The Stink of Focus Groups
Seems that the Obama campaign must’ve run some serious focus groups the past couple of weeks, and in typical Dem fashion, read them entirely wrong. What else could possibly account for Obama’s completely out of character and spontaneous “run to the middle?” Certainly the Obama of the past few weeks sounds nothing like the guy who vanquished the invincible Clinton Machine. Imagine Obama debating Hillary on re-upping FISA, waffling on Iraq and support faith-based programs. That’s funnier that Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi. Think he’d be on top of the ticket? Writes Bob Herbert today:
“Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.
You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.
This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer.”
Count me as one of them.
So here’s what I think happened. This shift reeks of focus groups. The idiot Dems focus-tested Obama’s positions and decided they were too liberal for the independents who they believe will carry the day. Taking the base for granted, ignoring what makes Obama innately appealing, the did what they always do. They panicked and ran to whatever side of the issues they thought will win—principles be damned. In doing so they once again stepped into the shit that has cost them election after election. That’s because they haven’t learned the lessons of the past almost 30 years. Presidential politics, since Reagan, is nothing more than ferocious, unprincipled brand marketing. Period. It’s Brand R, which has been built to co-op all American symbols and traditions (flags, military, honor, duty, steadfastness, tradition and God) vs. the Brand D which has allowed itself to stand for latte elitism, gay marriage, baby murder, flip-flopping, tax and spend, Hollywood excess, and Birkenstock idealism. The Dems finally get a guy who is brandable and what do they do? They knock his nuts off.
In Obama, we thought we had a transformational candidate who would break down barriers, bring us together, appeal to our better angels. Being a transformational candidate does not mean running from your values when they’re being contested by 30 disinterested voters locked in a room eating M&Ms. Nothing Obama has said in recent weeks convinces me that he is anything close to the person who has been allowed himself and his supporters to be called a “movement.” Not by a long shot. To quote BDR, he’s become a “tool.”
Says Herbert:
“Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.
He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.
Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.”
New politics, my ass.
Posted: July 8th, 2008 under Aargh.
Comments: 15
Comments
Comment from Max
Time: July 8, 2008, 5:59 pm
I don’t like focus groups either.
But I still have faith in the man. Besides, if we don’t vote him in, think of the alternative.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: July 8, 2008, 6:41 pm
Focus groups are fine if you know how to use them. Dems don’t. Like the man and I’m still voting for him, but not feeling so good about how he’s managing his campaign right now. Too much same/old same/old when the promise was soooooo big.
Comment from Sasha
Time: July 8, 2008, 6:42 pm
A number of bloggers have expressed similar sentiments this week. I don’t actually agree. I believe that most of this is media pot-stirring through the use of selective quotation, but regardless of who is correct, I’l like to advance an idea. This comes via John Cole who had a lot to say such matters from Damozel who had some commentary about Johns musings, a notion with which I agree:
So I think those of us who are less than thrilled with the Democratic presumptive nominee should make a rule that in every piece we write criticizing Obama, we conscientiously point out how much wronger and badder and more dangerous John McCain is in every respect.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: July 9, 2008, 6:47 am
Funny thing: I drafted a post about Herbert yesterday, after letting his “I’m a cabin boy for the NYT, hear me roar” comments get under my skin for a day. I was going to ignore him, as I always do, but this one was too much. Since you posted, I will pass for now.
I find Herbert to be one of the laziest and most unimaginative columnists in the business. He could not work at another paper: he is no Gene Robinson, at the Washington Post, who has had some good and bad things to say about Obama. Hebert was a shill for Hillary Clinton, of course because he is one of her constituents, and he needs to live where he writes. Consequently, he had nothing positive or good to say about Obama during the primaries so, leading his little mouseshit parade now doesn’t surprise me. This is all mouseshit as someone would say, but apparently mouseshit worth repeating.
Look at the caveats here:
1. Herbert says “so many” of Obama supporters are pissed off, but doesn’t bother to say how many is “so many”. Just take his lack of research as gospel.
2. Lefty says it is a “run” to the middle. A run?! Not a walk, not a tilt, not a move? Why not a gallop or a derailed train? Why can’t some of this, if not all of this be seen as a way to avoid being Dukakasized. Wasn’t that the big worry here a week or so ago? Had Obama not voted the way he did on FISA he would have been labeled “soft on terrorism.” And Herbert would not have stood up for him if he had. Herbert is on a search and destroy mission with regard to Obama.
3. Focus groups? Isn’t that how Bill Clinton got elected and governed? A focus group might have helped Carter win a second term. And why are Democrat focus groups run by idiots and Republican focus groups run by saints? And what evidence is there that this is all focus-group tested? Why can’t this be part of the overall strategy and more of the instincts that worked for Obama in the primaries? And why say, as you did, that Obama ran focus groups, and then add this unsupported comment: “and in typical Dem fashion, read them entirely wrong”. What evidence is there that he ran focus groups and then read them wrong?
