TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 6:53 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:49 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
27.09.2008
Why Voters Thought Obama Won (And Why the Pundits Didn't Get It)

TPM has the internals of the CNN poll of debate-watchers, which had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. The poll suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness.

Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters. Per the transcript, McCain never once mentioned the phrase “middle class” (Obama did so three times). And Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.

Something as simple as Obama mentioning that he’ll cut taxes for “95 percent of working families” is worth, I would guess, a point or so in the national polls. Obama had not been speaking enough about his middle class tax cut; there was some untapped potential there, and Obama may have gotten the message to sink in tonight.

By contrast, I don’t think McCain’s pressing Obama on earmarks was time well spent for him. One, it simply not something that voters care all that much about, given the other pressures the economy faces. But also, it is not something that voters particularly associate with Obama, as the McCain campaign had not really pressed this line of attack. If you’re going to introduce a new line of attack late in a campaign, it has better be a more effective one that earmarks. And then there was McCain's technocratic line about the virtues of lowering corporate taxes, one which might represent perfectly valid economic policy, but which was exactly the sort of patrician argument that lost George H.W. Bush the election in 1992.

Meanwhile, voters thought that Obama “seemed to be the stronger leader” by a 49-43 margin, reversing a traditional area of McCain strength. And voters thought that the candidates were equally likely to be able to handle the job of president if elected.

These internals are worse for McCain than the topline results, because they suggest not only that McCain missed one of his few remaining opportunities to close the gap with Barack Obama, but also that he has few places to go. The only category in which McCain rated significantly higher than Obama was on “spent more time attacking his opponent”. McCain won that one by 37 points.

My other annoyance with the punditry is that they seem to weight all segments of the debate equally. There were eight segments in this debate: bailout, economy, spending, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, terrorism. The pundit consensus seems to be that Obama won the segments on the bailout, the economy, and Iraq, drew the segment on Afghanistan, and lost the other four. So, McCain wins 4-3, right? Except that, voters don’t weight these issues anywhere near evenly. In Peter Hart’s recent poll for NBC, 43 percent of voters listed the economy or the financial crisis as their top priority, 12 percent as Iraq, and 13 percent terrorism or other foreign policy issues. What happens if we give Obama two out of three economic voters (corresponding to the fact that he won two out of the three segments on the economy), and the Iraq voters, but give McCain all the “other foreign policy” voters?

Issue        Priority      Obama     McCain
Economy 43 --> 29 14
Iraq 12 --> 12 0
Foreign Policy 13 --> 0 13
==========================================
Total 41 27

By this measure, Obama “won” by 14 points, which almost exactly his margin in the CNN poll.

McCain’s essential problem is that his fundamental strength – his experience -- is specifically not viewed by voters as carrying over to the economy. And the economy is pretty much all that voters care about these days.

EDIT: The CBS poll of undecideds has more confirmatory detail. Obama went from a +18 on "understanding your needs and problems" before the debate to a +56 (!) afterward. And he went from a -9 on "prepared to be president" to a +21.

--Nate Silver 

Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:19 AM with 33 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

aeromonas said:

Cool.  Me likes.

September 27, 2008 2:26 AM

kkeown said:

I think you're right, Nate. I've had the sense that some undecideds and independents have been uneasy with Obama because they perceived him as inexperienced, and so McCain has been the candidate they felt more comfortable with on issues pertaining to things that go "BOOM" and "POP!" Tonight, Obama cleared the Commander-in-Chief bar just fine. He was knowledgeable on foreign policy had clear positions on a host of issues from Iraq, Iran, loose nukes, and the Badguyastans. Obama presented himself as a clear, confident alternative to McCain on foreign policy AND the economy. He already had an advantage on the economy. If he manages to draw even with McCain on McCain's biggest perceived strength, he just might break this baby wide open.

September 27, 2008 3:22 AM

TLaBorn said:

I felt they both did okay in the debate.  Neither of them was overly impressive but I suppose part of that is because in the debates they were pretty evenly matched up.  

One thing I found pretty funny was the fact that as soon as the debate was over I turned off my TV hopped online and started playing a game called EVE.  We started discussing the debate and I indicated that:  I really disliked the fact that McCain, when trying to be serious,  would talk in a hushed voice as one would do when they were talking to children".  One of the individuals in my online conversation found that fairly funny as a pundit on CNN said basically the same thing like 30 seconds before.

