Despite Accounts, Democrats All on the Same Page in Denver

By Stuart Rothenberg

Even a few journalists have started to wonder whether the dominant narrative of the first days of the Democratic National Convention is entirely accurate.

Sure, a chunk of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (N.Y.) supporters initially didn’t completely embrace Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) as the Democratic Party’s nominee, but isn’t it merely a matter of time before most of them do, especially given Clinton’s full-throated endorsement of Obama?

Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers, thinks they will. Although she was an enthusiastic supporter of Clinton throughout the primary process, Weingarten has had no trouble switching her allegiance to the Illinois Democrat.

“I will be as fiercely supportive of Barack as I was for Hillary,” she told me during an interview in the Pepsi Center even before Clinton’s call for party unity.

There is plenty of anecdotal and survey evidence that not all Clinton supporters have been as quick as Weingarten to switch her allegiance, and some liberal women may never get over what they regard as the party’s snub of the New York Senator or the way they believe that the Obama campaign mistreated Clinton.

But in all likelihood, most liberal-leaning former Clinton supporters will slide over to the Obama column rather quickly after they are bombarded with information about presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) positions on abortion, taxes and Iraq, as well as Obama’s personal story.

On the other hand, while Clinton also won the support of downscale Democrats during the primaries, many of them will be harder to sway — and few of them were in the Pepsi Center to hear Clinton on Tuesday night.

The one thing that jumps out after any detailed examination of delegates in Denver is that while they are a diverse group when it comes to race, sexual orientation and age, they are unabashedly liberal and upscale.

While 42 percent of Democratic voters have a high school education or less, a miniscule 5 percent of delegates match that education level according to polling done for CBS News and the New York Times. And while only 13 percent of Democratic voters did post-graduate work, a stunning 55 percent of delegates to the Denver convention have done post-graduate work.

While Democrats often portray themselves as the party of “working families” — and 44 percent of Democrats have a family income of less than $50,000 — only 10 percent of delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention had a family income of less than $50,000 per year. Fifty-four percent of delegates came from families with an income of more than $100,000 a year.

This isn’t entirely surprising. Each party has elites who are disproportionately active and can afford the time and expense of attending a national convention. Still, the once-typical image of Democrats as downtrodden, struggling workers isn’t reflected in the makeup of national convention delegates, and it’s not yet entirely clear that this group of Merlot-drinking Democrats truly understands what white, Catholic, working-class Democrats in Michigan really want in a presidential nominee.

Still, these delegates, party strategists and operatives have figured out that they need to sell themselves as a “big tent” party, and they have effectively done so with a variety of high-profile candidates and officeholders around the country.

Whether it’s pro-life statewide officeholders, such as Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey or Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, or culturally conservative Congressional candidates, such as incumbent Reps. Heath Shuler of North Carolina or Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, or recent special election winners, such as Reps. Travis Childers (Miss.) and Don Cazayoux (La.), the Democratic Party has gone out of its way to woo potentially electable candidates who don’t fit a single mold.

At the same time, Republican strategists have found themselves boxed in by party ideologues who seek to purge GOP incumbents who are less conservative on taxes and social issues. While Republican delegates will be nominating a “big tent” Republican next week, moderate Republicans increasingly have problems getting nominated and elected in House races even in districts where a moderate is a better fit.

Democrats have simply become more pragmatic when it comes to nominating and supporting candidates for higher office. Much as Republicans during the 1980s dropped their calls for eliminating the Department of Education and for a total ban on all abortions, Democrats have addressed their weakness on gun control, faith and even government spending by changing their rhetoric.

Obviously, we will see over the next few years how serious they are about those changes, but there is no doubt that Democrats over the past four years have changed their tune in such a way as to make the party more appealing for voters. That’s a lesson that Republican activists and interest groups might study.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on August 28, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Forget Expectations — Now Delegates Are What Really Matters

By Stuart Rothenberg

So, the Democratic race continues.

Despite of all of the truly silly spin about how much ground Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) made up in the Keystone State and all of the bashing of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for remaining in the race (especially by one rather loud TV host on one of the cable channels), Clinton scored a solid but not decisive victory Tuesday.

No, her victory by slightly more than 200,000 votes, combined with only a low double-digit net gain of delegates, doesn’t fundamentally alter the race. That’s why the results weren’t decisive. They didn’t alter the dynamics of the contest.

But her victory should not be easily dismissed by Democratic observers or those in the media, especially because she was seriously out-spent in the state and Obama had six weeks to sell his message of change to Pennsylvania voters.

Obama, delivering his message of change with his usual great oratory and charisma, won seven counties in the state — five stretching from Philadelphia to Harrisburg and only two west of the Susquehanna River, each dominated by a major university (Penn State in Centre County and Bucknell in Union County).

He narrowly lost upscale, suburban Montgomery County (51 percent to 49 percent) and was defeated decisively in Bucks County (63 percent to 37 percent). Supposedly “swing” Lehigh County (Allentown) went for Clinton 60 percent to 40 percent.

The New Yorker crushed Obama in Luzerne County (Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton) and Lackawanna County (Scranton), both by about 3 to 1, in the northeast part of the state, and she won many counties in the western part of the state by 70 percent (including Beaver, Lawrence and Armstrong).

Clinton cannot overcome Obama’s lead in delegates or “beat” him in the popular vote, certainly not without Florida and Michigan voters playing their parts. But that’s not the only way for her to win the Democratic nomination. Superdelegates will hold the balance, and while there is every indication that they are flowing relentlessly to the Illinois Senator, Obama simply has not sewn up the nomination yet.

The Pennsylvania results give Clinton another arrow in her quiver as she makes the case why the Democratic Party must nominate her for president: Obama simply cannot win half of the Democratic Party, and without older voters, white Catholics, labor union members and the working class, Democrats will lose to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in November.

We don’t know whether she is correct about that, but at the very least, it is a reasonable argument that superdelegates will have to consider.

More than a year ago, everyone agreed that “electability” was a major concern for Democrats. While the Pennsylvania exit poll found only 9 percent of Democratic respondents saying that it was the top quality they were looking for in a nominee, electability certainly is (and ought to be) a consideration for many Democrats.

Clinton’s victory once again raises doubts about Obama’s ability to win key voters in key states. That doesn’t guarantee anything, of course, but it provides Clinton, her supporters and her contributors with a rationale for staying in the race.

What the New York Senator really needs, of course, is national survey data and key state polling showing she can beat McCain but Obama can’t. At this point, those numbers don’t exist, and that is a problem for Clinton.

We can only hope that Clinton’s win in Pennsylvania puts an end to all of the blather about expectations.

Yes, of course, there is a difference in winning Pennsylvania by 2 points or 10 points or 30 points. But after months of primaries and caucuses and with more than 80 percent of all pledged delegates now selected, it’s time to focus far, far less on expectations and more on where the race stands and what other than primary results might change the current dynamic.

Clinton clearly has no incentive to exit the race, and as long as she has enough money to fight on (and advertising in South Dakota, Montana and West Virginia is relatively cheap), it probably doesn’t matter whether she wins Kentucky and West Virginia by more than 15 points each or whether she breaks 40 percent in North Carolina.

I only wish we could drop some of the spin, particularly about expectations, now coming from the campaigns, their surrogates and too many in the media. You’d think serious people would be embarrassed by some of the drivel coming from their mouths these days.

It’s one thing to talk about expectations very early in the process, when candidates are trying to establish themselves as serious contenders, and something very different when only two candidates are left and the math is all that really matters.

Clearly, the math still favors Obama. But Clinton’s strong statewide showing in Pennsylvania ought to start making undecided delegates very nervous.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 24, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

For McCain, This Could Be as Good As It’s Going to Get

By Stuart Rothenberg

Republicans are feeling their oats these days.

Democratic Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) are battling it out for their party’s nomination, arguing about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the meaning of Clinton’s inaccurate recollections about her trip to Bosnia many years ago, and whether Obama was condescending toward gun owners and the religious in explaining how rural voters deal with what he termed their bitterness.

And then there are the polls, which show Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) very competitive in the presidential race against either Democrat and able to take advantage of a potentially damaging crack in the Democratic coalition.

