February 28, 2008
Recent Polling Data Show Serious Concerns About Sen. Obama's 'Electability' Over Sen. McCain vs. Sen. Clinton's (Lanny Davis)
I know that Sen. Obama is the front-runner. But I remain concerned about his electability. I find him inspirational, attractive, articulate and very intelligent. He has run an outstanding campaign. Close friends are ardently for him. I like him.
But recent polling data confirms for me, despite all the horde of punditry proclaiming him a "phenom" with stronger general electorate appeal than Sen. Clinton, that Sen. Obama is very vulnerable in the general election and less likely to defeat Sen. McCain than Sen. Clinton. And so to all Democrats – especially those in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania – I offer these facts and these arguments to take another look before you believe Sen. Obama is the stronger general election candidate.
CNN's Bill Schneider recently looked at the data showing Sen. Obama as leading Sen. Clinton in most Democratic national polls for the first time. Primarily, he said, this was because Democrats now see Sen. Obama as more likely to defeat Sen. McCain.
But the polling data do not consistently support this overwhelming Democratic voter and punditry perception.
In fact, many recent national polls show very little difference in head-to-head contests against Sen. McCain between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. Some show Sen. Obama running slightly ahead of Sen. McCain, with Sen. Clinton close or in a dead heat. Recently, a front-page story in USA Today showed Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton in a statistical dead heat with Sen. McCain, i.e., while Sen. Obama was slightly ahead of Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton slightly behind numerically, both were within the +/- 3% margin of error.
But how can this be? Hasn't Sen. Obama usually shown more support among independents and Republicans, both in the national polls and those states with open primaries? The answer is yes – but once you look beneath those data, you will see serious reasons to doubt whether that pattern will hold by the time of the November 2008 general election.
First, recent national data shows the surprising, even shocking, fact that Sen. Obama runs weaker among Democrats vs. Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton. For example, in the last three national Gallup polls (January, early February and late February,) Sen. McCain wins more Democrats in a race against Sen. Obama than he does in a race against Sen. Clinton – i.e., Sen. McCain wins an average of 17%-19% of Democrats against Sen. Obama, but only 10%-12-% average Democrats running against Sen. Clinton.
And why is that? Here could be a key reason: According to a recent Washington Post/ABC survey, about 4 out of 10 primary voting Democrats in Ohio and Texas say that Barack Obama "does not have the kind of experience" necessary to "serve as president." This compares to Sen. Clinton, who is seen by most voters as having superior experience to be president as compared to Sen. Obama, even by his own supporters.
This should be an extraordinary and worrisome piece of data for all Democrats who most of all want to win back the White House in 2008. Imagine: if 40 percent of self-identified voters planning to participate in the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries feel that way, then no wonder that Gallup's recent January and February polls show nearly one-out-of five Democrats supporting Sen. McCain against Sen. Obama. And those defections could well be indicators of similar defections come next November among moderate and conservative "Reagan Democrats" who did not participate in the low-turn out Democratic primaries and caucuses, as well as moderate and conservative Independents and Republicans.
But what about data showing that independents and Republicans have shown greater preference for Sen. Obama than Sen. Clinton?
The answer is, Sen. Obama remains is virtually unknown to most voters outside of the small percentage of registered voters who participated in all the Democratic primaries and caucuses. (A recent group of Obama young supporters was asked by MSNBC pollster to name a single accomplishment of Obama and after some uncomfortable silence, one supporter said, "he's run a great campaign.") In his own book, The Audacity of Hope, Sen. Obama himself (I am writing from memory, so I hope my paraphrase is correct) admits that he is relatively unknown to most Americans - in effect a blank slate.
No one disagrees that Sen. Clinton is well-known and that she has sustained all the negative attacks the Republicans can muster and, therefore, her "negatives" with general election voters cannot go much higher. But regarding Sen. Obama, the reverse is also hard to deny: his potential for his negatives getting higher over the course of the general election campaign is much greater than Sen. Clinton's, especially when Sen. McCain and the Republicans fill in the "blank" to currently unknowing voters with facts about Sen. Obama's consistently liberal voting record (which I like!) and his absence of foreign policy and national security experience.
What about the change issue?
