the GOP message, the GOP brand, and rat poison

http://www.thenextright.com/josh-kahn/poll-is-our-message-more-effective-without-gop-label

bad as the GOP brand is, now that Dubya has cratered it, there's one thing that's worse. This is a GOP pollster commenting. The poll was designed to determine whether GOP unpopularity is purely "brand" unpopularity, or if there are other problems contributing to GOP unpopularity.

h/t Sully

__________________________

Let’s start with the economy. When voters know what party each message comes from, we lose 37% to 58% and trail among independents by 18%. Ouch. However, when you read both messages without telling voters who they come from, the story gets worse.

Republican voters like the Democrat’s message more than their own party’s message by a large 14% margin when they don’t know which party it comes from. Just as disturbing, numbers among independents drop by another 10%... giving the Democrats a massive 28% advantage. Even our horrifically damaged image is better than our message on the economy. Independents and even Republicans simply like the Democrats’ plan more than ours.

Iraq and trade both follow the exact same pattern. We’re getting smashed on both issues on the partisan test, but when you look at the nonpartisan test where our damaged image isn’t a factor, the numbers get even worse among Independents and Republicans. A few Democrats (and in the case of trade a bunch of Democrats) move our way on the nonpartisan ballot, but Independents actually agree with our messages more when they know the messages came from Republicans.

On taxes, the picture gets more complex. On the partisan text, Independents like the Democrats’ message by significant 14% margin, but Republicans still like our message and give us a resounding 39% advantage. That changes drastically on the nonpartisan test.

When the party’s names are removed, Independents are almost evenly split, giving the Democrats’ message a small 5% advantage. However, Republican voters stampede away from the GOP message. Among Republicans, support for the GOP message on taxes drops by a gargantuan 53% when the party’s names are removed, leaving the Democrats with a 14% advantage. You read that right, on the nonpartisan test, Independents like the GOP message on taxes more than Republicans do and even Independents slightly favor the Democrats.

The takeaway? Our message right now is electoral poison and this isn’t all about “brand.”

Presumably many GOP-leaning voters are "tribal voters" - they don't pay a lot of attention to what the GOP is saying, they just know "GOP good, Dems bad." That's not surprising in itself; as one of my buds says (and as David Brooks said in an otherwise inane op-ed a few weeks ago), "a lot of voters are tribal" (paraphrasing, not a direct quote). That's true for Dems as much as for GOPers, I would guess.

What's way interesting is that the GOP message - presumably in the wake of the problems Dubya has created - is perceived as irrelevant or even toxic to many many voters who would vote GOP if given the GOP tag (aka heuristic that tells them the right way to vote.)

That suggests that some fraction of the GOP bloc(s) might be weaned away from the GOP in an unpolarized campaign.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is in the details, but maybe there's an opportunity here.

Incidentally, this is an interesting counterpart to the recent stories about Rove and his pollster discovering in 2001 that the electorate is so polarized that (Rove concluded) there's no point in campaigning on Dubya's signature "compassionate conservative" message.

Another point: to the extent that the GOP message is the same today as it was in 2000, these results suggest that that GOP message is so unpopular that the only way the GOP can win is by polarization.

GOP strategerists mull significant McCain win in November

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10585.html

(h/t Sully)

(quote)
It sounds crazy at first. Amid dire reports about the toxic political environment for Republican candidates and the challenges facing John McCain, many top GOP strategists believe he can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004.
____________________________________

Sorry, it sounds crazy at 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, too.

I have zero expertise in this area, but it seems to me that there are three ways to look at this:

1) "a miracle happens";
2) "fundamentals";
3) stuff specific to the candidates.

Taking the possibilities in order:

1). Impossible to rule out. My ultra-conservative Catholic bud back in Feb passed along to me a rumor from "a Clinton operative" about Bad Stuff(tm) in Obama's record that would drive him from the race. "He tells me that the GOP knows it too," my bud said.

Hasn't come out yet.

Still could.

uh, but if it's just hanging out there, what is HRC waiting for? She could have gone to Dean back in February and said, "Look, here's what I have, we have reason to believe the GOP has it too, you have to get Obama to drop out of the race for the good of the party."

Is it credible that she wouldn't have done this if she could have? Is it credible after the infighting in her campaign that she has sufficient control over the grunts in the field that one of them wouldn't have leaked it?

2) 8 years of Dubya. 2/3 of the American electorate hating on the Iraq War. Katrina. Lots of closeted GOP gays and pederasts involuntarily liberated from their closets. Economy turning south. MS-01. Right-wing evangelicals left holdin' nuthin' as the most right-wing religiously-oriented Administration in modern American history winds down. The list goes on and on.

3) Obama: scary black dude, Evul Lib'rul, black pastor hating on whites. (stage directions: "all shudder")

.. versus McCain: "Hail the conq'ring hero come; Sound the trumpets, Beat the drum."

(Trivia contest: without consulting Teh Google, what's the reference?)

Seems like this actually might be significant. McCain is a war hero, not that that did Kerry any good, but no one expects the Dems to Swift Boat McCain. And while questions have been raised about the Forrestal incident, AFAICT they're about as content-free as the Swift Boat accusations against Kerry.

