-
sponsorship
We usually do a digest of all the juicy data from the exit polls on primary nights. But tonight one datum matters most: When voters made up their mind, and who they voted for once they did. Since Hillary Clinton went sort-of negative on Barack Obama in the past week, she should see the fruits of her labor among voters who decided in the past seven days. Instead, she got sour grapes.
Clinton’s negative attacks were designed to prevent Obama from capitalizing on any momentum he gained from eight consecutive wins on Feb. 9 and 12. But they didn’t work. According to CNN’s exit polls, 27 percent of Democratic voters made up their minds since the Potomac primary one week ago, and the majority of them—58 percent—favored Obama. Compare that to the 26 percent who made up their minds in “the past month” (but also, assumedly, before the past week). They favored Obama 66 percent to 31 percent for Clinton.
The eight-point differential between the two blocs is the metric of interest. Exit polls are notoriously flimsy, but it’s safe to assume that some of that eight-point drop is because of Clinton’s debate-baiting ads and plagiarism accusations. But it probably amounted to only a 2 percent decline in the overall vote tally. That won’t even a form a ripple in the nomination ocean—especially when delegates are allotted proportionally.
Tonight, Clinton’s campaign learned that slightly negative attacks aren’t enough to derail Obamamentum. And if it didn’t stop him pre-Wisconsin, it sure as hell isn’t going to stop him afterward. Clinton tried being nice in the lead-up to Super Tuesday—it didn’t work. Leading up to tonight, Clinton tried being stern in the lead up to Wisconsin—and it still didn’t work. The only option left is all-out negativity.
That’s not a tasty choice. An eight-point hit among 27 percent of voters isn’t enough of an impact for Clinton to justify tearing down the (gulp) likely Democratic nominee and ruining her own political legacy. If Clinton really thrashes Obama over the next two weeks, she may drain enough support to win Ohio and Texas, and therefore the nomination. But in the meantime she’ll probably weaken her own chances in the general election. Swing voters don’t like negative politicians—especially those who take down members of their own party. And last we checked, swing voters like John McCain.
-
sponsorship
Back when Hillary Clinton was the "inevitable" front-runner, she bragged about how much the GOP candidates talked about her. Apparently those days are over. In his victory speech tonight, McCain refers to his eventual opponent, and it sure doesn't sound like Hillary:
"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."
Notice how McCain picks up where Hillary left off. He echoes her message that Obama is all rhetoric—an "eloquent but empty call for change"—and adds a dollop of small-government orthodoxy for taste. He also previews the generational war that would play a larger role in an Obama-McCain contest than it did in the Democratic primary: "I'm not the youngest candidate. But I am the most experienced."
Obama hasn't started engaging McCain to the same degree—he has a primary to win, after all. But look for Obama to keep thanking McCain for his "five decades of service" every chance he gets.
-
sponsorship
John McCain has won yet another primary, this time in Wisconsin, which puts him ever closer to officially surpassing the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination. He once again beat the quixotic Mike Huckabee, who Republicans (and sometimes McCain) have started to regard as a nuisance. But that’s a foolish mistake—he’s actually helping McCain.
With every McCain win, the Republican race has an excuse to butt in to cable news’ wall-to-wall coverage of the much-more-intriguing Democratic race. If Huckabee were to drop out, McCain’s victories would be completely empty—and completely unnewsworthy. McCain’s continued triumphs over Huckabee make him look like a winner, which fits into his own personality as a fighter and his campaign’s message that he can beat the Democrat in November and win the war on terror. (That Huckabee is always termed as the “insurgent candidate” is the cherry on top.)
As McCain has evolved into his party’s leader, Huckabee has morphed into the party’s gadfly. As he draws blood from the Republican base, he’s making McCain’s weaknesses explicit, which allows the entire party to rally and heal the wounds. If there’s any time for McCain to address his weaknesses, it’s now, while the Democrats continue to squabble over superdelegates and plagiarism. Plus, McCain is insulated from any real harm since he has the nomination and the party establishment wrapped up. He's like a Republican Bubble Boy.
Huckabee has often said he’ll continue to soak up the social conservative vote until McCain reaches the magic delegate number of 1,191. While it happens, McCain should be soaking in the wins.
-
sponsorship
The Wisconsin exit polls were just starting to trickle in when the Clinton campaign released “excerpts” from her speech tonight. This isn’t the optimistic nonconcession speech she gave after Obama’s win last week in the Potomac primary. Tonight, she trades quips about George W. Bush being “all hat and no cattle” for barbs directed at Obama: “Both Senator Obama and I would make history. But only one of us is ready on day one to be commander in chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans.”
