A new story in the Chicago Sun-Times indicates that, the day before Blagojevich's calls were taped, Harry Reid pushed Blagojevich not to appoint the three leading African-American politicians in Illinois (after Barack Obama, of course). According using "electability" as the rationale, Reid did advocate on behalf of two candidates, one of whom, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, attempted to remove Blgaojevich via judicial coup. If the Senate's move to block Roland Burris wasn't already viewed as a political move rather than one of ethics, this story should put an end to that once and for all.
One of the best developments for Democratic Party this nomination campaign has been the dramatic decline of "electability" as a factor in the party's nomination process. Comparing the percentage of voters who cited electability as their top concern in 2004 and 2008 makes this clear:
% of Dem Primary Voters Citing "Electability" As Main Candidate Criteria
Across the board, every state that had an exit poll in both 2004 and 2008 shows massive drop off in the focus on electability. Even if identity appears to be the top vote determining factor in 2008, that is still a step up from 2004. Democrats are voting in record numbers for the candidate they want, not just the candidate for whom they will settle because they think s/he has the best chance to win. Further, broadcasting to the entire nation that Democrats don't really like their nominee that much, but they will vote for him anyway because he has the best chance to win, is a terrible way to sell the party and the nominee. It makes it appear that Democrats don't stand for anything except winning. Also, it takes the focus away from the positive qualities of the nominee, and makes him appear to be a lukewarm compromise from the start of the campaign.
Electability died in this primary season. Good. As long we win in November, it should be a long time before the party is dominated by that unproductive concept once again.
Yet another annoying, but almost certainly true, prediction for the primary season is that, over the next six weeks, we are going to here a lot of electability arguments. When hearing these arguments, keep in mind that any general election electability argument based on results of Democratic nomination events is nonsensical. No matter how high turnout has been, and no matter what states or demographics either candidate has won, the simple fact is that neither of them have won the voters necessary to win the general election. It will take at least 62,000,000 votes (Bush's 2004 total) to win the general election, and so far neither candidate has managed even 25.0% of that total. Further, the voters in primaries are in no way representative of the voters in general elections. For example, winning Iowa or New Hampshire in a caucus or primary does not mean someone can win Iowa or New Hampshire in a general election, because you are dealing with entirely different electorates in general elections than in primaries and caucuses. The same holds true for demographic groups. Winning white Catholics, or Independents, or Latinos, or high-income voters in a primary or caucus is not reflective of an ability to win those groups in a general election, because you will be dealing with entirely different sets of those voters in a general than in a primary or caucus.
The real electability we should be worried about are not asinine arguments over how nomination event performance reflects on general election performance, but rather how we make sure that no matter how long the nomination campaign goes on, that Democrats win the general election. Here are six simple steps we can take in order to make this happen.
Following a rally for his wife's campaign at Market Square in Pittsburgh, former president Bill Clinton suggested his wife would already be the nominee -- if she were running under Republican party rules.
"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."
Yes, and Mitt Romney would have been tied with John McCain in delegates if Republicans used the Democratic system. However, Clinton and Obama are not following the Republican system, and McCain and Romney were not following the Democratic system. This is a fact the Obama campaign appeared well aware of, but the Clinton campaign did not. The strange belief that winning eight or nine large primary states by narrow amounts, and ignoring virtually all other post-January states, would lead to victory in a proportional delegate system appears to be the largest strategic mistake of the campaign. Obama's massive caucus victories in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington actually netted him more delegates (+85) as Clinton netted from her victories in California and New York (+84), despite vast population differences and monetary requirements to win the two groups of states. The Obama campaign executed a strategy to grab delegates wherever they were, and often found cost-effective ways of doing so. Their strategy worked, and Clinton's did not.
Whatever arguments someone wants to make about the democratic nature of the smaller state caucuses that Obama maximized, the fact is that in a delegate-based system, Obama's "get delegates wherever they are," strategy has proven superior to Clinton's media-focused strategy of claiming popular vote victories in a few large states. It also demonstrates the nonsensical nature of Clinton's electability argument to superdelegates, which is largely based on her having won popular vote victories in large states. Post-South Carolina, Clinton focused on the larger states, and ended up behind in delegates even though the campaign secured the victories it sought. Why is a campaign more electable because its strategy didn't work? Obama didn't pursue the caucus and small state strategy out of a belief that it was the moral thing to do, just as Clinton did not pursue popular vote victories in the large states because of an obscure ethical argument. Instead, both sides pursued strategies they believed would lead to victory. That Clinton is behind in delegates despite securing the popular vote victories in the large states its campaign sought is demonstrative of weakness the campaign's weakness terms of electoral strategy. If anything, it shows that Clinton is less electable than Obama, not more.
