<p>That premise is a failure to understand the nature of head-to-head matchups at this early stage. When asked about a head to head matchup, Democrats will tilt more positively to the Republican they don’t know than the Republican they do know. Republicans will respond more positively to the Democrat they don’t know than the one they do know.</p>
<p>Just look at the favorable polling and the huge numbers who say they don’t know anything about Obama or Edwards.</p>
<p>The reason that these head to head matchups are useless at this point is that the candidates (on both sides) have not been fully defined (by attacks). Gore, Clinton, Bush are candidates who have been defined by sustained attack machines. The rest of the candidates have not – although they certainly will be as the campaign unfolds. That’s why you are seeing Guiliani’s and Obama’s unfavorables steadily increase.</p>
<p>Focus on the primary races at this point. The head to heads are meaningless until you have two nominees hammering each other day in and day out.</p>
<p>Think about the dynamics. If I’m a hard core Obama supporter, I’m not going to pick Clinton in a head to head matchup because “I hate her” right now. She’s the enemy. So I pick the Republican with the least dirt in my mind. Same thing for a Republican partisan. Those dynamics change once the nominees are in place and Democrats gel behind the Democratic nominee and Republicans gel behind the Republican and both smear machines go into overdrive. For example, let’s see Guiliani’s favorables after voters learn that he informed his wife that he was seeking a divorce with a press conference on the steps of City Hall or that he nominated his police commissioner for head of the Homeland Security Department despite a conviction for mob-related corruption. Or that his company, Guiliani Partners, employs a priest widely accused of pedophilia.</p>
<p>Oprah may convince the American public to read the books she pushes (and, in turn, jumpstart an author’s career), but I don’t think people are going to rush blindly into voting for the person she’d most like to see win the presidency–just because she supports him and tells other people to do so. She’s not quite as powerful as she thinks, nor would like us to believe.</p>
<p>Obama’s inexperience is overwhelmingly evident every time he steps on that stage with the other Democratic hopefuls. Smart man, no doubt, but not up to this job, not now. And we just don’t have the luxury of waiting around for him to “learn on the job.” </p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I don’t read any of Oprah’s books she pushes, either. In fact, I make it a point not to do so.</p>
<p>As I understand it from Obama supporters, he had not planned to enter the race this time. He instinctively knew that he needed to pay his dues in the Senate and polish his chops. Axelrod, Durbin, and some of his Chicago moneymen talked him into striking while the iron is hot.</p>
<p>As a Democratic leaner who very much likes Obama, I’m frustrated with his decision. Having entered the race, Clinton has no choice but to filet him. But, it’s a shame to see weaknesses exposed before he even has a chance to get his feet wet in national politics.</p>
<p>I guess the plus side for Obama is that he is certainly getting an opportunity to face big league pitching.</p>
<p>Jack:</p>
<p>I may have to rethink my comments about Edwards. There are some Clinton Obama trends from late in the week in the Rassmussen daily tracking polls that could impact the race. Clinton equalled her high water mark for the year on Wed., set a new high water mark on Thursday, and yet another high water mark on Friday. These are four-day moving averages, opening up a 19% lead over Obama. If this trend continues, there’s a chance that Edwards could overtake Obama as the “anybody but Clinton” candidate. We’ll see over the next week or so if the Rasmussen tracking numbers are real and sustained.</p>
<p>Those Times journalists with Phds in PolSci from Harvard! They don’t know nuthin’ about American politics! </p>
<p>As for the power of Oprah, I once bought advertising for a year–in her time slot and others. Hers was the only advert slot that drew in hundreds and hundreds of brand new customers–mostly women 25 to 40.</p>
<p>ID, I agree, because I like him, too. I actually thought it was almost painful to watch him up there Monday night. On so many questions, too, Anderson seemed to go to him, and then jump to Clinton right afterwards, and that instant contrast with her made his inexperience that much more evident … I do think he made a real mistake jumping in this early (much in the same way–same mistake-- Edwards made 4 years ago). </p>
<p>I had a chance to watch Monday night’s debate again last night, because some channel was replaying the whole thing. Watching it a second time, I still thought Edwards did very well and held his own with Clinton. Clinton is obviously very smart and very capable, and I’d vote for her in a heartbeat if she got the nomination. That said, I definitely think that Edwards is also very smart, a viable candidate and also certainly capable, and I do expect him to get the needed boost as the “anybody but Clinton” candidate-- as you say. (One reason I’ve always thought he is the more viable candidate.) Will definitely be interesting to watch what happens.</p>