But, wait: there's more. McCain: can't control his temper; wrapped around Dubya like a fur around a grande dame; wrapped around the war like slacks on a hooker; called his wife a 4-letter word that will cause Southren belles to faint (Hi, Mom!); dissed Hagee & Parsley, beloved of a non-trivial fraction of the fundie base; wingnut base (Malkin, Our Lady of Donuts) hyperventilating against him; was for illegal immigration before he was against illegal immigration before he was for illegal immigration again; indies for McCain overlap significantly with anti-war indies.. hard to see how that last survives saturation bombing of the airwaves with "Bomb bomb Iran" and Gabriel Garcia McCain's "100 Years of Iran". No obvious way to unite the base without alienating more indies; no obvious way to corner the market on Indies without alienating the base.

Yet more: Obama grassroots organizing, 3M and counting new Dem voters. Outraising McCain by gazillions.

McCain: getting funds from RNC because he isn't raising funds fast enough to offset Obama's fundraising advantage. Cue Dubya, Most Unpopular President Ever(tm) fundraising for McCain.

More: McCain, blowing off vets, siding with Dubya on the GI Bill. Recent polls have shown opinion within the military trending left after decades of trending right. I have read that in 2006, of the vets running for office in the primaries (probably the general as well, but I don't remember), many more were running as Dems than were running as GOPers.

McCain: "older than penicillin" (h/t Sully)

More: McCain seems to be an awful campaigner. I saw mention somewhere (i.e., no link, might not be true) that in states where he actively campaigned, McCain's final vote totals in the primary were uniformly lower than his polls going in. (I think this was before he locked up the nomination, no reason to believe it was true afterwards.) Did I mention "old"? Worse, looks old. Obama articulate, young, blah blah blah.

More generally, the 50%+1 strategery: energize the base blah blah blah. Kerry lost by about 2.5% overall. McCain has pissed off the evangelicals and the nativists. Even some of the Big Bidness types call McCain a liberal. (Yeah, yeah, I know, it beats the hell outa me, too.. but personal experience. I don't seem to have much luck convincing conservative buds and friends-of-buds that voting with Dubya 95% of the time in '07 counts for squat. Or the mid-80 ACU ratings, or the mid-teens ADA ratings. Meta-reference to rivers in Egypt.)

Lately elections have been won on the margins. In this climate, and with these personal attributes, McCain wins by a substantial margin?!?

I'd like to get some of the stuff these GOP strategerists are smoking.. if they're for real, and not just trying to spin away the freight train that's the light at the end of the tunnel, I sure don't see the arguments.

It's widely assumed from the experience of past elections that despite the increasing intra-party hostility between HRC and Obama supporters, the two factions will sing Kumbayah once the nomination is settled and mostly march to the general election unified.

If that assumption is wrong, then all bets are off.

I've seen posts suggesting that HRC might mount an independent campaign if she doesn't get the Dem nod, which seems all but certain now (the nomination, I mean). I just can't see that happening. It's too much risk toher credibility and power base within the party. (Of course the fact that my calculus says "no way" doesn't mean that her calculus will say "no way", but still..)

There's the "working class whites" problem Obama has. Several people have made compelling cases that this is an Appalachia problem, not a general problem, as witness Obama's success in appealing to the demographic in Oregon. An Appalachia problem is still real, but:

1) it's a problem mostly in states that the Dems won't win anyway, which states are not crucial to a Dem victory in the general;

2) the racists are mostly concentrated in the South and Deep South where again, it's unlikely that a Dem will win, nor does a Dem victory depend on winning (all) the Southren states;

3) a Veep like James Webb could bring significant credibility to an Obama ticket in states where the margin is close. Personally, I'd be happier to see Webb stay in the Senate where he is both a leader and a building block towards 60 votes.

So I just don't see where GOP optimism would be coming from...

____________________________________________________

About the Forrestal incident: viral attack e-mails circulated a few months ago - after McCain had won the nomination, IIRC - accusing McCain of causing the incident, and the Navy of covering it up. I did a little armchair research (cue teh Google), and concluded that there was nothing there. Wikipedia has an article about it. But I was curious as to who was circulating the rumors, and why?

I didn't get very far, but as best I can tell, the rumors and blog posts come from the far right. Someone or some group on the Bircher right was trying to gin up a Swift Boat attack against McCain.

Why?

And why did they go quiet?

Might this have been a Rove-style attempt to inoculate McCain against Forrestal charges a la Rather/TANG?

Were the charges just too silly? But then so were the charges against Kerry.

Sully on the GI Bill

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/webbs-bill.html

Sully's last comment is exactly my reaction.

I asked my ultra-conservative Catholic bud what the strategeric thinking here is. He responded:

"The military will vote for McCain."

Finding this, uh, less than edicational, I responded more acerbically than I probably should have.

But is there any credible & substantive strategeric thinking behind the GOP/Admin/McCain position here?

As best I can see, the McCain campaign is beginning to look like a bunch of amatyoors.. one might even say a (ahem) clown show.

Native Murkins, McCain, and Obama

http://otherdarkmeat.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-not-mccain.html

h/t:

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/05/sincere-question.html

Obama v. McCain in OH

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/23/surveyusa_obama_beats_mccain_in_ohio.html

9 points.