Some surveys show McCain ahead of the two Democrats, while others show him trailing by a couple of points. But it doesn’t matter which ones are correct. For Republicans, many of whom thought that 2008 could be a presidential blowout of cosmic proportions for the Democrats, a close race for the White House is more than they even expected.

Yes, more and more Republicans (and, remarkably, even some Democrats) agree, McCain might very well win in November by attracting downscale, white Democrats against Obama and by taking advantage of the Illinois Democrat’s inexperience and liberalism.

But those same Republicans who suddenly feel optimistic about their chances of retaining the White House ought to remember that McCain has a long campaign ahead, and Democrats will eventually be united and aiming their fire at the Arizonan.

Right now, the presidential election resembles a three-way political contest where two of the hopefuls are attacking each other daily, while the third candidate benefits. We’ve all seen it before in House and Senate races.

Clinton must attack to try to damage Obama, and Obama cannot merely ignore the attacks. Ignoring Clinton might allow her criticisms to stick and to define him. Even worse, ignoring the attacks would make it easier for Clinton to argue that the Illinois Senator is too passive to stand up to general election attacks by Republicans. So Obama has to respond, even if he’d rather not.

Because Clinton and Obama spend most of their time criticizing each other, or responding to criticism, they both often look small and petty, and like typical politicians. Voters don’t like that.

While Clinton and Obama fight it out, McCain stays above the fray looking like a leader, even a president. He can follow a script that he’s created rather than one dictated by his opponent. He can give big, serious speeches and avoid journalists’ questions about polls and process.

McCain’s recent improvement in the polls all but destroys the argument, made by some immediately after he locked up the Republican nomination, that he would be hurt by the lack of media attention. He is polling better because he isn’t part of the daily Democratic squabble.

But this dynamic is likely to change when Democrats finally have a nominee, whether it is in May or June, or even July. And at that point, the going will get tougher for the de facto GOP nominee.

McCain almost certainly is the best candidate the GOP could nominate this year, but he has more than enough vulnerabilities and liabilities for Democrats to exploit. And exploit them they will, whether at the conventions, during the inevitable debates or in the crucial post-Labor Day period.

McCain’s greatest strength is his image, and that’s likely to be eclipsed, at least somewhat, as the campaign progresses and he must react to charges about his voting record and issues on which he has agreed with an unpopular sitting president.

Democrats still have national issues in their favor. The war remains unpopular, and the economy is weak. McCain talks about the war in Iraq and against Islamic extremists with great passion, and he begins the contest with great credibility on matters that involve the military and national security. But he has simply not demonstrated the same facility or intensity when discussing economic matters.

And at some point, McCain will once again come under the microscope. He’ll say something contradictory. He’ll make a mistake. He’ll offend someone or some group. Indeed, if he doesn’t, it means that he’s probably trying to play things too safe. That’s not when McCain is at his most genuine and appealing.

My point is not that McCain will lose in November, or that Republicans don’t have reasons for optimism. Four or five months ago, the presidential contest looked like a foregone conclusion, while now it looks very competitive.

But it’s a mistake to focus too much on the current happenings. There will be plenty of ups and downs for both parties between now and November. The biggest tests for McCain still lie ahead.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 21, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Why Should Clinton Just Pack It In When Nothing Is Decided?

By Stuart Rothenberg

The calls for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s exit from the Democratic presidential race have appeared from members of the national media, as well as from some within her own party. She can’t possibly win, they say.

When I asked one veteran Democratic insider in the past few days about the likely outcome of the race, the Clinton-supporter put Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s chances at “95 percent ... maybe higher.”

The Washington Post has Clinton trailing Obama by 136 delegates (1,638 to 1,502), while NBC has her down by 135 (1,642 to 1,507). ABC has the Illinois Senator leading Clinton by 137 delegates (1,633 to 1,496), while CBS News has Obama up by 138 (1,631 to 1,493). Finally, The New York Times shows the delegate race as 1,627 to 1,471, a lead of 156 for Obama.

Given the Democratic Party’s rules, which allocate delegates proportionately to the popular vote, it’s virtually impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama between now and the end of the primaries in June, even if Michigan and Florida were to revote.

So Clinton will trail in delegates after all of the primaries are over, which means that superdelegates (call them automatic or unpledged delegates, if you’d prefer) will put either Obama or Clinton over the top.

As others have pointed out, Obama has the delegate momentum since Super Tuesday (picking up more than four dozen new superdelegates while the New Yorker has lost a handful of those who previously had been committed to her), and there is no reason to expect a radical change in that.

According to ABC News’ calculations, Obama has received about 100,000 more raw votes than Clinton (13.8 million to 13.7 million). While Clinton may well narrow that gap, it isn’t clear that she can erase it completely.

All of this explains why Clinton is the decided underdog. But does it also mean that she should simply accept defeat now and end her candidacy? Absolutely not.

The New York Senator’s critics — and there are a lot of them on both sides of the aisle and in the national media — insist that if she has no realistic chance of winning, her candidacy does little else than divide her party and enhance the chances of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) winning in the general election.

New Republic’s Jonathan Chait, for example, equates Clinton’s chances of being nominated with Ralph Nader’s of being elected president, a ridiculous comparison because there is a qualitative difference between having some chance and no chance of winning.

The Obama-Clinton race remains incredibly tight. The difference between the two in the popular vote is slightly less than four-tenths of 1 percent (50.185 percent for Obama to Clinton’s 49.814 percent). The difference in committed delegates between the two Democrats is roughly 140 delegates out of more than 3,000 who already have committed.

Certainly, many undeclared superdelegates are swayed by the argument that superdelegates cannot “overturn” the decision of primary voters and caucus goers, and that’s a significant asset for Obama. But other superdelegates firmly believe that additional considerations, such as their own opinions of the candidates as potential presidents and the electability of the two Democratic hopefuls, should have an effect on their decisions.

Clinton has spent more than a year of her life running for president, and some of her supporters have given more than a year of their lives. Given the closeness of the Democratic contest, it’s hard to see why, at this point, Clinton should simply walk away. She and her supporters have too much invested in her candidacy to accept defeat before Obama has the 2,024 committed delegates he needs to guarantee his nomination.

Clinton’s upset scenario is based on two hopes. First, she must hope that Obama makes another mistake or that information surfaces that so far has not. Given the Illinois Senator’s relatively brief time under the national microscope, that certainly is possible.

And second, Clinton must hope that before Obama locks up the nomination, national polls show that she has a much better chance of beating McCain than he does. The “electability” issue remains a wild card in the Democratic contest, and it could well be the Clinton campaign’s best hope.

Finally, it’s more than a little amusing that some observers are calling for Clinton’s exit given the twists and turns that we have seen during this campaign. Obama wasn’t expected to win Iowa. After he did, Clinton was widely regarded as DOA in New Hampshire, which she won. McCain’s candidacy was all but over in July and August.

You’d think that we’d all be a bit more humble and modest given the presidential elections we’ve witnessed over the past decade, especially since there are just a couple of months to go until the primaries are over.

Clinton should play every card she has in her hand. She owes it to herself and, even more important, to all of her supporters.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 10, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Would Obama Be Leading the Democratic Race if He Were White?

By Stuart Rothenberg

When former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (D-N.Y.) asserted that “if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she caused a mini media frenzy and was forced to step down from the Clinton campaign’s finance committee.

I found the comment slightly unsettling but not for the same reason that most did. Since Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is half white and half black, calling him black reminded me of those Nazi-era Nuremberg laws that classified Germans on the percentage of their Jewish blood, as well as of America’s Jim Crow laws, which distinguished between blacks, whites and often those of mixed ancestry.

Given his parentage, Obama is neither entirely black nor white. But since his skin color is closer to most African-Americans, it isn’t surprising that he’s generally classified as a black American. Indeed, that’s what he calls himself.

Actually, the question of whether Obama’s skin color has helped or hurt him during his presidential bid is an interesting one. (How his skin color affected his entire life is a very different question, and certainly one far beyond my own expertise.)

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the white Obama still graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School, served six years in the Illinois state Senate, lost a Congressional bid but won a U.S. Senate seat. Also assume that he’s a terrific orator and has run the same high-quality campaign with the same consultants that he has.

