Hillary up in swing states

Democratic bloodletting will continue for a long while; probably to the convention.

And here's why: each candidate is basically flawed. After a long string of votes and media coverage, we can abandon hypotheses and now state with certainty the score.

And that is: Hillary Clinton is unlikable, Barack Obama is untested. This was the narrative each campaign was trying to exploit in the other's. And they both succeeded all too well. Obama portrayed himself as above the fray, a shot at Hillary's divisiveness and unlikability. Hillary portrayed herself as experienced, a shot at Obama's lack of that particular commodity.

None of this is new. Except for the fact that now we can say that both were right. Obama did not have enough votes from voters who were sick of the Clinton's to put him over the top, and Hillary did not have enough votes from voters who wanted to stick with a known entity to put her over the top.

So the speculation can end. Hillary's strategy worked; Obama's strategy worked. We know that now. But there's nowhere to go from here.

All these calls for Hillary to drop out (Leahy, various and sundry pundits), are extremely counter-productive for Democrats. First of all, it becomes a self-fulfilling promise to say "it's hurting the party for Hillary to stay in." Why not focus on the high turnout? A little democratic competition is supposed to be healthy. This sounds stale coming from the candidates; other Dems should say it.

Secondly, that is even more true when you consider that there's no way in heck Hillary will drop out. She's going to win PA. Then she'll look like a big winner, and the narrative of all these stories on how she's only got a 5% shot at the nomination will be dropped in favor of something else completely. Obama's (extremely weak) statement saying she should stay in might have been motivated by the whole don't-look-like-you're-picking-on-a-girl strategic consideration, but it could also have the (wise) motivation of managing expectations. If Obama's the presumptive nominee, why would a crucial state like PA not rally behind him? Doesn't bode well for future coverage.

And there's the argument that she'll be the stronger nominee, that's buttressed by recent polls.

From Reuters:

She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The Democratic party is coming apart at the seams

Matthew Continetti (Weekly Standard) gave a breakdown on C-Span on McCain's dilemma.

As all the attention remains on the Democratic side, McCain could become invisible and lose momentum.

However, the Democrats are tearing themselves apart right now, so that could benefit McCain.

McCain's trying to prepare for a general election campaign, but he doesn't know which general election campaign. If it's Hillary, then he'll try to win independents. If it's Obama, he'll go after "McCain Democrats."

First of all, this analysis is exactly right. If it's Obama, McCain cedes much of the independent vote, but can make inroads with Hillary's lower-class voters through an alterization strategy. If it's Hillary, he plays the independent card. I've tacked against the McCain's-only-chance-is-Hillary conventional wisdom because motivating independents is more difficult inherently, and very very difficult when you have a huge long track-record of legislative votes that will be picked apart with a fine-tooth comb. Plus it's harder to attack Hillary because she's a woman.

Here's the answer to "McCain's dilemma." Don't worry too much about struggling to stay relevant. It's certainly not a good thing to appear to have dropped off the face of the planet, so he has to worry about it to some degree. But McCain has had a charmed campaign so far, and his luck is only continuing with what's going on with the Democrats.

What's going on is the Democrats are ripping themselves apart.

It was the Obama campaign that started it, by going after Ferraro. Then Obama was on the defensive with the Jeremiah Wright story.

How did the Jeremiah Wright story get going?

The Politico:

The fracas started Thursday morning, when ABC’s “Good Morning America” ran a Brian Ross expose on Wright that included old video of him saying: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God bless America’? No, no, no. Not God bless America. God [expletive] America.”

According to a caller on the Matthew Continetti interview, the clips were played on the Rush Limbaugh show the Thursday before, followed by other right-wing radio hosts. A search on Limbaugh's website did not verify this, however.

From the NYTimes:

On Friday, Senator John McCain’s campaign forwarded to reporters an article in The Wall Street Journal in which Mr. Wright was quoted as saying, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run,” and accusing the United States of importing drugs, exporting guns and training murderers.

The point is, it doesn't seem to be a Clinton-initiated story, though plenty of people on the blogosphere think this. And it very well could be.

The important thing is what people think anyway. A lot of Democrats across the country have voted. In the process, they've identified themselves with their candidate. When this happens, they start to get emotionally involved--my candidate can do no wrong, is just misunderstood, is viciously attacked by miserable opponents, etc. The negative campaign will rip the Democratic party up. There is a lot of anger concerning Hillary's tepid disavowal of Ferraro; Olbermann's rant was striking, as is this interview with Hazel Trice Edney, who asked Hillary at a campaign event how 4 out 5 black people were offended by Bill's ghettoization strategy in South Carolina. The negativity between the candidates in recent days has been poisonous.

Humpty-Dumpty has come apart on the Republican side, and we're witnessing the same thing now for the Democrats. It's McCain who's the clear winner in both.

The flap over race

Here's the story from the NYTimes. Geraldine Ferraro said this a week ago:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Then, Monday, a whole week later, the Obama campaign latches onto it to attack it. Ferraro responded with this (from the Politico):

"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white," she said.

