Why I Predicted the PA Results Exactly Right
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary results
Reliable polls taken in the last 2-3 days showed Clinton beating Obama by an average of 5.8%. But the day before the primary I predicted the spread would be 9.5%. Current reports place it at 9.3%, with 99% of precincts reporting.1 Why did I get it so right when the polls got it so wrong?
One reason is dumb luck. Accurate predictions are difficult with numbers as fuzzy as polling data. That said, there are other, more ominous reasons why I did better than the pollsters. The one that should be of greatest concern to the Democrats is the Bradley Effect, where white voters are reluctant to tell pollsters that they won't vote for a black candidate. While the Bradley Effect is highly controversial, the Texas and Ohio results persuaded me that it's real. So I increased Clinton's margin accordingly.
It didn't have to be this way. In the first few months of the campaign, a great many voters didn't seem to perceive Obama as "black." Pundit talk that he was somehow "postracial," possibly as a result of his multi-ethnic parentage, seemed to reflect itself in public reaction to his candidacy. There would have been a Bradley Effect in any case, but it might have been smaller than it turned out to be yesterday in Pennsylvania.
Which leads me to the second reason I called this race accurately: The Clinton campaign has been successful in ghetto-izing Obama as a primarily "black" candidate. Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remarks were the opening salvo of a war to do exactly that, and it has worked. Even Jon Stewart's joke when interviewing Obama on Monday, while funny -- "Do you plan to enslave the white race?" -- played into the "black candidate" angle.
From what we seen of the Clinton psychology, and Bill Clinton's in particular, it's easy to understand why they did it. Obama was getting heavy support from black voters, yet presenting himself as "postracial" to the white electorate. That's having your cake and eating it, too. To people as resentment-driven as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the temptation to go after him on race must have been irresistable. (Thus we get Bill saying he was the race card victim on Monday - adding "I don't think I should have to take any shit about this" - and then denying it on Tuesday, despite the audio tape. What he was really saying was "I should be allowed to get away with this shit.")
So the difference between 5.8% and 9.3% boils down to what I said when Geraldine Ferraro made her comments last month: The Ferraro strategy was deliberate, it was coordinated, and it will work. Well, it has. And it's resulted in lasting damage to Obama -- damage that the GOP was in no position to inflict for itself. Why? Because, as Democrats, the Clintons and their surrogates have been able to make racial arguments that would have been considered unacceptable coming from Republicans. Assuming that Obama will still be the nominee, the Clintons have done McCain's dirty work.
Don't get me wrong: There would have been a Bradley Effect anyway, though I don't think it would have been this big. And other factors hurt Obama, including ABC's attacks during the debate and the tenacious loyalty Clinton supporters have toward their candidate. Obama underestimated the ferocity of the resistance he was going to face from both the Clintons and the media, and didn't build a strong enough firewall against some of these personal attacks. However vacuous or distracting you think issues like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are, it was inevitable that they would be used against him. His failure to adequately plan for that is hurting him now.
Despite what others say (like Slate's "Hillary Deathwatch"), I've never put Hillary's chances for winning the nomination at anything less than 30%. I still don't. There are powerful forces out to eliminate Obama from this campaign, and Clinton's determination is great. It's a mistake to underestimate either of these factors.
Here's an impression I can't back up with data: If Hillary had run a clean campaign, she would still have won PA. The margin would have been closer to 5 points than 9, but it would have left her in a position to make the electability argument she's been pushing for months. Her question -- "Why can't he close the deal?" -- is a legitimate one. Superdelegates and Obama supporters might be taking a second look at Hillary after yesterday's results, but her campaign has created too much bitterness for that.
Now it's too late: She's inflicted some serious wounds on Obama, but the way she's done it has made it all but impossible for superdelegates to accept her as an alternative. His supporters are too angry over her tactics to accept her on the basis of electability alone. Obama emerges from Pennsylvania damaged, but choosing Hillary instead would shatter the party. (Even the New York Times finds her campaign strategy "mean, vacuous, and pandering.")
Ironically, a smaller margin in Pennsylvania would have helped her more than this one did, if she had won it cleanly. Instead she's won a genuine -- but Pyrrhic -- victory, one that doesn't advance her chances for the nomination. And the damage to the party's November prospects is deep and lasting.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary results
Blogs:
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
1Final numbers: 1,258,245 Clinton, 1,042,297 Obama, total votes 2,300,542. That's 54.7% Clinton, 46.3% Obama (slight rounding).
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The polls went up to 12%. Daily Kos predicted a Clinton win by 10 to 12 % based mostly on Survey USA, which has been very accurate. So if you included all the polls, you could not make this claim.