Conventional wisdom says Sen. Obama is seen as the change agent and not Sen. Clinton (a very strange CW for me, given that Sen. Clinton could become the first woman president and has proposed major social and economic programs that constitute substantial change in the future — such as universal health care and getting out of Iraq).
But on the issue of who is the change agent, current data also defies the punditry's CW: According to the recent Washington Post/ABC poll found, 69 percent of Ohio primary Democrats and 67 percent of Texas Democrats say Sen. Clinton would "do enough to bring change to Washington," including many Obama voters.
Thus Sen. Clinton is seen as the candidate both of change and of having the experience to make it happen. That is what the polls show - even the ones showing Sen. Obama ahead. Sen. Obama is seen as the candidate of change - but not of experience, including among any Democrats.
That is why I believe that by the end of the general election campaign, comparing the positions of Sen. Obama vs. Sen. Clinton — when the comparison is between two equally known candidates, not a well-known one vs. a blank-slate one — Sen. Clinton will clearly be the stronger candidate against Sen. McCain.
* * * * * *
I still believe Sen. Clinton can be the nominee - even if she wins Ohio and Pennsylvania but not Texas. Because she will have carried all the major states a Democrat must win, especially Ohio, and also such border and winnable red states and marginal states, such as Tennessee, Arkansas, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona. And Sen. Obama's victories in the small-turn out red states such as Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota and Utah, are not likely to be replicated in the general election.
If Sen. Obama is the nominee I hope I am wrong about the following worry about his electability - but as of now I have it big time.
I have this déjà vu sensation.
I remember when Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis, whom I loved and strongly supported in the primaries and general election in 1988, was seen after the Democratic convention as a flinty fiscal conservative with appeal to Republicans and moderates and to "red" states (before they were called "red" states). He was ahead of Vice President Bush by 18 percent after the July 1988 Democratic Convention. But he too was not well known to most general election voters.
But then the Republican attack machine began – the same one that Hillary Clinton has sustained and survived, the same one Sen. Obama has never experienced. And we all know the unfortunate result – a landslide victory by George H.W. Bush.
This also feels a lot like the Ned Lamont campaign for U.S. Sen. in Connecticut in 2006.
Lamont defeated Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in August of 2006, primarily due to Lieberman's support for the Iraq war. Lamont defeated Lieberman by just four points, despite Lieberman's unpopular war position, but no matter. Lamont and his campaign were described by the national media in much the same way as Sen. Obama's campaign – as an unstoppable grassroots phenom riding the wave of euphoria on the netroots. Many major Democrats endorsed and campaigned for him, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman's long-time friend and Connecticut colleague, Sen. Chris Dodd, who even cut a commercial for Lamont.
Sound familiar?
But then a funny thing happened on the way to the general election.
The first set of polls after the primary had Lieberman ahead – an early reminder that the general electorate was not the same as the Democratic primary/caucus electorate. Ned Lamont was a blank slate who most non-Democratic primary voters — meaning a substantial majority of the general electorate who did not vote in the Democratic primary — did not know. When they learned more about him, they decided he was inexperienced and more liberal than themselves by a good margin. The result: Joe Lieberman, running as an independent moderate Democrat, won by 10 percent.
How often do we Democrats have to re-learn the lesson that the primary/caucus electorate, heavily depending on liberal activists (a description that I still apply to myself) turning out in low-turn out elections, is not the same as the general electorate?
Even supporters of Sen. Obama who disagree with me — and I hope we can respect each other and agree we have two great and historic candidates to run against John McCain - should ask themselves why so many Democrats are already saying in the Gallup polls that they are for Sen. McCain — and whether their numbers will grow, and the Obama supporters among independents and Republicans will drop, the more the "blank slate" is filled in.
Take another look at the electability question. Let your head, not your heart, rule — Sen. Clinton has taken all the shots; she has the experience to make change happen; she is less vulnerable to the Republican attack machine. She will defeat John McCain. I worry that Sen. Obama may not.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 25 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Going by national polls at this time 8 months from the elections is silly. The repubs have their nominee, the dems have not and still slugging it out. Come back in September.
Comment by Kelly Pierce — February 28, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Lanny, you're absolutely right: Sen. Obama is unelectable. He has no accomplishments of note. In addition to the cases you cite, I've seen many where his supporters struggled to name a single one and looked pathetic doing it.