Under that scenario, would he likely be even with or ahead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)? I’m inclined to believe not. That means Ferraro probably was correct that, all things being equal (though they rarely are), Obama would not now be leading the Democratic contest if he were white.

Part of the excitement about Obama flows from his story, and the candidacy of a white politician from Chicago isn’t nearly as interesting a story. What makes him unique are his mixed-race background and the uplifting narrative of black kid who succeeded and who promises to bring Americans together. In a time when voters want change, Obama doesn’t look like your average politician.

Any candidate can promise change and try to tap Americans’ desire for a better country, but Obama’s race is very much part of his appeal. That’s especially the case in the Democratic Party, which is filled with idealists looking for a new messenger of hope.

For Democrats, many of whom celebrate diversity and multiculturalism and would feel good about making a statement about their values and their wishes for America, Obama’s race and background are clear assets.

But if Obama’s race is an important part of who he is as a candidate, it has been an even bigger tactical advantage for him in his fight for the Democratic nomination.

As a white candidate, Obama would have had a difficult time, if not an impossible one, corralling the African-American vote, which has become such a crucial part of his coalition. Instead, Clinton would have been the overwhelming favorite of black voters (as indeed she was), and they almost certainly would have remained in her corner without an African-American candidate in the race.

While the African-American community would not have turned out as heavily for Clinton as they have for Obama, black voters, combined with the New York Senator’s appeal among women, Hispanics and older voters, might well have made her unbeatable.

But let’s assume that Clinton is so polarizing that she would have inevitably generated a serious threat for the Democratic nomination. In that case, it’s unclear whether Obama or former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (or even someone else) would have been that candidate.

Edwards, after all, also was a “change” candidate, and he started with the single strongest base of support in Iowa.

With his Southern roots and style, Edwards had appeal in the African-American community. He, not Obama, would have been Clinton’s main opponent in South Carolina on Jan. 26 and in Alabama and Georgia on Feb. 5, had the fight for the nomination lasted that long. And Edwards’ message might have been more upbeat and less demagogic had his campaign been able to position the former North Carolina Senator as the “change” alternative to Clinton.

But wouldn’t Obama’s oratorical skills have made him a serious contender for the nomination anyway? Maybe. But there is no guarantee that he would have caught fire. Again, what made him so noteworthy early in the campaign — and so difficult to attack throughout the Democratic contest — was that he stood out from other candidates, past and present.

Observing that Obama benefited during the contest from his skin color doesn’t mean it’s always a benefit to be black, that the Illinois Democrat’s race doesn’t have a downside politically, or that he doesn’t deserve to be where he is. And it certainly doesn’t mean he is defined solely by his skin color.

Clinton also has benefited from certain attributes, including her gender and her husband. And is anyone certain that she would be the United States Senator from New York, and a contender for the presidency, if she had not married Bill Clinton?


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 24, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Should McCain Fret About Bush — and About Disappearing?

By Stuart Rothenberg

No sooner had Arizona Sen. John McCain won enough delegates to claim the Republican presidential nomination than some talking heads began to assert that this was bad news for him.

The logic of these observers was simple. First, because the GOP race is now over, McCain will largely disappear from the news, which will instead focus on the Democratic contest between Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

Second, some said, as the certain Republican nominee, McCain would not be able to avoid being embraced by unpopular President Bush.

The idea that meeting with Bush and receiving his endorsement would be damaging for McCain doesn’t even deserve to be taken seriously.

Everyone knows the president is broadly unpopular and that McCain doesn’t want the 2008 election to be a referendum on Bush. And after the first day of the Republican National Convention in early September, you aren’t likely to see Bush anywhere near McCain. Between now and then, you aren’t going to see the two Republicans, arm-in-arm, barnstorming across the country.

But it’s no secret that McCain and the president are both Republicans, and regardless of whether Bush endorsed McCain, the Arizonan surely will be hurt by the president’s weak standing among voters as well as his support for the president’s surge policy in Iraq.

On the other hand, while Bush’s support among Republicans is far from ideal, many Americans (and most Republicans) still approve of the job he has done, and he continues to be an important party fundraiser. In addition, Bush certainly is an asset for McCain as the Senator tries to reach out to skeptical conservatives.

Snubbing Bush would have brought McCain even greater problems from Republicans. Indeed, the quick Bush endorsement means McCain can now move on without having to deal with questions about his relationship with the president.

The suggestion that McCain is damaged because he now has enough delegates to assure his nomination and therefore will be less newsworthy is worth more discussion, since at first it may seem both counterintuitive and smart.

The premise that some of McCain’s media attention will dry up surely is correct, but the idea that this is a big problem for him borders on being silly.

Yes, McCain won’t receive the same attention over the next few weeks that the two Democratic contenders will, but that’s not a problem for the inevitable Republican nominee. He won’t disappear or be forgotten.

The 2008 presidential election has been stunningly interesting and entertaining. McCain’s road to the nomination, in particular, has been remarkable, from frontrunner to also-ran to comeback kid to nominee. The idea that even a couple of months as the second political story of the day will damage McCain’s chances ignores the political calendar and elevates what happened yesterday — any yesterday — to a ridiculous level of importance.

The general election won’t take place until November, eight months away. By the time November rolls around, voters will see plenty of McCain, and his Democratic opponent.

There will be the announcement of a running mate, the Republican National Convention and McCain’s acceptance speech. There will be debates and the suffocating media coverage that will precede them and follow them. And there will be interviews, controversies and arguments galore.

In other words, there will be more coverage of McCain than he needs for voters to form an opinion of him. McCain may well lose in November, but it won’t be because he won his nomination before the Democratic race was decided, and it certainly won’t be because his media coverage dimmed in March and April.

But there is another set of reasons why McCain should actually benefit from a relatively brief hiatus in media coverage.

The Arizona Republican now needs time to talk to and with Republicans who haven’t been enthusiastic about him. He needs time to raise campaign cash. And he doesn’t need national political reporters hovering over him while he does both.

McCain also needs time to retool on the economy.

He clearly is comfortable discussing the war in Iraq and the war on terror, but he still has a ways to go before he can talk as articulately and confidently about the economic issues of the day. He certainly could use a few weeks to focus on domestic issues, which will be a major part of the ’08 campaign.

Finally, though I expect he would deny it vociferously, McCain almost certainly could use a bit of a rest right now. It’s been a grueling year for him, and while he continues to show energy and enthusiasm, all candidates, especially those in their 70s, could use time to relax a bit and recharge their batteries.

It’s still a long time until November. McCain, like his eventual Democratic opponent, will have more than his share of media coverage, both good and bad. He’ll have opportunities and campaign crises. While the national media treats each day as if it were the crucial day of the campaign (and any given day certainly could be crucial), most days aren’t.

McCain could well benefit from the continued Democratic contests. That, of course, depends on how the nomination fight develops. But what’s certain is that McCain’s victory in the GOP race is good news for him, not bad.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 10, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

It Ain’t Over Till the Fat Lady Sings ... and She Hasn’t Yet

By Stuart Rothenberg

OK, it’s official: The Democratic race for president is officially screwed up. Forget the silly candidate spinning. With any luck, you weren’t listening when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s operatives told you what New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton needed to do in order to win or how it’s impossible for her to win enough delegates in the remaining tests to allow her to pass Obama’s total or be nominated in Denver.

And I hope you ignored all of those spinners and strategists from Clinton’s campaign who said that if Obama didn’t sweep the March 4 primaries, it would be a rejection of him.

Obama may still have more pledged delegates than Clinton, but Tuesday’s primary confirmed that Democratic voters are still deeply divided about which Democrat they want to carry their party’s banner in the fall. Neither presidential hopeful is in a commanding position in the race. Neither one has the kind of momentum that normally is associated with being a frontrunner.

Yes, delegates matter, and the Illinois Democrat remains ahead in delegates. But — as the Obama folks have been arguing when it suits them — the popular vote is crucial because it reflects the fundamental wishes of the people. And the size of Clinton’s win in Ohio (and in Rhode Island, too), as well as her win in the Texas primary, can’t easily be ignored.

What many Democratic strategists and insiders have been hoping for is a clean victory, a knockout blow that makes it crystal clear which contender Democrats want as their presidential nominee. Instead, Tuesday confirmed only that Democrats can’t agree on their nominee.

