Lesson from the Pennsylvania Primary: Attacking Works

[Austinitis]

If there's any lesson from today's primary (beyond the iron control that demographics seems to exert on this race) it's that, despite all the talk about Hillary hurting herself by attacking, her aggressively negative campaign strategy worked. Outspent by massive margins and exposed to a six-week period during which her opponent brought to bear the full force of his campaign and personality, Hillary nonetheless managed to rout her opponent with a ten point lead.

And that leaves us with two options to explain tonight's outcome. Either:

a) We can try to explain everything that happened tonight on the basis of demographics (and Bradly-effects in the polls);

or

b) We can explain tonight's results by looking at the campaigns each candidate ran.


I don't think the demographics explanation works, both because Obama has successfully wooed working-class white voters before and because we saw a significant amount of poll movement over the course of the last six weeks. Both of those facts suggest that those voters are willing to look at Obama, and, really, things are worse for Obama if the explanation for tonight really rides on demographics. If, with six weeks, hoards of cash, an army of volunteers, and a civil (compared to Republicans) opponent, Obama can't at least make inroads with these voters then we're, bluntly, fucked if he becomes the nominee. If no amount of money can win these voters over to Obama's side, then our fund raising advantage against Republicans might as well not be there. They're going to Ronald Reagan us.

And so the other possibility, and the one we have to hope is true, is that Hillary's aggressively negative campaigning style, while it turns people off to her, works in that it turns people off to her opponent more. And this says two things about the future direction of the campaign:

i) It tells us that Hillary needs to keep attacking if she wants get anywhere against Obama. Think back to February when Hillary wasn't attacking very hard: she got hammered. The single best (really: only working) strategy for her in this entire campaign, and what's turned the last month and a half into a success for her, is the kitchen sink strategy. And I think it's a pretty obvious mistake for her, if she's really serious about going for the nomination, to throw away what works going into Indiana and North Carolina. With luck she can continue to strengthen her position in the popular vote (by boosting any win in Indiana and suppressing any win by Obama in North Carolina) which is really her best shot at the primary.

ii) It also tells us that Obama is going to run into serious problems if he makes it to the general election and is forced to square off against the Republicans. I know the Obama people got their panties in a knot when Hillary's add has a two-second shot of Bin Laden, but if Obama goes against the Republicans he's going to be facing adds which go from Bin Laden, to the world trade center, to Bin Laden again, and right back to Obama's flag-pin-free-chest. And it's going to go for months and months. And if Obama can't fend off the mild attacks in Pennsylvania (where, realistically, he dominates Hillary funding-wise at least as much as we'll dominate the Republicans in March), what hope in the world does he have of holding off the real thing?


So I know the Obama people are sick of hearing this, but really: is there anything good for Obama that can be taken out of tonight? In either contest? Tonight, for the first time, I've really, seriously started to dread November.

[anonymous171]

1. I think Obama realizes this. I hope he goes negative on her in NC.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. The new politics of Hope & change & going negative on her in NC

What a mess.

[anonymous171]

16. For Clinton. He could flatten her with negative ad buys.

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. I hope he spends it all on negative ad buys!

[anonymous171]

19. Every attack sticks to Clinton. He would crush her,.

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. sure it would.

It would be something new, she's never been attacked before. It would be a novel idea.

[2rth2pwr]

7. The candidate of Hope going negative? The man who wants to move past the old style of politics?

[Austinitis]

12. I think the lesson of PA is that "new politics" is bullshit. It just doesn't work.

I mean, really, if anyone could make it work it's Obama. He's charismatic, bright, and flushed with campaign money to control the dialog.

But it just doesn't work.

[GoldieAZ49]

40. Gosh, if he can't change how campaigns work how is he going to change Washington DC

oh thats right, it is just campaign rhetoric

:eyes:

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. You asked around? You know for a fact this is what happened?

[XemaSab]

3. So we've learned that sliming a fellow democrat works

Great. :eyes:

[Kool Kitty]

8. Yep. Makes us as shitty as the repugs.

I thought we were better than that. I guess I was wrong.