It’s a continuation of the contrast strategy Clinton has been using for the past week—a strategy that, as the Wisconsin results show, didn’t work. First, she picked a fight over the number of debates, hoping to paint Obama as all style, no substance. Then her campaign pushed the plagiarism accusation. (The campaign denies leveling the charge in the first place.) Needless to say, neither accusation stuck. The people of Wisconsin didn’t feel “ignored,” as Howard Wolfson suggested, nor did they buy that Obama borrowing words from a friend and colleague was grounds for punishment in the polls. Exit polls show that 53 percent of voters answered “yes” when asked whether Clinton attacked unfairly, as opposed to 33 percent when asked about Obama.
But instead of backing off, Clinton is doubling down. She’s in a good position to do so. She maintains a comfy lead in Ohio and a sizable one in Texas. Exit polls show Obama closing in on whites and voters with incomes under $50,000—two Clinton strongholds—but her lead among Latinos remains untouched.
The difficulty, though, lies in presenting a contrast that voters will believe. The debate shtick didn’t work, nor did the knock on Obama’s authenticity. Clinton needs a better hook to illustrate the contrast between herself and Obama. The best forum for that has never been the airwaves—it's been the stage. Luckily for her, a debate is right around the corner.
-
sponsorship
A few years ago, the Boston Globe Magazine declared billion the new million. Previously unimaginable, it was the new yardstick of an expanding society—the new standard for what it takes to make you say whoa.
Now the same spirit of growth has pervaded the Democratic contest, which often resembles an arms race more than a political race. Fundraising is booming, crowds are swelling, and YouTube has raised the bar for what makes a successful campaign video.
Here are some of the new benchmarks, falling short of which now constitutes failure:
- Superdelegates stolen from opponent: 1 a week
- Conference calls held with reporters: 4 a day
- Facebook friends: 588,537
- Full-time familial surrogates: 2
- YouTube views for campaign ad: 465,000
- Songs about candidate: 3 a week
- Day on which you’ll be ready to lead: 1
-
sponsorship
Let’s take a breath and remember that a couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the Wisconsin primary. Then Barack Obama survived Super Tuesday, swept 10 contests in a row, and out-campaigned Clinton in the Badger State. All of a sudden, Obama had the momentum, and it was his state to win—not Clinton’s.
But there’s a real chance the state will revert to the former conventional wisdom and Hillary will win. It’s also likely that Obama will continue his assault on the pledged delegate ledgers. It all depends on your half-glass tendencies going into tonight’s results. Here’s why Clinton might win and why Obama may not lose:
Clinton will win:
- Demographics: Obama’s recent wins have started infringing on Clinton’s normal demographics (women, whites, and middle-class voters, primarily), but Wisconsin is her chance to reclaim her turf. Ninety percent of the state is white; in 2004, half the electorate made less than $50,000, and most of the residents called themselves moderate or conservative. If Clinton can’t retain these voting blocs, then she has bigger problems than Wisconsin on her hands.
- Polls: The people paid to know what’s going on don’t know what’s going on in Wisconsin. In American Research Group tracking polls, Clinton was up by six points, only to be down by 10 points a day later. If that trend holds, then she’ll be up again by the time polls close. (Other polls show Obama comfortably ahead.)
- Negativity: Hillary didn’t quite get mean as she did get critical. First came the televised repartee over Obama’s refusal to debate in Wisconsin. Then Clinton controlled the news cycle for 36 hours with allegations that Obama “plagiarized” a speech from longtime friend and supporter Deval Patrick. It may not make Obama’s core supporters switch to Clinton’s side, but it may make some of his independent newcomers flake away and stay home today.
- Backlash: Obama has jumped the shark among the political elite, and that may start to trickle down to the average voter. If the cheese heads in Wisconsin think Obama is too cocky, they may punch him in the ego and tell him to suck it up. Let’s see Barack Obama be the country’s new bicycle after that.
- Republicans: Wisconsin’s primary is super-duper open, so independents and Republicans can vote in it. If Republicans want to prolong the Democrats’ nightmare, they’ll cast a Democratic ballot for Clinton rather than a relatively meaningless vote for John McCain.
Obama won’t lose:
- Independents: Republicans aren’t the only non-Democrats who can vote for a donkey. So can independents. And with McCain’s all-but-nomination, free-agent voters don’t have to rally to the maverick’s side anymore. They can all flock to the Democratic side, where their vote really matters. Polls suggest Obama does significantly better among non-Democrats.
- Neighbors: Wisconsin is bordered by four states, three of which have voted for Obama. The only one that didn’t was Michigan, and Obama’s absence from the ballot may have had something to do with that. Moreover, nearly every county that directly borders Wisconsin favored Obama over Clinton. (The only one that didn’t was a Minnesota county that had Clinton and Obama tied.) Plus, Wisconsin’s southern border is snuggled right next to Illinois’ northern edge. Not even a border fence could stop Obama’s homeland love.