The problem for Democrats is that the race is certain to get more negative and more personal over the next seven weeks, until Pennsylvania in late April, all but guaranteeing increased bitterness and division. That’s not good for a party that would prefer that Clinton and Obama spend their resources attacking Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) rather than each other.

Indeed, the two campaigns’ overflowing war chests become something of a problem for the party, instead of an asset. Both Obama and Clinton have so much cash — and will raise more over the next few weeks — that they have plenty of resources to pummel each other with, adding to the division within the party.

The only good news in all of this for Democrats is that Clinton and Obama will continue to spend resources identifying and turning out Democratic voters, and building organizations in states they ordinarily would ignore.

Still, back in the middle of January, liberal Democratic bloggers were chortling over the chaos in the GOP primary, laughing about how the Republican race could go on indefinitely after Mike Huckabee won Iowa, McCain won New Hampshire and Mitt Romney won Michigan. One blogger even encouraged Democrats to participate in the GOP race just to stir the pot and drag out the Republican race. Bad karma. Very bad karma.

The 2008 presidential race already has reminded us of something very important: We are a nation of separate states, and states are more than lines on a map. They are more than artificial distinctions.

Each state has its own political culture, its own demographic reality. A candidate who wins in Iowa doesn’t automatically win in New Hampshire. Wisconsin voters aren’t the same as Ohio voters. Indeed, Hispanic Democrats in Connecticut aren’t just like Hispanic Democrats in Texas.

The longer the Democratic race continues, the more likely Obama will come under intense media scrutiny. From Clinton’s point of view, the longer the contest goes on, the more the chance that the Illinois Senator will make a mistake, maybe even a major blunder.

The Democratic contest has been all about momentum, and Clinton supporters now have the right to feel that their candidate’s message about experience and readiness for the job has finally started to take hold. Of course, we don’t know if that is true. Ohio and Rhode Island may just be different from Nebraska, Hawaii and Alabama. But at least it gives Clinton supporters an argument that they can make over the next few weeks.

Tuesday’s results, and the prolonged Democratic race, once again resuscitate the Michigan and Florida debate. Party insiders know that they can’t seat delegates elected in violation of Democratic National Committee rules, but they also can’t have a national nominating convention without delegates from two large states.

Former Bush strategist Karl Rove said on the Fox News Channel on Tuesday night that McCain may be hurt by the fact that he will become invisible over the next month as members of the national media and the public focus on the Democratic race.

Last time I looked, the general election isn’t until November, and McCain could use a few weeks to relax, recharge his batteries, raise money and reach out to party activists and insiders. He’s far better off having Democrats and Republicans alike watch Obama and Clinton raise questions about each other’s judgment, readiness and character, even if it means the focus isn’t on him. He’ll have more than enough time to tell his story.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 6, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Shifting Standards of Victory

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With less than a handful of states under our belt in the presidential race, it’s time for both the candidates’ campaigns and the media to agree on a uniform way of evaluating the results and determining candidate placement on the medal stands.

Post-Nevada, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are claiming victory, and each has a reasonable explanation. Sen. Hillary Clinton defeated Sen. Barack Obama 51% to 45% in the Silver State’s popular vote (which, more accurately, reflects delegates to the state convention). But Obama appeared to edge Clinton in national delegates 13 to 12, because of how the national delegates are proportioned.

The newfound focus on national delegates is fascinating since no one talked about Clinton taking more national delegates than John Edwards in Iowa. Instead, observers near and far were anxious to shove the New York Senator into third place in the first critical contest because it made for a better storyline.

In Iowa, Clinton earned 15 national delegates, one behind Obama (16), and one ahead of John Edwards (14). But that didn’t stop Edwards from swiping the rhetorical silver medal. The former North Carolina senator edged Clinton 29.748% to 29.468% in state delegates, but if Clinton had received a single state delegate more (she already had 737) she would have been at 29.5% and her percentage would have been rounded up to 30%, putting her in a statistical “tie” with Edwards.

So, if all of the sudden national delegate counts are the new fad, Edwards has three third place finishes under his belt.

In fact, both “votes” and delegates matter. And in the case of Nevada, Clinton and Obama finished in a near dead heat. One “won” in delegates, while the other “won” in caucus votes. The reality, however, is that the Nevada results, by themselves, don’t boost either Democrat’s prospects dramatically.


This item also appeared on Political Wire.

Did Edwards' Slip Help Clinton in New Hampshire?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While some will suggest that Sen. Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire victory can be traced to her emotional comments shortly before the primary, and others will credit Bill Clinton, there is some evidence to suggest that the collapse of the John Edwards campaign in the Granite State may have given Clinton a victory that multiple polls promised would go to Sen. Barack Obama.

Edwards’s weak 17% showing in New Hampshire was a significant drop from his 30% finish in Iowa just a few days earlier. (It’s probably more accurate to conclude that Edwards drew 23% or 24% in Iowa, not 30%, since that’s what the Iowa entrance poll found. Edwards undoubtedly benefited in the caucuses from realignment, which boosted his final percentage past Clinton, though more people went into the caucuses saying that they would support her. Still, Edwards’s 6-point drop between the Iowa entrance poll and the New Hampshire exit poll is worth noting.)

It’s not that Edwards is unpopular with his party’s voters. A solid 79% of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters had a favorable opinion of him, and many said that he “cares about people.”

But exit polling from New Hampshire shows that the former North Carolina senator flopped with a number of groups that, given the tone and message of his campaign, he should have scored with – groups with which Clinton made noteworthy gains.

Granite State Democrats seemed to regard Edwards as irrelevant on Tuesday.

Among the 61% of Democratic primary voters who said that they were “angry” with the Bush Administration, only 16% voted for Edwards, who clearly ran the angriest campaign of the top three Democrats.

Of the 55% of Democrats who said that the top candidate quality they were looking for was “Can bring about change,” Edwards drew only 12%, while Obama won the votes of 58% and Clinton drew the support of 27%.

Given that Edwards pounded away with a ‘change” message for months – and drew 20% in Iowa among those wanting a candidate who could “bring change” – his New Hampshire showing on this dimension was disappointing.

A majority of New Hampshire Democratic voters (58%) said that they were “very worried” about the economy. That was an issue that Edwards dealt with repeatedly. Yet among those Democrats who felt that way, only 17% voted for Edwards, while 41% picked Clinton and 36% picked Obama.

It would be reasonable to assume that Edwards’s former supporters would switch to Obama, the other “change” candidate in the race, and the Democrats who seemed to have momentum going into New Hampshire. But that apparently didn’t happen.

Instead, it was Clinton whose numbers generally rose as Edwards’s slipped.

This item also appeared on Political Wire on January 9, 2008.

Winners & Losers From Iowa

By Stuart Rothenberg

After months of speculation about who’ll win Iowa, we finally have winners and losers. Some of them are obvious, while others may not be. One thing for sure is that a rousing speech on caucus night doesn’t mean a candidate has won. In some cases, losers seemed to yell even louder than winners.

Iowa Winners

1. Barack Obama.
The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.

Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused.

Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.

2. Mike Huckabee.
In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization.

Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination.

But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney.

Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.

3. John McCain.
Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.

4. Rudy Giuliani.
The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.

Iowa Losers.

1. John Edwards.
Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”

After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message.

Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama.

Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear.

Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.

3. Mitt Romney.
How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it.

Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.

Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”

In Iowa, Will Edwards Divide and Conquer?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While the Democratic race has often, and quite accurately, been described as a choice between change (Barack Obama and John Edwards) and experience (Hillary Rodham Clinton), it has, in the final days before Iowa, become another kind of choice as well.

Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).

While Clinton and Obama both acknowledge the importance of working with various interests, including Capitol Hill Republicans and the business community, to come up with solutions to key problems, Edwards sounds more and more like the neighborhood bully who plans to dictate what is to be done.

The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America’s fault. But he’s also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.

Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.

For months, observers have noted that Americans are tired of the polarization and gridlock that has defined Washington, D.C. at least since 1994 (except for a brief period following September 11th). But if Iowa Democrats choose Edwards, they are choosing anger, confrontation and class warfare. In a sense, they are displaying buyer’s remorse (from 2004) and choosing a more attractive, charismatic Howard Dean-like candidate this time.

