Obama Sagging, Or Clinton Surging?

by: Chris Bowers

Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:39


Looking only at national polls for the Democratic nomination, it would appear to the casual observer that Barack Obama is going through a rough patch in the presidential campaign. Both Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics show Clinton making up an 8-10% gap on Obama, to roughly draw even in national polls. Any off the shelf political pundit, manufactured in abominable environmental and human rights conditions in China, can tell you that this change is due primarily to Obama's supposed elitist and patriotism problems associated with concepts like Rev. Wright and the dreaded arugula leaf. However, the unfortunately high lead content in the analysis produced by these pundits can be damaging to the consumer's political eyesight, as it misses an important fact: Barack Obama is rising in general election polls against John McCain.

Take a look at Pollster.com's national Obama vs. McCain poll trend, and you will see that Obama is rising, and in fact now has the lead for the first time since early March. Much the same can be found at Real Clear Politics's national poll trend, where Obama has his second largest single-day lead against McCain since March 12th. On a state by state basis, Obama is also gaining ground on McCain, moving from a slight electoral deficit to a slight electoral lead over the past week. In terms of favorable ratings, Obama's numbers have stayed within the margin of statistical noise for the past four months, although there might be a statistically significant rise in his unfavorable rating. However, even if there is, an election is a zero sum game with only one winner and one loser. While Obama's unfavorables might have increased, he is still rising relative to John McCain, and that is all that matters.

The extensive focus on the Democratic nomination campaign rather than the general election has obscured an important fact about the state of the race: Obama isn't sagging, but Clinton is surging. Hillary Clinton is performing better against John McCain than she has all year, according to both Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics.  Her favroables are higher than they have been in a year, according to every polling outlet. In terms of electoral votes, once again she is doing better against McCain than she has done all year, or possibly ever. This isn't an Obama sag, this is a Clinton surge.

And no, it is not a mix of Obama dropping and Clinton rising. This is because, once again, presidential elections are zero sum games where only one person wins, and no one else takes office. This isn't a congressional campaign where someone runs one year to build up name ID, and then runs again two years later to win. The only consolation prize someone can ever take from losing a presidential election is to become Vice-President, and thus eventually one day become President as a result. However, that has only ever happened twice to losing presidential candidates in the seventy years, LBJ and Bush Sr. So, if we are basically dealing with a zero-sum game, then Obama is not sagging even as Clinton surges. This is because he remains the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination. Barring a catastrophic polling meltdown in North Carolina, he will continue to be the overwhelming favorite after tonight. Obama's chances to become the next President have not decreased over the last few weeks, and have in fact increased in the last few days.

For Clinton, her surge is impressive, even if it is a little too late. She seems to, at long last, have tapped as deeply into the white working class vote as her husband did in his two successful presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996. She is now seen as tough and populist, and performs pretty well among Independents. Overall, Hillary Clinton seems to have successfully shed the caricature image of her that conservatives built up over the last sixteen years, or at least successfully performed a judo flip on it. Whereas once she was too tough to be feminine, now she is tough enough to be President. Whereas once she was elitist, now she is populist. Whereas once she was too liberal, now an ideological gap has opened up in the Democratic Party and she is winning the moderates and the conservatives.

But, in a zero sum game where only one person can be the nominee, a quick look at the delegate scenarios indicates that the Clinton surge is too late. Then again, maybe it is not a zero sum game, and perhaps it is enough at this point for her to have secured a position as the next Vice-President. After all, she does appeal to a somewhat different set of voters than Obama, and polls make it clear at this point that she is anything but an electoral liability. As far as the attacks that Clinton and Obama have hurled at each other, what better way to invalidate them and wash that all away by joining on a ticket together? At this point, it might be unavoidable.  

Chris Bowers :: Obama Sagging, Or Clinton Surging?

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Unavoidable? (4.00 / 3)
Obama might be able to avoid that scenario by winning and picking someone else.

Exactly (4.00 / 1)
HRC doesn't have exclusive rights to demographics that support her.

John McCain

[ Parent ]
^ I am with this comment (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, Chris, but I just don't see this happening.

Part of Barack's platform is "change you can believe in," not "ambition at all costs."

GOBAMA!


[ Parent ]
Even though I don't think (0.00 / 0)
the "ambition at any costs" charge would hurt in a national election-- some people go for that sort of thing-- having the wife of a former president on the ticket would definitely undermine the whole "change" thing.

[ Parent ]
If it goes to the convention (0.00 / 0)
and he squeaks out a win, part of the negotiations involving the last few supers he needs could likely involve putting Clinton in the Vice-Presidency

[ Parent ]
Ok Andrew Sullivan (4.00 / 1)
She's tapped into conservatives because conservatives see her as an ally now. They're helping her and praising her. Not because they like her but because it serves a purpose to them. To damage the Democratic party. To damage Barack Obama.

The minute she's on the ticket it all changes.


Absolutely Right (0.00 / 0)
I think the ONLY way Obama can possibly lose this is to pick Hillary as his VP.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
The Republicans agree (4.00 / 1)
From Rasmussen today:

"If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, 36% believe that naming Clinton as his running mate will improve his chances of victory in the fall. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe it will hurt. Democrats, by a 52% to 21% margin, believe adding Clinton to the ticket would be a plus. Republicans overwhelmingly disagree and so do a modest plurality of unaffiliated voters. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 39% say adding Clinton as VP would hurt while just 32% believe it would help."


