Interesting focus group on 08 .

[Mass]

Of course, it is early and it is Luntz. Of course, his view of Kerry is lousy and to be ignored. But this is worthwhile because of how the focus groups saw the other candidates.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/03/luntz_focus_gro.html

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.)
...


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."

...

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."



...
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."

...

[karynnj]

1. Keeping in mind that he is a Republican focus group person

this is interesting. Focus groups have a major problem if the most dominant person gives off biases.

What is interesting is that exposure to Hillary decreases her support. I think that jibes with what this (highly biased group) has said when Hillary spoke at the Parks, RFK, and the Coretta Scott King events. She was also the least persuasive and personable at the LIHEAP press conference.

The Edwards comments, in reality, reflect what happened in 2004. As a southern, with a reasonably close second in Iowa and a tie for third in NH, he was positioned almost as well as Clinton in 1992. Clinton swept the Southern/rural states on the first multistate night. Edwards is a sunny attractive candidate - but in 2008 we will be looking for someone reassuring who can fix the world.

I did look at the Kerry comments - I do think that the anger that he lost will disapear, if he can show that he has identified problems and has viable fixes for them. Everything else he said was positive.

Luntz was positive on Warner and to some degree Bayh - but my guess is that next to Kerry - with his intelligent, well thought ou answers, both could be like Edwards - not having sufficient gravitas.

If Hillary crashes and it comes down to Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, and Warner. One of those 4 stands out as long as he can convince enough people that he could win. (The annoying thing is that ignoring controversial Diebold claims, if the Ohio Democratic party wasn't a joke - Kerry likely would have won and would be praised for his strategy. If they would have fought the machine allocation before the election and had sufficient people to assist voters - they would have gotten many votes not cast in 2004 (Is it unreasonable to think 20% of the people left rather than wait 4 hours? Can't prove it, but it seems likely to me.) or cast incorrectly.)

[ProSense]

2. I agree with this about Kerry

Positives: "He doesn't pull his punches. He calls it like he sees it when it comes to the Bush administration's failures."

[karynnj]

3. I agree too - that makes him a straight talker

I really can't see Warner (don't criticize Iraq), Bayh or Edwards to do this. The point though is he does this while staying civil and not becoming "Dean-izable". I'm not even sure Hillary can - she gets strident pretty quickly.

[TayTay]

4. I think will change as we get closer to '08.

There is an awful lot of stuff that still has to come out on this Admin and that '04 race. We still don't know if the Admin 'bugged' the campaign of their opponents. This article on DKos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/30/174014/452 shows that this Admin willingly lied to the American people about the justification for the war in Iraq and waged a coverup to protect Bush in the '04 re-election bid. This is Nixonian behavior that is still coming out. I think that a full airing of this and exactly what happened in '04 will change perceptions.

I think this line about Kerry being a straight-shooter and being tough in his comments on Bush is a good start. I also think there are a lot of cards left to be played in this hand and this is about as good as you're going to get this early in the game. I think it means he's a viable candidate. Well, that's what you want.

[Dr Ron]

5. I found the comments on Edwards most interesting

I'm afraid I just don't get the Edwards thing. His experience is pretty much limited to a single rather undistinguished term in the Senate. If his anti-poverty work turns into anything it will add to his accomplishments but that's not enough to qualify to be President (and I doubt he can both do much with this and run for the 2008 nomination).

Despite my view of him, I note that many place him second behind Hillary. The view expressed by the focus group sort of goes along with my view of him. He starts out well but once people think about him they realize there's not much reason to go for him--he "fell farther as fast."

[whometense]

6. I feel the same way.

He's a likeable guy, but I really don't get his appeal - it seems to me to be all surface.

When I heard his stump speech for around the fifth time in 2004 I started to wonder, does this guy have anything else to say? And I never did hear anything else from him. He was, for me, Johnny One Note, and that's not enough to be president. If the choice was between him and any republican I'd vote for him, but in a primary?? Certainly not if Kerry was also on the ballot.

[ginnyinWI]

7. he's got that "everyman" quality

People can read whatever they want into him. I can remember deciding between him and Kerry before our primary. Kerry won me over because I felt he was more capable, trustworthy and experienced. I was really a newbie to politics and used more intuition than knowledge then--but I still think I was right. I guess most of the Dem voters agreed with me!

We should never forget how many states JK knocked off during the primaries, one after the other--it was a landslide! I think he could do it again, I really do. Especially if he has "learned things", as he says. ;)

Gore has changed and reinvented himself and now has himself a whole new constituency on the left who don't seem to care what he stood for or what his image was back in 2000. People forgive and forget, especially if they see something they like in the politician at the present time.
I don't know if the country will be ready for a JK nomination this soon--we'll all have to see.

[Dr Ron]

8. He just might do it again

As the focus group article noted, Kerry has things to answer for. Howerver, if he can convince people that his experience will lead to him running a stornger campaign, many of those who voted for him before will at least be willing to consider voting for him once again.

Gore says he is not running. Assuming this is true, this leaves Feingold as the only other challenger from the left. Assuming that Feingold is just the Dean=type candidate this year, If he doesn't turn out to be viable, this leaves Kerry as the major opponent of the war and major liberal candidate, running against of candidtes running towards the center.

[ginnyinWI]

9. Feingold

I think he may be a viable candidate in the future, but not quite yet. He's got time. I see him being where Kerry was in the late 80s-early 90s--doing good things in the Senate, but not quite ready to run for President. Like Kerry was during those years, he's currently unmarried, which, like it or not, is a problem politically. I think he needs a few more years to aquire the neccessary gravitas and skills.

[TayTay]

10. I think he is a very, very good Senator

I think he has some particulars which would hamper him in a national race. However, I think he is starting to come into his own as a Senator. I dearly hope that the Dems take the Senate in this fall's elections. It would be really interesting to see what kinds of legislation Sens. Feingold and Kerry could cook up working in tandem. (Maybe reviving that Wellstone/Kerry Election Funding bill would be a start.)