Does Cali really think the Wright thing isn't an issue for voters?

[creekster]

Mr Ox:

I have not read this thread in depth, but I am curiopus why you keep referring to Cali as sister or sis. Is this intendeed to eb pejorative? I find it offensive and sexist that you would use it as a diminutive. If there is something else I missed, sorry.

[Oxcoug]

Sure - she's taken her shots. But there's an interesting theory shared by one of my biz partners who is a former Democratic White House Dir of Communications (and - oh yes Cali - his opinion does, in fact, matter more than the opinion of the local pharmacist)....

He says he thinks that even though she delivers blows she helps Obama get back up - because every time he drops people start to remember how little they like Hillary and the Clinton family. She helps that by making one of her horrible public forays - and before long they're flocking back to OB.

He theorizes that if Obama's opponent were a solid, centrist white dude like Mark Warner or Tom Vilsack these things would have hurt him more.

Can I quantify that theory? No. Doesn't matter, don't need to. It's just a theory but it's a plausible one.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

This is getting fun....I should thank you for that. I might add - you're genuinely smart. I write that w/o even a slight smirk.

But - how is a publisher of a magazine with a half million circulation and an influential public profile a more significant driver and leader in public opinion than a woman selling ice cream cones in Des Moines? Oh... no reason I guess. That's a point for you apparently, my bad.

We aren't talking about who influences public opinion. We are talking about who is a better reflection of public opinion. You may argue that your magazine friend will attempt to push the public in another direction in the future (though she seemed conflicted in your story), but that certainly doesn't mean she better represents public opinion today (which you were using as the basis of your evidence). If you want to argue that important people will drive opinion away from Obama due to Wright, then you would need to show me a poll of important people (however you want to define that) from pre-Wright and post-Wright. You can't, so you won't, so we are left with our agreement that your anecdotal evidence isn't much evidence at all.

As for the impact on Independents - the polls disagree with each other.

From May 5:

USA TODAY -- One poll says Wright controversy has hurt Obama: "Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability. ... In the USA TODAY survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, Clinton leads Obama among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by 7 percentage points, the first time in three months she has been ahead. Two weeks ago, before the controversy over comments by Jeremiah Wright reignited, Obama led by 10 points."

You can call those things "short term" - and some people might forget. But many will not. People do not set these things completely aside.

This doesn't mean much either. Clinton won't be running in November. You have to show me that the long term effect is negative for Obama versus McCain, not versus Clinton. Why do I need to specify what good evidence looks like? Isn't it pretty obvious?

[Oxcoug]

Mr Creek. No - it's not intended to be pejorative. It's intended to be playfully combative. All you missed was the tone of my "voice" which can be difficult to spot in e comm.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Sure - she's taken her shots. But there's an interesting theory shared by one of my biz partners who is a former Democratic White House Dir of Communications (and - oh yes Cali - his opinion does, in fact, matter more than the opinion of the local pharmacist)....

No, it doesn't. You can't even begin to explain why it does. There are many more pharmacists in this country than former White House Directors of Communications, so I would certainly argue that their opinion is far more valuable than that of your friend. You are engaging in a classic logical fallacy, and you should know it.

He says he thinks that even though she delivers blows she helps Obama get back up - because every time he drops people start to remember how little they like Hillary and the Clinton family. She helps that by making one of her horrible public forays - and before long they're flocking back to OB.

He theorizes that if Obama's opponent were a solid, centrist white dude like Mark Warner or Tom Vilsack these things would have hurt him more.

Can I quantify that theory? No. Doesn't matter, don't need to. It's just a theory but it's a plausible one.

Who knows. Not much evidence to work with there. I would love to see Warner on the ticket, though, but for the fact that it would mean a more difficult time in taking another Senate seat that is sure to swing Democratic in November.

As an aside, your friend's theory that Wright would have "hurt him more" if his opponent were someone else seems to be an admission of sorts that Wright hasn't hurt him much, which doesn't really help you.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Mr Ox:

I have not read this thread in depth, but I am curiopus why you keep referring to Cali as sister or sis. Is this intendeed to eb pejorative? I find it offensive and sexist that you would use it as a diminutive. If there is something else I missed, sorry.

No, you didn't miss much. That is how I took it too. I frankly don't know how many other ways there are to take it.

[Oxcoug]

On evidence - the claim I have made is that perceptions about Obama changed for the worse. Prior to this incident he was viewed as a post-racial candidate. Many voters no longer buy that.

The dips and curves of public opinion as reflected in Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby and whatever else are, of course, inexact barometers of how impressions are accumulating and how they will play out in the general - but it's clear that Obama's position is less strong in late May than it was in early March.

You can correlate that to Hillary battering him. I can say yeah, but Hillary wouldn't even be alive in this thing if it weren't for the Wright bump. And you can say this and I can say that - at the end I'll bet money that Obama loses Florida. And that one of the main reasons will be the defection of Jewish Democrats.

[Oxcoug]

Coooome on kids. Unfurrow your brows.

We're Mormons right? Mostly? We call each other "brother" and "sister." Obviously I didn't mean it as some religious salutation. But I did mean it as a harmlessly playful cultural reference.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Coooome on kids. Unfurrow your brows.

We're Mormons right? Mostly? We call each other "brother" and "sister." Obviously I didn't mean it as some religious salutation. But I did mean it as a harmlessly playful cultural reference.

Sorry, I just don't think it is that funny. I am sure you didn't mean harm, but it is not a good approach to promote, IMO. (I have become much more senstive abotu this sort of thing since I have had a daughter and have seen how these types of conventions affect children's perceptions.)

[Mars]

CaliCoug: Nothing stupid Obama does will ever be viewed negatively by anyone notwithstanding proof or common sense. Nothing stupid Obama does will ever be viewed negatively by anyone notwithstanding proof or common sense. Nothing stupid Obama does will ever be viewed negatively by anyone notwithstanding proof or common sense...