March 30, 2006
Luntz Focus Groups The Dems....
Luntz Maslansky Strategic Research presented its findings on the '08 Dem field this a.m. to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.
Their focus groups tested Dem primary voters in NH and IA. We don't know the size/demographic balance, etc., so don't read too much into the conclusions. (And don't ever confuse focus groups with polls -- we'll let Mark Blumenthal elaborate, if he wants to.)
What do Dems want? Per The Luntz interpretation of said focus groups: "When all is said and done, the Democratic nominee will be the person they believe has the best handle on the future and who can best bring about the change and reform they are desperately seeking." And "perhaps most importantly, they want the anti-Bush" who is not a "Bush basher." The Dems "don't want a grouchy, accusatory, finger-pointing yeller. They want someone smart but with good common sense, a leader with new ideas who believes and practices accountability."
The survey offers "10 Commandments For Democrats." They include: 1. Don't "feel my pain" -- "give me something to alleviate it. 3. Dems "don't want to hear about your church" in the primary. If they "really cared," they'd be Republicans. 6. "Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval."
The survey also probed for responses about candidates.
Support for Hillary Clinton "disappeared by the time the night was over, and she won virtually no new converts. Only Edwards faired worse." The problem for Clinton is that she starts with such high expectations. Democrats expect her to be smart, and she delivers. They expect her to be tough, and she delivers. But there are a number of verbal and visual intangibles that clearly undermine her presentation, her image, and eventually her support. As with many women in public life, her looks and presentation account for a disproportionate percentage of the reactions she elicits." More; "The tape of Sen. Clinton that we showed in New Hampshire was not a stump speech but rather a public sit-down interview with Jane Pauley in San Francisco conducted earlier this year. This should have been to her advantage. Maybe it was the interview format that kept her from building momentum, but our primary voter audience was not very impressed. When we showed a stump speech to the group in Iowa their reactions weren't much better. Focusing on the year 2020 was an innovative approach, but she never explained how she plans to get there."
Sen. John Kerry "has a lot to live down. There is no public outcry for a second candidacy, and we heard loud and clear from many pained Democrats still angry by his loss to Bush." Positives: "He doesn't pull his punches. He calls it like he sees it when it comes to the Bush administration's failures."
Ex-Sen. John Edwards: "Of the nine candidates we tested, none began with positives and expectations as high as former Senator John Edwards. And none fell farther as fast. John Edwards has the potential to be the sleeper candidate in 2008. He comes to this race with a lot of good will and fond memories. But he also comes to this race with Democratic opponents who are more engaging, more exciting and more original than he is. And those comparisons combined with the overall desire for something new might mean disaster for him." Sen.
Joe Biden's "stage presence drifts dramatically between all-star and below par. His matter-of-factness and incredible focus of his delivery are clearly his strong points, but voters complain of his propensity to sound like professor giving a lecture. He must do away with his written notes for his speeches. Democrats expressed a clear disconnect when he repeatedly looked down -- which also effected his pacing: another distracting tendency. He has all the pieces, but they're not yet put together."
Ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner starts "with a clean slate." His stump speech "as articulated at the National Press Club earlier this year, is about as good as it gets for Democratic primary voters. He started off with almost no support (or name ID) at both Iowa and New Hampshire sessions. But after the sessions, when all the candidates had been heard for ten minutes and all the positives and negatives of each candidate discussed by the participants, Warner had gained more ground than any other opponent. There is something real happening here."
Gov. Bill Richardson's story "is the complete package. The question is, is that enough? His resume, for those who know it, is perfect. He's an outsider with an insider's knowledge. But despite his stellar credentials and easy speaking style, his presentation is seen to be somewhat unfocused, and his greatest challenge is to prove that what he did in the small state of New Mexico can translate to a national stage. He's got a good message and the right platform, but the delivery isn't quite right -- yet."
Sen. Russ Feingold "may well become the Howard Dean of 2008. No one knows who he is. No one knows what he's done. Primary voters appreciate his principled positions, but they aren't ready to award him their vote."
