The Details
Joe Klein visited a focus group:
“Change” as a theme is over. Too vague. And Obama’s rhetoric has begun to seriously cut against him. “No more oratory,” one woman said. “Give us details.”
I always wonder about this stuff. I mean, it’s inconceivable to me that this woman is genuinely yearning to learn more about the details of Obama’s policy agenda. If she actually wanted to know, she could, you know, look into it. She could learn all about the differences between auctioning emissions permits and giving them away, about the implications of having the federal government provide reinsurance for catastrophic medical expenses, about the case for a permanent R&D tax credit, etc., etc. But all indications are that most people find politics boring, and policy details duller still. And swing voters, which is what this was a focus group of, are least interested of all.
My guess is that people’s self-reports in these kind of situations are almost valueless. People want to express opinions that they think will be validated by others. The idea that Obama isn’t specific enough is both widespread and sounds high-minded, so it’s something that people looking to say something bad about him say even though I don’t see any evidence that his speeches are less specific than anyone else’s.
UPDATE: For example, later in the same post, Klein observes that “given a list of 31 personal attributes the next President might have and asked to pick the eight most important” only one person cited “agrees with me about the issues.” But if you don’t care about whether or not the candidate agrees with you about the issues, then why would you want to hear details about his positions on the issues?
61 Responses to “The Details”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Does anybody really think Barack Obama is light on policy and details as a speaker? I doubt it. From what I hear, he talks about policy all the time and weaves it in pretty effectively with the oratory. Republicans are the only people I hear excel at speaking without discussing policy.
Barack has oratory and substance, not oratory instead of substance.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I’m not sure if what they’re expressing is what they think will be validated by others so much as what they perceive to be common opinion (which I think are slightly different concepts). When people make this specific complaint about his speeches it’s clear they haven’t really heard (m)any of them because they’re often filled with specific proposals. Luckily, our left-wing media likes to play up these same complaints so people continue to think that he gives empty speeches. Sigh.
I would again like to point out that the focus group felt the same way I do about the whole “houses” thing; use it to make him look out of touch, especially with respect to the housing/mortgage crisis. Most people don’t really care that he’s rich and giving himself big tax cuts.
Also, it’s really, really depressing to read that almost no one really cares about the issues. Because they don’t.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
They are just repeating the Clinton and Republican talking points, and they are too lazy to check into whether or not its false.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Baseball writer Bill James once wrote something along the lines of that when you see a baseball player who’s a terrible hitter, but has a starting job, you assume he must be an excellent defensive player, even when there’s no evidence of this. I think this is happening with Obama. Because Obama is such a great orator with a lot of moving rhetoric, a lot of people assume he must be deficient in other areas, such as substance. I find this weird because his other apparent negative is that he’s “too thoughtful” and “nuanced.”
August 25th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Yeah, I think it’s laziness/ignorance more than anything else. This woman doesn’t want to go to the effort to track down details on any of that stuff, and she certainly doesn’t care about auction v. grandfathering in carbon permits.
She probably means something like that she wants to hear specifically about how he’ll help HER, and maybe the Obama speech she’s heard didn’t list anything that she felt would help her specifically. So she wants to hear some more about how he’ll help her.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
So wait, does his health care plan mandate universality? I don’t think he ever had an opportunity to address that one.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
If she actually wanted to know, she could, you know, look into it.
Agree that the eternal innocence of the swing voter is bulslhit, but I just don’t think that this is true. Information has taken on a specialized role in this country. Not everybody has the background or training simply to look up Obama’s policies on emissions, and the concept of being in a world in which facts can be looked up and understood is now a foreign notion to a majority of Americans.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
This is absolutely true, ie that she just wants to say something bad about him, for whatever reason, but, at the same time, it’s not valueless. Obama should see this sort of thing — especially if this particular meme picks up steam — as a line of attack he needs to decide how to address. To that end, he might need to offer up some language that sounds like detail but isn’t or get specific about the things that are wrong with “washington”, ie talk in strong terms about the corruption in the justice department, the lies that predicated the Iraq war, the war itself. When people are making incisive criticisms, their audience is quite capable of misleading themselves into thinking the person actually has answers without actually verifying whether that’s the case. In Obama’s case, it’s true — way more so than McCain, who doesn’t have any policies — so there’s no reason he shouldn’t exploit this tendency.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I posted this over at Ezra’s but it applies here as well:
“My wife and I have each done a fair share of focus groups (it’s an easy way to pocket some extra cash) and I can tell you from experience that most of the people in any given sample don’t technically qualify for the groups. They are simply smart enough to know how to answer the screening questions in order to get into the group (and thus get paid). So out of 21 “undecided” voters in a focus group, I’d say there is a fair chance that most of them are not undecided at all but are offering feedback that they expect an undecided voter would give.
