing budget deficit are of paramount importance. But all of the candidates have spoken to those issues quite frequently. What I'm NOT hearing is what they are going to do about the massive decimation of our Constitution during the Bush years. In the future scheme of things, leaving things as they are is just as dangerous to all Americans as many of the issues currently hotly debated. I want to know before I vote that whoever I support is going to reinstate the Bill of Rights, habeus corpus, repeal the Patriot Act, criminalize electronic spying on Americans, and turn back the clock on the strong and unaccountable Executive at the expense of other branches of government. If this short list is not taken care of, then we gain very little from a Democratic presidency.
www.draftgore.com!
No mention of Al Gore? Wonder how many Democrates will be undecided once Gore jumps into the race.
Count me as one of the decided only if and when he does. Until then, I'll be busy trying to choose from the roster of the halt and the lame. Glad to know I'm not the only Democrat who isn't quite as happy as the polls and pundits keep telling me I am.
I guess I just don't get what is so special about Gore!
1) He is not Hillary
2) He can beat the Republicans
Obamma and Clinton don't get it, the public isn't going to jump on the bandwagon just because they are dems. Hell No. They are looking to see who is going to provide universal healthcare for all, regardless of income, race, ect. Then there is the issue of the Iraq war, nobody is saying we want out NOW, not in 2008. Add to this the issues of nafta, and the loss of jobs, lousy pay most are earning, their desire for someone who is going to protect thier rights to privacy, won't support the attack on IRAN, or impending draft if Bush gets his way. This is a public that is shell shocked from the Bush administration. We have had it with lip service politicos saying anything to get a vote and screwing the American people. The hyposrissy coming from both camps is nauseating. You have lawyers who work the insurance companies that deny medical claims for those who need it, refuse to cover the public and lie about the supplimental insurance. NObody will respect or trust a politican running who does this, takes money from them. Please, until both are willing to say we have had enough and are going to run on the canadien system, the european system for healthcare, not support wars or spending for fake wars for votes, they can forget it.
I believe there's just as good news for Edwards in these findings, since I find his clearer, more substantive, far more consistantly-populist message more appealing, I believe he will come into much sharper focus for more people than now by the time they actually register a vote. The 48% or so of Dems still undecided means that Hillary has not managed to make the sale, and, as more people catch onto her shell-game, she won't! Because, I believe the percentage STILL unwilling to commit dwarfs hers.
for those who don't seem to understand polling think of it like this. a sample of 1000 people is like a slice of pie. you don't have to eat the whole pie to know what was in a single slice. the slice has fruit filling and there's pie crust, you get to know what's in there by cutting it open. it's the same with a 1000 person sample.
polling is a remarkably accurate science. aren't we Dems pro-science?
It doesn't really sound as though 'Joker' understands polling theory (as a branch of social statistics) either, nor does he mention confounding, response behaviour of the sample cohort.
Joker, Right on!
This whole Canvass thing is SILLY and gives me another reason for not voting Obama. Although I am quite disappointed with Hillary too, she will get my vote and check unless Gore runs.
To be honest, the democratic field does look strong only compared to the republicans, and the democratic congress is not much more competent than the bush adminstration, like their silly vote on the Armenia genocide. That's why Bloomberg/Hagel would be an attractive alternative to independent voters and moderates from both parties, or even many liberals.
Garbage In-Garbage Out. That's what you'd get with Hillary kyeblue.
Gore will not run. He's smart enough to know his time is past. I just wish the Hill and Billary show would get it through their collective heads that theirs is the same case. But then again power hungry meglomaniacs of Hillary's stripe never will.
that silly vote for Armenia will entangle us in the War longer, purposefully.
Paul/Kucinich (who are friends) would be much much better.
Yeah my friend... and I'll bet that I have as much in the way of graduate level statistics as the next one here. If you have enough stats under yer belt, then you know there are plenty of ways to "make" 'em polls... sayyy exactly what you want them to say.
I still own a college text quite famous in fact, entitled... "Lying With Statistics." That's what we're talk'n bout here. Samples somewhat less than... "randomly selected"... leading questions, and quite frankly a public population that on average, just ain't into the campaign at this point, as much as the corporate horse race happy media ... IS.
Let's just wait and see what the public thinks when the public begins to sharpen its focus. Then the numbers will mean something.... as long as the samples are ... randomly selected! Things are beginnin ta change a bit, and we got plenty ah time yet before the votes start a fly'n! J R
if polls were accurate all of the time, we wouldn't have had Clinton, Carter or Nixon.
sample select polls are part of the machine, driven by lobby interests.
what about the people who don't like pie?
they're on the internet and show up at straw polls.
those are the true voices of voters.
The Marist poll written about yesterday proves the point. Edwards was about 11% as I recall, Obama at 20, and Clinton supposedly 21 points above Obama. That adds up to 52%, so, ta da, 48% were undecided or didn't want to answer the poll. Even if Edwards and Obama were a little higher than what I estimate, there is still over 40% undecided. This little bit of information was not part of the story.
Your math is wrong, the corrected number
Edwards: 11%
Obama: 20%
Clinton: 20%+21%=41%
Combined: 72%
As a math lover, I think there is a little humor in naschkatze comment. The ... so, ta da... is what got me laughing.
He/She thought they got it all figured out but was mistaken. I think it was a honest mistake though not a lack of adding understanding.
Thanks for the correction!