4. All successful presidential candidates work their base in the primaries and work the middle in the general election. This is called Presidential Politics 101, not loss of principles. Carter did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Bush did it. Of couse, Hillary supporters can now piously claim that SHE would never have done it this way, SHE would have stood on principles, yeah she would have, right? They, along with Herbert, can now snicker and warn us of our lost innocence, once again. Really now!
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: July 9, 2008, 8:48 am
Josh, you really have to figure out which way you want it. How can you cite Clinton, Reagan and Carter in defense of Presidential Politics 101 and yet tout this guy as “New Politics?” You can’t because he’s not. That’s the answer to your recent post on Biden, as well. Dude, he’s NOT new politics. And if he was, the brain surgeons in the DNC/DLC will make sure he isn’t. If that isn’t clear now, wait until the convention. We’ve been gamed.
Re: Hillary. She already ran to the middle, maybe even more to the right, so no change of direction would have been required if she won. She had little or no principles going in. As for Obama becoming centrist so as not to be Dukakisized, my take is it that moving to the center ensures being Dukaksized. The country want a committed champion. Democrat/liberal/progressive in the context of 8 years of overwhelming conservative failure are not bad words in this campaign. The Dems don’t get that. I thought Obama did. Oh well.
The point of the post isn’t that focus groups shouldn’t be a part of politics, they are. But the Dems don’t read them right. Never have. I know that firsthand, having worked intimately with most of the Dem pollsters for the past 10 years. With the exception of Clinton/Carville, they get it wrong, almost every time. That’s a big part of why they lose.
Why do I think research drove the run to the middle–I think it is a gallop, BTW. Because Obama does not sound at all like the Obama in the primaries and there was no precipitating event such as a challenge from McCain or some national poll that said Obama was too far left. The Obama whose talking now would have been clocked in the primaries. Hillary had no sense of the depth of anger and despair that’s running through the electorate. Obama seemed to understand and reflect that pretty well–apparently not.
Finally, you can keep killing the messengers if you like. Don’t like Tom Friedman, don’t respect Bob Herbert, have mixed feelings about Dowd and Rich? Ok. Like it or not, they’re more on our side than not and whether or not they supported Hillary is irrelevant it seems to everyone but you. She’s not a factor if for no other reason that she has nothing to gain. The fact is that Obama is acting “off-brand” and he is rightfully being called to account–even Matt Lauer took him to task over it this morning. Reality bites, doesn’t it?
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: July 9, 2008, 9:17 am
I have always admired Frank Rich. I think he is the best in the business. And I can take it from Frank Rich. Maureen Dowd is at best uneven, but she can turn a phrase. Herbert is so light weight. And I find Friedman too cute for words: he is so wrapped up with himself and he writes like he is talking to firstgraders.
My point is that saying Obama is off brand is Democrats Dukakasizing Obama, doing the work of the Pugs. Why even the Pug heads were quoting Herbert yesterday. With friends like Herbert, who needs the Pugs.
Regarding focus groups and who can read them and who can not, I’ve worked with Peter Hart for many years and I found him very good at the business. The best in my experience is The Wirthlin Group, the pollsters and focus group folks who brought us Governor Ronald Reagan and then president Reagan. They have a focus group process unlike any other I have seen. I don’t know about the others. The problem is not reading the focus groups, it’s executing a message based on what they learn. But it is easier to blame the focus group process.
My other point, is that there is no evidence that this “gallop” to the right, (that thundering sound of horse feet in the foreground),is focus-group driven.
I can’t wait for Obama to be “tooled” and focus-grouped into supporting changes in the Social Security system and suggesting private savings accounts, support cuts in Medicare for doctors, end affirmative action, propose bigger walls on the borders, favor the SEC regulations to let US companies do business under foreign laws that the US can’t enforce, change his mind about off-shore drilling, join the NRA, go duck hunting, and support Hillary’s amendment for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning.
As you paint him, Obama is a sitting duck for the toolers out there and we ain’t seen nothing yet. I do take some comfort that none of the tilting or galloping that you see is on issues that made your “Real Issues” list.
Comment from Nosebetter
Time: July 9, 2008, 10:29 am
Leftcoast: Here’s what I think happened: Obama took the Dems for a ride. I have argued all along that Obama has been right of center. He is becoming himself now that the primaries are over, and he no longer needs the left. He fooled the Dems with the oldest political trick in the book–promising political change. One could have argued during the primary that Obama was turning over a new leaf, but it is now becoming crystal clear that was not the case. I don’t think Obama is being used as a tool; I think Obama is the toolmaker, and the Democratic left wing is the tool he artfully crafted for his personal gain–both politically and financially.