In another interview, she crystallized one of the Clinton campaign's unstated complaints about the racial dynamic of the contest.

"What I find offensive is every time somebody says something about the [Obama] campaign, you're accused of being racist," she said.

Ferraro sounds like a conservative Republican talk-show host. Again from the Times:

“I am livid at this thing,” she said. “Any time you say anything to anybody about the Obama campaign, it immediately becomes a racist attack.”

The Clinton campaign did not contact her on Tuesday, Ms. Ferraro said. “I don’t want them to reach out to me,” she said. “I’m exercising my First Amendment rights. If they don’t like it, tough. I don’t intend ever to have anybody tell me that I can’t say what I want to say.”

Ms. Ferraro said her involvement with the Clinton campaign had been vastly overstated. When asked what her role is, she said: “None. None.”

This is getting nasty. Nancy Pelosi said she thought this whole flap now rules out a combination ticket. Other comments were dredged up:

Last fall, Ms. Ferraro also indicated that she thought Mr. Obama was getting preferential treatment from the press. “It’s O.K. in this country to be sexist,” she said then. “’It’s certainly not O.K. to be racist. I think if Barack Obama had been attacked for two hours — well, I don’t think Barack Obama would have been attacked for two hours,” she said, referring to a Democratic debate.

What's interesting to me is that the Obama campaign is the one responsible for this reaching top media exposure. Back to the Politico:

Clinton's campaign went back on offense. Her aides pointed to a moment, six weeks ago in South Carolina, at which Obama's campaign had appeared for a moment to cry racism - with one spokeswoman distributing a memo listing allegedly offensive comments from the Clintons and their allies, and another pointing to "a pattern, or a series of comments" on race. But Obama's senior aides never stated that grievance, and the candidate himself reeled it back in at a Las Vegas debate, appearing to say he regretted his campaign's role in advancing the complaint.

The Obama people want to respond to the notion that the media is too light on their candidate. They want to stop this narrative in its tracks. And they don't mind using race to do so, conveniently days before the Mississippi primary, where 50% of Democratic primary voters were black (Obama won them 92% to 8% for Clinton). I think it's savvy, putting the Clintonians back on their heels, feeding the narrative that Hillary's too divisive and mean and lowballs everything while Obama stands above it all. Of course, the truth is that it's the Obama people spreading the nastiness.

Men like Obama

Obama got 58% of the vote and 40 delegates last night, to Hillary's 41% and 28 delegates. Obama continues to win the upscale demographic and younger voters.

Obama trounced Hillary among men, 67-31, and they were even among women. His overwhelming victory is squarely due to male voters. Why do men like him so much?

51% of the electorate chose Obama as the candidate they think is most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That's down from his total of 58%. I'm not too surprised by that, because exit polls are often worthless because voters treat them like pop quizzes--did you pay attention to the campaign, and can you match the candidate with the qualities they are purported to have? The word "qualified" is a tip-off to check Clinton, if you really are a with-it voter.

But, amongst those who chose Obama as most qualified to be commander-in-chief, these voters almost to a man (or woman) voted for Obama. The same exact pattern happened in other states, like Missouri, New Mexico and Connecticut.

I think this is telling. Is it possibly the "pop quiz question effect"? Perhaps. But it seems to me that if anything, it is Clinton who has been emphasizing the "leadership from day one" and the experience to handle complex issues, such as foreign policy, which Obama does not have. I've blogged before about the gender effect on the commander-in-chief perception issue, and it seems like it could be hurting Hillary here among male voters who want a strong leader.

The voters who said gender was important to them (only 15% of the electorate) voted for Clinton, 63-37. This means that only 5% of Obama's 58% said that the fact that he was a man was important to them, and the other 53% said it was not a factor. But I don't think that means it doesn't necessarily work on a subconscious level.

Hillary's amazing win

Hillary Clinton's win was huge because it was so unexpected. The anecdotal evidence is that Hillary's tear-up changed minds. This would make sense--it happened too late to be picked up in the polls. The exit polls do not contradict this, pace Jay Cost, because 17% of voters decided the day of the election, and Hillary won them 39% to Obama's 36%. That's 6.63% of Hillary's voters deciding on election day. These are voters that are the most swayed by the campaigning and current media coverage. Those voters had to have the tear-up in mind; it was all over the news Monday.

Prior polls were showing an 8-point gap: Obama at 38 points, Hillary at 30. The 6.63% that Hillary got from day-of deciders doesn't make up for all of that, since the final result was Hillary 39%, Obama 36.5%. However, 21% of voters decided "in the last 3 days." That includes Monday when the story hit. Clinton was lost by 3 points to Obama with these voters, but it made up 7.14% of her support. This means anywhere from 6.63% to 13.77% of Hillary-voters could have been influenced by the tearing-up. The 9% difference between the result and the pre-election polls falls squarely within this range. I'm convinced that people moved to Hillary right before the election, and that the tearing-up story was a factor in this.

