“Broad Appeal” vs. Idol Worship
- Posted by Beth on February 11th, 2008 filed in 2008 election, Barack Obama, Candidates, General, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Paultards, Politics
Interesting thesis from James Taranto today, about McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Obama, and Hillary, and their depth of support. He argues that Obama, Romney, and Huckabee have done better in caucus states, which basically means they got votes from the most dedicated supporters.
Blogger Kevin Drum offers some explanations for Obama’s caucus advantage:
Caucuses require organization and Obama was better organized. They require enthusiasm and he has more enthusiastic supporters. They require time, and his demographic has more free time. They’re mostly in small states, and Obama targeted small states. They’re dominated by activists, and activists tend to support Obama.
To put it another way, caucuses require that a candidate’s support be deep, while primaries require that it be broad.
[...]
Winning a general election is largely a matter of getting more votes than the other guy. Having an enthusiastic base helps, but as President Goldwater and President McGovern can attest, it’s not enough. If Obama faces McCain in November, the big question will be whether he can extend his appeal beyond the Democratic base. His reasonably strong showing in primaries suggests he may be able to do so.
That makes perfect sense to me. I think anyone who’s following the election at all, especially online, can see the difference in levels of enthusiasm between the candidates’ supporters. I’d add that R*n P*ul’s numbers illustrate the idea even further–he does much better in caucus states than he’s done in regular primary elections. We all know how obsessive those people are, right?
Huckabee’s got some “enthusiastic” supporters, too, although they aren’t flat-out absurd like RP’s–but then RP’s supporters are generally younger than Huckabee’s. Romney had his core voters, too–only after Fred Thompson dropped out did he pick up the less passionate supporters (except for kooks like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin, that is).
As for Hillary Clinton, she of course has her nutty die-hards, but most aren’t flat-out wacko (except for their wacko lefty political views) like the Obamessiah cultists. Again, it’s probably the effect of young Obama voters (as with RP) bringing in that wide-eyed idol worship, and damn, it’s almost creepy. Ever wonder what Obama’s real, concrete plans are? Doesn’t everyone? It’s almost impossible to get an Obama supporter to explain why they love him based on the actual issues. It’s either fear and loathing of Hillary–and that’s coming from the left (read the comments)–or it’s just how he makes them feeeeeel. It’s sickening.
Get a load of this:
On the verge of a hectic few weeks leading to Super Tuesday, the crucial Feb. 5 multistate primary including California’s, Mack wanted to drill home one of the campaign’s key strategies: telling potential voters personal stories of political conversion.
She urged volunteers to hone their own stories of how they came to Obama – something they could compress into 30 seconds on the phone.
“Work on that, refine that, say it in the mirror,” she said. “Get it down.”
She told the volunteers that potential voters would no doubt confront them with policy questions. Mack’s direction: Don’t go there. Refer them to Obama’s Web site, which includes enough material to sate any wonk.
HA!
Meanwhile, John McCain’s support goes from lifelong conservatives like me all the way to centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman. It’s not rabid, crazed obsession, though–a lot of his support comes from people who initially supported another candidate. We’re just not loud and silly about it. Hillary Clinton seems to have sort of the same dynamic, with hardcore left-wingers to centrists supporting her (plus nutcases like Ann Coultard). Barack Obama gets all kinds of people’s attention with his pretty platitudes and “yes we can!” (And by “pretty” I mean “soporific nonsense.”) But will that attention last once he’s forced to get down to specifics, assuming he wins the nomination? Nobody’s even talking about his very left-wing views; they talk about how he’ll “unite” America and “inspiration” and how it’ll be all rainbows and unicorns! Yes we can! Gag. Hillary can’t say much about his issue positions, because hers are about as bad as his are.
I’d like to think Taranto is on to something here, because that can only mean good things for us, as long as our own ideologues show up to vote. Eventually the centrists/independents who are hypnotized by Obama will wake up. Maybe my view is colored by my support for John McCain, but I can’t see centrists and independents voting for this guy with his left-wing agenda and so very little experience (alongside a bunch of Che Guevara fans, no less). He can make all kinds of promises, but I think people will realize by November that he can not deliver.
Michael schuyler says:
Absolutely true. In my Republican caucus the Ron Paul supporters showed up in force, were well organized, and spoke eloquently for their candidate. The point is that they showed up in numbers unequal to the percentage of Ron Paul supporters in the state, thus a caucus favors those who are organized and energized, but does not reflect the will of the people. In a caucus state, you must be involved and active to be heard. In a primary state, you need to vote.
Stix says:
I see the Obammesiah worship loosing it appeal if they actually knew what he was. But as most Defeatocrats, they hide who they really are and don’t let any one know what they are really for. If most of the worshipers of Oabama knew he was the most left wing Senator and pretty much the Most Socialists candidate, they would not be as supportive. But he only speaks in platitudes to hide his real agenda.
Rp is just nuts and most of his supporteres are nuts also. Not all I have a cousin and an uncle that are RP supporters. They have been drug in by his _Constutionalist” rhetoric. If in an ideal world where we do not have enemies that want to blow us up, it would be nice to do what he wants, but the Islamofascists want to end the Western way of life, and Isolationism is just a foolish idea in this time and age.
Hopefully this is true, and the “holier than thou” conservatives go and vote. But he needs to have someone as a VP to bring them in.
JR says:
Interesting insight, and it makes perfect sense. Obamamania may be all the rage among the Dem’s, but I have a feeling that much like Howard Dean, when it comes time to pull the lever, they won’t be out is force. Plus, his appeal to the moderates will end as his policy platform comes out. Of course it also doesn’t help that one of his Texas offices has a Cuban flag with Che on it hung up on the wall.