Everyone should remember that Clinton used to be ahead in PA by over 20%. Obama did fairly well, considering the beating up he gets almost constantly.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your post. I should add that the media turned en masse against Obama last week (they were undermining him earlier, but it turned into a tsunami last week). It is clear that the media think only they should pick our candidates, and when they decide to destroy someone they do it with glee.
I see you once again refused to post a criticsm I made of this particular blogger. I want to remind you that you're not living up to your own policies. Ironically, you posted another comment of mine on this same article, which called Escow's piece "silly" and full of "puffery." Furthermore, you permit writers to call Bush administration officials names, impugn their integrity and intelligence, and advocate their firing or Bush's impeachment. Not to mention the swipes writers take at other writers.
All I did was point out (in my opinion; who else's could it be?) Escow's persistent "irrationality," that his pieces are full of "half-truths" and "howlers," and I advocated Huffpost sever ties to him. I did NOT call him names, ethically unacceptable, stupid, or any such thing. Are your bloggers so sensitive and protected that a reader can't opine that they don't merit Huffpost's microphone? Is that the "line" one can't go over? What makes that line sacrosanct? (Your bloggers decry the NYT's hiring of Bill Kristol, etc., etc.)
Barring a reply, I can't help but think Huffpost has some personal relationship with this blogger that prevents them from holding him to their usual standards or subjecting him to criticism. I hope you prove me wrong; address this post or stop censoring my criticisms of this blogger. In my opinion, he deserves to be watched carefully and called out on his weak arguments.
It'ts clearly the Republicans and the neo-liberals (DLC) against the rest of us. They don't care if Obama loses.
sure the clintons are horrible people but we knew all that.
Obama will defeat mccain soundly once he has the chance to go after him.
are the clintons hurting him and the country?
of course they are and thats why after may 6th this will be over.
Obama will win indiana and the supers will have their cover to support him.
the real shame is the people lose everytime because these corrupt politicians always put their ambition before the people and the country.
Excellent analysis. I saw the Ferraro comments for what they were from the beginning as well - a way to introduce race into the election. If you follow the timeline the Reverend Wright story broke shortly after Ferraro's kamikaze operation. It's been downhill ever since.
Clinton's campaign has been incredibly nasty (and I would respect her supporters more if they would admit it) but it's been effective. Obama campaign is permanently, possibly irreparably damaged. The racists would never have voted for him, but now he can't even soft-step past those with some racial feeling. On the other end, if the superdelegates overturn his lead not only will it completely alienate blacks from the Democratic party (possibly permanently) it will also sour his young, activist following. The Democrats have gone from two excellent choices to two serious problems.
Why? You could argue that they should have been cautious and went for John Edwards - Southern, white and male. You could argue that the media has failed to properly do the job. You could argue that Clinton's gross ambition is killing the party. You know who I blame? The people. Because frankly the GREEN party should be beating the Republicans this election cycle.
Some of the uncommited superdelegates are already in the tank for the Clintons. Behind the scenes the case has been made that a 'black man' cannot win the GE. To counter this arguement Obama needs to take back the momentum with a landslide victory in NC and back that result up with a win or close result in Indiana. If the superdelegate floodgates don't open then, there may be a chance that the Clintons have more supers in their pocket than anyone thinks.
What Pennsylvania showed is Obama's appealing to too narrow a demographic. If the trend continues (even if he wins in North Carolina and Indiana) where he carries only a few counties while Hillary carries the rest, it strengthens her argument about his nationwide electability.
What the Obama camp needs to do is figure out how to make their message (Change) appeal to more than the young, the upper middle class, and blacks. There's no meat in the word change and he needs to put it there. How is he going to accomplish his changes? How is he going to make life better for the family in small town America (by the way he is right they are disillusioned)?
He's got time to figure a way to connect with those centrist voters who are more worried about the economy, healthcare, social security, the war than they are about America as the melting pot.
I think the answer is energy independence. From it he'll have answers for alot of other problems, from income inequality to balancing the budget.
Obama and Clinton have both laid out their messages. The problem is laying it out in a 15 or 30 second spot. It's a lot easier to throw out an and with Osama Bin Laden and bold sinister music to stir the fears and drive away hope.
Unfortunately policy needs to be delivered in soundbytes these days. That's all we seem to have time for.
True, but that's where Clinton has an advantage. She has her husband's legacy to fall back on, the good times enjoyed by all even as we were bleeding jobs, ignoring radical Islam, not regulating Wall Street (dot com bust).
Seriously, when people see her soundbytes I'm sure they think she'll return us to what was a prosperous time in this country under Bill.
Obama lacks that luxury. Mudcat has an interesting perspective on why Obama isn't appealing to traditional Democrats and an opportunity he blew in Pennsylvania when he didn't attack Clinton's ties to anti union Walmart or her support for NAFTA and how it bled jobs from this country.