September 27, 2008 3:39 AM

lamh31 said:

Here's the thing, despite what the Obama-haters think, I truly believe that many people WANT to like Barack Obama, the fact is that Obama consistently is viewed as a nice guy, but some undecided were still wary of Obama.  Yes some of it is race, some of it class, some wonder is he "ready to lead" ya know the whole C-I-C thing.  McCain may have won the debate on points, but the voters aren't scoring them on points, it's all about perceptions to non-pol voters. And I would say that on the stylistic or "perception" front, Obama won hands down.  McCain just seemed too condescending and insulting towards Obama, not in a policy-oriented fasion, but on a personal level.  Seriously, McCain refused to even look at Obama.

People tend to like nice guys and with the majority of the country pissed about the economy, and pissed at the Bush Administration, it's not surprising to me that people want a change, and no matter how "maviericky" McCain may be, you just don't "see" change when you look at him.  He may not be perceived as the "typical" republican, but he is still the Republican, and while McCain's campaign tactics can guide the media narrative, it don't change the fact that a majority of the country want the Repubs out of power.

September 27, 2008 3:46 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

I have a theory about the discrepancy between the journalists' vs. ordinary people's response -- see the last paragraph in my live-blogging of the debate:

jaltcoh.blogspot.com/.../live-blogging-first-presidential-debate.html

September 27, 2008 4:34 AM

Mario Del Pero said:

Normal 0 14 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabella normale"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;

September 27, 2008 5:35 AM

teplukhin2you said:

This debate was a non-spectacle, non-theatrical, calm and NORMAL discussion that reminds the voters that, despite all the hysteria and BS ("McLiAr!!!!" "Obama bin Laden!!!!") frothing about the internet, the nation's presidential prospects actually are steady grownups who know what they're doing.

Like Jim Lehrer, these two came across the way bankers or surgeons or judges or generals are supposed to: boring, mature, deeply competent. Refreshing. We could use a lot more such boring competence in our politics and our governance.

September 27, 2008 7:14 AM

jacksondyer said:

"Why Voters Thought Obama Won (And Why the Pundits Didn't Get It) "

Only one "poll" showed that and it was based on first impressions.

After a few days hasty judgments will come in for a revision.

September 27, 2008 7:17 AM

Political Animal said:

THE POLLS AND FOCUS GROUPS.... The insta-reactions in the polls are not always the most reliable measurements. The sample sizes are modest, and the public is often swayed after the fact by media analysis. That said, the initial data after...

September 27, 2008 7:35 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Maybe pundits don't get because they are used to McCain.  

His McNasty act is a huge turn-off, regardless of what he is saying.  He has a very basic right wing boilerplate shtick on FP, so OK, nothing revolutionary or interesting, but respectable.  Millions want just that.  I loved the billboard in Georgia story, it was the only thing that made it through the sneering boilerplate and seemed warmed and touching - but then all it did is underline how nasty he was the rest of the time.  A waste.

Some people enjoy snide, seething, condescending candidates, the howling hyenas at the convention for example - but certainly not the majority.  

Obama is a gentleman and statesmanlike in a way McCain never will be, but certainly no Reagan, whose genial "there you go again" obviously goes down in debate history as one of the most effective put downs of a seemingly hysterical opponent ever.

It wasn't rhetorically brilliant, it was simple, kind hearted and gentle - while being devastating at the same time, underscoring the emotionality of his opponent.  I like Obama's strategy of agreeing with McCain and showing professional courtesy (working with his strengths, staying himself, something Obama will always do), which again - only underscored McCain's petulance and I think that was the point.  But its not enough.

Simply put: people tend to not like assholes.  McCain is an asshole.  Pundits, bless them, focus on content as they should and on content McCain did really well if you're in to that sort of 25 year old Reagan worship stuff and I know people are. I am obviously tired of the golden oldies mentality, always clinging to the past with no creativity or fresh air at all, and want to see a new framework entirely. But lots of smart people feel like McCain and he does have a good point or two.

