TNR BLOGS

August 07, 2008 | 7:11 PM
August 07, 2008 | 7:01 PM
August 07, 2008 | 5:57 PM

August 07, 2008 | 7:19 PM
August 07, 2008 | 5:41 PM
August 07, 2008 | 3:04 PM

August 07, 2008 | 4:34 PM
August 07, 2008 | 3:55 PM
August 07, 2008 | 3:13 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 07, 2008 | 3:03 PM
August 05, 2008 | 7:34 PM
August 04, 2008 | 5:59 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
22.04.2008
So the Race Goes On. Don't Have a Conniption.

Hillary Clinton's candidacy lives to see another day. And, I'm guessing, Barack Obama's supporters are depressed. They think Obama is all but certain to win the nomination anyway. The longer this campaign continues, they figure, the more damaged for the fall election he will be.

I agree that Obama will probably be the nominee. But I'm less convinced this long race will damage his November prospects.

Why the dash of optimism? Two graphs from the Gallup poll explain it.

Here's the first, showing national opinion in a hypothetical matchup between Obama and John McCain:

 

Now here's the second, showing Clinton versus McCain: 


 

The polls you see depicted here stretch back more than a month--a period during which the Reverend Wright controvery broke, Obama gave his race speech, Clinton's Bosnia flap exploded, Obama made his remarks about "bitter" voters, and the Dems had their scandal-centric debate. If you look at Clinton and Obama head-to-head, you'll see their support bounced up and down quite a bit.

And yet, despite all of this volatility, Clinton and Obama's respective standings versus McCain barely budged.

In fact, both Clinton and Obama performed almost exactly the same against McCain throughout--polling virtually even with him, at around 45 percent--no matter how popular or unpopular either was within the Democratic primary electorate.

But shouldn't McCain actually be doing badly, given the state of the economy and the war? And doesn't that just prove how damaging this campaign has been? As long as Clinton and Obama are fighting each other, the eventual nominee can't attack McCain effectively. He's getting a free ride.

Well, maybe. But look at those graphs again. If McCain is getting a free ride, it doesn't seem to be doing much good. He's running no stronger against either candidate than he was before the Wright story, Bittergate, or the Bosnia controversy. 

It's possible McCain's numbers are stagnant simply because Clinton and Obama soaking up all of the media attention. But there may be another explanation, one I know I've read elsewhere (maybe in a Gallup analysis, though I can't find it now): That 45 percent figure represents a ceiling of his support. 

After all, barring some outside shock to the political system, there is no reason to think McCain's numbers will go up. People already have overwhelmingly positive feelings about him--stronger than about either of the Democratic candidates. They see him as a likeable, principled war hero whom they trust on national security. Very few realize that he has supported privatizing Social Security, that he opposes universal health insurance, that he supports free trade without qualification, and so on. Once the voters learn these things, at least some of them are likely to abandon him. 

If anything, McCain has the look of an Internet stock circa 1999: Great numbers, lousy fundamentals.

Admittedly, to educate the voters about McCain the Democrats need some time. If, for example, the Democrats wait until their convention in late August to pick a nominee, then it may really be too late to change public perceptions in time for the general election.

But late August is a long time away. Another few weeks may not be all that debilitating. Howard Dean and Harry Reid have all but said the party elders are prepared to shut this down, via superdelegate acclamation, once the last states have voted. That'd still leave most of the summer and the entire fall to run against McCain.

Don't take my word for it, though. A little while ago, I asked a bona fide public opinion expert, Ruy Teixeira, what he thought. "It will not be that hard nor take an arduous labor of months to bring him down to where he's eminently beatable. Why people think McC can plausibly overcome all his liabilities is beyond me--sure, it's possible he could; it's just not very likely."

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that the long race is good for the Democrats. At this point, it clearly isn't.

But--unless I'm missing something in these numbers--I see no reason to panic, either. At least not yet.

(If McCain ends up winning big in November, feel free to say "I told you so.")

Update: Over at the Atlantic, Ross Douthat is thinking along the same lines. 

--Jonathan Cohn 

 

Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:05 PM with 29 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

McCain's got plenty of gaping weaknesses, sure. But htis weakness of Obama is hugely disturbing: in a Gallup Poll of 6,158 registered voters taken March 31-April 6, McCain was 6 points ahead of Obama among the 1,140 voters with a high school education or less.

The VAcentrist argument, that these voters simply had low awareness of BHO and that they would come around to him as they began to see and hear the candidate, doesn't wash. (Note also that these figures don't strip out afr-amer voters from the total, which means BHO's tally among working-class _whites and hispanics_ is probably at least 10 points lower than McCain's.)