The Clinton campaign successfully executed its campaign strategy--it just didn't work. While is very nice that the strategy might have worked under different rules, it is more likely that if the rules were different, then the Obama campaign would have pursued a different strategy. Further, that the Clinton campaign did not employ a strategy to work under the rules presented to the candidates at the start of the primary season is indicative of strategic myopia that would lead to another bad strategy even if the rules changed. If you can solve the problem presented to you under one set of rules, why should we have any confidence you could solve a different problem under a different set of rules?
Ickes added: "It seems to me that there's this great desire to rush to judgment...this has been a genteel debate for God's sake. People are wringing their hands, `oh, we're gonna tear party apart.' The party's a lot sturdier than these hand wringers in Washington would have you believe."
I wouldn't call the campaign "genteel," what with the racialized discussion, but I also don't think that there is a big risk of long-term damage to the party at this point, or that the extended campaign is a negative. The most dangerous scenarios for the party would be if Clinton secured the nomination without winning the popular vote, and / or if there is no presumptive nominee by the end of June. However, I just don't see either scenario as particularly likely right now, since Obama remains on course to lock up the nomination at some point between May 20th and June 21st. Considering the organizing that will have been done in virtually every state by that point, considering that the general election matchups remain tied, and considering what will be Obama's overwhelming financial advantage on McCain, I still feel confident we are headed toward an Obama Presidency. After another two or three months of nearly exclusive focus on Democrats, we will still have twenty weeks to take on McCain, unite the party, and win back the White House. Maybe I should be more worried about this situation than I am, but at this point it won't be long before the voting begins anew, which will inject new life into the nomination campaign, and clear out some of the dead air we have been experiencing since mid-March.
Now, with all that said, here is some hand-wringing by Ickes himself:
"Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry.
"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks," Ickes continued. "I've had super delegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them."
In a reference to Wright's controversial views, Ickes continued: "Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Republicans [will do with them]...I think they're going to give him a very tough time."
Oh no, the Republicans are going to attack us! Whatever shall we do? Surely, Republicans will lay off attacking a different nominee, say Hillary Clinton. Talk about lame hand-wringing.
Here is my question: what attacks, exactly, will Obama face in the general election that will be worse than what he has faced in the primary campaign? Will it be worse than arguing that he is a Muslim who attended a madrassa? Will it be worse than selected exceprts from Rev. Wright played on every single news channel for weeks on end? Will it be worse than the most recent Democratic President saying McCain is more qualified to be commander in chief than Obama?
No, it won't be any worse. In fact, Obama will actually have a much easier time in the general election, media wise, than he has had in the primary. The reason for this is simple: in the general election, the most prominent Democrats in the entire country, the Clintons, will not be reifying every single right-wing attack against Obama. It has become a truism in politics that when both Democrats and Republicans are delivering the same message on a given topic, that message will invariably become conventional wisdom nationwide. Right now, when it comes to both Rev. Wright and qualifications to become President, Obama faces the triangle of Republican attacks, corporate media, and Democratic complicity in those attacks. In the general election, the Democratic complicity will be removed.
The media environment for Obama will actually be easier in the general election than in the primary. The argument that Obama won't be able to withdstand the oh-so vicious Republican attacks is nonsense, because he is weathering those attacks right now, even when Democrats are helping Republicans out in those attacks. This isn't even my theory-this is the theory put forth by Clinton senior staffer Peter Daou. If Obama can get past he primary and still outperform Clinton against McCain, then he is pretty much a sure bet to win the Presidency. The rest is just a bunch of hand-wringing by nervous, Clintonista types.
Here are two general rules that Democratic candidates and elected officials should follow but which, unfortunately, many of the most prominent ones often violate:
Never say how holding a certain policy position will help either you, or other Democrats, win elections.