Let's talk about the Diebold effect, shall we?
I heard an anchor on the news accidentally say (really anchors were talking amongst themselves for a few moments) that the machine politics of Pa. held back the vote in Philadelphia. This was not an assumption but information garnered because the anchor was at the headquarters. So the prediction may not be quite right and in this case it does appear that the African American turnout was not what was expected compared to population in Philadelphia that are registered democrats. I checked the numbers and it is smaller then would be expected. I also heard correspondence yesterday noting as they drove throughout the state that the turnout seemed smaller than they would have expected. This was early in the day on Tuesday.
Thank you for calling attention to the Clintons utterly shocking racism.
One can have:
53.7%
46.3%
100%
Or
54.7%
45.3%
100%
But one can't have:
54.7%
46.3%
101% ... >:-)
RJ REPLIES:
At last! After 107 comments someone FINALLY caught my secret test, designed to see who's paying attention!
Just kidding ... the real number, at least as of when I wrote this, was 54.6% to 45.3%. For proof, add the two raw numbers up above, as I did, then calculate each as a percentage of the total.
My spreadsheet clearly says 45.3%. So I'll have to go with that number ...
"And it's resulted in lasting damage to Obama -- damage that the GOP was in no position to inflict for itself. Why? Because, as Democrats, the Clintons and their surrogates have been able to make racial arguments that would have been considered unacceptable coming from Republicans."
There's another reason the smears are worse coming from Hillary. We know personal attacks work, but they hurt the attacker. Even if, as Hillary says, McCain would have thrown everything at Obama that she has, by doing it herself she absorbs the backlash, not McCain. He gets a free ride, and now that the mud has seeped into our discourse, he can use it with impunity. He'll remind us often it was the Democrats who brought it up in the first place. Hillary's kitchen sink strategy amounts to presenting McCain with a healthy slice of Barack's good will on a silver platter. Enough to decide the election? Who knows?
If Hillary gets the nomination and wins the election, it will be hard to criticize her for injuring the greater good or the liberal agenda. But she had almost no chance to win when she started her scorched earth campaign, and it's still almost certain it will come to nothing. If it puts McCain over the top and we have to endure what that entails for the next four to eight years, she'll answer to history for her choices.
Hillary can not win the nomination without running a campaign and pulling enough tricks to make Bush's 2000 win look like it was child's play. It would leave a bitterness in the hearts and soul of half of the party that will doom it for decades. On the other hand, who can push her out of the race? Maybe she is right, Obama is not ready for the top spot but somehow his new voters have to be keep in the party. Who else besides Gore has the power to push Hillary out of the race and assume control with the majority of the party accepting him? Who else could satisfy Obama's supporters and have him on the ticket without seeming to demean Obama (after all from state legislator to VP this fats is quite something) . The only chance to salvage this campaign is the GORE-OBAMA 2008 ticket----------- GO-08!
Gore has already had his shot and lost. He cannot be considered now.
I believe Gore won the popular vote and had the office taken from him by the Supreme Court and George H.W. Bush's friends.
And Nixon should have never run in 1968 he had already lost in 1960 and he should have known it was hopeless.
Finally, finally, finally someone has called Hillary Clinton out on her racist campaign. It's long past time. Of course, the MSM will never pick up on this or ask her campaign about its disgusting tactics, and Obama can't call her on it without seeming like an "angry black man."
Clinton will learn her lesson eventually, though. If she is somehow able to secure the nomination, she will face a backlash of monumental proportions from African-American voters. Her "big state strategy" will fail, because a Democrat's margin of victory in states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin comes from African-American voters. Clinton's racist tactics will certainly cost her their support, as well they should. She is a disgrace. The sad thing is that she has probably already ensured a Republican victory in the fall.
Why can't the CLINTON Machine stop Obama?
How on earth could a virtual unknown cause all this havoc in what was suppose to be a basic formality in the ascension of Hillary Clinton?
Where do 700K + voters get off in choosing Obama over Clinton. And how dare he tactfully map and plan his strategy as if he was playing a chess game against Kasparov. And lets not get started on all the delegates which for some reason or another seem to be in greater numbers in Obama's favor.
I hope the DNC accepts Hillary's new math which include 2 states that were stripped of their delegates for breaking the rules that everyone agreed to before the primaries began.
Hillary earned the right to be our next president. She already knows where all the light switches and the RED phone are located in the the White House. C'mon Hillary just shut Obama down. Talk to Karl Rove, use your $110M to bribe people closest to him for some dirt. Make him go away already.
Who does he think he is talking about HOPE and CHANGE? Bill Clinton was talking about that in 1992- Vote your hopes he said not your fears. Obama is so lame he can't even come up with an original campaign slogan.
5RawMinutes
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