Too bad you're so busy wanting to slap him upside the head to take it in.

September 27, 2008 7:52 AM

wnalpert said:

Did anyone else notice McCain specifically referenced 'Russia, Ukraine, Crimean bases' etc. as a place to watch?  He seemed to be signalling the possibility Russia might act up vis a vis the Ukraine prior to the election - an October surprise?  

September 27, 2008 7:52 AM

FWright said:

"After a few days hasty judgments will come in for a revision."

After a few days we'll all be talking about the bailout deal, and this debate will be mostly forgotten.  There's really no opportunity right now to spin voters into a revised position.  A draw this was, and a draw it shall remain.

September 27, 2008 7:58 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

PS forgot to say that I wish Jim Lerher could moderate every Presidential debate for the rest of his life.  

I am always relieved when he is on the scene, he's kind, through and incapable of cant. He also refuses to participate in nonsense ala the deeply moronic George Stephonopolous: "Senator McCain, do you think Obama is too much of a celebrity to be President" or "Is Obama patriotic?" type of questions will never pass his lips.

The format made it harder to just spew shtick (there will always be some of that).  Again, it did underscore that McCain did not even have the grace or nads to look at his opponent once.  That's either cowardly or childish, niether very flattering.

September 27, 2008 8:07 AM

teplukhin2you said:

wnalpert - It's already happened. The Kremlin found a stooge in Yushchenko's ex-partner Yuliya Timoshenko, bribed and suborned her off, and have effectively brought down Yushchenko's  government with nary a shot being fired. She's in Putin's pocket; he won't have to move on the Crimea.

September 27, 2008 8:21 AM

dbhuff said:

I was watching the audience tracker on CNN. What I clearly saw is that McCains attacks regularly drove reactions down. Everytime he was dismissive of Obama, it went negative. In general the indies were slightly more positive to most of Obamas answers than McCain's (me too, so maybe observer bias). The line "What Sen. Obama doesn't understand" line was a real negative to the indies. While the no more torture (did you note he said we actually HAD tortured) got him the biggest positive track.

September 27, 2008 8:22 AM

dbhuff said:

Despite McCain's lack of grace, I think the other thing to note was that McCain answered in vague generalities (cut spending) instead of specifics (fix healthcare, education, and energy). Interesting since he accuses Obama of being short on specifics over and over, but will have none himself. Even the first question, support the bailout, Obama was specific about the things he wanted to see, while it is still unclear that McCain does...

September 27, 2008 8:24 AM

icarusr said:

Yeah, the hushed tones ... and the repeated "he doesn't understand, just doesn't get it" just showed him to be an old bullying coot.  No wonder Jackson likes him.

September 27, 2008 8:27 AM

wnalpert said:

Tep - If that's so, then I guess that particular 'surprise' won't shake things up in October.  But I hardly saw any daylight between Obama and McCain on Russia. McCain's attack on Obama as saying the naive thing about the Georgia invasion did not sound convincing to me; after all the idiot prime minister of Georgia did provoke the Russians.

September 27, 2008 8:46 AM

guptatomic1 said:

2nd wandrey re Lehrer.  I just wish he'd been a little more successful in getting them to address each other.  But of course, McCain has a policy of not speaking to rogue states, Spanish prime ministers, or political opponents.

September 27, 2008 9:43 AM

fougasseu said:

I've fired a lot of McCains in my career.

I grew up working for these guys - smart, terrible listeners, can't work with women or in teams - and when I took over the company I fired them or moved them into finance. Only Republicans and folks stuck in an authoritarian my-way-or-the-highway groove (i.e., fundamentalists, extreme right-wingers, guys obsessed with keeping that lawn tractor spotless, Talk Radio hosts, cigar store owners, etc.) resonate to that kind of command-control style of management.

I watched as someone who hires managers, looking for leaders.

No one today wants to work for the McCains.

I can see millions of young (and old) people wanting to follow Obama: He listens, he can inspire, he can change his mind, he can formulate a plan of attack, he can delegate, he can lead. We've seen it with his own campaign.

I felt I was watching Bush debate Obama. Only the generational issues were more stark.

Time for a Change.

