The Low Road to Victory
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
Actually, as I'll explain in a moment, the negative campaigning is only hurting Obama, not Clinton. But before I elaborate on that point, let me address some pro-Obama spin that appears later in the editorial:
Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
Clinton did not have a 20-point lead in Pennsylvania unless you go all the way back to January (when Edwards was still in the race and before Obama's string of victories in February). As I have explained many times before, no single poll tells you what Clinton's lead was in Pennsylvania because individual polls have a lot of random error in them. In recent weeks, only a single poll suggested that her lead was 20 points. Because that poll was taken right after Obama's revealing comments about bigoted Pennsylvania gun nuts who cling to religion because government won't rescue them from their economic despair, it seemed like it might be right. But other polls taken around the same time quickly revealed that the lead was nowhere near 20 points. Instead, that one poll was an aberration. Here is what the polls showed in the aggregate:
I added the red lines (and the labels) to approximately mark off each month. According to aggregated polling information, Clinton's lead held throughout March and April, but it generally did not exceed 8-to-10 points over the last 6 or 7 weeks. Thus, her actual margin of victory somewhat exceeded what the polls have suggested for most of the last 2 months. And this is the period of time during which her campaign turned negative. Thus, it is pure pro-Obama spin to suggest that she squandered a 20-point lead because of her negative campaigning. The truth is, she did better than expected despite having been far outspent.
People keep saying that the longer this race goes on, the more it hurts the Democrats. Here is a New York Times reporter weighing in with that lamentation:
Clinton Outduels Obama in Primary
For better or worse — and many Democrats fear it is for worse — the race goes on.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama in Pennsylvania on Tuesday by enough of a margin to continue a battle that Democrats increasingly believe is undermining their effort to unify the party and prepare for the general election against Senator John McCain.
Despite a huge investment of time and money by Mr. Obama and pressure on Mrs. Clinton by the party establishment to consider folding her campaign, she won her third big state in a row. Mrs. Clinton showed again that she is a tenacious campaigner with an ability to connect with the blue-collar voters Mr. Obama has found elusive and who could be critical to a Democratic victory in November.
People who say that the ongoing race is hurting the Democrats want Barack Obama to win. The truth is, the longer the race goes on, the more it hurts Barack Obama because the longer it goes on, the more an unknown quantity becomes a known quantity. The more people listen to Barack Obama speak inspiring but largely meaningless words in carefully crafted speeches, the more they like him. However, the more the learn about him, the less they like him. People learned a lot about Barack Obama in recent weeks, and although the far left will remain hopelessly devoted to him (because it is becoming increasingly clear that he thinks a lot like they do), he is clearly damaged goods. Clinton, by contrast, is what she has always been, and that's not going to change.
Here are more thoughts along these lines:
While Democrats remain angry over the Iraq war, the economy and President Bush, they've grown less inclined to accept their favorite candidate's Democratic opponent as a prospective president.
The deepening Clinton-Obama schism became more pronounced after last Wednesday's Philadelphia debate.
...
Democratic leaders sensed this increasing rupture between the Clinton and Obama camps, and in recent days they've pleaded with the superdelegates who control about 20 percent of the convention votes, and with them, the balance of power.
"I need them to say who they're for, starting now," party Chairman Howard Dean said of the superdelegates last week. "We've got to know who our nominee is."
I agree. And that nominee has got to be Hillary Clinton. Let's look ahead to the upcoming primaries (several of my parenthetical comments are based on information that can be found at pollster.com, and I've added approximate state population information just for fun):
Indiana (a probable Clinton win) -- 6 million
Kentucky (Clinton way ahead in the polls) -- 4 million
Puerto Rico (Clinton comfortably ahead in the polls) -- 4 million
West Virginia (Clinton comfortably ahead in the polls) -- 2 million
North Carolina (Obama in a landslide) -- 9 million
Oregon (Obama comfortably ahead in the polls) -- 4 million
South Dakota (Obama leads in the polls) -- 1 million
Montana (no idea, but probably Obama) -- 1 million
That is, it is not hard at all to imagine that Clinton, fresh off her big double-digit win in Pennsylvania, will win 4 of the remaining 8 primaries. And in the coming weeks, we are going to get to know Barack Obama even better than we know him now. The past 7 weeks have shown that the more you know about him, the worse it gets (for him). We already know Hillary Clinton, and that's not going to change.
