Adding to their already spotty record in recent memory of failed electoral predictions, pollsters were embarrassed by their "double digit" projections of an Obama victory in New Hampshire. Rasmussen was the closest of the national pollsters, and he still had Obama winning by 7--far from Senator Clinton's 2-point victory. How did they get it so wrong, and what does that say for the rest of the campaign?
First, Hillary dispatched The Former President in full force in New Hampshire, and I firmly believe that is and will continue to be the most potent weapon in her arsenal. Bill Clinton forcefully, but articulately bashed the Obama "Fairy Tale," and Democrats listened. They long for the days of a Clinton Presidency again, and for better or worse, they still trust Bill. Bill also brings to the table 8 years of experience as President and people are reminded that Hillary is "Two Presidents for the Price of One."
Second, Obama's record is slowly being brought into the fore. Hillary is no longer letting him get away with his "hope" rhetoric without reminding people that he is a political neophyte. Although Clinton herself has never held executive office of any kind, being First Lady is a substantial look into how executive power operates. She would do well to actively point out that Obama has never run anything--except perhaps the Harvard Law Review (not exactly what I call "executive experiend.")
Third, New Hampshire voters do not like being told who to vote for. They revolted against Fox News's exclusion of Ron Paul from the Republican Debates, and they rejected Romney's massive spending as an attempt to merely buy the election. They also rejected the Iowa Bounce. Uneducated Iowa farmers were simply not going to tell this New England elite what to do. So this begs the question--does the independent streak of voters continue beyond New Hampshire? If history is any guide, Obama may have gone from "also ran" to "front runner" too quickly. For Howard Dean, this happened prior to the Iowa Caucuses. For Obama, it may have happened afterward. I would contend that the same people who followed Governor Dean are the ones actively behind Obama--the radical, unpragmatic ideological Left, the anti-war youth vote, and a handful of people easily led astray by a good talker.
Fourth, the situation proves that the media are the real Lemmings, not the voters. The media as quickly jumped off the Clinton bandwagon and onto the Obama bandwagon as soon as a poll suggested they should--after all, that's what gets the good ratings. Now the media doesn't know what to do--Obama or Clinton? I'm sure they will sit in their studios picking plastic daisies apart saying "Do we live him? Do we love him not?" The mass media has been in steady decline for the better part of the last fifteen years, but 2008 may be the end of its significant influence. The rise of the Internet, blogging, YouTube, etc., have made it much easier for people to get "the whole story" rather than what fits into a 30 minute news program.
Fifth, Democrats find themselves in a quandry. I don't think they have really decided amongst themselves who the "better candidate" is to face the still unknown Republican nominee. For those who have studied game theory, we have here (for the first time in memory) a two-level game in the race for the White House. There is no incumbent or Vice President on the ticket on either side. Consequently, both races being wide open has caused confusion in picking the pragmatic candidate--which is perhaps what led to Obama's victory in Iowa. A compelling case could be constructed either way. There is no doubt that Hillary is a massive motivator of the Democratic base--though I think Obama would do the same if he were the nominee. Hillary is more likely to motivate the Republican base in response, however. At the same time, the general election voter has still not really been polled--and he is a rather different animal from his cousin the primary voter. A general election voter could very well look at Obama and say "Hmmm, not just yet--come back in 8 years" or they could look at Hillary and say "Eh...something doesn't feel right about her." Not knowing who the Republican nominee will be complicates the matter immensely. Though it is increasingly looking like Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani are soon to be has-beens. McCain and Huckabee are the Republicans' best opportunities for a win in '08, though each presents his own unique challenges for the Republicans and their Get Out The Vote efforts in November.
However, both have the ability to bring back some of the old Reagan Coalition--blue collar rust belt voters who are economically liberal but socially conservative. They are neither one warmongers like Rudy and Romney, but they are not too Dovish like Obama or Clinton. They may be "just right" for Ohioans, Pennsylvanians, and Michiganders. That begs the question then: who is the stronger Democrat to face off against McCain or Huckabee in the swing states? Do Union workers in Michigan care about race or gender more? Do retirees in Florida trust Hillary or Obama to protect their entitlements more? Which candidate can handle foreign policy better? (The clear answer to the last question is Hillary--because she has Bill)
These are questions Democrats must answer seriously--and correctly. That is, unless they want 8 more years with a Republican in the White House.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment