Hillary Camp's Strategic Dilemma: How To Tout National Polls?
For obvious reasons, Hillary campaign officials frequently tout her growing lead in national polls to argue that she's romping to victory in the primary and is even poised for a great win in the general election. Hillary pollster Mark Penn, for instance, has made that case in a steady stream of campaign memos that are routinely tossed to reporters and pundits like fish to barking seals.
But inside the Hillary camp, advisers say, there's a clear awareness that this strategy of projecting brash confidence via references to national numbers carries real risks. Calling too much attention to national pols could backfire in the all-important early states, by giving rivals an opening to inflate expectations to the point where a modest win or loss will be seen as a letdown. Also worrisome: Suggestions of her inevitability could potentially turn off Iowa voters who traditionally don't like to be told who is running away with the nomination.
"It comes up constantly in conference calls," one Hillary adviser tells Election Central. "You have a constant warning by the campaign to be very worried about expectations. They tout the national polls to boost fundraising and to make the case that she's electable in a general election. But how deep will her support be when the media comes down on her for not meeting expectations in the early states? It's a recurring theme."
The balancing act could grow trickier as the caucuses approach: How to strike the right tone in talking up her strength nationally while simultaneously lowering expectations for her performance in Iowa and New Hampshire. Hillary has recently taken to talking about how difficult the road ahead in Iowa is for her, something she did in a recent interview with influential Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen.
"I have no illusions this is the hardest state," she told Yepsen. "I take nothing for granted." She added that Barack Obama and John Edwards' protracted efforts in the state present "a real problem" for her, adding that she's in a tough spot because "I have no pre-existing relationship with the state." While Hillary has consolidated her lead in national polls, surveys in Iowa and New Hampshire present a much more fluid and close contest.
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, contacted for this story, said: "We're working every day to earn votes and take nothing for granted."
Here's where it gets interesting: Rival campaigns confronting how to deal with the frontrunner actually face a kind of mirror image of the dilemma Hillary faces. They need to inflate expectations of her performance in the early states, while simultaneously questioning the importance of the national polls to weaken her aura of inevitability.
"National polls just aren't relevant to Iowa voters," says Gordon Fischer, a former Iowa Dem state chair who is now a senior Iowa adviser to Barack Obama. "Kerry was at what, 4 percent in national polls at this point? People kept telling them `Howard Dean is the inevitable nominee.' Iowans just didn't pay attention to that."
It's in the interest of Hillary's rivals, obviously, to push the notion that talk of her national inevitability will turn off Iowa voters. "We're very proud to be first in the nation," Fischer says. "No voter likes to be told that they have to vote a certain way because the race has been decided by some national polling firm somewhere."
There is an interesting nuance here, however. Even as there's a recognition within Camp Hillary of the dangers that pointing to national polls pose in the early states, there's also a school of thought that holds that formidable national numbers can win over a certain strain of pragmatic Iowa voter who wants to vote for a potential winner in the general election.
You'd think that Hillary's rivals wouldn't acknowledge that there's something to this latter argument, but they do. "There's a great deal of discussion here in Iowa about her electability," former Iowa state chair Fischer says. "It's buzzing at every level. And the fact that she's doing so well among national polls among Dems could help her with the electability question among Iowans."
The trick is getting the balance right. "The key is always stressing the point that Hillary has a real race on her hands in the early states," the anonymous adviser says. "It's not the candidate who cried wolf. This time it's a real story."
Comments (39)
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 4:15 PM:GO HILLARY!!!
Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 4:41 PM:Easy, you have media outlets like TPM and others, write stories about the hand wringing going on inside of the campaign.
Done and Done.
NCSteve wrote on October 25, 2007 4:44 PM:At the risk of repeating myself (and its no risk; I am repeating myself),
81% of Democrats think Hillary is the most electable candidate,
Yet half of all likely voters in the gneneral election say they would never vote for Hillary.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376
That is a catastrophic statistic. It means that if the general election were held today (or the week the Zogby poll was taken), she would have to win 100% of the votes of of the people who are capable of being pursuaded to vote for her in order to break even.
Okay, I'm done. All you Hillary supporters can pull your fingers out of your ears, stop making those "la-la-la" sounds and start making up some facts and suppositions to smooth over the cognitive dissonance.
andrew weakland wrote on October 25, 2007 4:55 PM:National Primary Day before I die... *fingers crossed and heels-a-tappin'*
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 5:03 PM:NCSteve:
You may have me confused with someone else -- I am only supporting Hillary winning the Democratic nomination, not the election -- kinda like Colbert running only in South Carolina ; )
mikeel wrote on October 25, 2007 5:18 PM:The key is independents. While the RCP
average of Hillary vs. Rudy is +4.2%, state-by-state polls paint a tight election where she is losing among independents in Ohio and Florida. Hillary has to find a way to appeal to independents, who don't like Bush but who are fiscally conservative and may be
attracted to a war on "Islamofasicm."