Hillary was up with all the other voters who decided in farther in advance by 3 points, 24.9% to Obama's 21.64%. She needed to not get hammered with the late-deciders in order to win, and she didn't.

So it's entirely possible that the reason the polls were wrong is that they did not capture the last-minute movement away from Obama and Edwards and towards Hillary.

The exit polls also showed a huge gender gap--Obama won 40% of males who voted Democratic, Clinton 29%, Obama won only 34% of the female vote, and Clinton 46%. I'm no expert on the psychology of gender, but I don't see many male voters being swayed by the tear-up. But perhaps I'm wrong. The tear-up totally threw me for a loop (as did Hillary's win, and Obama's Iowa win).

Here's why. The pressure of the campaign is so intense, it would crack a normal person like a soft peanut. When I saw it, I thought she'd cracked. I thought, "It can't be intentional." That's because I thought it couldn't help her win the race. Oh boy was I wrong. She had me, hook line and sinker. That's exactly what people are supposed to think, and that's why it comes off as genuine.

Here's part of an interview Hillary did Sunday with "Access Hollywood":

Interviewer: As a woman, how do you get that likeability factor that everyone is talking about across, because it's harder as a woman because you want to show that you are strong, and a leader, and how do you get that across when there's no model for it?

Hillary: I think you just have to be yourself again. I think that people that know me are out spreading the word that they've been my friend for a long time, or what I've done to help them or their family. It's funny, when I did a big event today there were these people yelling, "We like you!" It is just something you do everyday, be who you are. You can't be somebody you're not.

Interviewer: Well you've shown vulnerablity before when you said you know that hurts my feelings, and I just thought that was such a nice moment because it's true, you're not made of steel, you have feelings!

Hillary: Well no fooling. BUt again it's that difficult position that a woman candidate is in because if you get too emotional, that undercuts you. A man can cry; we know that; lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman--that's a different kind of dynamic.

Well well well. This makes me feel like a sadder but wiser girl. How could I possibly think that anything as important as the NH primary could elicit something unscripted and genuine? That was a moment worthy of Bill (Ron Brown's funeral!). Hillary deserved to win NH. I'm not being sarcastic at all--it was an amazing political performance. It was a gamble and it worked.

So it'll be a drag out fight. But a contested NH race hasn't picked a president since 1976. These early primaries are media circuses, and their job is to narrow the field of candidates. Iowa did it with Biden and Dodd, NH with Richardson. South Carolina will do it to Thompson. At this point on the Democratic side it's a draw.

Hillary's victory speech was typical Clinton me-tooism. The look was exactly the look of Obama's Iowa victory speech, with the crowd behind her giving such a powerful look of depth, and the family coming up on stage with her at the beginning.

McCain on Hillary

Was John McCain's response below adequate? A couple interesting issues come up. The first one is with the ubiquity of internet media. Anyone can take video on their cell phone and upload it to YouTube. It's a sea change from just two presidential elections ago. Behavior that is entirely appropriate in one setting is not necessarily appropriate at all when viewed out of context on a computer screen.

The second issue is of course gender. It is very interesting that Hillary pulled out the gender card, albeit obliquely, this soon, right after the last debate. It shows that the campaign was worried about her performance. It shows that they are not messing around.

Gender of course cuts both ways. It's harder for a woman to project the image of being a strong leader. Yet on the other hand in a campaign she can draw sympathy and portray her opponent as a bully--I'm of course thinking of Hillary's '00 Senate campaign, and the moment in the debate when Lazio walked over to her brandishing a piece of paper, a gesture that completely backfired.

Did McCain's answer backfire? No. McCain's got nothing to lose. He only gains publicity for this incident. Does Hillary gain? Sure. This is just the type of Republican reaction she can capitalize on in the general election. After all, more women vote than men.

McCain and Hillary

Gender and the general election

The likeliest matchup for the general election right now is Romney vs. Hillary. The Washington Post The Trail blog today has a question that will be asked of the Republican nominee if he faces Hillary: how can you attack a woman? The answer is: only by showing her constant deference and respect, and never going after her gender.

Mitt Romney ran against a woman in 2002, and won the governorship of Massachusetts by a vote of 50 to 45. The Post blog notes that a big issue of the last week of the campaign was whether Romney was using a sexist code word when he said his opponent Shannon O'Brien's criticism of him was "unbecoming." This might very well be a sexist code word, but if it is the biggest thing you can point to to make hay out of Romney being sexist it really isn't that much.

My prediction: the Republican nominee (at this point probably Romney) will not do anything that shows disrespect to Hillary, but will bend over backwards to esteem her as a woman running for President. And Hillary will certainly not emphasize it. This does not mean it won't be a big story--it will be. And events could overtake what Hillary would prefer. The Republican loses big time if he raises gender as an issue, but Hillary loses if it becomes an issue despite her, but especially if she or her campaign does or says something that fits the paradigm set by the media ("Can a woman win the White House?" "Can a woman handle the top job?" "Can a woman be a respected Commander-in-Chief"). She's so disciplined however that I think it becomes only a temporary story.