May 6th Primaries

Senator Obama seems to have put a halt to and momentum that Senator Clinton started to get going tonight. With her narrow victory in Indiana after she had been ahead in the polls by 5 or 6% going into the primary, she did not close the gap in North Carolina where Obama had an undisputed victory over Clinton raising his delegate lead over Clinton. Obama's speech was one which emphasize his patriotism and the American Dream. He seemed to speak with the super delegates in mind, as well. While Clinton claims to be remaining in the race at least until West Virginia, one commentator noted that this is not the end for the Clinton era for politics, but the beginning of the end. So the question remains, how much longer can she last?

Rev Wright and the Polls, Barack's deathnail?

Will public opinion polls ultimately decide how super delegates vote?

A vote--the deciding vote--hinges on polls of perceptions of a man not running for office: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

A historic opportunity to begin to redress cynicism and the corruption of American democracy--squandered by a voting public unable and unwilling to distinguish between two starkly different men. Devastating.

The New Sailboat?

In the past month or so, Barack Obama is starting to look more and more mortal to voters throughout America. The scandal with Reverend Wright and the comments made about religion and guns have provided an opportunity for the Republicans to seize upon. In a great article on politico by Josh Krashaar, he explains how the RNC has recently purchased half a million dollars in ads to begin attacking Obama, particularly in Republican leaning districts in places like Mississippi and Louisiana. I think it will be interested to see how effective these ads will be in convincing voters that Obama is an elitist. I do not foresee them to be as damning as the sailboat ads for Kerry because it does not carry the same simple message of being able to say he said x than y. Instead, it will have to rely on statements like “Obama is an elitist. Who hates your ability to be religious or have a gun.” In reality, he doesn’t really think these things. Additionally, every President could probably be considered elitist given the schools they have attended, their families’ wealth, etc. I don’t think it will be quite the same issue as it was for Kerry but who knows.

Contributing:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9933.html

A nation of laws…

Last week the verdict about Sean Bell shooting came down. This 23-year-old African American man received 50 bullets on his wedding day. The Queens judge said that prosecutors failed to prove their case. What interested me is that in the context of a presidential campaign with an African American running, Obama’s reaction was interesting. Democratic candidates were both asked to react to the verdict. Yet, Obama’s reaction was eagerly expected. The Senator from Illinois finally came out and said that “in a nation at laws it is important to respect the verdict that came down.”

On the one hand, this reaction is fair as a politician must respect the independence of justice and must avoid any comment regarding justice’s decisions. On the other hand, one could say that this reaction fits in a political calculus. Indeed, as Sean Bell shooting turned into a racial issue, it was crucial for Obama to answer to African American people’s anger, but not to appear as African American people spokesperson. One will say that Obama’s reaction was already that of a statesman, other could say that asking for measures that will avoid another drama is as lifeless as a political and diplomatic reaction in that case. Definitely a hard job…

Reject and Denounce

All the candidates at some point during this primary have had to "reject and denounce" something one of their supporters said or did. McCain had to do it in Ohio with the radio host who kept repeating "Barack Hussein Obama". Obama had to 'denounce' Louis Farrakhan after Farrakhan endorsed Obama. After a supporter in TX said that Obama's problem was that 'he happened to be black', Clinton had to reject and denounce his statements.

These are just examples, there is so much rejecting and denouncing going on it is hard to keep track of. Ben Smith from the Politico links to a site where anyone can get in on the action of "rejecting and denouncing"! So if anyone is jealous that they can't get in on it, now you have your chance!

Enjoy...

Campaign Calories

After watching the SNL skit on former President Clinton overeating at McDonalds, I was intrigued when I came across an article discussing the candidates eating habits on the campaign trail. While the article mainly discussed Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's eating habits, I was most fascinated at the end of the article by the section entitled "Infamous Appetite." It goes without saying that they discussed former President Clinton's eating while campaigning for his wife. Even Senator Clinton has poked fun at her husband's eating habits in North Carolina saying, "You gotta help me out here because my husband loves North Carolina, and he loves barbecue and he's been eating a lot of it across the state." Although this has nothing to do with the actual election, it seems that former President Clinton will never separate himself from the image of indulgence.