Most reports in the mainstream media are quick to point out that Clinton's win in Pennsylvania really doesn't change the pledged delegate math, which still favors Obama. And that would be a relevant point if this race were going to be decided by the pledged delegates. It isn't. It's going to be decided by the superdelegates, and they'd have to brain dead not to appreciate the fact that the more people get to know Barack Obama, the more of a problem it is for him. It's time for them to draw the inevitable conclusion that Clinton is their nominee.
Although it's time for the superdelegates to accept the inevitable, there is no pressure for them to announce their intentions right now. The sense of urgency that many on the left feel derives solely from their preference for Barack Obama. If you support him, it is truly urgent that the race be decided right now -- before we find out even more about him. But if you support Clinton, no such sense of urgency exists. Thus, the superdelegates need not end the race now by announcing their intentions, but it is time for them to make a decision in their own minds. It seems pretty clear to me what that decision should be.
13 comments:
...there's only one road for superdelegates to support Clinton, that's if she can manage to pull ahead in the popular vote. Barring that, there is no way they will oppose the leader in both delegate votes and popular votes. Unfortunately, Clinton needed a larger vote margin in PA to close the gap.
I'm going to predict that Obama will win Indiana by the narrowest of margins (based on my feeling that Indiana voters will eventually be swayed by both homeboy advantage and the pressure to provide closure to the race). Andif Clinton loses Indiana, it effectively ends her chances.
And I'll also say that all the pundits and polls that are saying that as many as 19% of disgruntled losers won't support the other nominee in the fall are wrong. The democrats will reliably support the eventual winner much the way that republicans as coming around to support McCain. And against all logic, I'm starting to see a very faint possiblity of Clinton being chosen as VP.
The biggest danger to the country is that, if Obama is nominated, voters might blame the Republicans for surging oil prices, and react by electing Obama.
Seriously.
How can anyone ignores the relationship between Obama and his preacher?? Is it the right answer to justify his opinions instead of denouncing them?
In order to win in November, it will not be enough to get the black vote and the young vote. The next president will the the one that can get the swing votes, those Reagan-democrats that Mr. Obama cannot get...
This whole concept that Obama can't win the big states is just more Clinton spin. Just because Clinton won the big states, does that mean Obama is going to lose them against McCain? Does anyone really think Obama would lose New York or California in the general election? I don't think so. The only true measure is the pledged delegates. Hillary fought a good fight, but it's over. Bow out gracefully.
It's not that Obama can't win the big states, he can certainly win California and NY. But it's the big swing states that seem unlikely.
Ohio, Florida, Penn. Clinton does better in all three states when compared to Obama. A democrat has nothing to fear from the far left MoveOn democrats. They aren't voting republican. It's closer to center ones that aren't as partisan that are the problem.
And this group settle in the states mentioned above.
The more we learn about Obama the more we realize that he is, like it or not, far out of the American mainstream. Few Americans have preachers like Rev. Wright, attend churches like Trinity, or consort with Weatherman bombers like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
To my knowledge, Americans have never elected a candidate as bizarre as Barack Obama, and I don't think they will this year.
Which is it, Engram?
"According to aggregated polling information, Clinton's lead held throughout March and April, but it generally did not exceed 8-to-10 points over the last 6 or 7 weeks."
"[I]n the coming weeks, we are going to get to know Barack Obama even better than we know him now. The past 7 weeks have shown that the more you know about him, the worse it gets (for him)."
I understand that your opinion of him is poor, though I'm not sure it's fallen any in the past 7 weeks. But the evidence, as you argue it based on polling, seems to not support your case. Perhaps you're speaking of Wright and clinging to guns and God and such, which is fine, but neither seemed to hurt him in the polls. Just seems to be an odd assertion from the master of "look at the evidence".