Have you examined the Marist poll or any of the other "national" polls reported on T.V. MSM?
they don't match up with straw polls or internet polls, which are self-directed, warm human bodies.
MSM POLLS are for the MACHINE
nihilon_x
Friendship doesn't translate to votes. Just look at California, blacks and latinos duking out each other. Here's another thing, the black community has been asking for reparation for slavery in trillions of dollars. IF Obama is the nominee for the democratic party, even white folks who are democrats would rather stay at home or cast their vote to a republican candidate. All the leading candidate of the Republican Party say "reparation", there goes your vote. Even asians will not vote for Obama if that is brought up, and it will come out if Obama is the nominee. Politics is dirty, it is survival of the fittest.
Its not about "friendship" -- its about giving latinos enough CREDIT to vote by intelligence rather than racism.
Its very obvious to most in this country and around the world that there is some "animosity" between whites and blacks in this country, but I still see plenty of black people endorsing Hillary over Obama.
By the way, I LIVE in California and I don't "duke it out" with Mexicans -- I've never actually had any problems whatsoever with the latinos here, and most of them are quite friendly to me (and nearly everyone else).
In fact, I met my most recent girlfriend at a salsa class taught by my latino homeboy at school.
Violent crime in L.A. has DROPPED to its lowest level in 30 years -- how can that be if Latinos and Blacks are "duking it out" as you claim?
Like I say -- grow up and stop trying to classify everything by race.
U.S. registered Latinos(?) only vote at the 47 per cent level. Persumably, Latinos who are ILLEGAL cannot vote and will not vote for decades even if an AMNESTY--opposed by a majority of citizens--is instituted.
Hispanics feature prominents in every category of violent crime everywhere in the 'continental' U.S.!
Behavioral statistics is about groups...!
"Here's another thing, the black community has been asking for reparation for slavery in trillions of dollars."
Guy, you are nuts.
The only REAL black candidate who even made reparations an issue was Alan Keyes -- the guy you keep saying has more support than Obama.
Not only do you need to grow up, you also need to educate yourself before you go talking about things that you obviously know little to nothing about.
--
"Reversal of attitude:
Alan Keyes on reparations
Conservative calling for tax
exemption for descendants of slaves
Senate candidate Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate who once referred to reparations as “an insult to our slave ancestors,” is now calling for a plan that would exempt the descendants of slaves from income taxes for at least a generation.
Tax exemption would give Blacks "a competitive edge in the labor market," because they would be cheaper to hire than federal tax-paying employee" and allow Blacks to be compensated "for all those years when your labor was being exploited," said Keyes, who is challenging Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate seat."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5747800/
Tension between Latinos and Black Americans (as well as tension between Black Americans and those who are not Black enough) are MSM myths. Outsiders are making observations. It's divide and conquer.
Exactly.
Isn't it interesting that latinos are only brought up in the mainstream media when the issues are immigration, crime, and "tensions with blacks"?
Did I say interesting?
I meant to say pathetic.
I'll add to that that its a little discouraging to click on a link that I assumed was commentary about Korean-American voters (judging from the source page) and to see nothing of the sort being discussed.
Obviously its not just latinos who are being ignored by the media...
You still don't get it:
Obama has pretty said that his campaign is not about "identity politics". So you can't call him the "black candidate". You just can't. Race is still a very big problem in America. But to say that white Democrats will stay home or vote for a white Republican (with some much on the line) is ludicrous.
Obama has not ever called for reperations. In fact, name one instance where Obama said he wanted "reperations". Please post it. You won't post it, because it doesn't exist.
You are some piece of work. All of your crap aside, I see something even more ridiculous to your postings: a personal feeling that a black man doesn't have the capacity to serve in a country where whites are in the majority. Moreover, you see blacks and other racial minorities as "marginal and peripheral", and whites as central and functional.
You're a piece of work.
Obama just can't and won't win in the general election, and Hillary is a huge crap shoot as well..
The Democrats just have to roll the dice on America's future with this bullshit..
How typical..
Seems to me the only people being served by the polls are the media pundunts who so far appear to be running this primary to serve their own ratings races. It's like the issues raised by exit polls giving false impressions to voters who have yet to vote. This extended primary season has been a bust, lets face it! None of these talking heads have taken the time to actually focus on each of the candidates individually for the viewers, or to show why some areas are more favorable to some candidates than others. They just pit one so called leader against the other, attempting to foster heated one liners and sound bites. It's disgusting. And what's worse, it's burning out a good many voters who might otherwise have reasons to vote this election.
Democrats need to keep in mind that Hilary ENERGIZES the Republicans. They are being fairly quiet right now. They want her to win because her negative numbers are so high. I'm not looking forward to a General election with her screechy voice defending everything they will throw at her. The fatigue factor will be high, and everyone will be tired of the bickering and blame her. Obama on the other hand is a breath of fresh air. Many Republicans admire him, and he does great with the independent vote. His message of unity and hope brings people together. He'll be an awesome President.
Charles Krauthammer, the neocon, has an op-ed about Clinton in today's Chicago Tribune (10/15/07) that accurately portrays what people don't like about her, but he thinks she's right for the wrong reasons and, as a neocon, could "go" for her. I favor Obama too, but I would go with Edwards should he win. I'm only afraid that the two of them are going to divide up the anti-Clinton vote. Michelle Obama has said that it's all over for them if he doesn't win Iowa, so I'm hoping if he doesn't, that he will throw his support to Edwards just to keep her out.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