My further experience is that most members of those same focus groups are insufferable morons.”
I’ll add that the quote Matthew highlights above makes perfect sense when you apply my dual metric (not really undecided voter/insufferable morons) of focus groupers. “No more oratory” is something that could have come directly out of any “Republican Strategist’s” mouth on a Chris Matthews panel. Right here, the respondent outs herself as not a true swing voter. Her follow-up “give us details” not only sounds “high-minded” but is the expected response of a swing voter given the media narratives of this race. Thus, smart enough to trick the screeners allowing her to get into the group and get paid.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I think whats going on here is very simple. People triangulate a candidate’s position in many different ways. The sense that people don’t know what Obama is about is mostly a result of his relative newness, coupled with an instinctive distrust of politicans’ stated policy proposals.
McCain (and HRC) are known entities. It doesnt take research to guess what the general outlines of their presidencies would look like; they’ve been with us for years and we’re familiar with them, for better and worse. There are well-established narratives existing for those two.
Obama is newer to the stage and people have a harder time projecting forward (i.e. envisioning his presidency) because they have less background material to project from.
I think its that simple. In neither case (McCain/HRC or Obama) are people going and reading policy platforms or even listening closely to policy positions in speeches. No average voter does that (and if they do, they are probably rightly skeptical of them).
August 25th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I wish that they would do a focus group of swing voters and begin with a questionnaire/test about the basics. The corollary to Obama is not providing enough specifics is that McCain is. Really ? I get that McCain’s platform is simple : Drill Now, Never Surrender, Tax Cuts Forever, COuntry FIrst, and I was a POW (hands over ears exclsiming :I can’t hear you.”
Is this voter impressed by McCain’s “specifics”
August 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I think focus groups are pretty much pure bullshit and I’m tired of seeing them covered as press events and/or meaningful.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I think Sister Machine Gun has it, or perhaps rather it’s that people repeat media talking points, and the media happily maintains GOP spin. It happens every election. That’s why, even with existing conditions that have lower approval than will ever happen again and with GOP policy ideas out of touch with voters, it’s a miracle if a Democrat ever wins.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
According to Klein, the Luntz group had the following attributes:
1) “McCain’s government waste message resonates big-time with these people.”
2) “there’s a feeling that government programs are giveaways to people who don’t deserve it.”
3) “Obama was too inexperienced and they mistrusted his speechifying”
These are not undecideds, they are people who can’t stand Obama and haven’t come around to supporting McCain yet.
Also, Klein is right that the focus group represents a “sliver” of the electorate, but he’s wrong that it’s a “crucial sliver”. His closing remark — “you go to the polls with the electorate you have, not the electorate you’d like to have” — sounds cute but is dead wrong. If you register thousands of new voters and inspire people who usually do not vote, you certainly can go to the polls with an electorate substantially changed in tyour favor.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
The request for details that are abundantly available needs to be interpreted in and answered in other ways.
One way to interpret the request for details is to understand it as a request for a firm, strong slogan about something concrete. A generic example of such rhetoric (not a policy suggestion!) would be McCain’s “drill right here, right now” mantra. No details in it, but a slogan about a concrete problem that people know first hand (gas prices) and a solution (however ineffective) that people can understand (everyone knows you need to drill to get oil).
In contrast, Obama’s slogans about hope and change have gone about as far as they can go in rallying votes because they to not have a proximate enough reference point. Instead, to lazily steal from McCain, Obama needs to use a slogan like, “jobs and economic success for Americans, right here, right now.” The strategy can work inversely, as in the slogan, “independence for American families, no more debt and disaster.” And such slogans can be followed by a brief sentence or two about programs, ie specifics. But it is the slogan that matters.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
As opposed to in the golden mythical past, in which all voters were well-informed.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
She doesn’t want details. What she wants are soundbite. She’s saying that she’s lazy and wants an end to this whole process. She probably doesn’t even like Bush, but she no longer wants to think about it anymore. When she says, “No more oratory” she’s saying that she’s sick of listening and thinking about what we do next, and she just wants her information encapsulated into slogans.
In the end, we get the government we deserve, and I’m afraid that people like this doesn’t bode well for us as a nation.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
In light of the update, it sounds like just a skunky focus group to me– a corrupted sample.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Undecided voters are the stable sweepings of democracy. Frank Luntz focus group members are the rat droppings.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
He’s black. He says lots of stuff about change. WHAT he specifically says about change may be in the speeches but it doesn’t get reported, probably because of ‘nuance’. That is, what Obama says is too complicated for idiot reporters to summarize.