Ironically, Edwards criticized Dean for being too angry in 2004, yet this time the former North Carolina Democrat has adopted Dean’s confrontational style.

Edwards portrays himself as a fighter for the middle class, but his message is decidedly working class and left. The North Carolina Democrat’s message seems well-suited for 1933 or 1934, but not nearly as ideal for 2008. Yet, Iowa Democrats, like many of their partisan colleagues around the country, are so angry at President George W. Bush that they might be willing to give voice to their anger by voting for Edwards at the caucuses.

Four years ago, angry anti-war candidate Dean drew 18 percent of caucus-goers, while populist Dick Gephardt drew another 11 percent. Edwards, himself, attracted 32 percent of 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus attendees.

But let’s be very clear: Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it.

On Capitol Hill, Edwards’s “us versus them” rhetoric and legislative agenda would almost certainly make an already bitter mood even worse. He would in the blink of an eye unify the GOP and open up divisions in his own party’s ranks. Congressional Republicans would circle the wagons in an effort to stop Edwards’s agenda.

Would Clinton or Obama fare better in the nation’s capital? It’s hard to tell, but the answer probably is “yes.”

Obama surely wouldn’t arouse the immediate resentment and opposition that Edwards would, giving the Illinois senator a far better chance of accomplishing important things during the first two years of his term.

And while many Republicans around the country revile anyone named Clinton, the New York Senator might not face as much hostility as some assume from Capitol Hill Republicans. After all, Senator Clinton has worked well with her colleagues from both parties, and she knows better than anyone how important it is to build successful bipartisan coalitions on Capitol Hill.

Just as important, a President Edwards might well find that his view of the American economy is built on sand. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and “them,” this nation’s economy depends on the success of both small business and big business.

Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble. That’s certain to make retirement funds – including those owned by labor unions and “working families” – happy, right? Stick it to Wal-Mart, and their 1.8 million employees are at risk. Beat up on IBM, and you are beating up on their 330,000 employees. Take a pound of flesh from General Electric, Citigroup, Home Depot and United Technologies, and you’ve put the squeeze on just under 1.2 million employees.

So, Iowa Democrats are faced with much more than a choice of change versus readiness for the job. They will be deciding what kind of party and what kind of country they want. And they will be making an important statement about the tone they want in Washington, D.C.

The question facing Iowa Democrats is whether they want to send a message of frustration, or whether they place a higher priority on getting things accomplished in 2009. Edwards’s bet is that, unlike 2004, they’ll choose anger and confrontation.

This column also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 31, 2007.

Republican Race Twists & Turns Even Before Bhutto Assassination

By Stuart Rothenberg

Even before the death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, there were signs of continued churning in the GOP race, with Arizona Senator John McCain pulling even with and ahead of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, according to knowledgeable observers.

In Iowa, the Republican contest continues to be a two-man race, with Romney so far retaining considerable strength against former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. In fact, in spite of a recent Los Angeles Times poll showing Huckabee with a 14-point lead over Romney, there is some reason to believe that Romney has closed that gap and that the GOP contest in the Iowa caucuses is much closer than the Times poll suggests.

While McCain is not yet in the mix in Iowa and shows few signs of joining Huckabee and Romney in the GOP top tier in the state, he could well finish a surprisingly strong third in the caucuses, which could get him positive media attention and boost him in New Hampshire.

For Giuliani, the Arizonan's growing strength is a significant problem. Fourth-place finishes for Giuliani in the first two contests, along with a resurgent McCain, could make McCain both more appealing to moderates and more likely to emerge as the consensus choice of conservatives as the race moves forward. That would make it much more difficult for the New Yorker to jump-start his campaign and almost impossible for him to pull away on February 5th, as he hopes to do.

The Republican races in Iowa and New Hampshire remain very fluid. But it now seems quite clear that reports of John McCain's political demise were far too premature.

The Bhutto assassination is likely to have an effect on both parties' nomination fights by elevating foreign policy and international concerns.

On the GOP side, McCain and Giuliani are likely to benefit, with Romney and Huckabee having a harder time to convince late deciders of their ability to handle an international crisis. Huckabee is in the weakest position by far, since his "good old boy" appeal becomes a weakness rather than a strength.

Democratic Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the obvious beneficiary on the Democratic side, since neither Illinois Senator Barack Obama nor former Senator John Edwards have the credentials or stature to match Clinton's. Still, it is far from certain whether the news from Pakistan will have a profound impact on the Democratic contest.

For many months, I argued that the focus on day to day developments and meaningless national polls was unwise and reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the Iowa and New Hampshire decision-making process. Only in recent weeks have Republican and Democratic caucus attendees and primary voters been focusing on choosing a president - the same thing that happened in the 2004 Democratic race.

Given the difficulty in predicting turnout, particularly in Iowa, it's wise for pundits, journalists, talking heads and real people to spend their time watching the developments, including the swings in momentum, rather than in mindlessly picking winners and losers. Both nominations currently are up for grabs.

This column also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 28, 2007.

Edwards, Clinton and Questions About Their Electability in ’08

By Stuart Rothenberg

For weeks now, the campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has been hammering away about New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s greatest alleged vulnerability: her electability. It’s a good strategy, at least in theory, since Democratic voters will not nominate someone for president who they think will lose the White House again.

Unfortunately for Edwards, there is little evidence that Clinton cannot be elected president or that Edwards has a measurably better chance of being elected than she does.

First, the good news for Edwards, as well as for critics of Clinton.

The former first lady’s personal negative ratings are higher than any politician would like. Her unfavorable ratings generally are about 10 points higher than either Edwards’ or Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.). Clinton’s unfavorable ratings in most national surveys fall in the 40 percent to 45 percent range, and they are in that same range in Quinnipiac University polls in key states such as Ohio and Florida.

Given those numbers, it isn’t surprising that a mid-September CNN/WMUR-TV poll found New Hampshire Democratic voters saying that Clinton is less likable than Obama or Edwards.

According to an early September NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, one in five adults had a “very negative” view of the New York Senator, demonstrating an intensity with which other Democrats are not saddled.

Anecdotally, when I’m around the country talking about politics, I inevitably seem to run into Democratic voters who tell me they want to vote Democratic next year but don’t think they can vote for Clinton.

But the rest of the evidence argues that the New York Senator would be at least as strong a Democratic nominee as either Edwards or Obama.

On the question of “how confident” survey respondents would be in the various candidates’ “skills and ability necessary to be president,” Clinton easily bests her Democratic adversaries in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey.

Surveys also show that she widely is regarded as having many of the attributes needed by a president. An early September CNN poll found six in 10 respondents picked Clinton as having “the right experience to be president,” while only 15 percent picked the second-place Democrat, Edwards, and 9 percent picked Obama.

The same survey also found a plurality of voters (42 percent) selecting Clinton as the Democrat best described by “Is most likely to bring needed change to the U.S.” Obama was second with 30 percent, while Edwards was a distant third at 10 percent.

A CNN/WMUR-TV poll of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters found much the same. Clinton was seen by 54 percent of those polled as having “the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in the general election next November,” as having the “right experience to be President,” and as most likely to bring change.

Surely even a bigger problem for Edwards is that recent ballot tests show Clinton beating the leading Republican contenders, and in most cases, running as well or better than her main Democratic rivals.

August’s Quinnipiac national survey showed Clinton leading former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani by 3 points, while Edwards was up by a single point and Obama and Giuliani were even. Matched against former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.), Clinton held a 49 percent to 38 percent advantage, while Obama was up 46 percent to 35 percent and Edwards was leading Thompson 49 percent to 32 percent.

CNN’s early September national survey found Clinton beating Giuliani 50 percent to 46 percent, while the former mayor held a 49 percent to 45 percent advantage over Obama.

Finally, there is the whole question of Edwards’ description of his own appeal.

On “Meet the Press” last weekend, Edwards said: “I am the candidate running for president on the Democratic side who’s actually won an election in a red state running against the Jesse Helms political machine. I know what you have to do to win in battleground states, and to win in tough, tough Congressional districts ... I understand people who vote in those places, and they connect and relate to me.”

