Independents not happy with their choices

By: relawson
Published On: 2/8/2008 11:14:01 PM

I had an interesting conversation at work today with a co-worker who I find to be the "typical Joe".  

-He isn't particularly loyal to either party, but usually leans Democrat
-He opposes the war
-He wants to fix healthcare but doesn't want the government running it
-He thinks Bush is a moron
-He can't stand the religious right.  
-He is inspired by Obama but doesn't believe he has the experience to be President
-He dislikes Hillary clinton  
-He is more hawkish on illegal immigration than McCain, but still considers himself pro immigrant
-He is concerned about free trade but doesn't want to become overly protectionist
-He takes notice of where Hillary Clinton gets her money from

This guy said that he will be voting McCain even though he doesn't like him very much.  He doesn't want to vote for Clinton because he doesn't trust her.  He likes Obama but doesn't see his as being experienced enough.

I reminded him that Bush was just a governor when he became President.  My buddies response was "enough said".

So, my thoughts are this.  You have a candidate that inspires people in Obama - especially people who are indepedent minded and not ideologs.  

How is the Obama campaign going to convince voters who like Obama but aren't prepared to vote for him because he is rookie politician, that he has the experience to lead our nation particularly after we just had what many to be an inexperienced President screw everything up?

I myself will be voting Obama in a general election if he is the nominee.  I can't say I will be voting for Clinton - I remain undecided on a Clinton/McCain race.  Frankly, I'm not happy with either option.  More often than not I'll vote Democrat - but Hillary has got alot of convincing to do when it comes to my vote.


Comments



The independent vote . . . (JPTERP - 2/9/2008 1:26:23 AM)
Before getting to the how question, I would look at some of the numbers that we have so far:

In Missouri, Connecticut, and California the split went 2 to 1 Obama (60/30).  

Recent numbers from the Pew Research Center (national numbers):

Independents:
Hillary Clinton -- 46 favorable, 47% unfavorable, 7% undecided
Obama -- 62% favorable, 27% unfavorable, 11% undecided.

Republicans:
Hillary Clinton -- 14% favorable, 82% unfavorable, 4% undecided
Obama -- 37% favorable, 53% unfavorable, 10% unfavorable.

Not all of those favorables will translate into votes.  However, a voter with an unfavorable impression is less like to vote for a candidate in the first place, and is less likely to be receptive to even hearing out a candidate's argument for his or her candidacy.

I think part of the argument will come during debates -- where Obama demonstrates a command of issues.  Part will come from making people aware of his record, which generally lends credence to his claims that he can work with the other side -- and has done so throughout his career in politics.

I don't know if the argument will work ultimately, but I think Obama's message will be given a hearing by a substantially larger audience than Clinton would find.  She's been in the public eye for over a decade now and a lot of voters have already made up their minds.  

I think part of what Obama will do is to emphasize life experience and judgment over just years in political office.  In an election such as this one, I think he could probably paint McCain's Washington experience as something of a liability.  He could also point to history -- Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR would all match-up pretty poorly against McCain or Clinton in terms of Washington political experience.  Yet all turned into pretty successful presidents.  On the other side we also have the George W. Bush, Carter, and Hoover who all had some political experience, which didn't translate into great, or even average presidencies.  Even Martin Van Buren and LBJ -- consumate political insiders who knew how to pull the levers of power in Washington DC inside and out probably better than any of their contemporaries -- were at best mediocre presidents.  If voters are looking for a Washington insider this time around, they have a clear choice.

Come the general election too, straight-talk McCain's hands are going to look a little dirty with all of the lobbyist and special interest money that is coming into his campaign.  Obama can make a contrast based on the way he is funding his campaign.  Clinton will have a harder time making this contrast.



Obama does have experience (Hugo Estrada - 2/9/2008 2:28:24 AM)
More experience as an elected official than Clinton, actually. People keep thinking that he lacks experience because he is so youthful looking, but he is pushing 50. Hardly a spring chicken.


If he is using any hair products to remove grey hair (relawson - 2/9/2008 3:20:18 AM)
He needs to stop that!  ;-)

He has aged very well.  Good for his wife, bad for the whole "look presidential" thing - whatever that means.

Kennedy was around 44 when he took office so Obama has 6 years on him then.



Obama's 46. (j_wyatt - 2/9/2008 4:21:46 AM)
If he gets there, he'd be 47 when he was sworn in.


I want to take Obama's youth syrup (Hugo Estrada - 2/9/2008 10:06:23 AM)
That stuff sure works.


One Swing Voter Speaks (norman swingvoter - 2/9/2008 10:18:28 PM)
Please don't flame but I fall into this guy's category and agree with a lot of his viewpoints.  However, I am planning on voting for Obama Tuesday.  I am only one person but here are my thoughts.

1) Experience - I am also concerned with Obama's experience.  However, cheney and rumsfeld have decades of experience.  It hasn't helped because bush and them have pathetic judgement.  America isn't in this mess because someone has a lack of experience! Obama needs to exude an aura of sound judgement.  If he could start appearing with some folk with impeccable reputations in military and foreign affairs, McCain would be counterbalanced.

2) McCain - I have always thought that between bush and McCain, if McCain had won we wouldn't be in some of the mess that we are in.  I truly believes that he has better judgement than bush.  However, he should be beatable.  Just play his rant, where we should start expecting to see large numbers of casualities because there will be more wars.  I know some have said that he was merely saying wars are enternal.  With his rant, it looked to me like he was saying he plans on starting a few more .  Also his statement that his is willing to keep us in Iraq for 100 more years.  At 20 billion per month and 35000 killed and wounded, we can't afford to.  Opps he has admitted that he does't understand economics either.