[XemaSab]

54. With one difference:

They don't shit on EACH OTHER.

At least not without money changing hands. :P

[Kool Kitty]

55. Very good point.

[TheDonkey]

5. Unfortunately we learned this in 2004. Remember when our convention took the high road

and the RNC was an all out hate-fest. Unfortunately hate and fear works very well with sheeple.

[tridim]

6. She lost about 15% of her lead..

I'm not sure how much of that was due to her negative attacks, but surely some of it was.

[Austinitis]

10. Still, for what Obama poured into the state, what he got out really wasn't enough

It would be one thing if he cut her lead down to 2 or 3 points. But I'm pretty sure that just name recognition played a lot of the role in cutting down those numbers. After he introduced himself to people I don't think he got a lot out of the money and the campaigning.

[johnnydrama]

14. sure it was

He saved around 100,000 votes and 20 delegates compared to where he was 2-3 weeks ago.

[DerekJ]

9. Obama doesn't need to attack hillary. He only needs to defend himself against her attacks. HE WON

[Austinitis]

11. Just keep repeating that. Who cares what everyone else says? n/t

[NewHampshireDem]

13. Actually, Austinitis

I think it's that no one really cares what *you* say.

Seriously, you post more out and out bullshit than anyone else on DU.

But, please, feel free to spin away. I look forward to pissing on your tombstone once the GE starts.

[BzaDem]

21. Wow, you are actually saying that someone else posts bullshit.

All-rightie then.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Oh bullshit...being white works

[Austinitis]

20. I don't think that's it. But if it was, would that bode any better for Obama in the GE?

That's the Obama camp's problem here. Either Obama has a fundamental disconnect with a big segment of voters, or his campaign style - which is a huge part of his candidacy - is bankrupt. And neither makes me want him on the ticket in November.

[BeyondGeography]

25. ...in Pennsylvania when white Democrats have a choice

between a white and a black, just to complete the thought.

Rasmussen has her up 9 against McCain in PA and Obama up 8.

When white Democrats are faced with Obama v. McCain, the numbers change. Go figure.

[NanceGreggs]

18. Ah, yes, negative campaigning "works" ...

... as proven by Hill's 20-point-plus lead over Obama six weeks ago, which netted her an 8 - to 10 point "win" tonight.

Worked like a charm ...

[newmajority]

22. Lessons from dropping a 28 point lead down to a 8.5% win

i) You didn't make a dent in the delegate gap.

ii) You're 6 million dollars in the hole, still can't win, and are too arrogant to throw in the towel.

iii) You're still delusional enough to believe that superdelegates will sacrifice themselves so you can lose to McCain in November.

[BzaDem]

33. That argument doesn't work at all.

If you are attributing the entire drop to Hillary's negative attacks turning people off, then that means Obama's ads did nothing. I sure hope that's not the case, for Obama's sake. In reality, a tough race fought on the ground and the airwaves brought the gap down, and Hillary's ads probably helped slightly (given recent history with these ads).

[AdHocSolver]

24. You are all wet!

Hillary's negative campaigning brought her the Democratic "loser" vote.

If she is the Democratic nominee in November, she will not only NOT get the Obama-inspired Democratic vote, she will bring out the anti-Hillary voters in droves who will vote for John McCain, merely to defeat Hillary. These are voters who would have not bothered to vote for McCain if Obama were the Democratic candidate.

Moreover, these anti-Hillary voters will vote Republican down-ticket and very possibly give Congress back to the Republicans.

This is the only scenario that seems realistic to me. I don't see Democrats, new voters, independents, or moderate Republicans being inspired to vote for John McCain if Obama is the Democratic candidate. I do see Republicans, independents, and even some Democrats voting for McCain if Hillary is the Democratic candidate.

Your supposition also includes the delusion that the Republicans won't run attack ads on Hillary. Between Hillary's pit bull campaign and Obama's proven inspirational campaign, I would bet my money on an Obama victory and a Hillary defeat.