This is nuts. The party of the working man simply cannot win with a candidate whom the white and hispanic working class don't care for and who would prompt them to defect to a Republican.

The man needs to close this gap by spending some of his vast reserves of afr-amer political capital and advocating scrapping race-based aff action, replacing it with class-based aff action. That's not a "pivot,", btw; that's a perfect example of new thinking and bipartisan boldness of the sort that Obama's campaign supposedly represents.

This is a no-brainer, really. Bizarre that he hasn't put it forth, actually, esp since afr-amers aren't going to defect to HIllary, or, perish the thought, McCain.

April 23, 2008 1:37 AM

Crock1701 said:

Here's the problem though:  McCain is staying flat not campaigning, he's just raising money and doing little biography tours to position himself as the old experienced patriot war horse, etc etc.  And The Democrats can't take him on yet!  All the money that is flooding into Obama and Clinton to trash each other is not being used either on a) Down ticket races or b) Attacking and framing McCain early, and introducing Obama to the nation well.  Clinton's trying to introduce him as bittergate and Wrightgate and doing McCain's work for him.  Letting this sham go on does damage the party.  Just because there isn't poll movement right now doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity for poll movement.  It's like saying all is well in the economy if the GDP doesn't shrink this semester:  If it's not growing to its full potential, it's still in bad shape.  We have an opportunity cost from the race going on this long that is substantial.

April 23, 2008 1:51 AM

eharder2 said:

I think the coin toss GE matchups reflect a lack of general lack of information.  The various scenarios are too hypothetical at this stage.  Once the fall rolls around the stark advantages held by the democratic candidate will have begun to manifest.  

April 23, 2008 2:17 AM

jmkerr said:

In addition to the comments above, I'm wondering--these polls you're using. Would they be the same polls that said Clinton would barely pull out Pennsylvania by 6 points?

Has it occurred to you lately that, for whatever reason, the polls are vastly overstating Obama's support?

What am I saying? Of course it hasn't. It's all that Koolaid.

April 23, 2008 2:21 AM

ralphnelle said:

Obama is on record more than once, including last week's debate, in favor of class based affirmative action.

April 23, 2008 3:14 AM

matthawk said:

Affirmative Action is not an issue in this campaign. Why make it one? It only plays into the hands of those who want this election to be all about race, i.e. the anti-immigrant and paranoid of blacks crowd. I don't think it's wise play in that mud; it seems that people are focused on the economy, the war, and health insurance (as well they should be).

April 23, 2008 3:29 AM

ZACummings said:

Interesting...all the candidates remain steady at 45%, but only McCain has reached his support ceiling...meanwhile, the Comeback-Kid-Clinton and Second-Coming-Of-The-Messiah-Obama are only warming up...Very intriguing logic, Mr. Cohn...

April 23, 2008 6:50 AM

Tammy said:

I understand everyone's concerns about the race going on, but maybe we should start paying attention to the micro-level (what goes on with regular voters) rather than the macro (polls) and at times artificial level (pundits and experts).  What I hear from people on the ground and what so many other people tell me is that they are determined to move the country past Bush policies, they want economic relief and security, our trooops out of Iraq, and healthcare for their families.  So many see those issues as fundamental to the democratic agenda.  They don't see McCain as providing these things.  

Regardless of what the media and pundits/experts say, the candidates need to work on getting people out to vote and drawing support from the groups where they are lacking.  This is especially the case for Obama (Tep is correct here).  Last night, only 12% of PA voters were under 30 years of age.  African Americans made up 12% as well.  If these are two of his largest constituencies, he needs to increase their (especially young voters) turnout substantially and broaden his appeal to Clinton's groups.  I think some direct and aggressive outreach should work.  I've said it before, I don't think the celebrity rallies appeal to older and less-educated people.  His people need to be deployed forcefully at the local level and Obama needs to establish some shared identity with groups who are simply not like him.  

If he can't do this, then Clinton should be the nominee.  The most troubling thing for me about supporting Obama, is that there is no evidence that he can unite the party like he claims.  The voting field is as demographically divided.  This flies in the face of his rhetoric about tearing down red and blue states.  

April 23, 2008 8:30 AM

wyllie said:

The problem with issues like the economy, the war, and esp.health insurance is that these are fairly complicated issues.   Risking coming across sounding like an elitist, many average American voters can't really grasp what these issues are really about.  It's much easier for them to get worked up about flag pins, lies in Bosnia and who's pastor is doing who.   Trying to understand what's wrong with the economy takes too much time for someone that's working two jobs to keep their micro economy in the black.  

