« Will the AFL-CIO Endorse? | Main | Squibs, 8/7 »

What The Polls Say V. What They Mean

06 Aug 2007 05:00 pm

When one or two news organizations dominated political news cycles, all a campaign had to do to propagate a message was to get an old white guy to whisper a background quote to a single reporter. The TV networks would follow the print outlets, and the message of the day would be established. Now, a campaign literally has to inject itself into the news cycle, sending out "internal" memos for public consumption. Note: these memos would not exist if the campaigns believed that you (we) (me?) (us) are thinking the wrong things about the race.

"The polls went up for Hillary and the open attacks on her have begun. Related? In politics it usually is," is how Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, begins his missive. The translation: you media types think we've had a rough week, and here's how we're keeping it in perspective. His argument: look at what the polls say.

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, writes: "Much has happened in the month since our last report to you on the status of Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign – and in that month, we continued to strengthen the campaign and Barack continues to demonstrate he is the only candidate with the strength, character and ideas to fundamentally change our broken politics and make the progress at home and abroad that America so desperately needs."

Translation: if you're confused about whether Barack Obama helped himself or hurt himself with his foreign policy double-downs, here's a path to clarify. (His argument: the polls mean nothing out of context. Here's the context.)

Penn cites a range of national polls showing that Clinton has made "significiant gains on two fronts" -- :"consolidating her lead among the Democratic primary electorate nationwide and advancing in the general election against likely Republican nominees."

At the end, he addresses one of Clinton's chief perceived vulnerabilities:

"And most importantly as people look at her position on the Iraq War, they realize that this election is not about the past, but the future and who can be the president who can end this war responsibly and yet continue to defend America's security. She is expanding her vote among anti-war voters, women, Democrats, the middle class and voters who believe that she has the strength and experience to make change happen."

Plouffe's memo, released about a half hour later, disputes Penn's investment in national polls.

"[As]... the Washington insiders focus on irrelevant and wildly inconsistent national polls, there are strong signs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina of the growing power and potential of this candidacy."

It's all Iowa:

Remember, each contest affects the next. Our strategy has always been to focus like a laser on the early states to create the momentum crucial to later contests. What has changed is our ability to also compete in February 5th states more vigorously than any other candidate, allowing us to win the nomination under various nomination scenarios.

Plouffe and Penn seem to be fighting two different battles. Think of the Democratic Party as a body; Obama is aiming for its heart, and Hillary is aiming for its gut. Obama's campaign urges Dem voters to be faithful to their core ideals. Clinton's campaign urges voters to consult their brains and check their guts. By contrast, the Clinton campaign needs Dem voters to know that she will not sell them out. And Obama needs Dem voters to know that he is smart, steady and confident and ready to tackle problems from day one.

The Democratic brain, right now, is contested.

Comments (13)

The Democratic brain, right now, is contested and it may eventually vote for John Edwards who could be the real winner in the fight between Obama and Hillary.

The Democratic primary electorate will vote for Obama (or Edwards). More than anything, primary voters vote for who they BELIEVE in and LIKE, a growing majority of primary voters have a NEGATIVE view of Clinton. Just the name 'Hillary' is fast becoming a dirty word..

Hillary can be as smug as she likes about national polls as everyone knows those are not acurate and it is the state polls that are important.
and it is known that democrats never truly make a final decision until right before voting.
Either way, if democrats want to win they will not pick Hillary and her lobbyists but, Obama and real change.

Obama must play down the national polls. If he doesn't, that makes them legit. If they're legit, then Obama is done.

http://political-buzz.com/

I think the polls don't mean nothing. It is numbers. Literaly the numbers does not reflect the view of all the American people. I don't think one hundred people views can be generalised nationwide. In order word, one hundred people cannot talk to 3oo million people. This fact makes the polls not accurate. I don't think in my view, relying on these polls will help us understand who the American people will be chosen in 2008.

Thanks!

mpp, what is this "done" garbage? The nat'l polls made Dean inevitable in summer and fall '03 and the pundits declared Kerry "done." Then, of course, actual votes were cast in Iowa and the nat'l polls changed quite a bit in only a few days!

Regarding numbers, I always thought the state data - particularly for early states - was more important than the national numbers. The guys Russert had on this past Sunday were saying the same. I'm biased, as an Obama supporter, so I'd like those numbers to mean more. But I think most objective political analysts share that view.

Regarding the heart, gut, mind thing... I don't know. I think everyone is reading this wrong. I see a couple dominant dynamics here.