Greg says:
The top issues for me are still the Iraq war followed by the economy, and borrowing from the Chinese and Saudis to support continued operations in Iraq are a big drain on our economy. Obama’s position on Iraq sets him clearly apart from McCain. This will remain the overiding factor for Obama supporters.
Terrye says:
At first I kind of got a kick out of watching Obama slap Hillary around, but the guy is starting to creep me out. Seriously.
The last time I tried to watch and listen to him, I noticed the crowd. They were drooling, I swear to God. I thought of Koresh, Jim Jones..I could not help it. And when he was finished stroking everyone with that wonderful voice of his, I could not seem to remember anything he said. It was all about change, we can do it, yes we can transform the world.
Weird.
Last night I saw that he was repeating the canard about McCain wanting a hundreds year war in Iraq, and I thought, well lookee there, the guy is just another dissembling politician after all.
Beth says:
Greg,
My issues are Iraq and the overall war with Islamic extremism, and everything else is just gravy, as far as I’m concerned. I agree–there is a stark difference in Obama (or Hillary) and McCain on these issues. (Actually, I think it’s absurd when people say Hillary and McCain are “just alike”–it’s not even worth arguing about it.) As far as “borrowing from the Chinese and Saudis” is concerned, that sounds like demagoguery, but whatever. I just know who the best person is to face the challenges in the war so we can see it end sooner rather than later.
Terrye,
As usual, you’re reading my mind. ;) The Obamessiah cultists remind me of Scientologists going after the “SPs.” Heh.
And yeah, the “100 years in Iraq” meme is beyond silly. It’s so typical–ignore the whole point and context of what he said, just pick out a chunk of words that fits the meme!
CK MacLeod says:
Obama’s for realz! I’d tell you why, but my pet rock is telling me that it’s time to put down my hula hoop and bid on an internet IPO.
raz0r says:
Every time I hear someone go on about Obama, all I can think of is the cult of personality.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY
CK MacLeod says:
Actually - I hope the Dems keep up with the 100-years in Iraq attack. I hope McCain make the entire election about whether the US should withdraw from the world, bring on a worldwide Yugoslavia with WMDs, or instead continue to remain involved where we’re wanted, support world trade and democracy. I’d like to see the Democrats explain why it’s better to let things “work themselves out” in that area of the world in the way it always has when we’ve looked the other way. I’d like to see the Democrats explain why the US shouldn’t support democratic allies that have fought alongside us, and why that would be good for US interests over the next “100 years.” The country desperately needs to be reminded about how things got the way they are in the world, what we’ve successfully avoided, what the dangers and stakes are. If, after being properly informed, the American people refuse the responsibility, then we better start building Fortress America yesterday.
Beth says:
CK, that’s a really good point. I’ve always just laughed at their simpleton slogans, but you’re of course right–they need to explain their problem with acting in our own best interests.
Along those lines, you’ll appreciate this–Obama thinks genocide is okay! (That’s not mere hyperbole, either.)
Reason #9,740,255 why Barack Obama must NOT be elected.
CK MacLeod says:
Thanks for the link, Beth - I remember the interview, and it’s helpful to have the link, and the analysis and info, for future reference.
I tend to think that, unfortunately, after the Dem primaries are over (assuming they EVER come to an end), the Dem ticket will do everything in its power to forget that national security ever mattered. Once drawn into a discussion of strategy, their utter lack of strategic thinking and commander-in-chief qualifications would become apparent. Such a discussion would also force a confrontation with the Bush Doctrine, the real reasons why we’re in Iraq (not to mention Korea, Germany, all the world’s sea lanes, etc., etc.), and Obama and/or Hillary’s and their allies premature and inexpressibly repellent declarations of defeat and attacks on the surge and its implementers. Unfortunately for the Ds, John McCain embodies national security and historical perspective in his very person, virtually to the same extent that Obama and Hillary represent identity politics in theirs.
Chris says:
Obama’s supporters are the least dependent on election day. The young don’t turn out. Once Barak has to make a stand and tell what he will actually do AND *we* tie him to being more liberal than Teddy Kennedy, he’s over and done with. Barak will be an easy win. As I said before, I fail to see what red state he can turn blue provided we get our voters out.
Greg says:
Beth:
‘As far as “borrowing from the Chinese and Saudis” is concerned, that sounds like demagoguery, but whatever.’
It is a fact, Iraq will cost us a trillion dollars plus interest. It was a really really huge mistake to invade.
We need to redeploy, and finish rooting out terrorists where they were, and where they are regrouping, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But I’m probably too lazy to turn out and vote for Obama come election day. Yeah, McCain will probably win.
CK MacLeod says:
Tell it to the kid released from Saddam’s torture chambers.
Neither your nor I have any idea what we’d be paying now, or soon, if the Saddam-in-a-flimsy-box approach had been continued for the last five years. What he, his sons, and opportunists in the larger region would have made of a U.S. failure of will is also open to speculation. History suggests, however, that periodic cataclysm was part and parcel of Saddam’s rule by terror and genocide, and that we’d have been very unlikely to tamp down the instability of this extremely important region, and its spillover effects, on the cheap.
Blue Star Chronicles says:
The Obama Messiah Phenomenon also Known as Obamessiah…
Photo courtesy of the Obamamessiah website
I heard some Barack Obama campaign people today making a point of pointing out that Obama is making a point of speaking to the issues in his latest speeches. This is in reaction to the allegations from the Cl…