[Austinitis]

31. I think the right wing can use the bitter comments, Wright, etc.

to drive out the base against Obama. They may even have an easier time doing that against him, since Hillary's image has been recast over the course of the race. Obama is now the latte-liberal that conservatives used to hate in Hillary. (e.g. You see people mention that Obama went to Harvard but, although she went to Yale, you would get the impression that Hillary grew up in a coal mine if you just listen to the way people talk about her.)

[Kool Kitty]

36. Yeah, I am surprised that everyone thinks that

Hillary is working-class. I don't see it. I'm not saying that as a good-or-bad judgment, I just don't think she is working class. And I don't know why everyone has that impression of her. But, then again, I'm a dumb working-class liberal that happens to like lattes. I don't think any rich politician is working-class.

[AdHocSolver]

43. The Republicans would bring up all the old attacks on Hillary that would work like Pavlov's bell.

Contrary to popular belief, Hillary has not been "vetted". The years of attacks on her have poisoned the well.

In Pavlov's experiments, he trained the dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell. No actual meat was needed to be present. The bell alone sufficed. The "old" attacks are all that the Republicans need to remind people of, and they will "salivate" against Hillary. The hostility to Hillary, as well as Bill, is already out there. All the Republicans have to do is trigger it. They need not invent anything new. She is already tarnished material.

Obama, on the other hand, has not been tainted to the larger population, as Hillary has been. McCain is not that popular and he can be sufficiently handled by Obama to defeat him.

Another point, is that Hillary's pit bull tactics would likely turn off voters if she used them against McCain. Obama's more reasonable approach would not turn off voters.

[Austinitis]

49. It's not so much a "vetting" thing as it is a change in the narrative around her

Hillary has been remarkably successful in recasting her image in the public eye from "Limousine Liberal" (equals "latte liberal" nowadays) in the early 1990s to friend of Joe-six-pack. And since a lot of the old Republican personal attacks against Hillary centered around the Limousine Liberal caricatured, Hillary's new image isn't nearly as vulnerable to them. Her new image is built from concepts like "tough", "fighter", and "eats anthracite for breakfast." It's hard to peg "cultural-elitist" or "San Francisco Liberal" to that - the two sets of concepts don't go together in the public mind.

What's really ironic, though, is that Obama has actually taken over Hillary's old slot in the public perception. It takes a bit of work, but it's worth trying to track down some of the old Republican attacks on Hillary from the 1990's. I think you'll be surprised at just how strikingly similar those attack are to the attacks currently employed against Obama (which may explain why Hillary doesn't feel bad seeing those attacked aimed at him).

And Obama already has the hardened core of people who hate him that is supposed to drive out the Republicans to attack Hillary. Take a look at http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/favorable_ratings_for_presidential_candidates">Obama's favorability ratings. His numbers for "very unfavorable" are just shy of where Hillary's are (and there's no real doubt that his will get as high as hers during the next few months). But while her "very unfavorable" numbers have held steady (around 33-35) for most of this race, his have gone up from around 22% a few months ago to about 33% now. And there's no real reason to think he's hit his ceiling.

So I think the notion that Republican turnout is aided by Hillary more than by Obama is a left-over from the way the world was way back in 2007. But lot of things have changed in this race, and it would be a mistake to assume that perceptions of Hillary are any different.

[BzaDem]

26. It's probably a combination of both.

The demographics set the initial levels of support for each candidate, along with a range. For example, the demographics of PA probably allowed Hillary to win by 20 points to 0 points. The attack ads decided where within that range the result would lie. Unfortunately, neither bodes well for Obama if be becomes the nominee. That's the problem with running on a new style of politics. It only works if McCain does it too. If McCain doesn't subscribe to this "new politics," Obama has to go way after McCain just to defend himself, which completely undercuts his message.

[boppers]

27. If by "works" you mean turning a landslide into a molehill?

By that measure, yes, it worked. What should have been her re-vitalizing big win got chopped down to somewhere between 9 and 11 percent.

So, based on her lead numbers of 20%, it worked to make roughly 10% of the population shun her.