Edwards beat incumbent Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth in 1998, a bad year for Republicans nationally. He made Faircloth the issue and benefited from the contrast between the two candidates.

But had Edwards run for re-election in 2004, he might well have lost to then-Rep. Richard Burr (R). By that time, Edwards had established a relatively liberal record in the Senate, making him much less appealing to state voters.

Edwards, of course, couldn’t carry his own state during the 2004 presidential race, and the Democratic ticket didn’t carry a single Southern state (though it is certainly unfair to blame him entirely for the ticket’s lack of appeal in Dixie).

The former North Carolina Senator seems to think that his Southern accent and stories about his father’s work in a textile mill and his mother’s days as a letter carrier will ingratiate himself with moderate and conservative populists. But after Republicans hammer him for his expensive haircuts, huge home and liberal views, his appeal to swing and socially conservative voters will suffer. For now, Edwards’ negatives aren’t as high as Clinton’s because he hasn’t been a national target for more than a dozen years.

It is of course true that Clinton could stumble in the next few months. But for Democrats hoping that doubts about her electability will derail her candidacy, the current evidence is skimpy.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 15, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Say What? Obama's Word Games

By Nathan L. Gonzales & Stuart Rothenberg

In at least one way, “incumbency” is like being pregnant. You can’t be “a little pregnant,” and you can’t be partially an incumbent.

But that pesky fact hasn’t gotten in the way of Sen. Barack Obama, or his campaign, and their awkward attempts to label Hillary Clinton as such.

On October 12, the Obama campaign sent out a memo entitled, “Quasi-incumbent finally gets scrutiny and stumbles,” referring to New York’s junior senator. But it’s really pretty simple: Either you are or you aren’t an incumbent.

“Quasi-incumbent” might be a cute way to describe someone who was appointed to a political office and is running for a full term for the first time. It might even be a cute way to describe someone who held an office, gave it up and was trying after a year or two to regain it again.

If a sitting Vice President were running for President, he or she might be referred to as a “quasi” or “pseudo-” incumbent, though that wouldn’t be true technically.

But applying the label to Senator Clinton is just plain wrong, since neither she nor her party has been near the White House in seven years.

Obama’s attempt to pair Clinton with the unpopular current President is nothing new. In late July, speaking about foreign policy, the Illinois senator said, “I don’t want a continuation of Bush-Cheney. I don’t want Bush-Cheney light,” referring to Clinton. At least by using the word “continuation,” Obama is apparently aware of whom the current commander-in-chief is.

Later, the October email reads, “Senator Clinton in all these states is the quasi-incumbent,” referring Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Well, not only is Clinton not president of the United States, she never has been, and has never even been on the ballot in any of the four states mentioned. That would make it difficult for her to be an incumbent of any kind.

For a candidate who claims to be above politics, the quasi-incumbent Obama’s claim is either ridiculous or rhetorically dishonest.

It’s also ironic that in the first sentence of the October email, Obama attacks Clinton for “purely tactical posturing.” But the entire purpose of the Obama memo is to position himself as the “outsider.” Obama’s posturing and mislabeling is nothing new, since campaign manager David Plouffe’s August 6 campaign update email to supporters stated, “No longer can the quasi-incumbent candidate survive a stumble or two early.”

And finally, the October email reads, “The Clinton operation is the greatest money machine in the history of American politics.” But Plouffe’s August email boasted, “Your financial generosity has allowed us to build the best and deepest grassroots organization in history at this stage of a Presidential election,” and the Obama campaign is constantly touting how they out-raised Clinton this year in primary money. So which is it? Who has the biggest machine?

The Obama campaign ought to give the American people and those in the media, some credit. And for a campaign that claims to take the high road, Obama is stooping to the lowest common denominator of politics by playing word games.

Nationwide Listening Tour for Clinton?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

While all the presidential candidates are talking about change, next spring might be just the right time for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to dust off an old strategy to demonstrate a fresh approach.

Burdened with high personal negatives from the outset, Clinton may have an opportunity to improve her image and standing by embarking on a 50-state tour.

The front-loaded primary calendar presents the real possibility that both presidential nominations will essentially be decided by the time Americans wake up on Feb. 6, setting the table for one of the longest general election campaigns in history.

In the vein of her 1999 tour of upstate New York, Clinton could use the extra time to personally introduce herself to voters in normally Republican areas in an effort to humanize the frequently demonized. Some analysts are saying the same thing now that they were back then, that she’s too polarizing and not well-liked. But she proved them wrong.

Provo. Omaha. Oklahoma City. The locations may seem illogical for Clinton (or any Democratic presidential nominee, for that matter), but a visit to these places may push voters to take a second look at the former first lady when they had previously made up their minds. And even in Republican states, the Senator could find pockets of sympathetic audiences on college campuses or with organized labor groups.

“When people meet her, her negatives erode,” according to one influential Iowa Democrat who is backing Clinton.

“She’s one of the warmest politicians I’ve ever met ... in person,” Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the prominent liberal blog Daily Kos, said on “Meet the Press” last month. “And for some reason when you see her in these public — in debates, you know, she comes across as colder.”

Of course, the number of people Clinton would actually see is miniscule compared to some 120 million general election voters, and she won’t win states like Utah or Nebraska (just like she didn’t win most places in upstate New York in 2000). But if the tour improves her image among independent voters overall, she could do better in the traditional swing states. It’s also unlikely she could damage her image any further.

“If it was going to be done, this would be the year,” said James Carville, a longtime adviser to the Clinton family, when asked about the feasibility of a national tour.

In her first ad of the presidential campaign, Clinton opened with, “As I travel around America, I’ve heard from so many people that they’re just invisible to their government.” Clinton and her top competitors, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), have all trumpeted the need to unite Americans. And by visiting each state, Clinton could demonstrate a populist message.

Although it’s rare, a nationwide tour in 2008 would not be novel. Back in 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon pledged to visit all 50 states, in part to draw attention to the addition of Alaska and Hawaii to the union.

But the tour was arduous — Nixon didn’t begin until after he officially secured the nomination at the Republican convention on July 28 — and his promise forced him to visit the remote, Republican-heavy state of Alaska on the Saturday before Election Day. Nixon’s tour was subsequently criticized after he lost one of the closest presidential races in history, with his detractors saying his time would have been better spent in a more competitive state like Illinois or Texas (both of which he lost).

Any other candidate could embark on his own 50-state tour, but there could be additional benefits specific to Clinton. A hypothetical nationwide journey could help restore the Senator’s relationship with the net roots, which currently ranges from lukewarm to hostile. Clinton ran a distant third with 11 percent behind Edwards (39 percent) and Obama (21 percent) in a September Daily Kos straw poll.

Many online activists believe in and champion Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, a belief that Democrats should challenge Republicans everywhere, regardless of the partisan makeup of a particular state or district. By campaigning in every state, Clinton would be giving some credence to the philosophy.

Similarly, it could be an excellent party-building opportunity for Democrats, with fundraisers in states and districts that haven’t seen a Democratic presidential candidate in decades, if ever. Both the campaign and the local parties could benefit from the excitement and attract new donors who wouldn’t normally show up at an event.

Carville cautioned that a nationwide tour would have to be more than a gimmick. “It has to be part of the message,” he said in an interview.

“You can bet that every television network and major newspaper will be recording every waking moment of the Republican and Democratic nominees,” said a television network source. “If it is Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani, times that by ten.”

A 50-state tour would not necessarily increase media attention, since it likely will reach suffocating levels anyway, but it would provide an easy storyline with colorful graphics tracking Clinton’s progress and the embedded reporters chronicling each stop.

The timing and pace of the tour could go in at least a couple of different directions. The candidate could start early in the spring, after the nomination becomes inevitable, hit a state per day and plan to visit certain states before they hold their primaries. This way it could be done in less than two months and completed close to the time the nominee is chosen anyway.

Another option could be to tour the country during the dog days of summer and schedule Colorado and the Democratic National Convention as the final destination. Clinton could increase interest and suspense by “picking up” her vice presidential running mate along the way in his home state.

Of course, this proposal is not without negative consequences. “It’s not a ridiculous idea,” Carville said. “But it has more problems than benefits.”