Take an issue like McCain's gas tax holiday. Many see an immediate  personal advantage and don't really care what the implications are.    So, while many understand the many ramifications of removing the tax, they tend not to be the working class voters.  It's a very simple, cut and dry issue - remove the tax and save 20 cents on a gallon of gas - it easy to understand.  On the other hand, listening to Obama explain raising some cap in the tax structure that would eventually come around to  helping the elderly takes too much thinking and, as a result, can be interpreted too many different ways.  What he should say is that he's going to put an extra hundred dollars in their pension check every month.  He can explain how he's going to do it afterwards, but his talking point should be 'extra hundred dollars a month for the elderly' - something that the average person can understand

April 23, 2008 8:32 AM

Hungarian Great Bela Tarr said:

In the same issue, the main story has this headline: "The Next McGovern? Obama may still get the nomination, but his loss tonight deals a harsh blow to his electibility arguments."

If sites like TNR are going to be spinning Pennsylvania this way, then I think I will go ahead and have that conniption.

April 23, 2008 9:55 AM

anonevent said:

Actually, raphnelle, I'm all for class based affirmative action too:  scholarships based on need, earned income tax credits, higher taxes for the rich.  I call it being progressive.

April 23, 2008 10:03 AM

cthulhu2008 said:

Uhhhh, those graphs show less than a month of data...

April 23, 2008 10:27 AM

cthulhu2008 said:

One more thing, every dime Obama spends now he could spend in the general.

April 23, 2008 10:28 AM

jmkerr said:

"I think some direct and aggressive outreach should work.  I've said it before, I don't think the celebrity rallies appeal to older and less-educated people.  His people need to be deployed forcefully at the local level and Obama needs to establish some shared identity with groups who are simply not like him.  "

He did that, or tried to, in PA. He can't get them.

I think it's more accurate to say that Obama should have collapsed completely, but the black vote, which is immune to actual information about him, and the liberal vote, which actually *approves* of the information revealed in the past 6 weeks, is an unnatural prop that most others don't have.

And that's why yes, the Dems should nominate Clinton. I think the stronger support she has among Obama supporters comes from blacks, not liberals. If the black leadership in the Democratic party started preparing people for that possibility, it wouldn't be so unthinkable.

April 23, 2008 10:29 AM

Tammy said:

JMkerr.  I don't think Obama ever established shared identity with the white working class.  His tour bus trip through rural PA brought him closer to Hillary.  Yet, he stoppe dthat about ten days before the election.  He should have kept on plugging.  He may not be able to get them.  They certainly aren't on the blogs nor are they wedded to the nightly news.  

April 23, 2008 11:20 AM

ironyroad said:

As we're now back where we were, I still think that both candidates will make good presidents, but it looks to me like the electability arguments are working slightly more for Obama than for her.

Against McCain he has youth vs. age (a double-edged sword, but still), fresh outsider vs. DC insider, future vs. past, race-literate vs. old-style white guy, attraction for indepdents probably cuts both ways.

Against McCain Hillary has one big one:  first serious female candidate.

Nonetheless they both have stuff to offer that McCain will have difficulties with unless he makes a very distinctive run to the center.  In particular, with regard to the bread-and-butter issues, once the Democratic nomination is decided, then that candidate will have a free-fire zone to start pinning McCain down on what exactly his practical vision for America is.  McCain's problem:  he doesn't have one.

Against McCain both Obama and Clinton will make mincemeat of him as regards healthcare and the econmy; and, if they find the right note, they can eclipse him on the national security question too.

To that extent, there needs to be a drop-dead date by which it's clear.  It's dangerous to wait until the Convention, as in these particular circumstances there's got to be some time for wound-licking and for the strength of of the losing side to be gradually aligned with new nominee's team.

One point:  it's certainly true that Obama doesn't seem to be connecting as much as he'd like to the white working-class voters, but there may be some people who don't want to be connected with.  If there's no readiness there, no approach will work.

April 23, 2008 11:47 AM

blackton said:

tammya@udel.edu, I can see how you can say no to Obama, but you can't possibly say yes to Hillary. If you want to make the case for a Gore compromise then I am all ears. Simply put, Hillary has thrown away the black vote, now and forever, (as it is now, they will sit it out if she stole the nomination) and it will only take McCain choosing Condi Rice or Powell to get them to vote for him. She is like Walter Mondale in 84 without the black vote and we all know how well the Mondale-Ferraro ticket did.