I like the barking seal image. Election Central and the media in general are definately eating up everything the Clinton campaign throws their way!
I think it's pretty weak to suggest that the only reason Iowa is a real contest is that Hillary "has no pre-existing relationship" with the state. And I think it's a pretty clever fish to throw to the barking seals. It suggests she's doing worse in Iowa than in national polls because they don't know her as well as the rest of the nation does. I suspect the truth is the exact opposite.
Think about it. Where is Hillary spending most of her time. The early primary & caucus states, right? How could Iowa possibly be such an outlier to the national polls when the flawless (swoon) Clinton campaign is clearly so focused on it?
Iowa is hedging on Hillary because she is currently spending a lot of time and effort there and they're getting to know her. More so than the nation at large, where she polls better but spends less time. Iowa also has a benefit that the rest of the nation lacks - the other candidates are there too for actual comparison.
The state that knows the candidates best seems to like Hillary the least. And that's why the Clinton campaign is out there spinning the exact opposite story. And why the other candidates still have a chance.
loki wrote on October 25, 2007 5:24 PM:NCSteve,
So it's Richardson vs Huckabee. Yes, that's perfectly reasonable. ;^}
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 5:29 PM:mikeel:
I am a registered Independent, and I will never vote for Hillary.
Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 5:32 PM:Set the expectations low much, Clinton campaign?
Democratic voters are apparently terrible, terrible judges of electability in a general election.
Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 5:33 PM:Hillary has had a clear, outside the margins lead in Iowa for quite some time. You really have to question why she is playing down her lead.
loki wrote on October 25, 2007 5:40 PM:JakeD,
You an Obama man? Edwards? Kucinich? Who's your man?
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 5:43 PM:I haven't decided yet, loki. Have you?
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 5:48 PM:And as a homosexual, I think the Republicans are far more capable of protecting my rights.
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 5:53 PM:In case it is not obvious, the "homosexual" Jake D. is not the same person posting this or the rest of the posts above.
RobbyLove wrote on October 25, 2007 5:55 PM:I really want this race to tighten up. I'm not a Hillary supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but her lead is so big that she may not get toughened and sharpened by a rough primary season. I don't see the Republicans being able to wear her down, but because their field is so wide open their candidate may end up more polished and with a more concise/targeted (i.e. "Rovian") message.
I remember thinking how there was no way any Democrat could fail to demolish Bush in 2004, until Kerry got swift-boated and ran a very sporadic, spasmatic campaign.
I'll go ahead and assume that the Jake D. I addressed actually responded about who we're voting for...
In that case, Jake, the person with the big D in front of their name.
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 6:03 PM:Dodd?
Lance in Monrovia CA wrote on October 25, 2007 6:04 PM:I have canvassed for Obama four times, once in Vegas, Nevada, and three times in California. It's the first time I have ever done anything like knocking on doors and talking to voters about a candidate.
I have spoken to maybe 300 registered Democrats at this point. I have thus far found ONE, count it ONE voter that was solidly in Hillary's camp. I've found maybe 50 voters solidly in Obama's camp, and the rest, the vast majority, are completely undecided and not even paying attention yet.
This completely plays to Obama, as Hillary is already the biggest known commodity in the election and she's drawing all her support from people who liked her to begin with. If over 50 percent of the Democratic electorate hasn't decided on her, then they're going to side with another candidate, and since Obama is the most charismatic, the most well financed, and simply the best choice, no doubt they will start falling more and more into his camp.
I've spoken to dozens of other volunteers that have canvassed in Nevada and California for Obama, and everyone reports the same statistics. Nobody but nobody is saying they are solidly behind Hillary, and in fact her "front runner" status is actually hurting her because, as this article says, nobody wants to be told who to vote for.
Obama should not be worried. He's got enough money to compete with Hillary in all 50 states and he's setting himself up to win Iowa and South Carolina and frankly Hillary doesn't stand a chance in Nevada from what I've seen there first hand.
Don't believe the polls. Is it a coincidence that Mark Penn, Hilary's "Pollster" aka "Karl Rove", used to run polls in Latin America for the Bush administration to influence elections there? He was the guy who polled in Venezuela that Hugo Chavez was about to lose his election by wide margins. Instead Hugo swept.
Don't believe the media until AFTER the early state caucuses. They're phrasing their polls to help Hillary and the media is declaring her the winner every chance they can because they know that either 1; She will win and be more like a Republican in her stance toward corporate media ownership than Obama would by far, or 2; They will declare her the nominee and then a Republican will step up to a close race, by far closer than it would be with Obama, driven by apathy and lower voter turn out which will help Repubs, and then you'll have a Repub in the White House for another eight years.
I'm telling you. keep your eyes open. Listen and learn. Read between the lines.
Don't let the media be a king maker. Elect your own leaders. Check out Barack Obama and support him, he's for real and he's the best hope this country and this planet currently have.
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 6:11 PM:Lance:
Perhaps you missed the recent TPM Election Central thread bashing Obama for not "coming out" in favor of homosexual marriage?
Oregon Red wrote on October 25, 2007 6:21 PM:What can you tell me about Hillary's quals that will persuade me that she's the best candidate?
matts2 wrote on October 25, 2007 6:36 PM:To NCSteve, I think you have misinterpreted the "would never vote for" numbers. First off, the difference between Hillary and the Republicans is not all that large, 7-9 points. Second, the "would not vote for" numbers for Hillary are pretty much set while far less so for the others. That is, she has probably already lost all of the voters she is going to lose and not won all of the ones she is going to win. Finally, the voters she loses on the left are not going to vote for the Republican Candidate. So a likely interpretation of the (would never vote for) Hillary 50%, Giuliani 43% is a 5-10 voting victory for Hillary.
Now understand that she is my least favorite among the Democrats, but I don't confuse who I like with how I think will win.
Michael wrote on October 25, 2007 6:42 PM:Oregon red I have been waiting for an answer to that question for ever and you know what you will never get an answer, even from her staffers posting on this site. Basically, she should win because she's mrs. bill and just because. Good Luck in your endeavor.
Akonitum wrote on October 25, 2007 7:30 PM:Hillary's dilemma isn't touting some ghosty lead in the polls. It's avoiding leadership and visibility (telecom immunity, GBLT, kyl-lieberman) while her minions attack Obama.
Thanks for the repsonse Michael.
But....Many people are very enthused about Hillary and as I'm trying to make a decision I want to learn all I can about each of the candidates (naturally, don't we all?).
Has Hillary done great things for her constituents in NY?
Has she accomplished terrific things in her personal career as a lawyer? What is her work history, besides being Bill's wife and working in his campaigns?
I know that she was elected as Senator in 2000 - her web-site says "after years of public service." What does that mean, what public service in what years? What is her history?
I am serious! What can I grab hold of to tell me that she really has what it takes to be the leader of this country? Help me out.
Matt2,
With respect, I have not misinterpreted the number. You have.
Assume its Hillary vs. Giuliani.
If 50% (and understand these are "likely voters" we're talking about here) absolutely will not vote for Hillary and 43% absolutely will not vote for Guiliani, then, assuming they all vote, that means Hillary comes into the fight with 43%, Giuliani starts with 50% and they're fighting over the pursuadable 7%. Hillary has to get every one of those seven percent to even achieve a close election along the lines of 2000. Rudy just has to get one of them. Which do you think is more likely?
Add in the fact that antipathy toward Hillary is worst in the small states and the Electoral College math is even worse than the popular vote math. Because every state gets a number of electors equal to their representatives (proporational to population) plus their two senators (not proportional to anything), red state voters' votes count for more than blue staters. If you divide the number of votes cast by the number of the state's electors, the big state number is alway smaller than the small state. Expressed another way, each elector from a small state "represents" few voters than an elector from a big state.
This is how Bush won in 2000.
It suggests she's doing worse in Iowa than in national polls because they don't know her as well as the rest of the nation does.
Bush-Lite and her K Street allies think that Iowans are stupid.
loki wrote on October 25, 2007 8:23 PM:Oregon red,
Why exactly are looking to folks in here to give you info on who to vote for? Each candidate has a website. You can find a great deal of info there. Want to know where they stand on a particular issue? It's there. Want to know what they've done in their lives politically? It's there. Want to know what their education is? It's there. If you can't find it email...their staff will happily respond. (maybe!)
Seriously though. You have a lot of partisans in here who are not terribly well informed and even when they are they are usually too emotional to give you a decent unbiased answer.
You want to know about Hillary's "quals?" Do some homework.
loki wrote on October 25, 2007 8:28 PM:NCSteve,
Wow...you relly are strung out over that one poll.
Blue in IA wrote on October 25, 2007 8:32 PM:Shame on Yepsen and on the rest of the media for allowing her to tout the "no pre-existing relationship" line. Anybody remember back in February when Vilsack folded his campaign and threw his support to Hillary? If I recall correctly, EC's line then was that "favorite son" Vilsack would have the state wrapped up for her. I screamed and yelped then about how Vilsack -- who didn't manage to poll above 20% in his own state -- was hardly a favorite son. Now I'll scream and yelp again: Hillary has the most prominent Democrat in the state on her team, his organization, and his wife ... and she's claiming no relationship?? Yes, Vilsack was never the catch that EC and everyone else made him out to be, but that still doesn't add up to no pre-existing relationship. She's being completely disingenuous here. (Also, I don't think many Iowan voters will respond well to her comparison with Mississippi.)
truthmissile wrote on October 25, 2007 9:12 PM:The Political Donor Class knows that the GOP cannot win the White House next year (do the electoral college math, it's easy!)...
So the election will be decided in the Dem primary, and it's between Obama and Clinton...
So these are your choices Americans:
CLINTON: RIGHT WING PRO WAR DLC CANDIDATE
OBAMA: THE CLOSEST CHANCE TO PROGRESS WE HAVE.
(BTW - does anyone know ANYONE who is passionate about a Hillary Clinton Presidency? Anyone met someone passionate about an Obama Presidency?)
BOTTOM LINE: Hillary won't win. Her so-called "momentum" is PR bullshit!
A qualification: Harkin is probably the most prominent dem in IA. But there too, Hillary is something of a hypocrite, since Harkin's wife Ruth campaigns for her.
colonpowwow wrote on October 25, 2007 9:35 PM:Oregon red:
Happy to help with some factual information on Hillary's senate service to date.
Senator Clinton sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees.
She sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and three subcommittees including chairing the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health.
Clinton also sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and two subcommittees, and sits on the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Here is just some of the legislation she has co-sponsored that is now law. This list doesn't include the hundreds of bills that she has signed onto or that she has strongly advocated:
Clinton-Stevens Amendment for Enhanced 911 Funding Included in 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill
Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families
Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act
Clinton-Enzi Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act
Schumer-Clinton Amendment Forcing Deadbeat Diplomats To Pay Parking Tickets And Property Taxes
Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion
Clinton-Collins Measure to Protect Men and Women in Uniform From Predatory Lending and Insurance Practices
Clinton-Schumer Amendment to Restore 9/11 Funding
Clinton-Hagel Legislation To Support "National Purple Heart Recognition Day"
Schumer-Clinton Bill to Protect 10,000 Acres of Puerto Rico's Caribbean National Forest
Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation
Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Extension Agreement
Schumer-Clinton First Responders Amendment
Israel-Clinton Legislation to Honor Long Island Hero
Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act
Clinton-Dodd-Slaughter Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism Act
Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation
But most of that is in the past, most of this legislation advanced while the Republicans controlled what got to the floor for a vote. So here's a partial list of what she's done so far in 2007:
Senator Clinton introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill
Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.
Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.
Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate
Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.
Glad I could help. BTW, this is the same info that I provided Michael and he laughed it off with a typical sexist dismisssal.
Why are we so insistent on Hillary for '08?
It's the evil we know. The same reason W got re-elected.
What happened last time the nation took a 'new direction'? We got the current president.
My brother, a fundamentalist Christian, summed it up. Bush was elected because he promised to be the anti-politician. The guy that would change Washington. He just lied.
So we're left with this mess that happened and we KNOW Clinton, we know she's full of crap. We know she's Washington bureaucracy, but we're more willing to accept that then the hell of the previous 8 years.
Robert, Jacksonville, FL wrote on October 25, 2007 9:58 PM:I wander if anyone will remember how the Democratic Party lost the Presidency in Nov 08, after Hillary get's savaged in the General and the media is in love with another candidate.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 25, 2007 10:08 PM:Bush-Lite unites the republic party.
RobbyLove wrote on October 26, 2007 12:16 AM:I agree with you Liberal Larry. Those sniveling anti-Rudy right-wingers who claim they will vote for a 3rd party candidate will come out by the TRUCKLOAD to vote for him if Hillary is the Dem candidate.
Nothing raises the hackles of the far-right like Hillary Clinton.
Anonymous wrote on October 26, 2007 11:09 AM:It's not just "that one poll." It is consistent with every other poll I've seen that measures the intensity of dislike for the candidates. Those polls are important because they tell you how much of the electorate is in play.
It's also consistent with the sad reality that those of us who don't live in New York, New England or California have been trying to explain to those who do for a year now. I don't like Hillary, but I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination. Unfortunately, most of my fellow red-staters just go batshit crazy when her names comes up.
Changing a positive to a negative is, sadly, pretty easy. Changing a "no way in hell" negative to a positive, or even a neutral, is incredibly hard, especially when its based on irrational beliefs.
The best case (and most likely) scenario for Hil is that she wins in yet another divisive squeaker, setting us up for yet another eight years of partisan warefare.
loki wrote on October 26, 2007 12:10 PM:Until you cite someting else, it is just that ONE poll.
"Changing a positive to a negative is, sadly, pretty easy. Changing a "no way in hell" negative to a positive, or even a neutral, is incredibly hard, especially when its based on irrational beliefs."
Says you. Evidence of this, please.
"Unfortunately, most of my fellow red-staters just go batshit crazy when her names comes up."
Anectdotal. Big deal. And even if there is a little truth to it... do you really think people like that are likely to vote for Obama? A black man? A black man with a very Muslim sounding name?