“Some [Democrats] on the ballot don’t want her to come [to their state],” explained one Democratic insider. Clinton’s visit could create awkward, and potentially damaging, political situations for Democratic candidates and incumbents. That might result in an abnormally high number of convenient scheduling conflicts for local Democratic candidates as Clinton travels to Republican-leaning districts and states.

Republicans have their backs against the wall and low morale, and some Democrats are afraid to give them any reason to be energized and motivated. Indeed, the 50-state presidential tour may create tension between boosting Clinton’s White House prospects and damaging her party’s chances downballot.

The candidate also would have to balance other campaign-related demands on her time, such as fundraisers, debates and debate prep, not all of which are completely under her campaign’s control. “Once you say you’re going to do it, you’ll have to do it,” Carville said, noting the logistical nightmare of touching down in all 50 states.

And in what might be the biggest pushback, a national tour also would divert time, energy and resources away from traditional battleground states. Campaigning in heavily Republican, and even Democratic, states runs directly contrary to the emerging micro- targeting mentality.

Of course there is no guarantee that Clinton will be the nominee, with the first caucuses still at least three months away. But the 2008 early primary calendar and the unprecedented amount of money being raised could give Clinton an opportunity to capitalize where Nixon failed. And there’s nothing to stop any of the other Democrats from doing it as well.

By spending time reaching out to voters all across the country, Clinton could attempt to soften the Beltway brand she’s earned from her past 16 years in Washington.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on September 27, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Where the Presidential Nomination Races Are ... and Where to Look

By Stuart Rothenberg

More than three months before the crucial Iowa caucuses, there are good reasons for treating national surveys with great skepticism and for placing greater weight on the candidates’ standing and strength in Iowa and New Hampshire.

First, the candidates actually have been campaigning for months in those two states — meeting voters and airing ads. Voters, therefore, are basing their decisions on more than name recognition. They have looked at and listened to the hopefuls and made informed judgments about each of the candidates as a potential nominee and a potential president.

Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire voters have changed their opinions quickly in the past as the caucuses and primary have approached, and they may do so again this cycle (see my April 5 column, “Already, Too Much of the ’08 Coverage Is Quite Misleading”). But you are likely to take note of that change sooner if you are looking at state polls rather than at national survey numbers.

Second, the Iowa and New Hampshire results will create a dynamic that will affect the media’s coverage of the race, as well as the public’s perception of the candidates and the nature of their choices. After Iowa and New Hampshire, there will be winners and losers, candidates who failed to meet expectations, and, probably, those who exceeded expectations.

Simply put, developments in the early tests will affect the attitudes of voters in late January and February primary and caucus states. Could a candidate jump-start a candidacy in early February? Possibly, but certainly only if the January contests break just right.

If polls are snapshots, why are the national ones badly out of focus?

National polling currently includes too many respondents from states where no TV advertising has been aired and where the candidates have barely set foot. Respondents in those states aren’t paying close attention to the races and are basing their responses primarily on name recognition or general impressions. That is why celebrity candidates run best in national surveys.

If former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) wins the Iowa caucuses, as many expect, he’ll become a hot political property for the media, which should boost his national standing and prospects, even though he now runs a distant fourth in national polling.

In fact, given Romney’s strong showings currently in Iowa and New Hampshire, his prospects for the Republican nomination currently are as good as or better than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s or former Sen. Fred Thompson’s (Tenn.).

One veteran Iowa Democrat who is deeply involved in his party’s caucuses thinks that the GOP die already is cast. “Romney will be the Republican nominee,” the insider said. “He has the best organization by far in Iowa. Nobody else comes close. The second-best Republican organization in the state probably is [Mike] Huckabee’s. Rudy’s got nothing in the state. Neither does Fred Thompson.”

Winning Iowa certainly wouldn’t guarantee Romney his party’s nomination. Ronald Reagan was nosed out by George H.W. Bush in the caucuses in 1980 yet won New Hampshire and the GOP nomination. Eight years later, George H.W. Bush replicated Reagan’s path.

Still, Romney’s early strength in New Hampshire, combined with a probable win in Iowa and the likelihood that independents in the Granite State will both vote in significant numbers in the Democratic race and not unite behind a single GOP hopeful (as they did in 2000, when they backed Arizona Sen. John McCain), make the former Massachusetts governor the frontrunner in the nation’s first primary, at least at this point.

Romney’s opponents have yet to launch their inevitable flip-flopper attacks on him, and we don’t yet know how those attacks will affect his candidacy. But if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney surely will be the frontrunner in the Republican race. Given that, he should be included in the list of GOP frontrunners, even now.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (N.Y.) lead in the national polls could crumble quickly if she places second or third in Iowa. Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) are currently bunched together in the Hawkeye State, and anything could happen in the Democrats’ caucuses.

Clinton’s resources, experience, national political organization and, yes, gender give her an advantage in the race for the Democratic nomination. Those factors, as well as the fact that she is widely known, make it reasonable to call her a narrow favorite for her party’s nomination. But the national poll numbers greatly exaggerate her current standing in the Democratic race.

I’m not suggesting that national poll numbers are irrelevant. They do reflect national name recognition and the initial standing of the candidates. But so many important developments will occur before voters in Florida, California or Illinois get to cast their primary votes — developments that will color the public’s perception of the two presidential races — that the national numbers, as well as poll numbers in later states, have little predictive value now.

National numbers simply don’t deserve anything close to the attention that they are receiving in the national media, and particularly on TV. If you really want to know how Romney and Clinton are doing, keep your eye on Iowa and New Hampshire.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 20, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

EMILY's List Releases New Endorsements

EMILY’s List, which describes itself as "the nation's largest grassroots political network" and says that it "is dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office," has mailed its second round of endorsements this cycle.

The mailing, which is headed to the group’s entire list of more than 100,000 members, includes one Presidential hopeful, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, one incumbent governor seeking reelection, Washington State’s Christine Gregoire, and one incumbent House member, Melissa Bean of Illinois.

The mailing also includes endorsements for four candidates for the United States House of Representatives: challengers Christine Jennings of Florida 13 and Kay Barnes of Missouri 6, and open seat hopefuls Chellie Pingree of Maine 1 and Joan Fitz-Gerald of Colorado 2. Pingree and Fitzgerald are likely to face spirited primaries.

Jennings hopes to have a second shot at Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan, who narrowly defeated Jennings in November amid Democratic complaints of voting irregularities, while Barnes, the former mayor of Kansas City, is the party’s likely challenger to Republican Rep. Sam Graves.

Of the seven endorsements, only Clinton benefited from a previous EMILY’s List mailing this year.

The group has endorsed five other Democratic House candidates this cycle: Laura Richardson and Niki Tsongas, both of whom won special elections, and freshmen Kirsten Gillibrand (New York 20), Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona 8) and Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire 1).

This item first appeared on Political Wire on September 5, 2007.

Historical Perspective on Second-Quarter Fundraising Numbers

By Stuart Rothenberg

I can’t understand why so many political observers, including those who do observing for a living, seem to ignore history, even recent history, as they offer quick analysis and assessments of presidential candidate fundraising numbers.

One political blogger recently cited Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) impressive second-quarter fundraising numbers (including his number of contributors) and asserted, “we need to figure out why the ‘national’ frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), isn’t generating as much excitement as her chief competitor.”

Has everyone simply decided to forget 2003-2004? Is there someone out there who really thinks second-quarter fundraising numbers — or even third-quarter numbers — have a great predictive value in guessing which candidates will win the presidential nomination?

Second-quarter presidential fundraising in 2003 showed Howard Dean hauling in $7.6 million, besting Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) $5.9 million, then-Sen. John Edwards’ (D-N.C.) $4.5 million and Rep. Richard Gephardt’s (D-Mo.) $3.8 million.

True, Kerry held a cash-on-hand advantage ($10.8 million to Edwards’ $8.1 million and Dean’s $6.4 million), but by the end of the third quarter that too would disappear, as the once and future Democratic favorite was easily overtaken by the surging Dean.

In the third quarter of 2003, just a bit more than three months before the actual delegate selection process was to begin in Iowa, Dean ($14.8 million) raised more money than Kerry ($4 million), Gephardt ($3.8 million), Edwards ($2.1 million) and Gen. Wesley Clark ($3.5 million) combined.