In reading the article "Appetite for Votes: Campaign Calorie Count," I tried to understand if there was a relevance to the actual election. The article discussed Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's eating habits on the campaign trail. It seems the two are fairly opposite. Clinton has accepted food offered to her throughout the campaign and frequently enjoys a beer on the way back to the plane. This all helps dispel her cold image helping her to appear more friendly and like the common public. On the other hand, Obama has no problem refusing food and drinking little beer. When offered food, he generally take the "obligatory taste." He jokes that he is "skinny, but tough." How does eating affect the candidates image? Can it affect the image enough to lose votes? Can this become part of a candidates strategy?

ABC NEWS: Appetite for Votes: Campaign Calorie Count

The Politics of North Carolina

The phrase "all politics is local" certainly applies to this year's Democratic Primary, as nearly every corner of the country will have been covered by the time this process (finally) ends, whether it be in May, June, or beyond. For me, having lived all my life prior to college in North Carolina, it's exciting to watch as the political spotlight finally returns to my home state, allowing North Carolinians the chance to play a major role in national politics.

North Carolina overall is a very odd state politically. It tends to vote Democratic in state races, as voters have elected a Democratic majority to the state Senate for more than 100 years, and Democratic governors have enjoyed great success over many decades recently, while voting Republican for President. The last Democratic Presidential candidate to win North Carolina was Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter who swept most of the South back in 1976. Senate races are the most confusing of all, as a liberal populist like John Edwards can win his seat rather easily at the same time as Jesse Helms, one of the most conservative men in America, is also enjoying great popularity.

North Carolina has roughly 9 million people, which makes it the 10th largest state in the US. Recent economic troubles have seen manufacturing and textile jobs leave the state in record numbers, while the banking capital of Charlotte continues to play a major role internationally. Two major military installations, Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune and the Army's Fort Bragg, have played a major role in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, as a result, a large number of casualties have originated from these bases.

The outgoing governor, Mike Easley, and former Senator John Edwards have refused to endorse either Clinton or Obama, but Obama still enjoys a sizable lead among those superdelegates in the state who have already indicated their preference. Obama is leading in all recent polls taken in the state as well, in most by a large margin, and averages a double-digit advantage at this point, according to Real Clear Politics. Obama also raised nearly three times as much money from NC donors as Clinton did in the month of March, illustrating once more that Clinton faces an uphill battle in the state on May 6 to continue the momentum she gained by winning the Pennsylvania primary.

The two leading Democratic candidates for NC Governor, Bev Perdue and Richard Moore, have also endorsed Obama and used the candidate as a central part of their campaign advertisements. In response, on Monday the North Carolina GOP will begin running an ad against the two Democrats that attacks their support for Obama based on Obama's connection to Rev. Wright. The ad was posted online Wednesday, quickly rising to the #1 most viewed video on the internet because of its"controversial" strategy to bring Rev. Wright, and possibly the issue of race, back into the mix of this election. Senator McCain and the national GOP party asked the state party to not air the ad for these reasons, but in the truly unpredictable nature of North Carolina politics, the NC GOP party chairwoman is aggressively moving forward with this line of attack. What effect the ad, and the large amount of attention surrounding it, may have on the primary or general election will be interesting to follow.

If Obama is to win the Democratic primary on May 6, as most experts expect he will, it may help bring the primary season to an end, also depending on how the voting goes in Indiana on the same day. Looking forward to the general election in November, no one knows if Obama will be able to make the state a competitive battleground, but a shift from Republican to Democratic would be substantial. The state's 15 electoral votes could be up for grabs, according to Electoral-Vote.com, as the site has the state as a firm toss up at the moment based on the most recent polling, showing that if all the polling data was accurate, an Obama-McCain race would be decided by whoever wins the Tarheel State. Obviously it's too early to know which states will prove decisive this fall, but with the rising numbers of registered NC Democrats, the popularity Obama enjoys among college-aged youth, and the swirling controversy over the GOP's use of an anti-Rev. Wright ad, the election this fall could provide North Carolina with an even greater amount of political power. For the sake of an interesting race this fall, and many interesting home state storylines, here's hoping that North Carolina remains politically competitive for quite some time.

