A Friendly Rivalry

Here's an important observation from Mark Kleiman:

Here's a cheerful finding from the Pew poll: neither Obama's unfavorables among Clinton voters (now 30%) nor Clinton's unfavorables among Obama voters (now 31%) have been rising noticeably . So it looks as if (so far) the bitterness of the battle is largely restricted to the political junkies who read and write blogs.

This jibes with my experience of talking to not-so-political folks. It also, I think, explains a lot of the volatility in the race. You have a large number of people who like both candidates and, as a consequence, can very easily be swayed from one to the other by relatively minor turns of events.

Comments

Just todat, here in politically aware Brooklyn, I've spoken with three undecideds. I made the case for Obama, and may have swayed a couple of them. At least here in New York, it seems late-deciders are breaking Obama's way. I hope so, anyway.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | February 4, 2008 1:29 PM

Women for Hillary! Men have been keeping US down too long! Vote for someone who will let you find your own voice in '08!

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!!

Posted by Susan | February 4, 2008 1:40 PM

Thank you Susan.

Posted by otto | February 4, 2008 1:42 PM

I'm a Californian who was for Edwards and who still have not made up my mind now that he is out of the primary and race. Encountered a 30 some guy yesterday for Obama (a newspaperman looking for a job) who said if HRC wins, he will probably vote for McCain. He doesn't trust Clinton he said. He said he was for universal healthcare and against the Iraq war. I did my best to persuade him he will neither get universal healthcare nor out of Iraq if McCain (if it takes 100 years) wins. Cannot believe people think this way.

Posted by jim | February 4, 2008 1:42 PM

Susan:

Thanks for sharing. Glad to see the institution allows patients computer time these days.

Posted by The Decider | February 4, 2008 1:48 PM

...can very easily be swayed from one to the other by relatively minor turns of events.

Hillary's crying again today, so I guess that means Obama is doomed.

Posted by JH | February 4, 2008 1:50 PM

...can very easily be swayed from one to the other by relatively minor turns of events.

Hillary's crying again today, so I guess that means Obama is doomed.

Posted by JH | February 4, 2008 1:50 PM

Women for Hillary! Men have been keeping US down too long! Vote for someone who will let you find your own voice in '08!

Don't you find it a bit sexist to vote for someone based solely on their gender? Yes, Hillary is a woman. I hope that you are voting for her for more than just that reason.

Posted by Craig | February 4, 2008 1:52 PM

On a side note, Obama and Clinton are now even at Intrade.com.

Obama jumped 10 points from yesterday. Did new polling come out this morning?

Posted by thehova | February 4, 2008 1:54 PM

My mom (voting for Clinton but likes Obama) did joke about not waking up my little brother (voting for Obama if he gets up in time and hates Clinton) so that he sleeps through his first primary .

Posted by Katie | February 4, 2008 1:55 PM

Yeah. I'm for Obama, but I'm not really investing anything in this race (volunteering, sending money, etc) until the nomination is decided.

I think some people tend to overestimate Clinton's negatives, because there are a few people of the Lucianne Goldberg set who are very, very loud about not liking the Clintons. They're loud, but they aren't numerous in terms of the electorate as a whole.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 4, 2008 1:56 PM

I agree that Susan should not be for Hillary just because she is a woman. I am a woman strongly in the Obama camp. I am excited to see the resurgence of interest in the political process in America and it is great to look forward to election which will not be the "lessor of two evils" decision. This elecion has opened up dialogues and may very well end up being an election for/against the war. Tomorrow will be really interesting.

Posted by Ann | February 4, 2008 2:04 PM

Or not. Matt apparently missed Michelle Obama, who's not sure whether she could support Hillary

Posted by James Robertson | February 4, 2008 2:07 PM

Count me in the 31% of Obama supporters who won't rally around Hillary. I held my nose in 2004 and voted for someone who authorized this dumb war. Never again. How many times must the Democrats put up warmongers to show how "tough" they are?

Posted by Traven | February 4, 2008 2:08 PM

Apparantely not so friendly to Michelle Obama, who stated this morning on GMA she'd have to think about supporting Sen. Clinton. How many times has Sen. Obama said he could get Hillary's voters but she couldn't get his? Me thinks you are incorrect. The imperiousness of the Obama campaign is unbecoming.

Posted by AnnL | February 4, 2008 2:09 PM

Oh no... I'm 51 and thought I was beyond more of this...

"This 'jibes' with my experience"??

All this time I thought it was "jives."

It all started when I was five or six and asked my mom what a donzely was. Mom kept going "What?" and I kept going "Donzely."

Finally she said to use it in a sentence and I said, you know, like in "Oh say can you see/By the donzely light..."

Posted by Paul Maurice Martin | February 4, 2008 2:12 PM

The Hillarybots might be more effective if they didn't swarm in to post their talking points in the same thread at the same time.

But I'm not going to hold the actions of blog commenters against their candidates.

Posted by KCinDC | February 4, 2008 2:15 PM

Not surprising Michelle is a bit pissed, what with the don't-vote-for-drug-dealing-Jesse aroma the Clintons have been ladling out. It's the supporters of Hillary! and Obama who are pretty friendly, not the candidates.