[ Parent ]
It's sad that voters are snookered so easily (4.00 / 1)
The NYT has an article out about how she's seen as a 'working-class hero', even though nothing about her life remotely resembles what working-class people have to go through. It's a damn shame, and perhaps Obama's ideal of treating voters as being worthy talking with - as opposed to being talked to - won't work out.

But no - Clinton will not be on the ticket as VP. One decade of Clintonian drama in and around the White House is enough. And personally, I don't think either Bill or Hillary would settle for the second spot on the ticket.


Voters snookered? (4.00 / 1)
The NYT is snookered every day.

They don't have any evidence that a significant group of voters believes Clinton has led a life like their own.  They selectively quote one or two people, and make it into a story.

Clinton's approach to her background isn't any different than Obama's or McCain's.  None of them mention their educational credentials or how much they made last year.  They talk about their summer jobs, their parent's hardships, etc.  This isn't surprising, or noteworthy, unless someone at the Times decides they have run out of themes for a column.  But it doesn't have anything to do with what voters think.  The article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...

I don't think anyone knows if she will be on the ticket.

There are voters who will defect if either candidate is forced out.  Clinton is resonating more strongly with white, working class voters.  Obama claims he can still bring them in, perhaps rightly, but bringing Clinton in is one way close that gap.  Obama at best has a choice between choosing the person he belives will serve him best in the general, or cutting a deal with Clinton and getting to the general sooner, with less damage.

If Clinton is still "surging" after today, and wants the slot, she can probably cut a deal with enough superdelegates to get it.  


[ Parent ]
She's definitely changed her rhetoric post- "bitter" comment. (0.00 / 0)
In her High Point speech, she was "taking on" China, "taking on" OPEC; all Edwards style language that we hadn't heard for a bit.
    She's found a rhetoric that reconciles nicely w. her perceived toughness; one that probably would have worked all along, but that she latched on to specifically to define herself against a post-"gaffe" Obama.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
she probably wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if she lad just labeled herself as a 'fighter' that stands up for America

[ Parent ]
What about the fact that her favorability ratings keep getting worse? (4.00 / 1)
Doesn't that count for something?

He wouldn't offer it (4.00 / 3)
nor should he.  Even if she accepted (and I don't think there's any way she would), there are so many Clinton loyalists out there that it could easily become a shadow presidency, and at times Obama could be the #3 figure behind Bill and Hillary.  I wouldn't have any faith in her to consistently and constantly work for the presidential agenda, or for progressivism, unless it was so clearly in her self-interest that she simply had to.

Basically, the last thing Obama needs is an alternate source of power in D.C. If HRC has any big role in an Obama administration, whether as VP or Senate Majority Leader, I do think that there would be far more competition than cooperation.  As I pointed out, there are many people who are more loyal to Clinton than Obama, much less the party, and they would turn to her as a locus of power rather than to Obama.  It would also result in a massive proliferation of "unnamed Democratic sources," both literally and in a larger sense, especially considering the extremely limited positive history of co-existence between any Presidents and Vice Presidents, much less former campaign rivals.  As much as it seems like a good idea on paper, I don't think it benefits either of them, particularly not Obama, and there are surely other candidates out there who can serve the same end (Sherrod Brown?)


She may force it (0.00 / 0)
the VP, after all, is decided by the convention, not by the candidate.  If she agrees to step down without a convention fight in exchange for the vice presidency, then I doubt there would be anything that Obama could do about it.

[ Parent ]
To answer Chris's question. (0.00 / 0)
It's probably a little bit of both...

Meh (4.00 / 1)
She seems to, at long last, have tapped as deeply into the white working class vote as her husband did in his two successful presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996... maybe it is not a zero sum game, and perhaps it is enough at this point for her to have secured a position as the next Vice-President. After all, she does appeal to a somewhat different set of voters than Obama

Hm. The thing is, okay, this month she appeals to those "white working class" voters. In March she didn't. The techniques she used to acquire her recent appeal for those voters are dubious and gimmicky, and more based on attacking Barack Obama than promoting herself. So I have to ask-- is the appeal durable? By the time July or August comes, will she still appeal to that set of voters that are providing her with a surge now, but which two months ago weren't a factor?


The Role Of The VP Nominee Is To Be The Attack Dog (4.00 / 1)
so Clinton has certainly helped her chances there.

It's certainly interesting that Clinton seems to have crossed a watershed point.  For quite some time, the more she attacked Obama, the more absurd a unity ticket seemed.  But now it's as if it's all about her ability to attack, and the fact that she's attacking Obama is overshadowed by the fact that she's found her groove.

I'm not saying I endorse this idea at all.  I'm just saying that I see the logic of it.

I wish I had a clear sense of some other logic that was clearly superior to it.  I'd much prefer Feingold, obviously,  but that's more of a governance issue, and Feingold is not an attack dog, either.

But, then, at least we'd have Feingold running against the McCain ticket.  So that would provide another opening for raising the issue of how McCain doesn't exactly live up to his billing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Obama-Feingold? ... (0.00 / 0)
How sweet would that be?   ;-)

[ Parent ]
why (0.00 / 0)
Why are people still saying Obama is sagging? He has recovered in both the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll & The Rasmussen Poll. After being behind by a few points last week, he is now ahead in both beyond the margin of error.

Please, God, No. (0.00 / 0)
Would YOU want her anywhere near your presidency, especially if she were next in line to replace you? The definition of "most dangerous place in Washington" would have to be revised.

Nixon? (0.00 / 0)
Where does Nixon fit in the loser/vice President bowl?

Jeff Wegerson

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search