And nothing is truly changed...

With Clinton winning by exactly 10 points, the race is still up in the air. The 10 points seems to re-enforce that no progress has been made since March. It seems like the race will continue until the end of the primary season for Democrats in Puerto Rico. Republicans are very happy with the outcome of tonight because it does not give Clinton enough of a victory to validly claim that she deserves to be the nominee, but it was not small enough that Obama can claim the nomination. Clinton can claim a win is a win, but she did not win by a great enough margin to undoubtedly become the Democratic candidate. David Gergen, from CNN, points out that Obama is still in the lead ahead in the overall race for the nomination and that he is likely to hold that lead. So, then the question comes to whether super delegates will view Clinton as the better choice over Obama. And with that, we are back where we started, and the boredom of the last long and drawn out seven weeks seems to be continuing on until the convention in August. If you want to look for the bright side, (while the Democrats are not happy with the situation,) the Republicans are happy.

In the PA Race it is the Margin of Victory that Matters

Many political analysts predict that Senator Clinton will win the state of Pennsylvania. However, winning the state may not be a political victory. If Clinton fails to have a large margin of victory (by at least 10 points), it may be time for her to throw in the towel in this dragged out Democratic Primary. The 300 uncommitted superdelegates will break down this primary with a fine tooth comb. Pennsylvania is Clinton's demographic main turf. Failure to take this state by a large margin would show her loss of momentum with the lower-income Democrats who supported her in earlier elections. Clinton does not see the importance of Margin of Victory. "A win is a win," to her, but is this really just another one of her attempts to hold onto a race already lost?

I cannot wait and see what happens today. With PA looking for a record turnout in voters, it will be interesting to see who those that do not usually vote choose. For the Democratic party, I hope that this primary leaves them with some kind of direction. If we move into May and June with no clear Democratic candidate, there could be dire consequences for the party. In my opinion (although it might be biased as an Obama supporter), feels like it would be better for the party as a whole if Clinton did not gain a large margin of victory in PA or if Obama won PA. Then, the Democratic party could finally move forward, unite the party, and try to regain the White House in November.

Cafferty: Should Clinton quit if she doesn't win Pennsylvania by at least 10 points?
LAT: What to look for in the Pennsylvania primary
LAT: Clinton says margin won't matter

Managing Expectations

Managing expectations is an important concept that we have talked about number of times throughout the course. Effectively mastering this tactic is invaluable—it can easily allow campaigns to spin losses as wins (or vice versa if not handled properly). The quickly approaching primary in Pennsylvania is an excellent example of the importance of creating expectations. Today on KDKA radio in Pittsburg, Obama told voters, “I’m not predicting a win. I’m predicting it’s going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect.” With Hillary’s initial lead in Pennsylvania somewhere around 16 percent, recent polls are suggesting it is somewhere closer to 5 percent. While there is a strong chance that Hillary will win Pennsylvania, it is entirely a question of degree. Headlines on websites like Bloomberg are currently arguing that Hillary will need both a record turnout and record margins to have a shot at winning the race. One of the best ways that Obama can ensure that this does not occur is to make it appear like Hillary is not controlling the momentum. As the California primary helped illustrate, even if it looks like Obama is slashing leads there remains a strong possibility that Hillary will state dominate states that were considered controlled by her. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out.


Relevant citations
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_Im_not_predicting_a_win.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2IYkr2D8ZGk&refer=worldwide

Swan Song for Somebody?

With the Pennsylvania primary happening tomorrow (FINALLY!!!), will whomever loses bow out of the race? We know that both candidates have pledged to stay in the race through the last primaries, but if somebody loses by double digits tomorrow, do you think it would be a good time for them to bow out?