Posted by otto | February 4, 2008 2:16 PM

Re Julian Elson's comment "there are a few people of the Lucianne Goldberg set who are very, very loud about not liking the Clintons. They're loud, but they aren't numerous in terms of the electorate as a whole."
-----------
1) Yes, but some of them are very rich and own large New York newspapers. Rupert Murdoch, for example.

I noted about a week ago that Murdoch's NY Post had splashed its front page with an endorsement of Obama -- that that endorsement was triumphed by Rupert's Fox News. Surprising given the effort Hillary had made to court Murdoch in the past.

2) The sleepy editors at the New York Times have finally woken up and noticed that the levee has a big leak:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/business/media/04carr.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22New+York+Post%22+Hillary&st=nyt&oref=slogin

-------
"Their [Murdoch and Hillary's] newfound friendship seemingly came to a crashing end last Thursday. There was the headline on the front page of The Post, right next to “Cop Sex Ring,” for all to see: “Post Endorses Obama.”

Not only an endorsement, but they gave it the wood — industry jargon for the huge type on the front page — for crying out loud. Not even John McCain, a longtime favorite of both The Post and Mr. Murdoch, got the wood for his endorsement the next day."
------
"Why did The Post kick Senator Clinton to the curb? The venom of the editorial about the Democrats and Mrs. Clinton — “a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency” — invited suggestions that Mr. Murdoch was using The New York Post to set up a straw man for the Republicans to mow down in the fall."
-------
"But this was never a full embrace on either side. The Post’s cease-fire with Mrs. Clinton was built on realpolitik. Mr. Murdoch’s politics are less ideological than a kind of enlightened pragmatism of being in favor of those who are in favor (he vigorously supported both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair). So having a good working relationship with one of New York’s senators made sense. "
----------

"Tabloids thrive on heat. They love a running story, but they also get bored easily. ... Col Allan, the editor of The Post, is someone who lives and dies by understanding the moment. And it is his opinion, and that of Mr. Murdoch, that this moment does not belong to the Clintons.

In its purest form, The Post functions as a kind of mood ring and mirrors the public’s lack of enthusiasm for a package presidency that has Bill Clinton in campaign mode again. The Post has lost its appetite for Mrs. Clinton for the same reason that they lost interest in Paris Hilton: that wasn’t the story their readers wanted."
-----------

3) At one point, the "Gray Lady"'s cool manners cracked and a little, tinsy bit of Rage showed through:

"Papers like The Post thrive on what Edgar Allan Poe called the “imp of the perverse.” By zigging when others expect it to zag, The Post puts itself in the thick of the national discussion and asserts itself as something other than a money-losing tabloid that people in an island off the coast of America pick up mostly for gossip and sports. "
---------
ha ha ha
Translation: The circulation for the Times is 1,100,000 and for the NY Post is 700,000. However, the Post's circulation is rising whereas the NY Times is ..er.. headed in the other direction. Just look at it's nosediving stock value since 2004.

Posted by Don Williams | February 4, 2008 2:23 PM

I agree with AnnL, I think its unbecoming of the Obama campaign to suggest that some of his voters will not support Hillary. I'm actually upset by this, he should say, whomever the nominee is I will ask that we support him/her...

WITH THAT SAID, it seems to be the truth. A good amount of people I have talked to have stated as much, now is this significant, probably not..the good dem base will come out and support either candidate. But I don't see the newly recuited youth, black, disenchanted rep. because of Obama going out of their way to vote in November unless Obama is the canidate..and this is significant.

also, I must add that I won't vote for Hillary, even if Obama asked me too. two reasons why. Her vote on Iraq and her vote on Cluster Mines...wtf was she thinking with either of those votes?

Posted by whoanow | February 4, 2008 2:23 PM

"Vote for someone who will let you find your own voice in '08!"

Geez. Enough with the victimization. I don't need Hillary to "let" me find my own voice. I've had my own voice for a while now, and Hillary has rarely echoed it. Certainly she didn't in the months leading up to the war.

Posted by woman, patronized | February 4, 2008 2:25 PM

I LOVE Hillary. As the great Helen Reddy once proudly stated: "I am woman, hear me ROAR"

Men, your day of reckoning is coming when Hillary gets in.

Posted by Susan | February 4, 2008 2:25 PM

...can very easily be swayed from one to the other by relatively minor turns of events.

Very true. Exhibit A: Me.

Congrats, Michelle Obama! You've just convinced me to vote for Hillary!

OK, well, your husband helped too, what with Harry and Louising us and telling me that I'm too intolerant of people of faith. But don't get me wrong, I do like the guy and will enthusiastically support him in the fall if he wins the nomination.

Because, after all--as you fail to realize--it's not about you or your husband. It's about the future of the country, and God help us if we let McCain win because we got our feelings hurt in the primary.

Posted by gustav | February 4, 2008 2:26 PM

Gustav,

you've not been swayed you've been in Hillary's camp from the beginning..exhibit A) all your posts.

so stop it.