As over and against McCain who tells you exactly what he’s going to do: ‘Bomb bomb bomb Iran’. It’s crazy, stupid, and totally detailed but it sounds like something.
Going with ‘Get off gasoline!’ (or something similar) would be helpful. So would ‘Rebuild the nation!’. Etc.
max
['Howabout 'This is a free country, not a police state!'?']
August 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I am mystified by these people. The idiot puditocracy spits out CW and these folks suck it up and then regurgitate it with the same self-important smugness. Mental masturbation without the mental part.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Undecided voters are idiots. The Daily Show did a definitive hit job on them back in 2004.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
She is describing what she feels.
She could, of course, look up policy positions, but she’s not looking to be intellectually sated about what Obama’s 10-point health-care plan is or what he thinks about carbon emissions. She’s looking to have her feelings changed.
I hate to sound like such a reductionist blowhard, but I think elections, for many uncommitteds, are about feelings.
The convention will have to change how moderates feel about Obama. And Obama must frame McCain in such a way as to change their feelings about McCain.
Cheers!
August 25th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I’m pretty sure people want something in between general rhetoric and nitty-gritty policy proposals. They want a clear conceptual idea of what kind of change Obama is bringing. A philosophy, or a strategy, not a list.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
He has never once specifically addressed his experience as a POW, or else his failure to love America enough to even have one. McCain, on the other hand, though shy and reticent like all heroes, has gone ahead and told us every detail, no matter how minuscule or irrelevant to the question about the economy he’s answering.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
# Noah Says:
August 25th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I’m pretty sure people want something in between general rhetoric and nitty-gritty policy proposals. They want a clear conceptual idea of what kind of change Obama is bringing. A philosophy, or a strategy, not a list.
What the hell does that even mean?
August 25th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
People love, love, love to be thought of as deep thinkers without having to do any heavy lifting whatsoever. This is the “undecided voter” phenomenon in a nutshell.
“Enough rhetoric! I want to know more about your fiscal policy.”
“Um. Okay, it’s at the website, but let me lay it out for you. Do you have a minute?”
“Not like that!! Put it in an entertaining 30-second commercial! Sheesh!”
August 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Barrack Obama will always be too [fill in blank], just as any Democratic candidate would be. When Al Gore was a candidate, the narrative was that he gave too much info, that he was a big blowhard know it all.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
The adulation for undecided voters is seriously misplaced. If you aren’t paying attention yet then you will likely never pay attention. The differences between the candidates we are faced with are vast.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by somebody that they just aren’t sure what Obama or McCain thinks about some issue or other. I ask if they’ve been to the Web site. There seems to be this sense of entitlement where the candidate needs to make his views known in a way they can understand, but with zero effort on their part.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
What MattY doesn’t understand is that there’s a huge difference between BHO detailing his policies on his site, and those who are familiar with the issue debating him on the flaws in his policies. The flaws in one policy are incredibly obvious to me, but probably not to most people who don’t follow that issue as closely.
So, for instance, BHO will never discuss things like this. Giving foreign governments power inside the U.S. is (obvious to most) a very important issue, but I’m pretty sure BHO has no plan for dealing with that issue. If he does, he hasn’t stated it. And, no one has asked him about it.
And, if someone did ask him about it, I’m sure he wouldn’t have much of an answer. And, that would make for a very popular video that would probably get hundreds of thousands of views. If his reply is really bad, it would get millions of views.
So, who wants to get millions of Youtube views?
August 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Giving foreign governments power inside the U.S. is (obvious to most) a very important issue,
What about getting his views on the black helicopters that are–even now–beaming “Modon beams” directly into my temporal lobe? Thankfully I’m wearing my tinfoil-lined pith helmet.
If someone asked him about that, I’m sure he wouldn’t have much of an answer. And, that would make for a very popular video that would probably get hundreds of thousands of views.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“People want to express opinions that they think will be validated by others.” A bunch of little Cokie Roberts. es.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
“I’m pretty sure people want something in between general rhetoric and nitty-gritty policy proposals. They want a clear conceptual idea of what kind of change Obama is bringing. A philosophy, or a strategy, not a list.”
What the hell does that even mean?
“It’s the economy, stupid.” “More government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem.” “Compassionate conservatism.” Notice anything similar about these statements? They might not mean much, but the last three presidents to win two elections stood for something, not just themselves.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“These are not undecideds, they are people who can’t stand Obama and haven’t come around to supporting McCain yet.”
