Politics News

James William Smith asked:


Hillary Clinton had run a disciplined, mistake-free campaign for the first nine months of 2007. She had been able to portray herself as an experienced candidate for change. By contrast, the Obama campaign had an anemic nine months on the campaign trail without a clear message or momentum. Mrs. Clinton had Obama in a tough political spot.

To remain competitive in the race, Barack Obama needed to attack Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. The attack ads and negative campaigning would have left Obama open to criticism of abandoning his campaign’s primary theme of hope. It would challenge his assertion that he was a different kind of politician and it would appear to the voting public as a cynical attempt by him to get back in the race. Obama would look desperate and Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the Democratic nomination would be inevitable.

However, Obama never had to go “negative” because Mrs. Clinton started making a series of unforced mistakes. Her political mistakes from late September through early December have allowed the Obama campaign to surge into the lead in the first voting state of Iowa. In addition Obama has moved back into contention in the state primary in New Hampshire.

Clinton started her parade of mistakes in the debate of September 26, 2007. Her handling of a hypothetical question on terrorist torture from moderator Tim Russert was inconsistent with answers she has given on that same question posed to her in the past.

The mistakes continued for Hillary in the Democratic debate of October 30, 2007. Her answer to a debate question concerning granting illegal aliens drivers licenses was incoherent. She appeared to take a position on both sides of the issue within about sixty seconds. Her performance validated her Democratic opponent’s claim that she was trying to parse her position on issues and have it both ways.

Next, Bill Clinton showed up stumping for votes for Hillary in Iowa to remind us how slick and parsing he can be. In Iowa, it was all about Bill and little about Hillary on the campaign trail. Bill even tried to convince us that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, which is clearly not true. It sounded like Bill Clinton was running again and reminded the voting public about the fact that in electing Hillary, we would get Team Clinton back for President in the White House. This back to the future Clinton reminder to the voting public did not go over well.

Then, the voters got to see a Hillary Clinton interview with Katie Couric. This interview should have been a positive thing for Hillary. However, her poll numbers continued to drop after her appearance. In this interview, Hillary told Katie Couric that she has never contemplated losing this election. That she had not even considered the possibility that she would lose. The manner which she handle that question appeared presumptious to many voters. In fact, it fed into the negative image many people have of Hillary’s need and hunger for power. It was a continuation of the impression that she would say anything to win.

These mistakes from the Hillary Clinton campaign have helped to tighten the Democratic race for the 2008 Presidential nomination just weeks before the first vote is to be cast in Iowa. Barrack Obama clearly has the momentum in the race. Now it will be Hillary Clinton who will have to go negative to try and slow his campaign down.

For Obama to win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, he must win Iowa in a decisive fashion. He also must win in New Hampshire or Hillary Clinton will absorb the Iowa defeat and move on. If Obama wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton would be reeling and John Edwards would be out of the race. The Edwards vote would probably move to Obama and he would have a chance to defeat Clinton, one-on-one in the subsequent primaries. Democratic voters would certainly be questioning Hillary’s prospects as a candidate against the Republican Presidential nominee in the general election in 2008. A primary election battle between Clinton and Obama could go unresolved for weeks since Obama has the campaign war chest to contest Clinton in every primary state.

An Obama victory against Hillary Clinton is still a long shot. However, a series of unforced Hillary Clinton mistakes since September 26, 2007 have allowed Obama to remain competitive. Indeed, the result of her political mistakes have, at the very least, given Barack Obama’s campaign of hope a prayer.

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:


Bradley-Wilder effect asserts that some white voters when they reveal their political preferences state the black candidate as their preference (lest they be misconstrued to be closed-minded) in a white-black candidates race though the real preference of the said voters may be the white candidate.

So we have the situation of the publicly expressed polls overstating the support for a black candidate in a black-white candidates political race. The two political choices that are cited as examples of this effect are the 1981 California gubernatorial race between Dukemajian (white candidate) and Bradley (black candidate), and the 1989 Virgina gubernatorial race between Wilder (black candidate) and Coleman (white candidate.)

The question now is: is the Bradley-Wilder effect is still alive? And is it showing up in Obama-Clinton Democratic party presidential contest?

The most compelling data to assert that Bradley-Wilder effect may be operational comes from the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

The polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the five television networks and The Associated Press, asked voters if the race of the candidate was important: 19 percent said yes, while 80 percent said no. Of those who said yes, 59 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 41 percent voted for Senator Barack Obama. Of those who said no, 53 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 47 percent voted for Mr. Obama. Broken down by race, 13 percent of whites said race was important to them, and 75 percent of those voters sided with Mrs. Clinton. Of the 66 percent of whites who said race was not important to them, 58 percent voted for her.

Further, a recent Associated Press-Yahoo News poll found that about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black president. (The actual percentage is probably higher because voters are shy about admitting a racial prejudice to pollsters.)