Don't encourage rank and file Democrats to vote a certain way for the sake of winning elections.
The first point should be obvious enough, and I have harped on it many times before. Whenever a Democratic candidate or elected officials claims that Policy Position X will help get Democrats elected, it unavoidably results in the implication that Democrats only hold Policy Position X in order to get elected. In so doing, Democrats look like spineless, valueless, power hungry jackasses who think they can fool the country. The end result is that, by talking about how Policy Position X will help them get elected, Democrats. See Why People Don't Think Democrats Believe What They Say, On "Big Ideas" And Bill Clinton, and also Lack Of Convictions Versus Lack of Courage for more on this point.
#2 is a somewhat less obvious point, though still an important one none the less. Sure, Democrats want to win the general election, and finding a candidate who can defeat McCain is on the minds of many Democratic primary voters. However, when Democratic politicians encourage voters to choose a candidate based on electability, then they begin to drag Democratic primary voters down to the same spineless, soul-less, valueless level. Suddenly, not only do we have politicans who only believe in things in order to get elected, but not those politicians were nominated by voters who don't believe in anything, either. At that point, the party is really in a world of hurt. Both the leaders and the followers don't believe in anything except getting elected. That is not the image the Democratic Party needs, especially considering that only now is it recovering from twenty years of death by meta talk from the DLC.
Neither of us will reach the number of delegates needed. So I think that that is, you know, the reality for both of our campaigns. And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.
Clinton has already received a decent amount of flack for this quote, but I think for the wrong section. Clinton is technically correct that all delegates can vote for whoever they want, even though the pledged and add-on delegates are required to sign statements of good faith that they will support who they were elected to support (I'm not sure how that is an expectation to exercise independent judgment, but whatever). The real problem is that of the three factors Clinton thinks delegates should take into account, electability concerns are the first two factors. How empty and soul-less are she expecting the party to be?
The Clintons have long been the masters of telling Democrats that they need to fall in line in order to win elections, so the aburdity of making an electability argument when you are losing an election is probably lost on them. However, the simple fact is that we are not going to beat John McCain by saying that we are going to beat John McCain. That is just not a winning message. Independents and Republicans may not be able to vote in closed primary states like Pennsylvania, but that does not mean they are forbidden from hearing media on the campaign. Now that the Clinton campaign appears to be reduced to an electability pitch to superdelegates, this constant talk about electability is actually making her less electable. If Hillary Clinton's campaign is going to have any chance whatsoever, it needs to start making a case as to why she would be a better President, not just a more electable Democratic nominee.
It is with growing concern that I have been following the Rasmussen daily tracking poll over the past two weeks. Starting on March 15th, a survey that included interviews from March 11-14, John McCain broke out of a tight contest and took a 47%-42% lead over Barack Obama. From that day forward, McCain's lead has been a minimum of 6% over Obama, a lead that he replicates over Hillary Clinton and which has also been reflected in Rasmussen statewide polls.
Now, while Rasmussen was terribly wrong in 2000, and while it is headed by a Republican, its track record in both 2004 and 2006 was pretty solid. Also, while the other seven Obama vs. McCain non-tracking polls conducted entirely since March 11th show Obama ahead by an average of 1.3%, there is an important difference between Rasmussen and those seven polls. Specifically, Rasmussen is an automated, IVR style poll that does not use live interviewers, while the other seven non-tracking polls all utilize the more traditional, live-interview survey methodology. As such, I am worried that we are seeing a "Bradley effect" or "Wilder effect" between the IVR polls, and the live-interview polls. Perhaps people are telling an automated survey something that they would not tell a real life person.
Is there a hidden McCain advantage, based on a Bradley effect, where he is actually ahead by 5-8%? It is one possibility, and I find it quite worrying. It is also entirely possible that Rasmussen simply is wrong, given that their national polls have almost always been out of step with other national polls this year. For example, on the even of Super Tuesday, Rasmussen showed Mitt Romney tied with John McCain nationally, although the actual voting bore out very difficult results. It might also be possible that Rasmussen is using far too tight of a "likely voter" screen, especially given that the general election is so far away and that the Democratic campaign in 2008 has consistently demonstrated an ability to bring out some less than likely voters.