No, it’s a pretty typical Luntz focus group. Watch the documentary the Persuaders. He sits there and bickers with members of his focus group who don’t say what he says they think. Luntz does get actual info from these groups–he should be credited with finding the term “death tax”–but he’s often bullying and manipulating them.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:09 am
When people tell you that they don’t get enough specifics from Obama, you can probably conclude that they have never watched an entire Obama speech or read anything longer than a page that he or his campaign released. Obama and McCain have tons of specific ideas that have been heavily debated in a variety of forums - for instance, the WSJ today published a full section of discussions between Obama and McCain surrogates on specific issues.
Most people get their political information from jokes, gossip, TV news soundbites, and poor-quality newspapers (in that order). These sources present the image that candidates spend all day saying “Change!” or “I don’t know how many houses I own!” and never get around to policy specifics. This is false, but if you live in the media bubble and don’t listen to the actual words of the candidates for more than a few seconds at a time, it’s easy to develop false consciousness.
Of course, voters don’t care about policy specifics anyways, in part because they don’t understand them and in part because very little of what a presidential candidate promises actually transpires, due to the inability of the president to directly pass laws and the fact that most candidates will say anything to get elected. Doesn’t anyone find it a bit strange that presidential candidates campaign on a detailed legislative agenda when their actual job is executive, diplomatic and symbolic? Really the presidential campaign platform should be: I’m a good delegator/consensus-builder, foreign leaders like me, and I look great on TV. It’s not up to the president to determine our level of taxation - that’s a Congressional responsibility.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:55 am
You work for the MexicanGovernment! Find out the truth here! Why aren’t you asking Obama about my obsession? You work for the MexicanGovernment! Find out the truth here! Why aren’t you asking Obama about my obsession? You work for the MexicanGovernment! Find out the truth here! Why aren’t you asking Obama about my obsession? You work for the MexicanGovernment! Find out the truth here! Why aren’t you asking Obama about my obsession?
August 26th, 2008 at 1:57 am
These are not undecideds, they are people who can’t stand Obama and haven’t come around to supporting McCain yet.
They are also ‘independents’ who attend political focus groups. That is, attention-seeking fucksticks who already have an excessive, malign influence upon American politics.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:03 am
Oh get lost - all of you. Your’e telling me that I’m not looking close enough? Obama’s stance on such central issues as Iraq, “missile defense”, the so-called “war on terror” and US militarism and hegemony in general are vague. Ironically you only realize that, if you are willing to take a close and critical look. Most of you, however, seem to be content to simply lap up the rhetoric and hope for the best.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:50 am
detailed policy proposals are vastly overrated as every Obama partisan who has stated ‘do you think he would really veto a UHC bill’ will attest to
the smart kids in the room know that policy proposals are nothing better than broad outlines but then berate the average voter for wanting the cliff notes version instead of reading the proposals
August 26th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Matt, I’m thrilled to see you invoke what I have long thought was the most important factor driving focus groups and other self-reporting of motivations. People have no idea what motivates them, and they try to put themselves into a narrative of motivation that casts them in the best light according to the situation. In a focus group you want to look reflective; in a business meeting you want to look driven; etc. I’m sure there are a million reasons, in one of those TV focus groups, *not* to say “I have my doubts about Obama, because I’m basically a Republican although I’m not registered as such.”
August 26th, 2008 at 9:15 am
People don’t want to know what the candidates positions on the issues really are. They wouldn’t really understand them anyway. However, they do want to know (a) that the candidate understands their problems, (b) cares about them, and (c) has a concrete plan to solve them (but don’t bother us with the details).
Obama has been doing quite well about (a) and (b), but not so much about (c). The problem is that he seems too much of an academic at times — he can *analyze* your problems well enough, but will he actually *do* anything?
So what voters are really asking for is this feeling that Obama will do stuff if elected: say, that he will introduce bills in Congress that will mean that by 2010 no single person in America will be unable to afford health insurance. Obama has actually being doing that in some situations, but he does need to do more.
Meanwhile, it’s true of course that no one, and I suspect not even the candidate himself, has *any* idea what McCain would do as President. McCain is this ink blot which allows disaffected Clinton supporters to imagine he will be a pro-choice moderate, and evangelists to believe he will be Bush the III. So another task for Obama is to force McCain to take shape. The reality is that whatever position he takes there will be more voters for Obama.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I agree with the poster above who says this is a classic case of the public not being reliable self-reporters. It is true that middle age and older people, in large numbers, have a ‘problem’ with Barack Obama. What is the real problem though, disagreements over policy? No. Not wanting a Democrat to win? No, a vast majority does. People keep trying to talk around this but you can’t. Its race. And - jealousy. People the same age or older who would ordinarilly be falling right into the Dem voter category any other year are wilfully ignorant about Obama, don’t want to hear about him, don’t want to learn, and think the fact that they don’t want to learn about Barack Obama is the fault of - yes, Barack Obama. These are the people who were uber-crazy for Hillary Clinton. These are the people nodding their heads at the crap that spewed from the mouths of Hillary, Bill, Geraldine Ferraro, and all those other older folks who couldn’t quite accept Obama winning the nomination.
