Dear Chicago Obama HQ: PLEASE READ AND INTERNALIZE
You don't discover this sort of gold mine every day, and really, it's all John McCain's fault when they sent out that silly memo questioning the LA Time's poll that had Barack up 12 points. How can the LA Times show Barack +12 when Gallup is Tied? Well, today, the answer is fleshed out by resident genius, Poblano. It's so simple, it's gorgeous.
First, Poblano discusses what Gallup has indicated is a possible cause for the differences in Polling
As is always the case, there are some slight differences in the way the polls are conducted. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asks a "right direction/wrong direction" question before the ballot. Our Gallup Poll Daily tracking asks a registered voter screen before the ballot. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll includes the phrase "or would you vote for a candidate from some other party?" Our Gallup poll does not include this phrase. It is unclear how the order of these questions may affect the polling results.
Nate goes on to explain his thoughts on the difference in method.
That's a pretty big no-no in my book. Question order definitely matters -- the later you ask a question, the more it's going to be influenced by the implicit messaging triggered by previous questions. In this case, an overwhelming majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and most of them also associate that with the incumbent Republican administration. So it isn't surprising that a Republican presidential candidate performs worse if you ask about presidential preference immediately afterward, or that Republican party ID was lower in this survey.
Nate then goes on to discuss a possible implication
If the mere suggestion that the country might be on the wrong track is enough to send scores of independents into the Obama column, imagine what a concerted effort to frame the discourse that way might do. This is something that Hillary Clinton had started to tap into toward the end of the primary process. Screw hope -- things are bad right now -- and we need solutions.
Obama's "change" message, by contrast, has oftentimes been a little bit too abstract. Here's the messaging that Mssrs. Axelrod and Plouffe need to work on: Iraq's fucked up, the economy's fucked up, health care's fucked up, the environment's fucked up, and all John McCain can say is to "stay the course". If that's the mindset that voters take into the ballot booth with them in November, Obama will win quite convincingly.
And there in lies the gold mine in messaging. Hillary Clinton succeeded very well in later primary states, states that are swing states, because she clearly recognized and indentified with the voters who were suffering. Barack's charge then is to do the same, to acknowledge and give voice to this wrong track number, and provide concrete solutions. I believe he does this and I think he can do it better, especially with a careful selection of Veep.
The choices for Veep are plenty. You have regional appeal, demographic appeal, Unity appeal and National Security Appeal. In all cases some are good at being attack dogs and others are not so good.
Right now, I think there are several good attack dog choices: Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Webb are the first four that pop into my mind with each having their own ups and downs.
There are also several not so good attack dogs. I think the Veep selection committee should take into account the ability of a person to campaign effectively as an attack dog, to paint the ugly in full color, to highlight just how fucked up our country has become, and not hold back. If Obama has a fault, it's that sometimes, he's just too nice... Honestly, being nice is good, it will make for a good President, but with such a huge difference maker in reminding voters in October just how shity stuff is, how Wrong the GOP is, and how McCain is the GOP Candidate, then it's imperitive that we get a Veep who can lay that all out clearly and effectively...
Biden I think may be long winded, Webb may not be the best on the trail, Clinton has liabilities...
By process of Elimination then, I suggest strongly that we have John Edwards as Vice-President. There are no liabilities with Edwards... and he's I think the best candidate to criss-cross the country, work and talk with the people who are feeling the paint, and get through to them. He's the best person to pain McCain/GOP as the dirty bastards who ran our country off-track and not let them get away with their attempts at ReBranding. And I think he'll be more effective this time than in '04. It's not at all Edwards' fault that Kerry Lost... Sadly, Kerry lost because, well, Kerry. I think Edwards, working vis-a-vis Obama, speaking Truth about our Condition as a Country and reminding people how why and where we are in this mess of things will ultimately be more effective today than in '04... I don't have the numbers, but for sure, the Wrong track wasn't in the 80%'s then...
It's not enough to just say that McCain is running for Bush's Third Term... Barack and hopefully Edwards, You've GOT TO EXPLAIN JUST WHAT THAT MEANS TO PEOPLE TOO!
Thanks for Rec List ya'll... A minor update for Poll on whose the Attackdog of choice...
Also, I wanted to say that my discussion of Edwards as Veep is my own editorializing of the situation. I recognize others have differing opinions. This is a great diary to hash that out in... the Focus of this diary however was to highlight that having a Veep who can explain the negative well will pay off with votes. Someone who can cut through the rebranding and McCain Maverick bullshit to dismantle to what we know he actually is... and I honestly think that the Edwards of '04 is not the Edwards of '08. His voice and message is very different today than in '04, and I think him paired with Obama is a better fit than him paired with Kerry. But that's just me.
Comment: This poll result is incredible... It seems that the community believes that Obama's can't go wrong with this list. Please take note Caroline and Eric :)