« The Giuliani Campaign Doesn't Like "Unsettled" Description | Main | Here's The New Edwards Video »

Boomerang Effect For Edwards And Obama?

05 Nov 2007 09:08 am

That's the word of Clinton strategist Mark Penn. Read his new memo after the jump.

My take: It's probably too early for a boomerang effect. Let's wait another week or so to see if any of the poor press coverage sank in.

The post-debate polls coming out this weekend show Hillary Clinton remaining strong in the general election, maintaining her leads in the primaries and in the key issues confronting the country. These polls are a reflection of the kind of campaign she is running and the fact that she has introduced detailed plans on crucial issues from Iraq to Health Care -- and now Energy.

The Newsweek poll conducted after the debate shows Hillary's lead against Barack Obama and John Edwards basically unchanged from the last few weeks. The ABC/Washington Post poll (pdf) shows her at 49 percent with a 23 point lead over Obama and a 37 point lead over Edwards. A new poll in Florida shows Hillary Clinton continuing to lead in that crucial general election state. And she leads Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney in every general election match-up tested in the latest national polls. The match-up against Romney in the ABC/WP poll has her getting 57% - demonstrating her broad capability to reach across and pull in voters who have not voted Democratic before.

But make no mistake: there has been a big change in the race. For weeks, Obama and Edwards have been running "under the radar" negative campaigns despite giving the impression that they are focused on the issues. But in the wake of stagnant poll numbers, they have formally abandoned the politics of hope in favor of attacks on other Democrats. With their strategy now out in the open, they are beginning to pay a high price for it. (Almost every day now you can find the headline "Obama attacks Clinton on..." or "Edwards attacks Clinton on...").

Let's look at Obama's negatives in the ABC/Washington Post Poll. Over the course of the year they have gone from 23 percent to 36 percent. His negatives have been rising twice as fast as his positives and there are still 13% who have no opinion. (His positives went up 7 points, while his negatives went up 13 points over the last year). If these trends continue, Obama's unfavorables will be at around 44 percent - roughly the same as Hillary's - once the remainder of the electorate gets to know him better. Edwards' attack strategy seems to be failing completely to raise his standings or stature.

As I have consistently predicted, it is time for people to discard this false argument about Hillary's negatives - Edwards and Obama have not really been challenged or tested on the national scene the way Hillary has, and if that ever happens, their negatives will skyrocket. Meanwhile, Hillary has shown that she can substantially increase her support even in the face of stepped up attacks by her fellow candidates. And that's the real reason Edwards and Obama have switched their campaign strategies.

In the ABC/WP poll, Hillary had overwhelming leads with Democrats on electability, on dealing with Iran and dealing with Iraq. With each passing poll she is seen as the one who can win - this has moved among Democrats from 43% to 62% who believe she is the one who can get elected president.

The bottom line is that the data in the wake of the last debate reveals that Hillary remains strong in the face of these attacks while the other candidates are being viewed in an increasingly negative light. We may be seeing the beginnings of a boomerang effect on Obama and Edwards.

Comments (10)

Nothing but spin and hope.

The whole boomerang theory is predicated on Hillary's assumption that female voters will equate the attacks she has suffered in the past on her personal life and marriage with substantive contrasts on issues, leadership, and political (not personal) character and authenticity. One of her supporters in the "Feminist Majority Council" had the nerve to compare the debate with the sexually charged evisceration of Anita Hill. You know, to imply that the good and decent men running for the democratic nomination are sexists beating up on a women is a form of character assassination. It is HIllary, not the other candidates, who is practicing the politics of personal destruction. While "the boys"attack her on political matters, her camapaign tries to brand them personally as sexists....and then they cry victim too as they deliever their sexist sucker puches! I hope the media and the voters will not let Hillary get away with this hypocritical cynicsm. You know, the clintons were cute in the 90's when we did not seem to have real problems...the times are too important, the stakes are too high for this BS right now. This is not the moment in History for Clintonism.

I'm on pins and needles waiting for the Mark Penn memo that says, "This attack against Clinton is working, and I sure hope they don't keep doing it."

Yawn. Show me the impact on IA/NH.

The unfavorable surge for Obama seems to be the real news of the ABC/Post poll. He's taking on water while outspending Hillary on staff and media in Iowa. Was it the Oprah endorsement or the attacks? BTW Marc Penn's strategy is fine. LOL Tim Russert's 10/21 Meet the Press remark that "ironically" Marc Penn is still with the campaign, stated after a summary of how Penn had led a team of strategists in Hillary's successful 2000 Senate campaign. The irony is that Russert continues to be a bureau chief while using words that he doesn't understand.