Sen. Obama has a pleasant voice. He speaks of hope and change, and his followers seem powerless to resist his charms. Yet what do we really know about this man? What does anyone know about him?
We do have a few bits of information here and there. We know that Sen. Obama likes to exaggerate his humble beginnings from how he describes some relatively meaningless details about his father's financial situation in his book. That wouldn't be so important if it wasn't for the lack of meaningful information needed to decide if he is the right choice.
Sen. Obama carefully avoids details until pressed very hard. At times, the "hope and change" rhetoric has gotten creepy. Let me cite a few sentences from a single speech on Feb. 6:
"You know I love you back."
"Our time has come. Our movement is real, and change is coming to America."
"And today, on this Tuesday in February, in states north and south, east and west, what began as a whisper in Springfield has swelled to a chorus of millions calling for change."
"We have to choose between change and more of the same."
"We have to choose between our future and our past."
"So tonight, I want to speak directly to all those Americans who have yet to join this movement, but still hunger for change."
and the "cult classic" if I may:
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for."
I ask you to read these statements with their strange references to his "movement" and vague promises of "change". Do these sound like words of a party leader or a dangerous cult leader? They remind me of other times and other places where leaders spoke vaguely of "change" and they send a chill down my spine.
Comment by Igor R. — February 28, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Yet another Clinton Shrill trying to move the goal posts again. If Clinton looses Texas or Ohio she must be forced out. Period.
Comment by NJDem — February 28, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
You, sir, are a liar and shameless Clinton shill. 48% of the country hates Hillary. And throuhout this campaign SHE has shown the inability to win them over, not because of the press, but because she can't change people's minds about herself.
Obama is more electable than Hillary and McCain and all the polling data shows this, and given that Mark Penn, who provided your 'recent' poll data, you discredit yourself and this fine publication with every word you type and every word you get on TV and speak. She is done. Get behind the nominee like a real democrat would. It is time to prepare for November.
You can't pick and choose the poll you want to try and convince us that Hillary is still viable. She isn't. Obama needs 1 in 3 of all remaining superdelegates, a total of 100. He got 2 today. So now he needs 98 more to have an insurmountable lead.
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself, Hillary, and fellow democrats. You don't represent your party any longer.
Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com
Comment by Brian — February 28, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Obama has already won millions of supporters, his positives are high with very low negatives. He has won 11 consecutive contests (more if you count overseas) and is rapidly gaining more as he is becoming increasingly more widely known. Conversely, Hillary's base is decreasing, her negatives are sky-high and she is becoming less powerful the more she campaigns. I must say, your reading of the data simply defy fact and logic.
Comment by Robbie — February 28, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
Before I start, I would like to know if you have any implicit or explicit role in the Clinton campaign. I expected this post or one like it at this stage of the game. Let's not be fooled here. The notion of 'electability' is just a racist code word meaning that because Obama is black, he can't be elected. The core of your argument is that a white woman has a better chance of being elected than a black man. Democratic and Independent Americans are embracing the idea put forth by Martin Luther King "that we be judged on the content of our character, than the color of our skin". I also find it a bit ironic that Senator Obama will deliver his acceptance speech 45 years to the day that Reverend Martin Luther King gave that speech at the Lincoln memorial. Mr. Davis, simply put, if not now when. The Republicans will always be the same fear mongering, hating party into the future that they have morphed into now. They have lost their way and do not represent mainstream America. Your comments and analysis play into that fear.
This fly"s in the face of the 11 consecutive elections that he's won, the millions of dollars that his campaign has raised at the grass roots level and the fact that he polls better than Clinton among most demographics. Why on earth would we expect that Ms. Clinton would suddenly become more acceptable in the general? From the beginning she has done the calculated and expedient thing: Her vote on the war to make her look strong; Her turning the other way and enabling Bush as he and his cronies shredded the constitution (i.e., he votes on the Patriot Acts 1 & 2; Her voting to confirm Alito and Roberts; Not getting involved in her own state to stop the construction or a polluting coal fired power plant in upper NY; Her cheerleading for the NAFTA agreements in many of her public comments and in her book. The list goes on and on. The American people are not dumb, as some would have us believe. This is the main reason that she is losing. She and her DLC cohorts have taken the Democratic Party down a path that has almost marginalized us.