It is very, very difficult for me to believe that John McCain can win this election, given the enormous structural advantages Democrats have this year (fundraising, partisan self-identification, the general mood for change). My gut tells me that once Obama emerges as the presumptive nominee in the minds of the electorate, that he will gradually start to pull away from McCain and win comfortably. However, another part of me also worries that what Matthew Yglesias wrote today is true, and that in terms of electability, we were always deluding ourselves that either a woman or an African-American were ever really all that "electable" nationwide:
Given the extreme strong underlying pro-Democrat fundamentals, it's very hard for me to imagine how a "generic Democratic white dude" like Chris Dodd or John Edwards or, indeed, John Kerry would lose in this environment.
I don't know how likely it is, but the Rasmussen poll suggest that it is indeed possible that Obama does not hold a small lead over McCain, and instead actually faces a decently sized, 5-8% deficit at this point in the campaign. Might a live-interview "Bradley effect" be inflating Obama's (and Clinton's) numbers outside of IVR polls? Might Obama and Clinton always have been further behind McCain than live-interview polls would suggest? It is certainly a possibility, and a worrying one to consider.
OK, I'll say it: the nomination campaign is played out. After more than a year of settling the primary field, releasing dozens of policy papers, watching more than twenty debates, determining the key differences between the candidates, examining the evolving rhetoric and stump speeches, settling the primary calendar, building national organizations, and following the ups and downs of the polls, it seems that all we are left with is a lengthy, and increasingly boring, electability argument.
One the one hand, the Clinton campaign is arguing that only Hillary Clinton can win the general election, because she has passed the "Command in Chief test," because she has won enough states to win the electoral college, because she has already taken on the Republican Noise Machine and won while Obama has not been similarly vetted, because she has won "the big blue states" needed to win the general election, because she won Ohio and no one has ever won the general election without winning Ohio, and because she wins the key swing demographics like Latinos and working class whites. On the other hand, there are repeated implications from the Obama campaign and Obama supporters that there is no way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination because she can't win the popular vote, because she can't catch up in pledged delegates, and because the delegate math is stacked against her. And even beyond the arguments made by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, there is a third discussion about whether either Democrat can win if the nomination is not decided until the convention, or even if the rifts the party has opened up are too wide to heal in time.
Basically, after fourteen months of hashing out the differences between the candidates on virtually every other metric, with four weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, with no revotes in Florida and Michigan, and with less than 20% of the voting actually remaining, it seems that all we have left is a long argument about electability. That is a problem because, let's face it, long arguments about electability are really boring because they are ultimately unprovable and go nowhere. Even when discussions on race puncture the narrative, they are also couched in "electability" terms. Does Jeremiah Wright make Obama too racially polarizing to win the general election? Has Hillary Clinton alienated African-Americans too deeply to win the general election? It is a frustrating, boring catch-22, where the nomination campaign has become entirely an argument about who can win the general election, but we can't reach the general election because we can't settle the debate about who would perform better in it.
What isn't boring is the vast array of groups lined up to take on Republicans in the general election, a fully fledged left-wing conspiracy that, at long last, will be able to swamp the right in terms of activism and money spent. What isn't boring is the Responsible Plan to end the Iraq war, where an effort organized outside of the traditional institutional structures of party committees and think tanks now has over twenty-five endorsements from Democratic congressional candidates. What isn't boring is finding new and innovative means of attacking John McCain via search engine optimization, which is an effective, direct, quantifiable means of activism that anyone can accomplish simply through the use of embedded hyperlinks. We have built up a huge infrastructure utilizing new coalitions, new institutions, and new organizing techniques, and I am excited to see them in action. Unfortunately, it can't really take off yet because we are still slogging through an endless electability argument in a primary campaign with no end. In fact, even though I live in Philadelphia, I find the nearly dozen state legislative primaries to be more interesting than the presidential primary. The fact is that we already pretty much know that the campaign will continue past Pennsylvania, and we also already know the pledged delegate counts in the two main Philadelphia congressional districts (PA-01 will go for Obama 4-3, while PA-02 will go for Obama 6-3).