I think that if the difference in percentage points between the two candidates is less than double digits, both Obama and Clinton should stay in, though that would be much to my chagrin, as I'm tiring of the process at this point. However, a double digit win in PA could swing the momentum heavily to one candidate, and minus anymore gaffes, could be the nail in the coffin for the loser.

So could tomorrow be the time to throw in the towel? Thoughts?

Rocky Balboa against African-American

With the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania, observers are looking for a disappearing category of people in polls: white men. The reason is that for the first of his history, the Democratic Party is going to nominate either a woman or an African-American man. Consequently, polls have focused on African-American voters as well as on women voters. In Pennsylvania, white men could make the difference next Tuesday, so that reporters are spread all over the state, searching for white men to interview. As Gail Collins wrote in her New York Times article, courting white men is not easier for the candidates. “The candidates’ desperation to make contact is showing. Barack Obama goes bowling in Altoona – with disastrous consequences. Hillary Clinton attempts to compare herself to Rocky Balboa prompting many people to note that Rocky lost to a black guy. Obama, rather cruelly, points out that Rocky is a fictional character. Clinton, in turn, reveals that she owns her own bowling ball…”
When one asks which discourse could seduce white men voters, commentators answer “maybe not change […] Pennsylvania is a state where change has not been a friend to your average white male, particularly the aging working-class ones who are the candidates’ prime target. Change left the state full of empty factories that towns keep desperately trying to make into condos or art museums.” In Pennsylvania, change pledged by Obama made white men victims, who saw part of their culture taken away. The dilemma of this election is that traditional democratic voters may be turn away from their traditional vote because of the choice offered. This may benefit the Republican Party which nominated a candidate from the majority… a white man.

The media: whose side are they on, anyway?

Theoretically, journalists present objective accounts of campaign events, but over this prolonged contest for the Democratic nomination, charges of media bias have abounded. A steady stream of debates, gaffes, and other campaign events has presented ample fodder for soul-searching among members of the news media; that is, a lot of campaign coverage has been about campaign coverage.

A recent Politico article argues that the news media is "Obama's secret weapon." As others have already noted on our blog, ABC was widely panned for its handling of last week's debate. This article suggests that Stephanopolous and Gibson's questioning of Obama, although harsh, was not out of line. The article goes on to claim that the ensuing outcry over the moderators' tough approach actually indicates a broader media bias in his favor.

The notion of Obama as a media darling is not a new one; it's what led to SNL's oft-cited debate parody which fueled Clinton's complaints that the media favors Obama consistently. Media swooning was at its peak when Obama was an underdog, and it could partly be explained as a desire for a compelling storyline. Since Obama became a frontrunner, negative press surely has swelled--but has it been nearly as bad as the ugly stories Clinton dealt with during her long reign as frontrunner? This is the central question the article seeks to answer.

The Politico writers suggest that Obama was treated no worse during last week's debate than Clinton was treated in previous debates; why didn't journalists and political observers rush to her defense then? During the debate, Obama responded to the piercing questions by deriding the kind of campaign coverage that centers too much on gaffes and fluff at the expense of substance. This arguments fits into Obama's broad theme of a "new kind of politics," and for this reason, I think his criticisms of the media resonate much more strongly than his opponent's. Clinton was dismissed as "whiny" when she pointed to media favoritism; Obama is praised as courageous when he points to media shortsightedness.

With a likely matchup between Obama and McCain--both candidates having strong relationships with the media--it will be interesting to watch how coverage unfolds.

A "Teapot Tempest"

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette posted an editorial on Saturday that discussed the recent war of words between Senators Obama and Clinton over remarks each has made that have led to intense scrutiny, criticism, and supposed backlash. The Post-Gazette, obviously an important political player this week because of their influence within Pennsylvania, the site of this week's important Democratic primary, endorsed Senator Obama a few days ago and felt the need to comment on the commotion that has been raised, primarily on the subject of Obama's recent comments in San Francisco on the ideology of working-class America.