So are we watching Bradley-Wilder effect? May be but there are some serious confounding elements. Here is one. Unlike pre-election polls, the exit polls do not involve a “face to face” interview. Rather, the exit poll interviewer’s task is to randomly select and recruit respondents, hand them a paper questionnaire, a pencil and a clipboard and allow the respondents to privately fill out the questionnaire and deposit it into a large “ballot box.” (Note that the “Bradley/Wilder effect” pertained less to exit polls but to pre-election telephone surveys. The underlying theory was that white respondents were sometimes unwilling to reveal their preference for the white candidate in a bi-racial contest when they felt some “social discomfort” in doing so. That is, respondents would be less likely to reveal their true preference in a telephone interview if they believed the interviewer supported a different candidate.)

James William Smith asked:


Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination has been over since early March. However, during the last two months, the Clinton campaign has exploited some very dubious Democratic primary election rules and a compliant media which profits from an uncertain Presidential race, to continue to run her failed Presidential campaign.
It is likely that both Clintons have realized for several months that Hillary Clinton would not be the Democratic Party nominee in 2008. In addition to craving the power of elected office, the Clintons are, if nothing else, very politically astute. So why does Mrs. Clinton continue her futile 2008 campaign? The answer to that question is becoming increasingly apparent with each passing day. She is using it as a political platform to launch her next campaign for the Presidency in 2012.
Make no mistake that at the right political time, after all the primaries and caucuses end in June, she will concede the 2008 Democratic party nomination to Barack Obama. Her concession speech will occur before the Democratic convention but only after all the delegates from Michigan and Florida have been seated.
In her speech, she will say that she is withdrawing from this close election for the good of the party and that she is acting for the high purpose of party unity. She will also say that she has stayed in the race to insure that the interests of every delegate in Florida and Michigan are treated properly.
Of course, prior to her public concession speech, she will have secured from the Obama campaign her own prime time televised speech at the Democratic convention and a pledge to absorb her campaign’s multi million dollar debt. Her reward for finally acknowledging the reality of her election defeat will be several more months of positive political visibility and an improvement in her finances to pursue a future campaign.
In addition she will experience the good will of a Democratic Party trying to avoid a divisive August Democratic convention. She will also be seen fighting for the victims of the Democratic primary rules in the states of Michigan and Florida. Overall, it is a 2008 political ending with the potential to launch another Presidential campaign for her in the future.
However, after the Democratic convention, Hillary Clinton will need some political luck in the fall. The truth is that she needs Barack Obama to lose the November Presidential election. His defeat cannot be traced back to either Hillary or Bill Clinton in any way. Surely, there will be many Clinton promises to campaign hard for Obama, but the actual effort by them for the Obama campaign will surely be constrained as it was for Democratic candidate John Kerry four years ago.
Two terms of Barack Obama in the White House and in control of the Democratic Party would leave both Clintons on the political outside looking in. In eight years, Hillary Clinton would probably be too old to seriously challenge for the Presidency, since she would be sixty nine years of age in the year 2016. Therefore, a Barack Obama victory in November 2008 would end for good the Presidential hopes of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
However, the outlook for the Clinton’s is much improved with a John McCain election victory in November. In fact, four years of Republican John McCain in the White House would provide one final opportunity for Mrs. Clinton to campaign for the nation’s highest office in the next Presidential election.
In 2012, John McCain would be celebrating his seventy sixth birthday. It is very likely that he would not run for a second term in office at that age. If he did, his advanced age would certainly be a major campaign issue. It is also very likely that with Republican, John McCain, in the White House, the 2012 election would once again provide a wide open field for Mrs. Clinton as the potential Democratic nominee.
Many mainstream political pundits are speculating that Mrs. Clinton may be offered the spot of Vice President on the 2008 Democratic ticket. The truth is that it is hard to see how such a ticket helps either candidate. In fact, such a ticket could create several major problems in the fall for the Obama campaign. First, it would bring the Clintons’ political baggage into the November campaign. Remember, she is currently viewed as untrustworthy in current public opinion polls by 6 of every 10 voters. Next, it would be hard to keep her husband focused on the campaign trail. He is a campaign trail liability as was in evidence in the recent Democratic primaries. In addition, both Clintons would probably upstage Barack Obama throughout the fall campaign and even into his first term of office in the White House.
It is also unclear what Hillary Clinton actually brings to the Democratic ticket for Obama. The fact is that Hillary Clinton’s primary base of support is white Democratic women. It is a voting demographic which should vote for Barack Obama without her on the ticket anyway. In addition, having Hillary Clinton as a running mate would compromise the Obama campaign of change while adding little actual experience in the area of United States foreign policy.
The Clintons’ thirst for a return to the White House is still clearly evident. However, the end of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign is near. Her current political motivation is to position herself in defeat with a future Presidential campaign in mind. If Barack Obama loses in the fall general election, her next campaign for the Presidency in 2012 will have already begun.