He started out talking about change with indication of what he might change. He simply lied when forced to disclose some aspects of what he would do. If the ticket has a Clinton on it, one might not be getting her whole wish list, but at least she knows what she is getting.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: July 9, 2008, 11:14 am
I’ve worked with the same people you have and the recommendations, at I find them, at best, consistently mind-bogglingly tone deaf. Look at the results: failure and failure. And you’re right, what comes out it is more important than the groups themselves, which is exactly my point. They misread the data they get (if it’s any good at all) and twist it in such a way that the messaging misses by a mile. Look, neither of us are part of the campaign–my speculation that this was focus group driven is just that…speculation. There is no other reason for the shift. This is the time in the process when campaigns get research-intensive; 2+2=4.
Bottom line is this guy is nothing at all what you think he is–which has been my concern since Iowa. I’ve never bought it. Obama doesn’t have to support any of the extreme issues you cite to be considered a tool. He’s violated his brand and with it, eventually the trust of the party he wooed for the past 10 months.
Worse, he’s going to get clocked by the Pugs who are masters of turning shit into gold. Look at what they did with Buttboy. They’ll make Fester look like the heroic master of the shining city on the hill, and Obama another weak, elitist flip-flopper. That’s always the strategy. Problem is Obama’s aiding and abetting them…
Comment from Brick
Time: July 9, 2008, 11:18 am
I agree with Nosebetter–this guy Obama is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party. Unless Hillary is invited to the Party, McCain is the greater disaster!!
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: July 9, 2008, 11:48 am
LC, I don’t understand the extreme position you are taking on focus groups and the application of focus groups, Bill Clinton being the exception, except for Dick Morris. You say that you have worked with Hart and Wirthlin and that the results have been “failure and failure”. Dick Wirthlin was an economics professor at UC Berkeley when he approached an actor by the name of Ronald Reagan who wanted to be governor of your state. Wirthin had created a value-ladder focus-group process that I have described here before. Results: not failure and failure, as you claim, but success, success, sucess and sucess, twice as governor and twice as president. In fact, Mondale was beating Reagan on a number of fronts and the focus groups showed that Mondale was weak on defense but making strides by raising questions about Reagan’s judgment. This lead to the famous ad, “the Bear in the Woods”, that turned the tide for Reagan. There were other factors that played out, but this was the big break. Failure?
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: July 9, 2008, 12:05 pm
On a different point. I’m not sure where this is coming from. You write: “Bottom line is this guy [Obama] is nothing at all what you [Josh] think he is–which has been my concern since Iowa.”
As I recall you were for Hillary in Iowa. Then the Tool-Man screwed things up and got a whole bunch of white farmers to show up and vote for him, farmers who he had duped. Then your gal came in third. You couldn’t wait to point out the misleading application of the “Bradley Effect” when Obama lost New Hampshire. You say your going to vote for Obama, but if you continue to quote Herbert, and make these kind of assessments about stuff you call “mouseshit”, there may be nothing left to vote for. The Pugs, who you warn us about, are not going to have to trash him, just pick the meat off his dead bones.
And, you have made it clear, repeatedly, that while you read the tea leaves correctly, I can’t even see tea leaves. So your bottom line is that Obama is NOTHING (my capitalization) like what I think he is. Really? Nothing. Man, I have been tooled by the Tool-Man and didn’t even know it.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: July 9, 2008, 2:09 pm
Wirthlin, more effective than Hart and certainly not working for Dems. Once again you proved my point. Once more time with feeling. Focus groups are fine if they’re interpreted and acted upon properly. Dems don’t know how to do that.
Josh, I’m afraid you and a lot of other smart, politically aware people have been tooled. The reason I was for Hillary over Obama wasn’t that I was all smitten by her or by Clinton nostalgia. I knew what I was going to get from Hillary (low expectations), and I know that Bill was the only guy since Carter to beat the Pugs. I just never bought Obama’s rhetoric. What I think he did was tap into the pain we have been been feeling for the past 8 years in a novel way. But I’ve always felt it was hollow and am starting to be proved right.
I’ll vote for Obama and argue for him in light of McCain because, once again, I have no other choice. And yes, the Pugs are going to pick the meat off him if he doesn’t wake up, because once again, the Dem team is totally clueless about what it takes to win an election in the 21st Century. Hope I’m proved wrong.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: July 9, 2008, 2:41 pm
Well, LC, if you are going to vote for Obama, then by definition you have been tooled as well. As I post above, you are confusing tactics with substance.What ever happened to your mouseshit criteria?!
And, Bill Clinton not only campaigned to the center, but he took the country right when he governed. Why are you decrying Obama’s use of a tactic that Clinton used successfully.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: July 9, 2008, 4:12 pm
On Clinton, because he never claimed otherwise, did not set himself up as a movement or make nearly the level of sweeping promises Obama has. I’m voting for Obama because the alternative is unthinkable. Simple as that.
Pingback from Recent Links Tagged With “focusgroups” - JabberTags
Time: September 28, 2008, 5:49 pm
[…] public links >> focusgroups The Stink of Focus Groups Saved by christopherfedak on Sat 27-9-2008 10 Ways Focus Groups Can Propel Your Profits Saved by […]
Write a comment