The paper calls Hillary's attempts to repeatedly condone these comments of "bitter" Americans and their need to "cling" to guns and God, as well as Barack's mentions of Hillary's false statements on her visit to Bosnia as First Lady, merely distractions and part of the "gotcha" politics that Americans have grown to hate. The paper correctly argues that these squabbles over misstatements and mistakes have moved the dialogue away from the crucial issues that need to be dealt with, like the failing economy, mortgage foreclosures, and the future of the war in Iraq. By discussing issues that will not affect the future of this country, as the paper argues, Americans are not getting to hear the debate that they need to hear, and they certainly did not hear it Wednesday night during the debate on ABC.

These issues are distractions because they have obscured the facts about the candidates, as the Post-Gazette points out how the elitist label would actually be more applicable to Hillary, given her educational and family background, as well as how well the GOP has done over the years at arguing that they are the party of the average American (because of (mis-)statements like Barack's), all while cutting taxes for the richest citizens, championing the interests of corporate America, and misleading citizens about the reasons for going to war. The paper also mentions that these issues can be used as distractions by the GOP in the general election campaign, as they argue that John McCain would rather be pushing his personal support for guns and religion versus Obama's stance on these issues, rather than discussing how badly his party's President has handled the economy and the ongoing wars overseas.

Therefore, the paper urges Pennsylvania voters, and all Americans for that matter, to reject this kind of political distraction, or "teapot tempest," and base their vote on who "is better equipped to lead America out of Iraq and back from the precipice of recession, not who made the fewest gaffes." A reminder along these lines seems like it should be unnecessary, but in a primary season that has dragged on so long without any new conversations of substance, it appears that voters need to be told to get their priorities straight one more time.

Candidates on The Colbert Report

This past Thursday, the Democratic candidates were guests on Comedy Central’s, The Colbert Report. Colbert has been in Pennsylvania this past week covering the Primary vote. Hillary went on the show when he had technical difficulties. She stressed her want and skill to help fix things when she helped Colbert get the screen working again. It was clear that she was talking about the problems in America and the world today, and the crowd cheered her on. Later on the episode, as Colbert claimed that it was sad the Obama could not be there, he appeared on the screen behind him as a surprise. Colbert made a joke about Clinton being mad at that she fixed the screen because then Obama was able to be on the show. Obama talked about issues in America some more before ending his appearance. Both of the candidates made an attempt to be lighter and more personable people. This was a change from the hard working serious faces that each of them have kept up throughout the previous month while campaigning in Pennsylvania. With the primary fast approaching, each candidate s trying to get as much positive publicity for himself/herself as possible in light of the negative attacks made on each of them. As to who got the “Colbert bump”, we will have to wait until the primary results come in to find out.

How Obama Fights Back...

Here is the Ben Smith article I had referenced. It is really informative in understanding another way to respond to attacks, a way that doesn't include a "wholehearted apology" or taking back what they said...

The Impact of Elitism

While everyone is talking about the recent claims made by Obama, claiming he is elitist, I think it’s interesting to look at the impact of this fiasco upon the campaign. Despite many people being angry and the Clinton campaign running ads showing people that were hurt by the comments, new polls indicate that Obama is reaching new highs in the polls, particularly in like Pennsylvania. There are some interesting conclusions to draw from this. Namely, there is a strong argument to be had that the top concern of many voters might be which candidate they view has a better chance of dealing with actual problems, like the economy, than their perception of the candidate. This plays well into the Obama campaign’s counter-ad regarding the controversy. The new ad shows Obama talking to a variety of local groups and has a voiceover make comments about how Clinton is stuck in the same game of Washington politics while only Obama will be able to actually create change on issues like rising gas prices (and then shows a sign for gasoline). It will be interesting to see how Pennsylvania will play out given that Obama has closed the lead but the same sort of thing happened in California and didn’t work out well for Obama.