Barring something shocking, like the Michigan delegation being seated as is, the delegate math is clearly laid out before us, and Obama will slowly slog toward clinching the nomination sometime between May 20th and June 21st. For now, unfortunately, we are stuck in a holding pattern of an endless electability argument. I don't think that this sort of campaign will carry with it the benefit of the first two months of the year, where an intense, high-profile Democratic nomination campaign was largely helpful to the party. That is demonstrable by McCain taking the lead in general election matchups over the past two weeks. Without any voting to maintain interest between Mississippi and Pennsylvania, the void has been filled with electability and race (with the latter really being about electability). That is not the kind of discussion that Democrats need to win, because when Democrats talk about electability, no one believes what Democrats say.
I appreciate that campaigns spin and that to some extent it's so expected that they spin that they have to. That is, they're assumed to be putting the best spin on whatever happens so if they get more honest for a moment it'll be interpreted to mean that things are even worse.
And a lot of spin is delivered with a bit of a nudge and a wink. You know, "I know you're not going to buy this really but I have to say it anyway because it's my job." This campaign, however, there's been a lot of completely ludicrous stuff being said humorlessly, with no nod and wink attached. It's painful.
Now, I love campaigns and following the electoral side of politics. However, I do so mainly because I am interested in strategy, numbers, and using elections as a vehicle for progressive change. However, like Atrios, I often find the spin around campaigns to be depressingly stupid. I could just never work in communications where I would have to spout off obviously stupid spin, or work in non-partisan media where apparently everyone's job is to repeat that spin.
But here is an interesting question on campaign spin so far: what has been the stupidest campaign spin of this election cycle? I'll be equal opportunity on this one, and list arguments, one for each major remaining campaign, that I found especially stupid this year:
Clinton's "winning the big blue makes me electable" argument. Not only is the claim the winning primaries makes a candidate able to win general elections dubious, but the argument that winning big state primaries is especially retarded. I can't remember California ever deciding a Presidential election (I wasn't around in 1968). General election polling, financial resources, swing states, swing demographics and a proven ability to turn out new voters are all vastly superior means of determining general election "electability."
Obama's "Republicans will compromise with me" line. Talk about not learning anything from the last fifteen years of politics. Democrats can never apply the same level of pressure against the vast majority of congressional Republicans as various conservative apparatuses can. The conservative base frequently primaries Republicans we can barely scratch touch in general elections, strips them of committee assignments over which we have no control, bashes them in conservative media where we don't get a say, and dries up fundraising to which we were never contributing. We just can't pressure most Republicans the way conservatives can. Even the specter of general election defeat does not compare with the pressure the conservative movement can leverage against congressional Republicans.
Well, I don't think Karl Rove's going to endorse me. That becomes more and more obvious. But I find it interesting he's so obsessed with me. And I think the reason is because... (LAUGHTER) ...we know how to win. I mean, you know, I have been fighting against these people for longer than anybody else up here. I've taken them on and we've beaten them.
So, Hillary Clinton can beat the Republican attack machine in the media. However, if Hillary Clinton can beat back Republican attacks in the media and win, then why is her campaign complaining that the press has been so favorable to Barack Obama? Greg Sargent:
The sight of Hillary advisers attacking the press is suddenly everywhere -- and there's been a shift in the tone of the attacks that is striking. The suggestion is no longer merely that the coverage of Hillary is unfair and that the treatment of Obama is glowing, something that Hillaryland insiders have complained of for a long time.
Rather, the new suggestion is that the press is reveling in Hillary's downfall, and that this lust to see Hillary lose is driving coverage.
Yesterday, for instance, top Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson opined that "every time" the Obama campaign has leveled personal attacks against HIllary, "the press has largely applauded him." Another key Hillary surrogate, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, echoed this line, saying that the media has "relished" Hillary's "fall" with "glee."
Tensions between the Hillary campaign and the media boiled over yesterday. After news outlets began asking questions about Matt Drudge's "scoop" that unnamed Hillary staffers "circulated" a photo of Obama in Somali garb, Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer hit back at the media during a breakfast with reporters, suggesting they were happily allowing themselves to be led around on a leash by Drudge when he offered the chance to write negative stories about her.
"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," Singer said.