Posted by Munch Munch | February 4, 2008 2:32 PM

Hillary's theme song:

I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

CHORUS
Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

You can bend but never break me
'cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul

CHORUS

I am woman watch me grow
See me standing toe to toe
As I spread my lovin' arms across the land
But I'm still an embryo
With a long long way to go
Until I make my brother understand

Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to I can face anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman
Oh, I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong

FADE
I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong
I am woman

Posted by Helen Reddy | February 4, 2008 2:32 PM

Men, your day of reckoning is coming when Hillary gets in.

Ah, what a lovely campaign slogan.

Obama: Let's bring hope, unity, and progress back to Washington!

Hillary: Men, your day of reckoning is now!

If you really want Hillary to win, Susan, you're not doing her any favors.

Posted by Craig | February 4, 2008 2:32 PM

Gustav, you're probably counterbalanced by people now voting for Obama because of Susan, who is probably a spoof.

You have to admit there is a tiny degree of irony in saying to the NON-Clinton candidate "as you fail to realize--it's not about you or your husband".

Posted by Jen | February 4, 2008 2:34 PM

Re Helen Reddy's comment "I am woman, hear me roar"
---------
1) Hmmm. That song was from 1972.

Got the NOW amendment passed yet?

2) Still, there has been SOME change. At one time, you could stay home and raise you children.

Now you have to dump the crying babes off at daycare in the morning , then work your ass off all day before coming home to do the housework.

3) "If I have to I can face anything".
???? Hmmm. Must be the sleep deprivation. Punch drunk.

Posted by Don Williams | February 4, 2008 2:48 PM

re Helen Reddy's comment "But I'm still an embryo
With a long long way to go
Until I make my brother understand "
------------
Your BROTHER??

Hmmm, well maybe he'll listen.

Cause your Husband's done a flit. Dumped your wide butt for a younger babe.

Posted by Don Williams | February 4, 2008 2:53 PM

I handed out flyers for Obama at a Fairway supermarket on Long Island yesterday, in what I guess you could consider Hillary country. We certainly got quite a few folks who said "nope, I'm a Hillary man/woman--but I like him too," and I think only a grand total of one Hillary person who got aggressive about it. So anecdotally, that poll seems to be right on.

Posted by Sean T. Collins | February 4, 2008 3:00 PM

Actually, on a second look, Michelle Obama's comment doesn't look nearly so bad. I think she was just saying she didn't know if she personally would do campaign work for Clinton as she walked back the statement almost immediately.

My apologies to her. I must write "never trust the media's characterization of a statement" 100 times.

Posted by gustav | February 4, 2008 3:01 PM

You are woman, gustav. Hear you roar!

Posted by Lars | February 4, 2008 3:09 PM

Hmmm. I may have erred when I noted to Helen Reddy that
"Cause your Husband's done a flit. Dumped your wide butt for a younger babe. "

Marriage was something men did 35 years ago --when Helen came out with the song "I am Woman". Now they mostly favor the "Pump and Dump" relationship. Another improvement for women since 1972.

Posted by Don Williams | February 4, 2008 3:21 PM

Susan is a troll, almost certainly a man, and probably laughing his ass off at you n00bs. God, you're so stupid.

Posted by JH | February 4, 2008 3:39 PM

JH: It's possible that Susan is a troll, but I have met some women that actually do share her opinions. Like the NOW representative in NY who accused Ted Kennedy of throwing women under the bus simply because he's supporting Obama. It's identity politics, it's depressing, and I believe that most people can see beyond race/gender/religion, and all that other stuff some people are so hung up on.

Posted by Craig | February 4, 2008 4:14 PM

Paul Maurice Martin @2:12 PM:

"This 'jibes' with my experience"??

All this time I thought it was "jives."

But if he used the correct spelling, he might be accused of sending coded racist messages.

----

Don Williams @ 2:23 PM:

I understand what you are trying to say about possible themes being tried out by Murdoch Inc. for attacking Hillary. But keep in mind that no one cares about the New York Post outside the NYC metropolitan area. (On the other hand, everyone's mom across the country has probably gotten an emailed New York Times article at one time or another.) I think any Murdoch Inc. attack memes will only go viral if David Letterman or Jay Leno types pick up on them.

----
Julian Elson @ 1:56 PM:

...I think some people tend to overestimate Clinton's negatives....

I've heard several savvy types like pollster Charlie Cook put it this way: Clinton has a high floor and low ceiling, Obama has a low floor and high celing. I.E., Obama is much riskier on this front, has both a bigger downside and upside; we know most of Clinton's negatives already, we don't know all of his yet and how they will affect him in the general election.

Posted by artappraiser | February 4, 2008 4:25 PM

I think that it's kind of silly to be outraged by Barack Obama's spouse saying "I'd have to think about that" when questioned about Hillary Clinton being the nominee, given the things that Hillary Clinton's spouse has said about Barack Obama.

I mean, I'd rather all of us Democrats were all BFF and supported each other regardless, and at any rate I don't suppose these sorts of comments are all that significant, but I don't think Clinton-supporters really ought to try to enter into the "who has a meaner spouse" sweepstakes.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 4, 2008 5:19 PM