And in the last quarter of 2003, just days before Iowa, Dean outraised Kerry $14 million to $2.5 million. If those fundraising numbers also reflected excitement, then the Democratic race should have been over, with Dean coronated in Iowa, New Hampshire and, ultimately, in Boston, and Kerry kicked to the political curb even before the first caucuses.

That’s right. Even fourth-quarter fundraising numbers in 2003 proved to be a lousy indicator of who would win in Iowa and who would win the Democratic nomination.

But back to the question we all apparently are expected to answer: Why isn’t Clinton generating as much excitement as Obama?

This is a difficult question? He’s generating excitement because he is a fresh face; he’s got a great smile; he’s a poised, smart, articulate, personally appealing African-American in a political party that would love to make a statement about equality, opportunity and diversity. He’s playing to the hopes and dreams of Democrats, and he never has to apologize for Iraq. That’s why.

But as for measuring excitement, is excitement six months before the first caucus suddenly the standard we are now expected to use to figure out who will win the Democratic nomination? If it were, then Bill Bradley would have been nominated in 2000 and Dean would have been the Democratic standard-bearer in 2004. Neither happened.

And second, is candidate strength or “excitement” measured primarily by cash receipts or number of donors? Fundraising was a poor predictor in 2004 for the Democrats, and a late June CBS News poll found more Democratic primary voters “enthusiastic” about Clinton (28 percent) than about Obama (22 percent).

It’s true that Clinton raised “only” $21 million in primary funds compared with Obama’s $31 million. But all that means is both candidates will have enough resources to mount top-shelf campaigns in the early caucus and primary states.

It’s amusing that many of those who write about the race noted with apparent approval that Edwards “met” his $9 million goal for the quarter at the same time that they were pronouncing Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) quarter a “disappointment” because he raised only $11 million. But then again, they did the same thing when the first-quarter numbers came out.

Second-quarter fundraising numbers haven’t done anything to clarify the GOP contest.

Yes, McCain’s fundraising is far weaker than expected, and his $2 million in the bank is both a problem and a reflection of his surprisingly limited appeal to Republican givers. But it isn’t as if anyone is blowing the rest of the field away with cash, and this is still a field where everyone has appeal and everyone also has big liabilities.

You know a race is up for grabs when the hottest candidate is a guy who isn’t in the race.

Anyway, where do the races now stand?

Clinton and Obama constitute the Democrats’ top tier, with Edwards still worth watching and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson showing a spark. Sens. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Joseph Biden (Del.) are serious people, which means they deserve serious attention.

On the GOP side, McCain seems to have fallen back to about where Edwards is now, worth monitoring but definitely a step behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the noncandidacy of former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.). Thompson has been doing so well as a noncandidate that he just might consider never entering the race officially, or at least until after he wraps up the Republican nomination.

But much of this is of little importance. Frankly, I’ve had enough of arbitrary expectations, including my own. The voters of Iowa — or at least those who participate in the caucuses — will decide who’s real and who isn’t.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 9, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Kerry ’04 Campaign Holds Lesson for McCain and Clinton

By Stuart Rothenberg

I know why former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) wants to be president and how he’d like to change the country. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s (R) message of strong leadership, especially in the war against terror, is clear enough. The same goes for Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) message of change and of bringing people together. I see former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) is running as an outsider who can “fix” Washington, D.C., with his message of conservative change.


But why are Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) running for president? I’m not sure, except that McCain seemed to be next in line for the GOP nomination and Clinton is, well, Clinton.

Actually, if you think about it, we’ve all seen the McCain and Clinton campaigns before. Each is an updated version of the ’04 Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) campaign, when the candidate’s message was his biography and résumé.

A friend recently suggested that I go back and reread a column that I wrote back in May 2003 about Kerry, and I was struck by how well one paragraph in particular now fits both the Clinton and McCain campaigns:

“The Senator has talked a great deal about national security and military strength, but he still has based his campaign more on his perceived electability and the high quality of his campaign team and field operation, rather than on issues, themes or the ‘vision thing.’”

I’m obviously not suggesting that both Senators have avoided issues entirely. As he did again last week, McCain talks passionately about Iraq and the war against terror, and he’s built up a considerable record when it comes to fiscal responsibility and campaign finance reform, among other things. Clinton talks about Iraq, health care and energy policy on the campaign trail, and she widely is viewed on Capitol Hill as smart and well-versed on issues.

Still, whether it’s mostly the national media’s fault or it’s the fault of the two campaigns, McCain and Clinton seem to have spent more time building organizations rather than building rationales for their candidacies. (If the problem is the media’s, it’s up to the Clinton and McCain campaigns to correct that impression.)

A strong résumé isn’t enough, though it obviously can be a tremendous asset, particularly when it is paired with a strong message.

Admittedly, it’s easier in many respects to run as a political outsider whose major message is “change” than to run as a seasoned political insider who has the backing of much of the political establishment. But at some point (and now sounds like a good time), both Clinton and McCain need to talk passionately about why they are running for president and what they would do in the Oval Office.

McCain’s inability to rerun his 2000 campaign has become painfully evident to everyone. Now running as the heir to President Bush’s legacy, McCain isn’t the exciting, nonconformist candidate that he once was. He appears to be just another politician to an electorate that is extremely suspicious of politicians.

McCain’s campaign needs to address that problem somehow if the candidate is going to reignite true interest and excitement in his campaign.

Twelve months ago, the Arizona Senator’s “electability” looked to be an important asset, because he was widely seen as the one Republican who could defeat Clinton in a general election. But Giuliani’s candidacy has changed that, eliminating McCain’s appeal among those Republicans whose main concern was holding the White House.

Clinton’s best message may well be competence, but that is a message that is about exciting as a week-old halibut. And she often is so scripted that she, like McCain, looks like merely another politician looking for a new job.

Her problem actually is compounded by endorsements, such as New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) decision to back Clinton. While endorsements can be an asset, they often aren’t as important as they are cracked up to be. Will Corzine deliver the Feb. 5 primary state to his neighbor, or will Corzine have the clout of former Michigan Gov. John Engler (R), whose firewall for Bush in 2000 burst into flames?

At this point in a campaign, and in this environment, being just another politician is a considerable problem for a presidential hopeful. But that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily fatal for McCain and Clinton.

After all, Kerry ultimately won the Democratic nomination in 2004, though only after he “borrowed” some of the “message” being delivered by Edwards, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) and even former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.). It’s up to McCain and Clinton to do the same thing this time — to find a message that excites voters and makes them more than professional politicians. They still have time to do so.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 16, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

The Impact of "Hillary 1984"

By Stuart Rothenberg

Nobody should be surprised by the overreaction to the Hillary Clinton/Apple pseudo TV spot posted on YouTube. Reporters (and political consultants) simply love anything new and creative, even if its political impact is non-existent.

The ad, fashioned after an Apple ad from 1984, got tons of airtime earlier this week as the cable networks and talking heads buzzed about how creative it was, how technology is changing politics and what it all means for the future.

Here’s a news flash: the "ad" will have no political impact. Entertaining: Absolutely. Creative? Certainly. An interesting example of modern technology? Sure. But the ad won’t change any votes, and it is unlikely to create or re-make impressions of Senators Clinton or Barack Obama.

Interestingly, more people will see the ad on or hear about it from "traditional" cable or broadcast television networks than will watch it on YouTube. So if the ad had any impact anyway, it would be because of the reach of traditional forms of media, which played the spot repeatedly.

But at the end of the day, the YouTube ad will be a footnote about the campaign. It's yet another example of the tactical nature of this 2008 campaign, and while tactics can and do matter, the Democratic race will be decided in Iowa and New Hampshire by a relative handful of Democratic participants, not by Washington, D.C. insiders who are all aflutter with the latest hip happening.

Technology obviously changes campaigns, and one day YouTube, Facebook and the Internet overall may determine who wins and who doesn't. But for the 2008 cycle, it’s still those dreary "old media" that matter, no matter how many people want to get ahead of the curve and how creative and interesting the new technologies of the day.

This item first appeared on Political Wire on March 20, 2007.