Wasn't Clinton's ability to beat back these attacks supposed to be a big selling point for her on the electability front? In fact, wasn't it also supposed to be a big problem for Barack Obama, who the media supposedly favors? Clinton campaign memo from mid-February:
The GOP Attack Machine Will Redefine the Democratic Candidate; Hillary Has Withstood That Process. As soon as the Democratic nominee is selected, the entire force of the GOP attack machine will bear down on that nominee. This attack machine has been built and honed over decades; it is formidable, and employs all forms of media, from talk radio to major newspaper columns to television, email, blogs, websites, direct mail, and extensive ground networks. It was able to skew public perceptions of two well-respected Democrats, Al Gore and John Kerry, creating impressions about them that were wildly out of step with reality. Hillary Clinton has withstood the full brunt of that machine and actually emerged stronger.(...)
So far, the Republicans have been laying low. Sen. Obama has never faced a credible Republican opponent or the Republican attack machine, so voters are taking a chance that his current poll numbers will hold up after the Republicans get going. With Hillary, the GOP has already tried just about every attack and has failed. Those attacks are already factored in her ratings, where she remains competitive against Sen. McCain. But when it comes to Sen. Obama this is a big unknown, and the likelihood is that his negatives will rise.
Now, pardon me for asking, but if Clinton is so well prepared to handle media attacks, and Obama is so poor at it, then why is Clinton's campaign complaining about unfavorable media coverage titling the election to Obama? Am I the only one who thinks those lines of thought are contradictory? More from John Aravosis:
Hillary's campaign had made the topic of the day "what will the Republicans throw at Barack Obama in the fall?" They're talking about Rezko today, they've race-baited Obama repeatedly in the past, and we've had reports that they've recently been sending reporters information branding Obama a Muslim.(...)
Hillary's campaign has already said that they are throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. They will discuss, are discussing, all the bad things that the GOP will throw at Obama in the fall.
So, what will the Republicans throw at Hillary in the fall?
Lots... But I'm not going to be discussing the details of those stories today because I don't want to make our candidate damaged goods in the fall. You will notice that neither Obama's campaign nor Obama's official, or unofficial, surrogates are talking about the Clintons' past or present scandals, the Clintons' negatives, what a Clinton run for the presidency will to Democratic congressional races and governor races across the country.
It does not make any sense to argue, on the one hand, that you are more electable because you are better at handling media attacks, but then, on the other hand, to argue that you are losing the campaign because of media attacks. It also does not make sense to argue on the one hand, that Obama is winning the campaign because of favorable media coverage, but then, on the other hand, to argue that Obama is not electable because he can't handle media attacks. Further, it does not make sense to argue that Obama is untested against Republican attacks, even though during the primary he has faced attacks on his experience, on Rezko, on his past drug use, on the possibility that he is a Muslim, and general race-baiting either directly from the Clinton campaign or from pro-Clinton surrogates. Not only are those exactly the same attacks he will face in the general election, but when both Democrats and Republicans are attacking along those lines, shouldn't the attacks be more effective? So far, being attacked on these fronts by both Clinton and McCain has barely damaged Obama at all.
This doesn't add up. Either Obama is not as strong as Clinton in handling media attacks, or he is not. You can't start complaining about media coverage and still expect people to believe that you are more electable because you are better than handling media attacks. However, right now that seems to be exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing. Unless the Clinton campaign is arguing that some sort of media conspiracy to build Obama up during the primary, only to later knock him down in the general, this doesn't add up. The irony of holding the latter position is that it is exactly the sort of crazy conspiracy that wingnuts and pundits alike have accused the Clintons of engaging in for the past twenty years.
In addition to Super Tuesday polling, there were four general election polls released the last week. According to all four polls, John McCain holds a narrow lead on Hillary Clinton, while Barack Obama holds a narrow lead on John McCain. The averages are McCain 47.3%--44.5% Clinton, and Obama 47.5%--44.0% McCain.
This is certainly good news for Obama. When discussing "electability," data points such as these need to be considered. However, it should also be noted that whenever a candidate is rising in polls for his or her party's nomination, that candidate also rises in polls for the general election. For example, from June through October, when Hillary Clinton was improving her standing for the Democratic nomination, she also performed much better than Obama in general election polls. This trend works in reverse as well, since McCain's low point in general election polling and Republican nomination polling both occurred in July and August.