You raise several examples of Democrats who should have won but didn't. I recent memory, the Democrats have run some of the worst campaigns in history. Democrats have several times "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory". Why is this? I think that it was because they were soft and didn't want to attack. Look at the debates between Kerry and Bush when Kerry had him on the ropes and he let him off. Edwards fared no better even though Cheney was one of the most reviled men in America. Look at Gores example in Florida or Kerry conceding defeat before Ohio was resolved. I don't get that sense with Obama and his team is cut from the same cloth. This election will not be easy, and the conventional wisdom (Mark Penn) will certainly lose the election. But this is a new day and I think that Senator Obama has the stuff and team to win it. The American electorate is also changing. Democrats are energized for the first time in a long time, and are showing up in vast numbers to vote during this primary. Look at the Wisconsin numbers where Senator Clinton got more votes than all of the Republicans combined.
I used to be a huge Clinton fan but their - husband and wife - tactics have turned me off toward them during this primary. To assert that Senator Clinton would do better against Senator McCain is not supported by any fact that I've seen. As Senator Obama has stated - and many of those supporting him - this election is about change. Senator McCain will give us 4 more years of the Bush presidency and policies. 4 more years of Iraq. 4 more year of privatizing government functions. 4 more years of shredding our personal liberties and the constitution. 4 more years to permanently shift the Supreme Court so far to the right that it may take a century to rebalance. 4 more years of government gridlock. 4 more years of failed policies that has made the United States a target of derision around the world. The status quo will remain if we elect John McCain. I don't want that and I believe that the vast majority of Americans don't want that either.
Your argument is the 'camel"s nose under the tent' of the same type of scare tactics that the Bush people have used so effectively and the former president Clinton tried to use in South Carolina. You are cynical if you don't believe that the best person will be elected despite the color of their skin or their gender. So, please. Show a little respect and optimism.
Comment by Luke — February 28, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
Anything that sends a chill down Igor's spine must be a good thing.
Put a little green salsa in your borscht, Igor, and feel the heat of Obamamania. You Russkys are too stodgy and you need to take a walk on the wild side along with about 20 million other Americans (you are an American?) that support the audacity of hope.
Comment by Don Bacon — February 29, 2008 @ 1:29 am
Both Barrack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are weak candidates. Their platforms are virtually identical. They call for the same failed political mandates for bigger and bigger government that have failed so miserably. The Barrack Obama campaign of hope is meaningless. Hope is all you have left when you have nothing left. As far as Hillary Clinton's negatives, it's disingenious to blame that on Republicans. She owns her image, and even the Democrats have trouble stomaching her as evidenced by this election cycle. And your article also demonstrates why the White House eludes the Democratic candidates. The Democrats want it solely to pursue their belief of bigger government. They don't give a damn about America or the average American.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — February 29, 2008 @ 2:03 am
Lanny,
You are right there is little known about Senator Obama. The blank slate will be fully etched by the Corporate Media and Republicans in the late summer and early fall.
Of course, this could start earlier during the Rezko trial which is starting this Monday March 3, 2008 in Chicago.
If the upcoming trial fails to bring the necessary awareness and connections between the two, for certain the Republicans will make us all aware after the primary's.
Comment by diane b — February 29, 2008 @ 2:42 am
Dear Mr. Davis:
your lips must be constantly chapped after all the ass kissing of Hillary Clinton. No candidate in our history has entered the race with more advantages than MRS Clinton and no candidate has ever taken less advantage of their advantages. Her run ended with Super Tuesday because people realized how truly incompetent she is. If she were to run the country the way she has run her campaign we all better start learning Arabic.
a
Comment by james d granata — February 29, 2008 @ 4:51 am
You have some good points. But truthfully, Obama and Hillary has huge issues. McCain has problems to in a general. I understand your reason for wanting to keep Hillary in the race.
But it is the American voters who will decided the next Dem. Nom and not a Huge Hillary Supporter.
Comment by John — February 29, 2008 @ 7:03 am
To suggest that the Democratic support of the likely winner of the Democratic primary is not strong is … strange.