September 27, 2008 9:43 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Ha!  great post fougasseu...I thought my response was just more "taxing my lady-brain" as the hilarious Tiny Fey wrote.  Women don't like bullies.

McCain seemed rigid and ready to physically attack anyone who disagreed with him on anything.  That does appeal to a certain segment, but I thought Obama's approach - this manifestly has not been effective - was exactly right, if a bit  technocratic.

September 27, 2008 9:54 AM

willpastor said:

Ezra Klein's analysis: "Give McCain this: He did an extremely good stylistic job in an extremely hard situation. I doubt he could have offered a better performance. But the polls suggest that undecideds broke hard for Obama anyway. Which suggests that McCain's problem is what he's saying, not how he's saying it."

This may just be accurate. When push comes to shove people support Obama on issues and McCain on biography, and issues are what debates are about.

September 27, 2008 9:58 AM

jobeek2 said:

Hmm, this analysis doesnt quite reassure me actually. The instantaneous reaction of viewers who actually watched the debate, during or directly after the debate, is very often reversed in the day or two later as pundit consensus solidifies. There's a number of prominent presidential debates in recent history where the insta-polls did not agree with what became the actual consensus over time.

Partly because however high interest in the elections is this year, most voters still dont actually see the debate themselves, the pundits' take simply ends up being more important than the reaction of the actual viewers at the time. Actually, this is a point Howard Wolfson made here on TNR just before the debate: "Forget About the Debate. Focus on the Spin", blogs.tnr.com/.../forget-about-the-debate-worry-about-the-spin.aspx

September 27, 2008 10:06 AM

icarusr said:

Foug: the command and control cultural issue is, I think, going to matter a great deal to the younger generations.  I'm not that old, but am in the "training the young'uns" category now, and what is remarkable is that even when the twerps know nothing, even when they are talking to THE expert in a given field, even when the kiddies are not even that intelligent, they will bristle at being patronised and talked down to (as they should, infact).  The "I was there you know nothing you don't understand I'm older let me finish eat your spinach" tack will have no positive impact, and likely lots of negative effect, on the XZY generation.  As for people like myself, I guess we were taught deference to white hair - until we grew up and saw that white hair sometimes means a rotting brain.

The other thing that was interesting - especially with the hushed toned, a juvenile debating mode that got beaten out of me in a debating tournement at Harvard exactly twenty years ago, but mostly with the "I knew Kissinger for 35 years; you don't understand" shit - was that this command and control approach brought back unpleasant memories of "speaking" with great uncles, or parents or relatives of some of my friends, when I was younger.  Context: I'm of Iranian origin.  those friends whose parents moved here a long time and whose children (my friends) grew up here are wonderful; the ones who stayed behind or who have just moved out of Iran - something else.  The primary response to all matters, when we discussed anything, was, "Ah yes, it's very amusing, the exuberance of youth, when you go to university for a couple of years and you think you know everything!  Young man, the world is a complicated place, and you need to have a few grey hairs - or a head full of white hair - to understand it.  But EVERYONE knows that the United States has fifty-three states; what you read in books and what they teach you in university is no match for experience!  Queen Elizabeth runs England; it is just the media talking nonsense when they talk about the "prime minister" and "parliament".  Canada is a tropical country; I have a cousin who's heard from a friend who has read about a city in Australia that is "twinned" with a town in Canada; experience tells you that only tropical cities can "twin" with other tropical cities.  Don't believe all you see in Encyclopedias, books, libraries, universities, documentaries - experience, my boy, white hair!!"

Well, that's what I saw on display last night.  A hectoring, bullying, arrogant, impertinent, disrespectful, ignorant old coot - and looking at the tracking line, especially the green one, I suspect that most independents saw it as I did.  

P.s. I have spent twelve years in international relations.  Just about the most ignorant and stupid thing any leader - anyone - can say about diplomacy is, "when you make a distinction between 'precondition' and 'preparation', you are parsing words."  The head spins at the audacity of the active ignorance of the man.

September 27, 2008 10:14 AM

fougasseu said:

McCain is Patton 2.0.

McCain is the guy who says "get it done" then leaves mid-afternoon for the club for drinks with his buddies.

McCain is the guy who got the package, who got the pension...and the rest of us are getting nothing - except pink slips.