One is that a large group within the party wants Clinton - not for any issue or other usual constituency reason. They want her because they feel it would be the final victory over Republicans. They know nothing would validate their last 15 years in the partisan trenches more than really sticking it to the VRWC with Hillary in the White House.

But there also a large group within the party who doesn't want Clinton. For some, the motivation may be a desire to get beyond the trench warfare. For others it is because they don't think she can win the general election. And for still others, they simply don't like her and share the questions with those outside the party about her convictions and trustworthiness.

The real question is how big those two groups are. If we look at the polling, Clinton usually has about a third of the party to upwards of 40 percent. Some of that is name awareness, but I have to think the lion share is the group looking for a the final victory in the trenches. Let's say its about 30 percent.

Then the other group is those who aren't polling for her (60-65 percent), minus those who like her but just like someone better, minus the undecideds. My guess, and its little more than a guess, is the number is around 25 percent.

So the real question is how to the other 45 percent break, and whether they'll break for one or multiple candidates. I think most of that 45 percent will break against her, but I also think the compressed schedule will allow multiple opponents to remain in the race through Tsunami Tuesday.

Very eloquent. Unlike some of the extremist hacks on both sides, its good to see an coherently written, logical, albeit clearly Democratic discussion piece.

Anyone who thinks that the polls are inaccurate are delusional. The fact is 2 and half years ago Obama was in the state senate. He is not challenging Hillary she ahead by 20 points. Obama is a two bit nothing with rich people supporting him -that is the truth. He has no business running for president

Reba: For you to think Obama does not do a thing.. either you are nuts about HRC or you dont live in America. All around, people like him since he has intellect and good judgement and has good person which is reflected by his values and service.
Check these videos

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

MMM can talk all they want about him. I do not see ANY CANDIDATE who has the balls to oppose him for any of his FACTS. For eg. his speech on terror. PLZ READ AND GET EDUCATED. If anyone reads the full speech, you will find it absolutely amazing. His pressure on Pakistan is already working. Infact today they had a strike on a Taliban area. Musharraf needs to be pushed. I am from South east Asia region and I know how things work there.
MMM wants HRC to win. This leigtimizies all the pundits that have been yapping and belong to PAC. But real people want a REAL man and not a HOOPLA. Not a person who goes with every wind like HRC. Eddy is nothing but a sore loser. When he realized that he was lagging in cash and could not generate from lobbyists, he started accusing HRC. He obvuisly cant point at BO coz BO had taken a stand long ago. Thast why he can only give credit to BO in all sppeches. Haven't you noticed.

HRC's wisdom is beyond comprehension. Maybe that wisdom told her to vote becos it was popular then and till recently she held to that view until her polls started crashing. I agree she is aseasoned politicain. Why not, she said Bill was failful until the DNA evidence came out. An absolute liar and selfish person and has the exact trait to be a politician. But just as RFK, JFK, it behooves us to put someone who is atleast decent and truthful and states facts as it is. Quite ironic that everyone who throws stones at BO when asked directly whether they agree with hi policy states thats correct or they have mentioned the same. WHat a joke and so are stupid americans who cant read and understand. Dont blame me.. I am an outsider who is laughing at all this and love this country very much. But please look deeply and expose the hypocrisy in candidiates. Cheers Bo for 08 (even though am against his prochoice stand).

Well I Guess It's True After Reading Those Intensely Intimate Assertions.You're All Proven That You Want To Go Down With The Titanic,I Mean The Fellow Makes Mistake After Mistake And Most Of You Wallow In His S--t With Him,The Polls Only Mean Somthing If It;s Your Canidate Who's Ahead,I Remember A Couple Of Months Ago When Gallup Had Your Mr Obama Ahead Of HRC The Polls Were Indisputable,Now That They Have Changed There Irrevalent,So Naive & Irresponsible.Fact Of The Matter Is Obama Is The Liar He Were The One Promised A Trash Free Campaign Only Until It Worked Against Him,And As Far As His Terror Speech Is Conserned Hell Anybody Can Go Back After They've Stepped In S--t And Correct Their Stupiduty Still Doesn't Change His Ignorance.There's An Old Saying By People That Has Been Shippedwrecked,(GIVE A PERSON ENOUGH ROPE AND WELL I GUESS YOU CAN FILL IN THE REST)

Marc,

The USA Today / Gallup Polling has favored Clinton because they deliberately picked a same which does so -- it's rigged.

See:

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/08/usa-today-gallup-poll-rigged-to-favor_10.html

cxswo bfevmisnp ouyitxr iwcfajrv rwcsnx gdzlef qgnazuv