This trend points to a conclusion about electability that should have been obvious all along: the candidate who wins the Democratic nomination will almost certainly be our most electable candidate. Not only is a candidate's general election polling fortunes closely connected to his or her current trend in the nomination campaign, but it should be obvious that the candidate who actually wins the most elections is the most electable candidate. This is especially the case when one considers that very few Republicans ever vote for Democrats in general elections, and when one considers that the relatively few closed primary states where independents can't vote tend to be in deep blue areas that even Michael Dukakis could win, like New York and Massachusetts.
As long as our nominee doesn't stumble to the nomination ala 1984 when Mondale clinched the nod through super delegates despite Gary Hart winning almost every state toward the end, whoever wins the nomination will be our most electable candidate. Whichever candidate is trending up in terms of the nomination will always be our most electable candidate in the general election.
Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain. The most hated, partisan Democrat versus one of the most independent, well liked Republicans. A race we can win?
I'm not talking about the reality of either candidate here. I'm talking public perception. And I'm not talking about ridiculous General Election polls. But we face a real choice soon, so who we want Representing out party this fall, and who can win in the fall. Right now, the two most likely nominees look to be John McCain versus Hillary Clinton. And I see some real problematic issues for Democrats is this is the race this fall, and I will elaborate below.
I believe that Hillary Clinton facing John McCain is a potential electoral disaster for Democrats this fall. And this is why, no GE polls included, just cold, hard facts and projections.
McCain: 46.3%--46.2% Clinton
Obama: 44.0%--43.7% McCain
This makes me feel a lot better, since it means that even if McCain wins the Republican nomination, the Democratic nominee will have the advantage. First, because he accepted matching funds, McCain will be broke from February 6th through September 1st, both Clinton and Obama will be on the air virtually continuously. Second, McCain is riding a huge, soft favroables peak right now, that can only go down during the general election. If McCain is tied with Clinton and Obama at his peak before the real spending and attacks begin, then he is actually the one facing an uphill battle, not Clinton or Obama. With a less than enthusiastic theocon base and an anti-McCain conservative media elite, both Clinton and Obama should have an overwhelming on the ground, donor, and buzz generator activist advantage, too.
This is good news. Right now, while I favor Obama to Clinton, I consider the general election much more important. In fact, I even consider the primaries in IL-03 (Pera vs. Lipinski), MD-04 (Edwards vs. Wynn), and IA-03 (Fallon vs. Boswell) more important than the Presidential primary when it comes to changing the Democratic Party. You better believe I would be more than happy for either Clinton or Obama to become President, especially if we win a couple of primaries against Bush Dogs and pick up a net of six Senate seats or more. Some might not agree, but that would probably be the most progressive government in the history of D.C., at least according to the standards of contemproary progressivism. The pre-Vietnam era of Kennedy / Johnson might be the only more progressive example I can think of.
McCain has secured a loan using his campaign's assets as collateral...but not future funds from the federal match... and has not opted in to the nomination funding system. The FEC has approved million of dollars worth of matching funds, but McCain can't spend them until March and hasn't decided whether he'll need to.
I thought that McCain took out a loan using his matching funds as collateral. Still, at worst right now that means Clinton and Obama are tied with McCain.
Update 2: I should note that while I would be very happy to see either Clinton or Obama become President, that doesn't mean I consider them ideal candidates or that I would stop criticizing them.
No matter what was the actual cause, it is probably accurate to say that African-Americans are more likely than whites to think that white voters lied about supporting Obama in New Hampshire. There has been long-standing semi-anecdotal, focus group evidence that African-Americans were more concerned than whites about white Democrats nominating Obama. Also, to no one's surprise African-Americans do perceive greater racism in America than do whites, as its easier to pick up such things when you are on the business end of them. My question in this post is not to definitely determine whether or not there was a Bradley effect in New Hampshire, but to ask if the perception of such an effect will help or hurt Obama as the primary season moves forward.
On the one hand, the perception of a Bradley effect could have a demoralizing impact on the African-American vote for Obama, which would obviously be a negative for his campaign, for the Democratic Party in general, and for the African-American community. On the other hand, it could solidify African-American support for Obama, and spur on even more African-American activist for Obama, due to a perception that more work and organization will be needed in order to overcome white racism in the primary season. I honestly have no idea which scenario is more likely. In Survey USA polls of South Carolina before and after Iowa, Obama gained 26 points among African-Americans, and 19 points among whites. He can still win narrowly South Carolina even without the boost he received from white voters, but he probably can't win South Carolina without the boost he received from African-American voters. So, this is a very important question for the Democratic nomination season.