New Polls showing PA is close:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/clinton_stalls_obama_in_pa_pol.html


ADDITION- new gallup poll showingn Obama's lead is the largest yet:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106537/Gallup-Daily-Obama-51-Clinton-40.aspx

Obama -- a crowd pleaser

As much as I agree that Obama's comments were elitist and a great fallacy of his campaign, I also think that media is taking the wrong spin on this issue. I have a hard time believing that everything a candidate says on a campaign trail is a direct indication of what he thinks or how he relates to an issue. Rather, most of the candidate’s positions and speeches reflect what his or her particular audience wants to hear. However, some candidates manage to maintain their own identity and stay firmly on the positions they believe in even though they are unpopular. Barack Obama, unfortunately, is not one of them (even though he is constantly praising his vote against the war when everyone voted for it). His comments at the San Francisco fund raiser attended by the millionaires is just another proof that he will tell whatever he thinks the public wants to hear. The way he referred to the rural people of Philadelphia supports the stereotype that the participants of the fund raiser had, and by reinforcing it, Obama wanted to blend in and be closer to them. It does not necessarily indicate that he shares that opinion.

His campaign’s earlier slip with NAFTA comments in Ohio in addition to this gaffe in San Francisco prove that Obama is a crowd pleaser and is ready to say whatever he perceives would be popular. This is one of the most dangerous characteristics a wining candidate can have because it can negatively effect his electability in a general election.

Obama's momentum takes a "bitter" turn

Predictably, Hillary Clinton swiftly released an attack ad seeking to capitalize on Barack Obama's recent gaffe:



In the days leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, we can be sure that Clinton will continue to make an issue of Obama's poorly phrased comments, using the incident to increase her advantage among rural voters. The timing of this error is terrible for Obama.

The Bosnia story was especially harmful to Clinton because it highlighted a key weakness of her candidacy: voters' hesitation to trust her considering her reputation for manipulating facts to her own benefit. Similarly, the "bitter" comments by Obama bring his shortcomings as a candidate into sharp focus, namely, notions that he is an elitist "latte liberal" who fails to connect with the working class just as John Kerry did. Further, Obama has been an optimistic candidate whose campaign is fueled by small donations from "regular" people; these comments seem to patronize average Americans, even striking a cynical note with the "cling" part.

What's worse, this fiasco fits into an unfortunate pattern for Obama: first his wife's comments about being proud of America for "the first time," then his pastor's comments damning America, and now comments by Obama himself seem to raise doubts about his attitude toward America. Especially in a matchup with a war hero, even a hint of a lack of patriotism is not something Obama can afford to have stick to his candidacy. It is somewhat ironic that the candidate of hope finds himself blasted for being negative about his country.

Personally, I think the argument Obama was trying to make is reasonable, but as a presidential candidate, he should have known better than to use such phrasing that would open him up to attacks. He should have avoided making negative, almost stereotypical generalizations about entire groups of people, and instead emphasized broader terms ("frustration"), focusing on sympathy and solutions for small-town Americans. It must be difficult not to slip up when speaking constantly, but Obama must know that any misstep will be exploited by his opponents to his detriment.

"You Can't Handle the Truth"

Sen. Obama's comments about the bitter working class "clinging to guns and religion" was certainly a mistake to say on a Presidential campaign but part of why it was a mistake is that it might be too close to the truth. Campaign after campaign we, the voters, hear all the things we want to hear but are not necessarily true. One of the more famous quotes in this category, "read my lips no new taxes". Of course once elected President Bush raised taxes.

Part of what Obama's appeal has been is that he seems to be more honest with the American people. Not always saying what they want to hear but seemingly saying what he believes. Whether this has been a strategic move by his campaign team or if it is really just who he is, none of us really know yet but it has been interesting.

I'm going to be honest here where I heard his comments I was nodding my head. Obviously not every working class American is bitter and clings to things like guns and religion but having spent time in industrial, "working-class" areas I don't think it is an unfair statement either. What do you guys think?