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.

specificity v. temperament and vision

http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/21/finally-barack-obama-gets-specific-about-what-change-is/

One of the criticisms of Obama has been his insufficient specificity (I think McJoan made this statement), although Hilzoy and Kathleen and others have argued that Obama has been quite specific.

I gather that Obama is surmounting Swopa's specificity threshold barrier.

I've tended to look at matters rather differently.

I'm just not much worried about specifics, within reasonable limits.

(Update: Of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster is in the details of, er, what the meaning of "reasonable" is.)

I'm more concerned about temperament and vision. Specifics are worth something, but specifics tend to be ephemeral, because policy specifics will inevitably be bent to conform to political realities.

For me, the fact that Obama decided on community organizing rather than set his sights for (what I read was) a near-certain SCOTUS clerkship says loads more about temperament and progressive instincts than policy specifics.

Put slightly differently [beats dead equine vigorously], temperament and vision give an indication of how a person will act in novel situations, or when his'r'her preferred way forward is blocked. Specifics are static and of limited predictive value.

Once I saw that HRC, Edwards, and Obama seemed to be peas-in-a-pod (w minor differences), I let specifics go and looked for other reasons to vote for or against particular candidates.

My recommendations are free and worth every penny.