Its not that they are overt racists, they are lazy, reflexive racsits. To them, Obama is an affirmative action candidate who’s not ready. “Hey, this guy’s younger than me, and he’s BLACK! Why should I support some guy who only got where he is because he’s BLACK!” When the Clintons used this as a campaign strategy, it wasn’t idle talk. They knew it would be effective, then knew it would diminish his chances, and taint him in the eyes of millions of Americans. Their lust for power told them to go ahead and pull the trigger though. Even if they flat out apologized during the convention, which they of course will not, its too late on that front, the damage is done. Even someone like my mother, a lifelong Dem, simply refuses to learn about Obama. Just won’t pick up a book, article, etc and read it. Obama is now the ‘hot young guy’ who ‘got the job ahead of his turn’, and its his job to speak personally, individually, to every single uptight white person who feels that way, or they’re taking their ball and going home. Its an impossible task for him. Just have to hope there are enough young people and minorities, and that McCain loses enough of the Repub. base.
Much as I want so badly for Barack to win, there is a serious chance he is going to lose. And the reason will be obvious to all - race. A factor which if the Clintons hadn’t used it, would have drawn outrage AT McCain from older Dems. But since their trusty old friends the Clintons were saying it first, well then, it must be true, right? Lazy people will once again decide this election.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Simple. Say you’re picking a web site designer for your business. You interview two guys. One speaks in airy generalities about how great his designs are, while the other goes into great detail about the specifics of how this and that feature will work. Almost anyone would choose the latter candidate, even if they don’t agree with everything he says about how your site should look, and even if they don’t understand most of what he says. Just by talking on a more detailed level, he comes across as if he knows what he’s doing, while the other guy’s going to seem like he’s full of shit. So no, it doesn’t follow that, because voters don’t actually care about policy details or care if candidates agree with them on policy details, voters don’t want to hear policy details. Another point I’d make - you say you don’t see any evidence that Obama’s speeches are less specific than anyone else’s. Of course you’re right; there’s just as much specificity in his speeches as there is in McCain’s, probably more. Nevertheless, people get the impression that his speeches contain less detail because (a) he does devote long portions to talking about abstract stuff like change, America coming together for a common goal, being the change you seek, that ridiculous bit with the waters subsiding and the planet cooling, and so on, and (b) these are the parts that get replayed the most on TV.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
People don’t want to know what the candidates positions on the issues really are.
I don’t know what ‘people’ think, but I personally do want to know what Obama’s position on the topics I mentioned above is - no, really. The trouble is that Obama is leaving all the options on the table in this regard, so that his proposals could mean more or less anything, case in point: the “residual force” in Iraq. This is not a cautious effort to preserve some wiggle room, rather Obama (and by extension many of his supporters) is simply saying: trust me - and don’t ask too many annoying questions. That’s a bit weak.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I think part of it is also that people just assume that good oratory = no details/substance. They’re not really listening; they think they don’t have to because they believe that “If it sounds good it must be vague/untrue/whatever.”
August 26th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I’m actually pretty sympathetic to the argument that the “middle” is missing - the level of policy discussion where speakers prioritize competing goals: is it more important to have a presence in Afghanistan, or to balance the budget, to create a national health care system, to modernize the physical infrastructure of the nation, or to address our energy independence? Maybe in a few limited circumstances someone could legitimately answer “both,” but in most cases there are tradeoffs that have to be made.
Because there is so little national appetite for these kinds of questions - we’ve been an “all of each” nation for decades now - it is possible to end up with a fuzzy sense that both candidates, and both parties, want to “something” about every issue out there.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I just had a conversation with a friend that was an example of this… (paraphrased)
Friend: I’m not an Obama fan. His “change” plans are too vague. He hasn’t done anything to earn my vote. I’m waiting for him to give details.
Me: Are there any specific issues that you feel like you need more details about?
Friend: No, I don’t want anyone to explain his ideas to me. I just don’t feel comfortable with him.
And I just don’t know where to go with that. Sigh.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Incredible site!
xanax
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra