Besides the mortgage crisis (see post below) the past few days have seen a wave of attacks, schemes and blunders that are notable. The Democratic primary remains the hotbed of most folks' attention as they continue an increasingly vicious fight leading up to the Pennsylvania primary in 11 days time. Clinton needs to win in Pennsylvania, and polls range all over the map as to what her lead might be. Rasmussen Reports, a highly reliable pollster, pegs her at a 5 point lead currently, but others show the two Democrats virtually tied in Pennsylvania while one, Survey USA, puts Clinton at 18 points ahead of Obama. Clinton generally does better against Obama than the final polls would suggest, showing that for whatever reason, once in the ballot box, the public is slightly more likely to vote for her than during a poll. Obama is outspending her in Pennsylvania, however, by about $5 to every $1 Clinton spends. Any victory for Clinton in Pennsylvania could, therefore, lead her to say she withstood the Obama charge and claim momentum moving forward.
Despite Obama's funding advantage, however, and despite his help from the powerful Teamsters union, he will not pay aides in Philadelphia. Obama's camp paints this as a stand against the political machinery of politics, and that his campaign is premised on a purer ground of volunteer efforts. While verly popular in Philadelphia, which he needs to carry by a large margin to win Pennsylvania, (Clinton does better in Pittsburgh and rural areas), his decision will take hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the hands of the largely poverty level volunteers working to get out the vote for him in Philly. The custom in most major cities is that the candidate will pay those organizing get out the vote efforts to compensate them for their efforts. Clinton is very likely to move in and hire some of those "get out the vote" workers who need the money and feel spurned by Obama, giving her a chance to move up several points in Philly at the least. Obama has stated the money will instead go toward developing and airing more ads in Pennsylvania.
Obama had the major blunder of the day, blatantly insulting several groups of voters in what many, particularly Clinton's team, are calling typical condescending elitism:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Clinton criticized this significant blunder by stating:
"I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.
Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families."
McCain also noted the inappropriateness of Obama's derogatory comments, stating it reflects a mentality that "shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."
Obama responded later by stating through his spokesperson that he would welcome a debate with McCain as to who is really out of touch with common people and that McCain reversed himself on the Bush tax cuts. No reply was made to Clinton's comments. This headline news which will likely cost Obama a few points in Pennsylvania and elsewhere came at the end, though, of an already bad day.
The biggest blunder of the day being Obama's comment, the second biggest was an earlier speech given by Obama in which he again stated, in speaking against the war, that "Al Qaeda is not in Iraq" before correcting himself and asserting that the "key al Qaeda leadership is not in Iraq." See the video here:
This second blunder though only slightly edges out another substantial Obama blunder. In order to ensure only campaing loyalists from California would be eligible to be delegates at the Democratic National Convention, Obama had over 900 names purged from the delegate pool, (Clinton also purged 50 names whom she feared might defect), to avoid any defections, triggering a massive outcry from the California Democrat leaders who felt undeservedly disrespected by Obama. The campaign later, after the issue started to garner media attention and growing numbers of criticsms as to why they were purged, withdrew the purge and reinstated most of the names to be eligible to vote. Ironically, this makes defections far more likely. 99% of the time, the delegate will vote for whom they are supposed to, its just an honorary position. Unleveled accustions and disrespect followed up by reinstating the same folks could reasonably be calculated to result in some defections.
Seeking to avoid continued bad press, however, Obama's campaign tried to change the subject as they attacked Clinton over Mark Penn, her chief of staff who resigned last week. The chief of staff was forced to step down from the campaign after it became apparent that he had down consulting for the Colombian government, a socialist regime whose leader often criticizes America and actively works to undermine America's influence both in South America and the world, and has forced every soldier in their military to take the oath not to Colombia, but "Socialism or Death." Clinton, to be fair, has taken a strong stand against Colombia, but the conflict was irreconciliable. Obama stated he would have fired Penn, and would never have someone on his campaign that stood at odds with what his campaign stands for.
Clinton's team fired back pointing out that Obama never fired Austin Goolsbe, Obama's chief economic adviser, who stated to the Canadian government that Obama's anti-NAFTA comments were not to be taken literally because he was just posturing for the campaign. Clinton's spokesperson stated that Obama was holding the Clinton campaign "to a higher standard than his own." Obama has had similar problems with his aides, on several occasions, stating that his statements about withdrawing from Iraq should be understood as campaign posturing and not be taken literally. Other critics have contrasted Obama inviting and not firing his pastor and campaign adviser Reverend Wright from his campaign team with his statement that his campaign would not have someone with such sharp disagreements with the candidate on important issues.
One strategy employed by the Obama campaign (and I think its a relatively effective one) before and utilized again today is a two fold approach to a bad media day. One, he tried, though unsuccessfully today, to change the subject away from the bad press. Two, he got out other negative info bound to come out so as to avoid it getting more press at a time when a current problem was not in the spotlight. The other negative info today was Obama's team indicating he will not be likely to take public financing, as he once promised, but will instead raise his own funds.
In November, Obama promised that he would participate in public financing if he won the nomination and would "aggressively pursue an agreement" with whomever won the GOP nomination to do the same. Now that McCain has stated he will accept public financing, Obama's refusal to do so is even more of an issue. Obama tried to deflect this immediate outcry of criticism by stating that he'd be willing to converse with McCain about how to prevent outside groups from "drowning out" candidates if they take public funds. McCain replied that although he's willing to speak with Obama, no such conversation can change the fact that Obama committed in writing to take an ethical stand by taking public financing and is now going back on his word and the deal he offered to the GOP nominee. (As a side note, thus far 527s and other independent groups have spent nearly $14.5 million on ads in favor of Democrats and just over $0.75 million on ads in favor of Republicans this election season).
What do all of these attacks, schemes, and blunders amount to in terms of where polls will head? I have five predictions:
1. Based on these events, Clinton will increase her lead over Obama over the next few days both in Pennsylvania and nationally.
2. Look for Clinton to close the gap in Philadelphia on Obama, and win Pennsylvania with an amount giving her some momentum moving forward.
3. Look for Obama's fundraising totals for April to take a sharp decrease.
4. Look for both Democrats, due to their prolonged focus on the Pennsylvania primary, to move ahead in polls against McCain in PA, but look for McCain to gain against Obama in terms of national polling, and particularly midwest and southern states with many small towns, NRA lobbies, anti-immigration groups, etc.
5. There are two things that will fire up grassroots support. One is a candidate who holds the torch for your cause and inspires you. The second is an opponent that is hated by your cause and must be defeated. McCain, as a centrist, draws much support from independents, but loses on the grassroots support. These types of comments from Obama, however, will begin to mobilize some dormant conservative grassroots groups against him, and lose him some of his own support. Grassroots support advantage is difficult to quantify, but this is another area where Obama and Clinton's lead over McCain has been substantial, but the gap will begin to narrow here.