Obama was brilliant to treat him with respect (he's not a scary black man), and to not say the name Bush endlessly.Obama has a remarkably confident manner for someone fighting the establishment. I can't believe this was in Mississipppi. I'm old enough to remember a different Mississippi. An unbelievable evening.

September 27, 2008 10:17 AM

icarusr said:

Wandrey: a subject matter that would tax your "lady brain" is likely to bring the Cray supercomputer to a screeching "does not compute, does not compute".  Even in quotes and coming from Tina Fey, it is so incongruent when applied to you that I nearly fell off my chair reading it ;-).  

September 27, 2008 10:18 AM

icarusr said:

Foug: again, gotta agree with you on the "scary black man" point.  I totally disagree with those who think Obama should have been more forceful or should have hit back more.  He needed to look presidential, whatever that might mean, and did.  Aside from the fact that he should not be who he is not, Obama has to demonstrate to the general public that he is the safe option, the guy they would look to in a moment of crisis to keep cool level head.    

September 27, 2008 10:44 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Why Thank you icarusr, I'm sure Jackson and Sleepy would disagree - they think I'm a brain donor even though I get a kick out of and greatly like both of them.  A few others too.

A great compliment, especially coming from you.

Now I have to tax this lady brain and help finish a "botany" (very loosely defined) project for my little one.  he's been waiting patiently gnawing in his waffle all morning.  But the whole hoursehold knows: Mommy is watching her Obama videos (which is a blanket term for TNR/election obsession that I am stuck with just like you!)

September 27, 2008 10:53 AM

prendergast said:

I want every pundit (John King, I'm thinking of you) to be forced to read Nate Silver's post.

September 27, 2008 11:05 AM

AlanSP said:

I think that's the first time I've seen tep talk about Obama as a "steady grownup who knows what he's doing."

I also liked that there was a fair amount of substantive discussion and not a lot of theatrics.  The thing is that if people got the impression that both men were competent and knowledgeable, it works out better for Obama because McCain was already widely viewed as knowledgeable on f-p.  For example, in that CBS poll, Obama's numbers on the question of "Is he prepared to be President" went from 44% yes-53% no before the debate to 60-39 after the debate.  For McCain those numbers were 79-20 before and 78-21 after.  If voters think that they are both prepared, Obama will probably win fairly easily.

September 27, 2008 11:11 AM

michael said:

My anecdotal polls might have predicted what the focus groups saw. First, remember that the smart media was saying, "Wait for the debates. Most people need to see,bla.bla,bla...." So, now people see and conclude and the experts ignore this moment?

OK, over the past weeks I've seen anti-Obama people flip. Not pro-McCain, they were resistant to Barack and they were the last I expected to cave in.

CBS concluded "...their image of Obama changed for the better..." but *image* is shorthand for any reason voters used to resist Barack and his message. People saw these two as bosses, employees, coworkers and what has been lost in the anti-intellectual is people are not uncomfortable with smart people who explain. No, over the past thirty years people have shown a preference for information (even when it's lies about WMD's).

The episode of McCain flying into DC and taking over smacks of the out of touch regional manager we've all seen arrive with a suitcase and a plane ticket. We only hope he leaves before wrecking anything. McCain likes to refer to generals. But most people understand the POTUS is giving the orders and damn glad of it. Besides, Ike was a general and not a mid-level officer. People are fed up with fake authority. There is a desire for leadership and direction rather than a demand we obey.

Yeah, I've seen people switch to Obama because they can't ignore he's with them while McCain demands we salute him.

September 27, 2008 11:30 AM

titanio said:

The reason the pundits get it so very wrong is that they don't watch the debate.  If you won't be asked to deliver an insightful, brilliant commentary minutes after the debate ends you can actually pay attention. For the pundits, the debate is for chatting, glancing, texting, score keeping, note taking, and drafting of instant remarks.

For everyone who saw it, it was obvious that Obama won this one big. That does not include most of the pundits.

September 27, 2008 1:11 PM

teplukhin2you said:

wnalpert- please stop repeating Putin's spin. The Russians have been provoking Georgia for * months * . They set a trap, which Saakashvili stepped in. But they are the aggressors here.

September 27, 2008 8:30 PM