Obama faces the prospect of severe and hostile vetting from his primary opponents, however. Upon her arrival in New Hampshire this morning, Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama's as yet unexploited political weaknesses: "Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?" she asked at an appearance in Nashua.
Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.
Wow, that second paragraph makes me like Obama a lot more. I guess I'm not one of those self-hating progressives that think being left-wing makes someone unelectable. In a primary campaign, in order for an attack like this to succeed, it requires liberals and progressives to believe that their ideals are in a minority nationwide, thus required a move to the center in order to win a general election. Smashing that belief among the Democratic rank and file would be an important behavioral change within the party.
Then again, since Edwards is attacking Obama from the left, the Clinton attack probably won't work anyway:
Edwards' staff also immediately began to take shots at Obama: Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Edwards' manager David Bonior described Obama as a sellout to corporate America: "Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world."
If your opponents are attacking you from both sides, the end result is probably that both attacks seem manufactured.
With votes finally about to be cast for the 2008 presidential primaries, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the end of this silliest of seasons is within sight. But before a single vote is tallied, let me make this simple observation: The MAN is going to win. The MAN always wins, and until something earth-shattering happens in American politics, the MAN will always win. Call it the Law of MAN.
Who da MAN? Well this year, that's Hillary Clinton and John McCain, of course. You see, the MAN is the Media's Anointed Nominee.
Two, three, and sometimes even four years before a given presidential election, Washington D.C.'s intelligensia and punditocracy proclaim who the next nominee for each party will be. Because many of these very serious people have a strong voice or influence in the mainstream media, the meme gets repeated throughout the country and a MAN for each party is determined well before anyone throws their hat into the ring. That's what I mean by the Media's Anointed Nominee.
Have progressives and progressivism made more of an impact on the 2008 Democratic primary than in 2004? This is a very large question that I think we need to spend a lot of time analyzing, but given that Iowa is tomorrow the question probably isn't answerable yet. I want to believe that progressive Democrats have advanced on our performance in 2004, and I think preliminary reviews show that to indeed be the case. In the extended entry, I provide the outline of this case.
Virtually the entire media narrative on the Democratic nomination campaign has been Clinton's "experience" vs. Obama's "change." If Edwards wins Iowa, the national media will, at least for one weekend, be forced to think of a new narrative that includes him. Stuart Rothenberg, one of the more reliable producers of clueless conventional wisdom, provides us with a preview of what that narrative will be:
Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).
The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America's fault. But he's also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.
Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.
Yes, surely anti-corporate rhetoric will turn off voters. People love big business. Or rather, as I show in the extended entry, outside of Congress, corporations are the least popular institutions in the country, and railing against them has easily made John Edwards the candidate who polls best in the general election against Republicans.
In the extended entry, I attempt to fully explain my decision to cheer for John Edwards in Iowa, a decision about which I feel pretty certain now. This is, of course, my decision alone, and is not meant to reflect on anyone else on Open Left.
"When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], 'See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who's strong to defend America at a time of concern.' Well, Senator Clinton is strong," he said. "And she's experienced. And she's tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that's true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that's one of the reasons why I'm supporting her."
Few things irritate me more about prominent DLC types than their tendency to preface virtually everything they propose for Democrats with how that something will help Democrats get elected. They do it allthetime. I know that an election is close, and electability will be a concern for some. Still, it is one thing to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America, and quite another to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America because otherwise Republicans will attack us. The former isn't very good, as it consents to a conservative view of foreign policy. However, the later is even worse, since it implies we need to adopt a conservative view of foreign policy in which we don't really believe so that we can accrue more political power. One buys into Republican and conservative frames, while the other buys into Republican and conservative frames while simultaneously making Democrats look like valueless, power hungry politicians who think they can trick the rubes who are the American people. And so, in addition to making Democrats look weak on national security, DLC types like Bayh end up reinforcing a second insidious conservative narrative: that Democrats are a bunch of soulless, liberal elites who think they are better than most of the backward rubes who live in America.
The electability language of the DLC is so colossally bad for Democrats as a whole that it is difficult to think of a less effective way for Democrats to get elected than continuing to utilize said language.