And as of now, her unfavorability ratings approach George Bush.

Make the case for Gore, I am all ears. But to make the case to go from bad to worse, it doesn't make much sense.

Tell me how Clinton wins back blacks, and then go out and talk to some blacks as to whether it will work. Hillary won, what 3 black votes in Pa.? Scarily bad.

April 23, 2008 12:52 PM

Tammy said:

Blackton.  I'm sorry to disagree with you on this.  I do back Hillary and would continue to do so if she wins the nod.  I don't think Gore is an option and am rather surprised you would think he is.  One of the strong convictions of Obama supporters is that Super D's can't decide this thing.  So why would you let the Super D's throw in someone who is not even running?  Talk about denying the will of the voters!  

Hillary won 16% of the African American vote in PA.  That is an improvement over past states.  I think Nutter gets much of the credit.  I was on the ground there.  African American's dont hate her and they will support her more than you think.  Nevertheless, your point about Hillary's unfavorable ratings in valid, my friend.  She needs to get a grip.  Many of her supporters, including myself, hope that Penn's departure will help rescind the dislike.  We'll see.

April 23, 2008 1:00 PM

Political Animal said:

THE McCAIN BUBBLE....Jon Cohn notes that despite the grueling, muddy, endless Democratic primary campaign — complete with Wrightgate, Bittergate, Bowlinggate, Tuzlagate, etc. — Gallup's tracking polls that match up Obama and Clinton vs.

April 23, 2008 1:00 PM

blackton said:

tammya, so it is ok if Hillary denies the will of the voters but if a compromise candidate that is pretty close to being a guaranteed victory in November gets it, that is now bad? Is the goal to win at all costs? Then Gore is the guy. If it is not, then Obama has won the right to lose.

I bring up Gore to point out that Clinton can't make this electability argument for herself, but then claim it is invalid for the Democratic party as a whole. If Obama were to throw his support to Gore (highly unlikely I know because he himself wants victory in November for Dems.) then certainly the Superdelegates would be free to go to Gore. In such a case, I would love to hear Hillary spin this. Can she honestly argue that she is more equipped than Gore? Or has more experience? Has anything?

April 23, 2008 1:41 PM

r-brown207 said:

If Obama is going to connect to older voters and those who don't spend their time immersed in the details of politics which is the blue-collar and less educated voters he is going to have to find a way out of the change, hope mantra of his campaign. The young and the better educated are buying the charisma, hope change message of his campaign but he is not going to break out of that group to a measurable degree with older voters using the same approach. Call Hillary supporters cynical, bitter, accustomed to old politics or whatever Obama doesn't ring true to them. Hate her if you will for her doggedness, and tenacity but lots of people respect that in Hillary. Obama has not shown the same level of toughness. In the rough and tumble game of politics sometimes you can't just talk your way through it since it becomes a dogfight and the toughest character wins. I know that is uncomfortable to those who wish for a new politics of civility and purely intellectual engagement but life is not always nice, fair, and without conflict. Unless Obama can show that has the toughness to go along with the intellect there is a segment of the voting public that he will never convince. In my estimation Obama has a serious problem to unravel since his entire pitch is based upon an approach which does not appeal to a basic group of Democrats. I can say for certain that I hope he solves the problem because I don't want to lose this election because the Democrats have once again nominated someone who is soft or unelectable. Save the new politics routine and prove that it can work after being elected. The old dogs just aren't buying the Obama spiel. Do what it takes to win an election now. A win is a win in the real world. How you win is for the classroom or political blogs. Such sentiment may be anathema to died in the wool Obama supporters but the "new politics" isn't here yet which will be dramatically demonstrated during the general election.

April 23, 2008 1:50 PM

ironyroad said:

Gore isn't going to be the candidate.  Gore has already lost one election that he should have won.  And if you think Obama's purported "condescension" to voters is a problem, just wait until you plug in Gore!  In any event, either Hillary or Barack will be the candidate and imo it's still an open question as to whether a joint ticket might not emerge from this.  Stranger things have happened.

April 23, 2008 2:04 PM

Tammy said:

Blackton.  I'm guessing Obama will still get the nomination, even though Hillary is my candidate.  Still, I shall support Obama if he gets the nod, as I suspect he will.  I'm less convinced by the pledged delegate arugment.  the popular vote totals are more powerful to me.  You?  