And what of turnouts? Not mentioned above, but whomever those folks voting in Democratic primaries have been - if not the Democratic base supporting Obama - they are out in force.
We have no need for electability thought experiments. Obama's votes alone have doubled Republican primary turnout in several states. National polling - nearly all of which project an Obama victory - underestimates the motivation of Obama's base.
I disagree with this post.
Comment by Bob — February 29, 2008 @ 9:23 am
It is amazing to read crazy postings like Rosie's trying to portrait Obama and Hillary as weak. The "Rush Limpbow Universe" is indeed alternate, and parrallel. They sure sound paranoid and desperate.
Comment by Lester — February 29, 2008 @ 10:18 am
This post just confirms to me that pundits are at lease as, if not more, deluded than the rest of us.
Comment by Will — February 29, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Lanny:
Most polls I have seen seem to indicate that Sen. Obama would fare much better than HRC in the general election. The polls, however, consistently show that HRC retains very high negatives and would serve as a catalyst to the republican base if she were to win the nomination.
The Clinton campaign staff made some major mistakes.
Here are a few:
They grossly underestimated the Obama campaign
They failed to contest the smaller states, allowing him to build his current lead virtually unchallenged.
Assumed that Obama would be done by Feb 5th, thus never planned for the current scenario.
She is running on experience and electability when the electorate wants change.
The ironic aspect of this race is that she has allowed Obama to take up the Hope/Change mantra, a platform that her husband (who is from HOPE, AR) exemplified in ‘92
Comment by Theard — February 29, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Luke;
Man, your post was spot on and included a few points that I would have wanted to make. Brilliant!
Comment by Mike Coleman — February 29, 2008 @ 11:01 am
A lot of people turn out for circuses and carnivals too. Should they run the government?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — February 29, 2008 @ 11:02 am
RR;
Looking at your candidate, you have no hope. John McCain is going to go down faster than a $5 crack whore.
Comment by Mike Coleman — February 29, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Hillery may lose the Texas Primary because of Republican crossover voters.
Everyone in Texas is an independant. One becomes a Democrat or Republican only they vote in a primary election.
Many Texas Republicans will Vote in Democratic Primary for a person they believe doesn't have a chance against John McCain in the final race for the White House.
At this juncture Obama is their choice.
Comment by Donaldd — February 29, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Doesn't get much better. What you see is what you get, and it has barely started. I love it when the Dems get nervous and start whacking each other. Makes is so much simpler. Only is America and we're going to save it.
Comment by John B — February 29, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Mike: It's nice to hear you have some experience with "real people." And cheap too.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — February 29, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
What an embarrassing and utterly ridiculous post. This is just one of the hundreds of examples of the Clinton campaign's complete disregard for the intellect of the American voter. The Clinton/Penn spin machine is long past the point of diminishing returns and has entered into self-parody.
Granted this is a blog post, but "The Hill" needs to evaluate why Lanny Davis is allowed to manipulate all reasonable logic under it's masthead.
Comment by Michael C — February 29, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Once again, the Clinton entourage has spoken. Please! You are soooo biased. You really think it would be good for this country to endure another term of the Clinton Distractions. Mr. Clinton is a charming politician but he brought far too much shame to the Democrats. He completely lacks any self control and she sat by and lied for him. Now you all want to tear down a wonderful candidate that Democrats and Americans can be proud of so that Hillary gets her turn at President. Personally, I can't stomach it.
Comment by Suzyq — February 29, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Yes, Suzyq how dare the lowly Lanny Davis attack the all knowing, all powerful Lord Obama? By his very presence Lord Obama proves that he is "wonderful", doesn't he? How can it not be obvious that he is The One? Don't ask what Lord Obama will do for you (besides taking the taxes of the evil rich and personally giving them to you) just vote for Lord Obama.
Comment by Igor R. — March 2, 2008 @ 12:16 am
"First, recent national data shows the surprising, even shocking, fact that Sen. Obama runs weaker among Democrats vs. Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton."
Because Clinton supporters are much more willing to say they will vote for McCain over Obama. Desperate times call for desperate measures. They will come around after the HRC concession speech.
Comment by warren — March 3, 2008 @ 11:45 pm