Kap,

Ambinder (and many others) already figured out the "real news of the ABC/Post poll": since the last ABC/Post poll a month ago, Hillary is down, Obama is up, and in total the gap was closed by 1/3. Just don't expect Penn to acknowledge it.

Incidentally, when the best you can do is argue that Obama might someday approach Clinton in the unfavorable category (and only on the basis of a lot of pretty weak assumptions and projections), that is a pretty darn bad position to be in.

Hillary leads every category: strongest leader, most honest, best chanee of winning, closest to you on issues, best reflects core values, best able to handle Iraq, best able to handle Iran. Her average lead on these is 26 points. Obama squandered the one category that he'd ever led: honest and trustworthy.

Newsflash: Clinton's top strategist spins events in favor of Clinton! Seriously, Penn's thesis makes no sense. He says Obama's unfavorables have risen since he entered the race (duh, many people had not heard of him), and that "at the rate" they are increasing, Obama's unfavorables will eventually reach Hillary's.

This is a fallacy that would get you flunked out of Statistics 101. The fact that A's unfavorables increased from, say, 25 to 35 in six months, does not mean they will go from 35 to 45 in the next six months, which is Penn's implicit claim. On Penn's logic, Obama will then go to 55% unfavorable in another six months and eventually to 105% unfavorable in two years -- which of course is impossible. Obviously there is a point at which one's unfavorables top out, and no one can ever say what that point might be. Penn may be suggesting that any major political figure will hit about 45% as they rise in importance and then stay there, neither rising nor falling thereafter. That's a convenient hypothesis for Hillary but it makes no sense. Bill Clinton's unfavorables did not stay at 45% but went down a few times, even while he was President.

Penn also suggests that as Obama gets more aggressive, his unfavorables will certainly go up and will rise to exactly Hillary's level. That is not as intuitive as it might sound, because Obama is the first candidate in my experience who was getting heavily criticized for being "too nice" and hence not tough enough to beat the other candidates' mean machines. So there's at least some chance that Obama's favorables will go up as he gets a bit tougher. Furthermore, isn't Hillary making explicit appeals to Democrats that she will "deck" her Republican opponents and run a tough campaign against them, including negative ads. If she's telling the truth about this, and I think she is, then on Penn's own logic, Hillary's unfavorables will see another upward movement when the general election campaign heats up and she has to go into attack mode.

Lastly, Penn ignores the fact that the "unfavorable" answers in polls as measuring a one-dimensional emotion: like or dislike of the candidate. They do not and cannot measure the INTENSITY of the dislike. My father, for example, would say "unfavorable" about Obama if asked by a pollster, because he sees Obama as a liberal, but he detests Hillary Clinton with all his heart and will turn the channel when she is being interviewed, but enjoys listening to Obama and thinks he'd like him as a person.

Intensity can't easily be measured but we know it when we see it, and Hillary's detractors intensely dislike her, they don't mildly dislike her. That's relevant because intensity correlates with willingness to vote on a rainy day or knock on doors.

The reality is that, despite Penn's spin, the number of people who answer "no" to the question "Have you ever heard of Barack Obama" has gone down from about 20% in January to about 5% now. So 95 % of the people know who he is and his unfavorables are still pretty low for a major political figure. And the gap between his favorable and unfavorable rating is higher than for any Dem candidate. I see no indication that he will become as disliked as Hillary.

RaymondA,

Actually, we did get a little intensity information from this poll, because the poll broke down "strongly" versus "somewhat" on both the favorable and unfavorable sides. See Question #7 here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_110407.html?hpid=topnews

Your intuition is correct, however: Clinton's 46% unfavorables were heavily weighted toward strongly over somewhat (35-11). For both Obama (20-16) and Edwards (18-18) the split was much closer to even.

On the other hand, that is true on the favorable side as well: Clinton's favorables were more in the strongly category (28-22), whereas for Obama it was 21-30, and for Edwards 14-35.

All this supports the view that Clinton is a uniquely polarizing candidate. But that cuts both ways: more people really dislike her, but more people also strongly support her. The real problem is that the net balance remains close to even, which is not where you would want your candidate to be.

What possible boomerang effect could there be on O&E for holding clinton to account for her positions. O brave new world, can't wait till 2009 when penn is writing broadsides against the american public when anyone tries to hold her to account. We want a president who will be accountable for the decisions of the executive branch not a bunch of memos from so pollsters.

buy cheap online uk viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy in nevada viagra