“The Story” in Texas and Ohio
By mw | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Ohio, Texas
Sunday on Meet The Press, Tim Russert hosted an interesting mix of veteran Republican and Democratic political strategists. They explored the Ohio and Texas Democratic primary election themes and the prospects for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Tim Russert introduced the panel saying “The race for the White House through the eyes of Carville, Matalin, Murphy and Shrum, only on MEET THE PRESS.” - [Transcript HERE]
While “Conventional Wisdom” has Obama pulling a victory out of Texas, if Texas turns into New Hampshire Redux - Mike Murphy thinks he knows the reason why:
“She’s got one thing working for her, that is the near death experience phenomena this year - every time it looks like the perils of Pauline, the train is coming, she has a rescue.” - Mike Murphy
Remember New Hampshire? - Obama up by 10 points in the polls the night before the primary, with Olbermann, Matthews and the media in general fawning and falling all over themselves waxing poetic about a new dawn for America. They virtually conceded the primary and nomination to Obama - right up to the minute that the votes were counted. There was lot of speculation of what moved the voters and changed the votes those last days. Was it - The Clinton tears? The sympathetic woman vote? The humanization of Hillary? Hillary “finding her voice”? - I think it is none of these, but a variation of Murphy’s observation. What moved the vote, was the specter of the nomination process ending in New Hampshire.
This is the dynamic - Clinton is such a polarizing personality that if a primary is perceived by voters as a popularity contest, or even just a mechanism for allocating delegates, Obama wins. If, in the voting booth, the voter is simply answering the question “Who do I like better?” - they tend to vote for Obama. It is when the voter clearly understands that they are voting for the end of the 2008 Democratic party selection process, that the dynamic changes. When a vote for Obama is a vote to end the Clinton campaign, the personality and likability preferences are swept away and voters face different, tougher questions:
- “Am I certain that Obama is the best choice to lead the party?”
- “Do I understand what an Obama presidency would actually be like?”
- “Are we ready to decide now or should the process continue?”
- “Should we or should we not look at this choice a little longer?”
In January, in New Hampshire, the frenzied media bias for Obama created the perception that a victory for Obama would be the practical end of the Democratic nomination process. In Texas and Ohio, a victory for Obama would, for all practical purposes, truly end the Democratic Party nomination process. My guess - Texas will be like New Hampshire, and when undecided voters walk into the booth thinking a vote for Obama is a vote to close out the selection of the Democratic Party nominee “beyond any reasonable doubt”, they will vote to continue the deliberation.
Bill Clinton certainly understood this dynamic, and may have made the smartest move on the campaign trail when he stated the stark choice explicitly - telling voters:
“If she wins Texas and Ohio, I think she will be the nominee. If you don’t deliver for her then I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you.”
He was making sure they understood that a vote for Obama was a vote to stop the Democratic candidate evaluation - the exact message that changed the vote in New Hampshire. This is also why the recent Clinton “It’s Three AM” ad is a great ad. It focuses on these unknowns and reinforces the point that a Clinton presidency is familiar, and an Obama presidency is a cipher - fundamentally unknowable.
James Carville explained the significance if she does win both.
“If she wins both, it changes the narrative, then she has a real case to make. She is coming back.” - James Carville
Exactly so. This is what I have been saying in posts here and in other comments. With a Clinton win in Ohio and Texas, the narrative - “The Story” - becomes more important than the elected delegate total. That said, it is appropriate to paraphrase an infamous Clintonian parsing and state: It depends on the what the definition of “win” is. What exactly does it mean to “win” in the byzantine undemocratic process that is the Texas primary/caucus?
Mary Matlin refines The Story with an interesting embellishment.
“If she wins both states, even fractionally, she can say he [Obama] can’t close the deal.” - Mary Matlin
Cross post continued at Divided We Stand United We Fall
This entry was posted on Sunday, March 2nd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Ohio, Texas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Assuming your theory about NH is correct, and I believe it has some merit, the real question is then this: have voters in the intervening 8 weeks learned enough about Obama to answer the questions you posed in favor of Obama.
Of your questions, I think 1 and 3 are most important. If folk believe Obama should be the standard bearer, then they’ve seen enough of this process. The heavily front-loaded schedule plays a role too.
Still, though, Ohio is a strange animal; a win here might mean nothing more than some old Clinton nostalgia lingers.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Don’t Stop Believin’
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
[...] For some additional reading across the web, check out these blogs: Hutch Report - “Democrats In Florida Might Vote Again” NB Politicus - “A Brief History of Delegates and Super Delegates” DemConWatch - “Florida delegates scrounging for Denver hotels” BlogHer - “Do Super Delegates Wear Capes and How Do You Count in Huckamath? Donklephant - “‘The Story’ in Texas and Ohio” [...]
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Certainly, that is the right question. I guess we’ll find out on Tuesday and not before. But - I am not sure what, if anything, can change the fundamental fact that a a Clinton presidency is a known quantity, and an Obama presidency is a crapshoot. You can’t learn enough to overcome that fact, you can only learn enough to ignore it. Speaking only for myself, I would feel a lot more comfortable with an Obama presidency after four or eight years of seasoning as vice-president in a Clinton administration.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
@Justin
Yes We Can!
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Hillary 4 U & Me!
And then the reaction.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
No, You Can’t!
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 am
Ok Justin. I appreciate the effort, but I just find these music videos, while entertaining, to be unconvincing. If you want to persuade me, you’ll have to link videos that are more like this.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 am
I think that’s the first time I’ve ever been described as “conventional wisdom”. Definitely one for the scrapbook.
Regards, Cernig @ Newshoggers
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 am
I can’t find anything as witty and insightful as that. After all, it was made by Ron Paul supporters and if there’s any group who know how to appeal to the masses, it’s them.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 am
Cernig,
I am afraid in this case, your opinion is just one among the many - actually a significant majority - in the blogosphere and main stream media, that are making the same prediction as you. That qualifies your post and opinion on the Texas results as an example of the Conventional Wisdom as of 03/02/08.
This is not a reflection of your overall iconoclastic views or blog, just this post, just this topic. However, you may want to consider this a reminder that if you wish to maintain your reputation for independent unconventional thinking, you may need to turn around and swim upstream more frequently.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 am
[...] matter who wins what tomorrow, neither Clinton nor Obama will end up with enough delegates to win the Democratic Party [...]
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
[...] mw be right? Could Andrew Sullivan’s worst nightmares come [...]
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
What people should understand about this campaign is that they are not only choosing the President of the United States; they are should a world lider, probably the biggest world lider currently in these days. And when they do that, they should take into consideration what is best not only for them, but for the rest of the world, and what the world feels and think about this election. And let me tell you. The world thinks that Hillary Clinton it the better suited candidate. We the world feel that you are risking jeopardizing us all if you choose otherwise. We had think this over and over and we only came to one conclusion every time: Hillary Clinton should be president of the U.S.A. And that is because she is the one who can lead us to face the challenges of global warming, she’s the one who has the thorough knowledge of world politics, and she’s the one with most progressive ideas for the U.S.A. Not choosing her would be a mistake. And we, the rest of the world, request you, the ones who can vote, that please don’t make a mistake who would damage us all.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:24 am
[...] on the Clinton camp can change the story of the race [...]
March 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
This is a heck of a fight and it will be a shame if it ends now. I want to see Hillary refuse to go down — just like DeNiro as Jake LaMotto on the ropes, letting his eyes get busted open with blood going everywhere. That will be choice.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
[...] the subject of prognostications, let me just get this out of the way as painlessly as possible: I told you so, Justin. This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 5th, 2008 and is filed under I Told [...]