By all means, I hope she keeps it up. :)

[BzaDem]

28. Sure. At least Hillary doesn't lose every big swing state by 10 points or more.

[anonymous171]

30. She wins because she uses the party structure already in place.

The structure, I might add, that will be at Obama's disposal in the GE. Obama has to make his own from scratch.

[BzaDem]

34. Or maybe he just loses because he isn't as good a candidate in those states. Who-da-thunk.

[boppers]

37. ...or maybe the republicans got bored and switched parties for the sake of a vote.

Seen the returns in Pennsylvania? Apparently, it's 67% blue now.

'Closed' primaries mean nothing when voters can easily change registration.

[Austinitis]

39. Obama's the one who kept switching people over.

If anything the new "democrats" helped him.

[boppers]

42. Possibly.

I do find it odd that the state is now so supposedly blue that it no longer counts as a swing state....

Thus, nullifying the argument that it matters in the GE.

[BzaDem]

44. Except... only 3% of the electorate were repub switchovers.

Try again though.

[boppers]

46. So, it's blue, like NY and CA?

A win there doesn't matter, as it isn't a state in play in the GE?

[BzaDem]

48. This really isn't that hard to understand. PA is a swing state. Kerry won it by 2 points.

NY and CA are not swing states. Kerry won them handily.

[newmajority]

41. The reason these "big swing states" are "big swing states" in the first place

Is because their state power structure is so completely and thoroughly corrupted, and they vote on Diebold machines. It's true in Florida, it's true in Ohio, and it's true in PA. Rendell is only marginally less of a crook than Jeb Bush, and probably worse than Strickland (his fellow DLC faux-Dem)

[BzaDem]

45. When Obama loses, it's because of E-voting. When he wins on E-voting, he won it fair and square.

At least Ohio's getting rid of e-voting for the fall. In addition to the obvious benefits, this means that you won't be able to whine when your candidate loses Ohio in November.

(Though I guess you'll find some reason.)

[Ysabel]

29. is that what you teach your children how you treat your partner your friends etc. (n/t)...

[Austinitis]

32. I don't teach my kids to emulate politicians. I don't think you should either. n/t

[ScarletSniper]

53. Don't teach them to emulate you either, at least not how you act on DU:GP, not pretty

[kmsarvis]

35. I don't think it works.

A month ago she was up by as much as 20+ points in some polls.

[Austinitis]

38. But, for the resources committed by Obama to PA, closing 10 points

really is a bit underwhelming. I mean, he had closed this much two weeks ago. What was he doing for the last two weeks?

[NewHampshireDem]

47. What was he doing for the past two weeks?

Oh, that is too, too funny.

But, here's an answer:

Running against HRC when he should have been running against McCain.

[democrattotheend]

50. Fair points, but something to keep in mind

Hillary has probably dug up whatever skeletons are in Obama's closet already, and McCain may have more to lose than Hillary by going negative. Remember, McCain, like Obama, has put himself up on a pedestal to some degree by promising to be a different kind of Republican and taking up the mantle of good government. He has a lot of crossover appeal that could be jeopardized by going too negative. And McCain might also be restrained by the knowledge that if he takes it dirty and Obama fights back, Obama will have a lot more money to spend destroying McCain with negative ads than the other way around. So there might be enough built-in incentives for Obama and McCain to take the high road, whereas Clinton had little to lose by going negative at this point.

[ShortnFiery]

51. Yes, it works for HRC. She will DESTROY the democratic party in order to save her Nomination.

Too bizarre. All those right wingers who are now supporting her will "turn on a dime" if she is somehow able to steal the Democratic Nomination.

Make no mistake, not all the Clinton Scandals were just "mean spirited right wing attacks." The Clintons are "scandals personified."

The knives will come out if HRC snags the Nomination and MANY young people, African Americans, disenfranchised Obama voters will STAY HOME. Can you say President McCain? Yes, I thought you could.

[ScarletSniper]

52. Yep. That's pretty much it. Clinton strategy kill all the hens for one egg..lol