Sen. Evan Byah "is probably the single toughest Democrat to analyze. His impact on primary voters was exactly the opposite of Hillary Clinton's. When she was done, voters either loved her or hated her. After seeing 20 minutes of Evan Bayh, there wasn't much love or hate. It was all ... like. They appreciated his down-to-earth appeal, but they wanted to see more passion. His ideas about tax fairness and reining in Washington's wasteful spending struck a chord -- even as they were complaining about his delivery. They appreciated his success as governor and how that qualified him for the presidency, even as they questioned his ability to win the election."
Gov. Tom Vilsack "is too focused on religion and spirituality for New Hampshire Democrats, and his home state doesn't take him seriously. The Iowa reaction was particularly telling. He should have a hometown advantage, but he doesn't. In fact, after viewing and discussing a Vilsack National Press Club speech, almost all the participants expressed surprise about his humor, intensity and passion. Apparently they don't see it at home."
Posted at 03:51 PM
Comments
Interesting that Luntz left out Wes Clark. Of all the potential 08 candidates listed, he 's the one most active in supporting Democrats in 06 and tirelessly working to bolster Democrats image.
From experience, many voters who were neutral at the beginning of an interaction with Clark come away impressed. The depth of his vision for the future of America makes him more and more interesting and intriguing to listeners.
It's possible that his focus on the 2006 elections has caused Luntz to overlook his potential run. That is a mistake. Clark is determined to change the makeup of the House and Senate, but I don't expect he'll stop there.
Keep an eye on the number of candidates in 06 vying for his endorsement. Keep count of the number of candidates in 06 who want to run WITH him. That's a truer test of viability in 08.
TexasKat | 03.30.06 05:04 PM
 |
What did they show for Edwards? They tell us the speeches that were shown for Warner, Vilsack, Bayh, etc... I'm interested in the piece for Edwards.
I don't buy the argument that any of the other people mentioned here are more "engaging" than edwards... having seen most of these guys recently, and Edwards at a poverty event in Vermont, I don't think any of the other guys (and gal) even come close to his level of speaking abilities.
"More original?" Oh, that's right... because poverty is such an overtalked subject in American politics. Perhaps a better reasoning for Edwards' current stump speech not being very appealing could be the fact that it doesn't promise the voters anything - it calls them to a higher purpose... is that going to sell? Let's see.
Florence | 03.30.06 06:07 PM
|
How was this field of 9 determined to be the 2008 Dem field? Why was Wes Clark left off the list? He hasn't said he's going to run again, but he hasn't said he isn't. He's been campaigning and fundraising for state parties and state and federal candidates across the country for the last 2 years, he's the go-to man when it comes to national security issues for the Dems, he's been as tough on Bush and the Bush administration as anyone and has been so consistently, in a very matter-of-fact, not yelling, way. He can talk about economics, education, the environment, etc., just as competently and easily as he can about national security, foreign policy, defense, and the military. So, what's up with this list of 9?
Linda Tinjum | 03.30.06 07:29 PM
|
What about Gore? How come he is not included?
itstime | 03.30.06 10:43 PM
|
I am very disappointed that retired General Wes Clark wasn't
part of the sampling for this focus group. What's up with that?
gopmemekiller | 03.30.06 11:42 PM
|
Where is Wes Clark? He is what the country needs right now (and probably well into the future).
Tricia | 03.31.06 12:02 AM
|
Luntz spoke at UW-Madison last month and praised Edwards and now he downgrades him...who chose the video clips that the focus group used to make their evaluations? Was Hillary's "plantation" clip pitted against a less controversial clip from the "dorky" but fared well Warner. It is in the interest of the GOP that employs Luntz to scramble the Dem field and drive up "negatives" on all potential challengers so Luntz's true "motives" should lead any handicapping he spoon feeds forth.
Eric Adams | 03.31.06 03:01 AM
|
I think Byah is the best choice as of now because of that likeability factor Though admitedly a veep tag would be better suited to the political legacies of his home state which is suprisingly powerful politicaly for a state which is most renowned for corn and sports. Indiana went through an eighty year period where it had at least one apointee or nominee for national office every election. Five vice presidents have been from the Hoosier state. THis year the new cheif justice of the supreme court in another native Hoosier.
Since Hillary most needs balance in her campaign and since Byah is so likeable and does indeed draw the center votes she needs thier ticket seems the best bet. But I don't discount his chances for the presidency either.
bob | 03.31.06 12:02 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