...beau, just to be clear, the most important measure in political campaigns is not a candidate's numbers in terms of primary support, but his/her numbers in terms of overall negatives. I believe that Obama's negatives have gone up significantly since the Wright comments (but I'd have to google it to know for sure). And his comments equating blue collar views on guns and religion to be simply an expression of their bitterness over lost jobs hav surely given him higher negatives as well.
To make it clearer, while all candidates profess to want to rise above negative campaigns, this is the reason why negative campaigning ALWAYS works. Negatives are the key measure of success in politics.
Your point seems to be that Obama somehow hasn't been hurt because he's polling the same as ever. But remember, you're not looking at tracking polls that show negatives.
Beau puts forth a good point - where is the evidence that Obama is being hurt by voters getting to know him better. From my examination of the exit polls from PA, Obama made progress, or at least held steady in almost every demographic. I don't think he made enough progress to feel really good about it if you are a Obama supporter, but I certainly don't think you find evidence that things are getting significantly worse for Obama.
If you are an undecided superdelegate/elected official, do you jeopardize your own political career by alienating your black constituents and voting HRC for the good of the party?
The biggest danger to the country is that, if Obama is nominated, voters might blame the Republicans for surging oil prices, and react by electing Obama.
Seriously.
---
I love this comment. Like republicans are not responsible *at all*. The comment above could have just as easily read:
a. the economy
b. increasing unemployment
c. foreclosures
d. the budget deficit
e. the war on iraq
And Engram you are mistaken that Americans will be shy about supporting Obama for saying he will end the war. You are in a minority of people who support continuing the war indefinitely (I am not commenting on whether that is the right thing to do or not). In fact, the Iraq war is polling worse than the Vietnam war ever did, and in retrospect, there is little doubt pulling out was the right thing to do. The public view on the war in Iraq (in 2006 a Zogby poll placed the question "end within a year" at 72%!) is so negative it is probably what ended Republican rule of congress.
So while I personally do not think we should back out of the war at this late point (although I was against going in to begin with) the vast majority of Americans do, so this is very unlikely to be a selling point. In fact, I would say this issue, although it hurts Obama for YOUR VOTE, will get him many more votes from the average American.
DJ - That's fair. But then the professor should have shown a graph of Obama's negatives/unfavorables over time. The criticism was narrow; and without taking Engram's tone, one of the things he emphasizes is to find evidence for things rather than just accepting them as told to you. And the evidence he presented didn't support the claim he was making.
...beau, truthfully, for some reason, everyone, including the media, only focuses on up or down candidate comparison polling.
The only time the media ever focuses on a candidates negatives are at the very beginning of a campaign, almost as if they believe that that's the floor from which a candidate must rise (they're right, but that floor goes up and down as well).
But after the campaign starts, it's rare for another word to be said about negatives.
I think unless you have some inside experience, you tend to completely ignore negatives as well.
But a candidate's negatives heavily influence who shows up at the polls and who decides just to sit it out, or worse, reverse their vote.
As a young guppy, I worked in politics for several years as a consultant/staffer (never higher than a big city mayoral race though), so I kind of know my way around politics, or at least I have a feel for it. I'm betting that Engram has never been directly involved with politics so he focuses on the general poll numbers just because that is always up front. But believe me, Engram would make a killer pollster if he ever wanted to waste his life in the political field. In a week, he'd have every demographic categorized and every state called. If the left thinks Rove is the supreme evil genius, they haven't yet met Engram :)
However, the caveat is that I still strongly believe in the 'gut' feel for issues. You can go into a bar and talk up the locals there and if you're perceptive, you'll know every hot button issue in twenty minutes and exactly how to use it to your advantage. Polling would take weeks and never give you a complete answer, or even the right one(BTW, in politics, my focus was on opposition research -- I was pretty good at finding the key quote and issue that could tar the opposition on any given day).
Post a Comment