If she doesn't close the popular vote gap (she will not close the pledged delegate gap), then I ddon't think she should get the nod.  But here is where we might have confusion.  What percentage or number would a candidate have to be ahead in the popular vote to claim he/she legitimately has the majority or wil of the people?  Richardson said, himself, in defense of his Obama endorsement that his state went for Hillary by only 1.5%.  Richardson didn't see that as thwarting the will off his own constituents when he endorsed Obama.

BTW, I'm tired of these arugments that Super delegates are over-turning the voters will.  The guy from Kansas endorsed Obama today even though his state went for Hillary.  That narrative is weak for me.

April 23, 2008 2:26 PM

blackton said:

irony, I realize Gore won't be the nominee, but don't pretend the Gore of now is the same as the one in 2000. Since then he has been right about pretty much everything (except Dean) and won a Nobel and Academy award to boot.

tammya, I never said the sd's are overturning the will of the voters, but believe you me if Clinton got the nod over Obama with him having pledged delegates and popular vote totals, do you honestly think the Republicans won't exploit that to death. "Hillary stole the Dem. nomination, don't let her steal the Presidency." Bullshit I know, but so is Ayers type nonsense.

The popular vote total I agree is more compelling, but I can't see how she can make it up, and counting Michigan (especially) would make people nuts. I called for revotes in Michigan and Florida long ago, but they didn't. You can't count tainted votes that had been agreed upon by advance from all candidates would not count.

So in the end, Obama will have the popular vote total and pledged delegate totals. And if he has the pledged vote total, then he really only needs a one vote majority in the popular vote to validate him completely. That is the way democracy should work.

April 23, 2008 3:35 PM

Tammy said:

Blackton. One thing before I go educate the masses (or just the 25 in my upper-level seminar haha), the issue of Michigan and Florida is going to work against BOTH Hillary and Barack.  By not counting those votes, Barack will and is currently being seen as somneone comfortable with disenfranchising voters.  Of course, this is not the case.  Point: MI and FL hurt Dems both ways: counted or not counted.  Have a good one.

p.s. agreed, one vote shoudl indicate winner.  So does that mean Richardson, kennedy and others should retract their endorsements as well as those who did the same for Hillary?  Quagmire!

April 23, 2008 4:29 PM

woland said:

r-brown207--

How exactly would you purpose that Obama show his "toughness?"  The reason Hillary is perceived as tough and dogged is because she is divisive and angers a lot of people against her and because she is behind in the polls and has to attack to get ahead.  Do you purpose that Obama start pissing people off now so that he can show he is tough and dogged?  Or perhaps he should just cast off his advantage in votes and delegates now so that he can take over Hillary's role as the tough underdog?

Fortunately for Obama unlike Hillary he hasn't had to show his tough side because he has been preaching hope and unity and because he has had the nomination lead almost from the beginning.   But just because he hasn't had to assume the rabid attack dog demeanor of Hillary who has a particular talent for making enemies don't be fooled into thinking he is soft.  

People who attack Obama for not being "tough" enough remind me of the situation between Abraham Lincoln and Salmon P. Chase.  When Lincoln won the Republican nomination as the dark horse candidate instead of the much more powerful and influential Chase, Chase thought that Lincoln was soft and that he could run the White House with Lincoln as his puppet.  Boy was he in for a shock!  I think Obama is a speak softly and carry a big stick sort of guy like Lincoln.   Time will tell.  

April 23, 2008 7:33 PM

roidubouloi said:

Hillary can be as nasty as she wants because she doesn't have to worry about alienating Dem voters in the general.  If she doesn't get there, it is moot and she figures she will pick up the pieces when the time comes.  In contrast, Obama KNOWS that he is going to be running against McCain and cannot afford to offend Hillaristas any more than necessary, particularly when he doesn't need to in order to finish off Hillary.  She is already finished if you count what is won and what is left to win.  So, Obama has to tread much more lightly and carefully.

April 23, 2008 8:47 PM

perkowitz said:

there might be someone around more associated with democratic wishful thinking than Ruy Teixeira, but I can't think of anyone offhand. his insightful analysis there really soothes my worries.

April 23, 2008 9:30 PM

flynnb_az said:

Sure, maybe 45 is a ceiling -- and there is no plausible way that John McCain can win the Presidency.  

But following that logic, there was no plausible way that McCain possibly could have won the Republican nomination -- yet here he is.  

There is definitely an intangible quantity to McCain that makes people trust him, regardless of the fact that they disagree with him -- it was a major phenomenon during the primaries.  

April 23, 2008 11:50 PM