Watching Peter Hart (pollster) doing a 2008 focus group. BAD NEWS.

It's airing on C-span, look for it.

The focus group consists of equal numbers (four) of Dems, Repugs (only one stupid freeper, the others seemed reasonable) and Independents. All are from the Baltimore area. The Rethugs and Independents are supporting Giuliani very strongly. None of the Dem candidates are that attractive on a consensus basis, even to the Dems. One Dem likes Edwards, one likes Obama, one likes Clinton.

Nobody seems to have a problem with Rudy's positions on gun control or abortion. Even the freeper, who's a fundie, says she'd vote for him. Edwards and Clinton have HUGE trust problems with Independents and of course with Repubs. McCain and Romney have problems too but on a much smaller scale, except that McCain's position on Iraq seems to knock him out.

Obama is liked by the Dems and the Independents, but his lack of experience holds people back.

This is only one focus group, but it is very disturbing. I think the Dems best hope will be to win the turnout battle, or get Al Gore to run. It would appear that both Clinton and Edwards would bring out a lot of Repug votes against and get very little Independent support, so winning on turnout with either of them is basically impossible.

So if Gore does not run, I see us in big trouble unless a Richardson or a Biden comes on strong. The other possibility is to paint whoever the Repub candidate is as someone not committed to get out of Iraq, but these weasels will be tough to pin down on that issue, except for McCain.

A Gore/Obama ticket would have a great chance to win, assuming the Dems do a good job of defending them against Repub attacks.

And we're still well over a year away from any serious campaigning. When people learn more about the candidates, especially Rudy G, minds will change quickly. I see nothing here that merits an iota of concern.

The trust issues for Clinton and Edwards are very real, very likely permamnent, and I expect will be seen in other groups. Obama's inexperience is a big negative for 2008, when people will be looking for someone to "keep us safe". Yes, Giuliani is likely to falter after his personal life gets some exposure, but Romney can pick up his support.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think after you watch the program, if you do.

and when we're in another cliffhanger in 2008, you might remember this little anecdote. Dems have lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, the only cakewalk being 1996. It's almost never easy for us; next year figures to be no different in that respect, no matter who we nominate.

It's a 90% Dem area.

(I lived there for 3 years.)

If anything, it's more worrisome.

(I lived in the area for about 5 years myself.)

There are way less Republicans now than Democrats. The group had an equal
number of each, which for now is not representative of America.

They have very few candidates of any competence whatsoever, we have a great
many by comparison. Our danger is that we manage to squabble so much among
ourselves that we get large numbers of "I'll never vote for THAT candidate,
even if they are the Democratic nominee" types. Republicans won't have that problem. They will vote in robotic lock-step, and our danger is being so
pure and pious as to vote in the Republican by default. Some Naderites, after
the 2000 election, screamed that Gore's loss was solely his fault, and that Nader
had nothing at all to do with it. Horseshit. Of course he had something to
do with it.

If we can keep the arguments to the primaries and unite behind the candidate
in the general election, we should be fine. If too many of us are too proud
or rigid in their desires in a candidate to vote Democratic, then the Republicans,
who have no such problems, will indeed stand a good chance of winning.

They shouldn't. That's up to us.

... many by comparison."


That's your view (and mine) but the focus group is far more representative of the electorate, and they see it differently.

The focus group may have covered the spectrum, and so in that sense,
you're right, but the numbers are with us (for now), whereas the group
was half and half.

That said, no one ever went broke underestimating how dumb the public is,
or however that saying went..........

They see him as slick, shifty, etc.

So the Repugs will campaign against that and increase theur turnout.

Just telling you what I heard and saw.

Republics would vote against slick and shifty? lol

That seems strange to me. Clinton was called both and he did pretty well.

:hi:

But, on this board, my opinion is "poo-poohed" because I like Clark, which actually has nothing what-so-ever to do with how I perceive OTHERS and their opinions about Edwards.

Everyone I talk with thinks the same of Edwards as this panel: blame the media, blame some pretty awful attention-seeking attorneys, blame whatever, but people don't like high-dollar attorneys. They see them as slick and shifty, especially those who have also been politicians.

I may have my own opinion about things, but I'm analytical enough that I'm able to step away from myself and look around unbiased to see what's going on. I was a reporter (a real one, not a shill) for 12 years and was trained how to do this. It's not some magical talent.

that this focus group is practically useless. We've got hurricane season and a teetering economy. We'll see if repukes will stand by their party.

if one submitted this sample number for any college level research project they would receive a zero..it`s amazing how people can get away with pure bullshit

Two very different things.

And for purposes of defining issues, it's a valid activity. Not bullshit at all.

(Peter Hart is a Democrat, by the way.)

to early in the morning and i`m old....how`s that for a lame excuse?

This isn't a slam on the very active and evolving Democratic party in Idaho, but that group was done with Maryland that one can see wasn't really "the base" of the GOOP...and in some ways didn't really represent Democrats, either.

I sure as hell hope Ghouliani becomes the candidate cause that will cause a splintering of that decrepid and corrupt party as there's no way the Dobson/Perkins fundies will come out and vote for him...and without "the base" to complete "the math", the GOOP is sunk. Rudy won't fill those church busses...no matter if it's Hillary or "a black feller" (I heard someone refer to Senator Obama that way) or Mr. Magoo...and if those busses don't roll, so goes the GOOP's chances in '08.

The Repugnicans are in worse shape now than they were going into the 1932 election...an angry and hurting country...and what are they offering? More of the same.

I hope Hart was doing this to scare Democrats...make them work harder or get more engaged. Be assured the Repugnicans will not fade away and many who claim to be "Independents" or "won't vote for another Repugnican" will come home next year...it's just where that home will be? Will it be within the GOOP or with a third party...or no party at all???

And you bet, I'm going to skew that sucker to high heaven and mail
it back.

Finding an honest credible Repuke in Baltimore is like...
Well, a needle & a haystack come to mind.

I hate that I was correct on this subject, but I've been saying this for weeks now. People I know simply don't like the Democratic slate. I've been increasingly worried that none of our candidates could beat an even "moderately" strong Republican.

I didn't, however, think Guiliani was "the man." I still think it will be Fred Thompson, but that doesn't cancel my reservations about the Democratic ticket.

And Maryland's a good bellweather state for this sort of panel. Mostly blue, but on the cusp of the South, giving us a little "look-see" at what our friends down here are thinking.

When asked why they like him they sited his "strength on 9-11, and how much NY loved him as governor". Define strength, and did NY's :loveya: him?

A weasel totally defined by one moment in time. How sad.

Veterans will vote for Clark and suburban R women will vote for Clinton.