- Weather: It’s frozen-tundra cold in Wisconsin today. Single-digit temperatures hovered outside of polling stations, which means Clinton’s elderly voters may not be able to brave the chill. Fewer old people means more celebrations for Obama.
- Stumping: Obama campaigned twice as much as Clinton in Wisconsin. Absence probably won’t make the heart grow fonder.
- Shmoshmentum: Previously, momentum hasn’t meant squat, because voters didn’t want to coronate a winner too soon. Now, the Democrats may be worried about choosing a nominee too late. If there’s ever a point where Democrats are going to rally behind a candidate, it’s now.
-
sponsorship
After the crime against humanity that was “Hillary
4 U and Me,” it’s hard to imagine a Clinton fan one-downing it.
Well, consider it done. It has to
be an Obama supporter making these, right?
(h/t Wonkette)
-
sponsorship
When is a primary not a primary?
I feel as if we’ve been asking that question every five minutes. First, the Michigan primary didn’t matter. Then Florida. Today, the state of Washington joins the club as the latest primary to not matter at all.
But, wait, didn’t Washington vote already? Yes, and that’s the point. The state held its caucuses on Feb. 9, when Obama swept with 68 percent to Clinton’s 31 and McCain eked out a victory over Huckabee. But according to state rules, both parties also must hold a primary. The Republicans have chosen to allocate 19 of the state’s 37 pledged delegates in today’s primary; the Democrats have chosen to give zero. So in an ironic twist, the uncontested contest (McCain vs. Huck) has delegates at stake, whereas the contested contest (Clinton vs. Obama) does not. Each contest means nothing in its own special way.
But if there’s one thing we’ve learned from Michigan and Florida, it’s that any contest can be squeezed for meaning, no matter how few delegates are at stake. The Clinton campaign’s strongest argument for having Florida count has been turnout—how can you ignore the wishes of 1.5 million voters? Washington is also expected to have super-high turnout, given that most voters vote by mail and 30 percent of voters in some counties had cast ballots a week before election day. If the primary tally favors Hillary, watch the Clinton campaign use it to try to stanch the bleeding of the past eight contests. A Clinton victory would also boost their claim that Obama can only win caucuses, while giving the strong impression of a reversal.
Only in the most rational, left-brain, up-is-up-and-down-is-down state of mind can you say that the Washington primary means nothing. But this election has been about as rational as a cucumber. At this point, it would almost be more surprising if Washington's primary didn't end up deciding the nomination. So maybe that's a stretch, but keep an eye on the results tonight. If there's anything there that could stunt Obama's growth, expect to hear that Washington matters after all.
-
sponsorship
The Obama campaign has a new favorite story. Politico’s Roger Simon reports that Hillary’s camp is courting not only superdelegates—that’s old news—but pledged delegates as well.
Sweet-talking pledged delegates is perfectly legal, according to DNC rules. A “pledged” delegate is merely someone who signs a pledge, which they’re entitled to violate with no more punishment than if they’d broken a promise to a friend (or in this case, a lot of friends).
But Team Obama is in hysterics, alleging that Clinton is trying to subvert the will of the American people. And if you think about the mechanics of swinging pledged delegates—you’re essentially undoing hundreds of thousands of real votes—it does seem freakout-worthy. (Although Clinton spokesman Phil Singer says the Obama campaign is doing the same thing. [Update 1:21 p.m.: Both camps deny pursuing each other's pledged delegates.]) Obama's people don’t claim that it’s illegal. Rather, they’re saying, Who cares if the rules don’t explicitly forbid it? It’s wrong.
Their logic on superdelegates, however, is a lot more muddled. The question of how superdelegates should behave, which we explored last week, has two possible answers. Either they should vote with their heart (or brain, or gut) or they should go with whoever wins more pledged delegates. (The first method is thought to benefit Clinton; the second, Obama.) At first Obama said that supers should follow the lead of voters, but his campaign has since been murky on the issue. “I do think they need to exercise their independent judgment,” said campaign manager David Plouffe on a conference call today. But he also said that “a lot will go into their calculus” and that “one of the things they need to bring into their thinking is the will of voters.”
Wait, so they should exercise independent judgment and factor in the pledged delegate count? That’s like saying, Make your own decision, as long as you make it this way.
So, why all the word games? Why not just pick a methodology and stick with it? The reason is that circumstances may shift. Pledged delegate hegemony benefits whoever is leading; “independent judgment” benefits whoever is losing, or who has more sway among party faithful. According to that calculus, the rhetorical shift among Obama’s people signals a dip in confidence that Obama will be leading in pledged delegates when this whole thing wraps. Why else resurrect the “independent judgment” language? Sure, it’s the kind of hedging a front-runner has to do. But it also reeks of trying to have it both ways.