Whether this was merely reflected in the January 1 Register poll or helped along by it is up to your particular theory of polling and public opinion. I tend to think it's a combination: the trend had to be there in the first place, but waking up on New Year's to see Obama "in the lead" couldn't have discouraged even more Iowans from choosing to vote for him.
But, instead of focusing on today's poll numbers, I wanted to say something more general about incumbency. An "incumbent" candidate is one who is running for reelection. Bush was an incumbent candidate in 2004, Clinton in 1996, etc. Incumbents tend to begin races with very good name recognition, while their opponents tend to be less well known. This usually gives incumbents an early lead in polls that shrinks as their opponents become better known. This is also one reason why incumbents try early on to "frame" the popular description of their opponent before voters can come to their own conclusions.
In 2004, George Bush had nearly as dramatic a history of "flip flopping" as John Kerry. He opposed the Department of Homeland Security before he supported it. He was against intervening in other countries before he was for it. Etcetera. One could argue the Kerry campaign didn't successfully hit back on Bush for this. But it would have been hard to: Bush already had four years of incumbency to form a public opinion of him. People had made up their minds about what kind of man he was. Those who opposed him opposed him because they saw him as dumb, stubborn, and so on. Those who supported him supported him because they saw him as a good, strong man of steady conviction, someone they'd rather have over for a barbecue. They wouldn't have been swayed that much by reminders of an inconsistent record that they had already lived through and chosen to support.
However, in the closing days of a race between an incumbent and a challenger, undecided voters tend "to break for" the challenger. Why would this be? A well-regarded 1980s study suggests that undecided voters already know nearly everything they need to know about the incumbent. They've had years to figure out whether or not they like him or her, and if they're still not sure a few days before the election, they can't have liked him or her very much. The challenger, at least, has the potential to be different. In 2004, this effect was probably offset by fears of terrorism, stoked by Bin Laden's last-minute message to the American people, but in general it's held up, including in the 2006 mid-term elections.
I bring this up because one Democratic candidate chose to run for the nomination as if she were the incumbent. After all, she had the name recognition of an incumbent. She had (she claims) the experience of an incumbent. Unfortunately for Clinton, it seems she also has the flip side baggage of an incumbent: many Iowans who haven't made up their minds yet are breaking for one of the challengers.
This may be one reason she's a distant third when it comes to voters' "second choices" - which will be very important tonight, since many first choice supporters of Biden, Richardson, and the other Democratic candidates will probably find their candidates not viable and be given the chance to choose again.
It's still possible Hillary Clinton will win the Iowa caucus. The numbers are tight enough and the caucusing process sufficiently unpredictable. If she does, it's a clean road to the nomination. It'll vindicate her strategy of positioning herself (some critics would say posing) as an incumbent. But it's increasingly likely she'll take second or even third, behind John Edwards. If Obama wins a convincing victory tonight, it could boost him past Clinton in New Hampshire, where he's running a few points behind but a lot of people remain undecided. (And we know how that goes.)
Clinton's campaign will continue no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, because she remains very popular in many of the big states that will vote on February 5. But if the tide is going to turn against her nationally, it'll start to turn tonight.
I'll close this section of my post with a quote from today's Zogby poll analysis. It will seem very apt if Clinton loses Iowa, and rather premature if she wins-though even then, it's something she'll need to confront in the general election.
"When it became clear that voters in Iowa were looking for change, Clinton became the candidate who kept changing, not the one of change."
* * * * *
A quick anecdote. I was sharing with a male relative of mine, who proudly voted for Bush in 1988, Perot in 1992, Clinton in 1996, Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 (whether this makes him independent, indecisive or merely remorseful I can't say) that it looks like a lot of independents and Republicans will be supporting Obama in Iowa, and that this foreshadows his crossover appeal in the general election were he to win the nomination.
"They're only pretending," he said to me, "so that Clinton isn't nominated. They're afraid of her."
In other words, he sees an Iowan right-wing conspiracy.
* * * * *
So, a peek at the right wing. Until recently, it's been very confused. But it looks like Huckabee could pull out a convincing victory against Romney tonight, clearing the way for McCain to upset the deflated Romney in New Hampshire. (Huckabee, a charismatic guitar player who doesn't believe in evolution, isn't polling well in New Hampshire and has very little ground organization there.)
Once McCain wins New Hampshire, he instantly becomes the front-runner against Rudy Giuliani, who has been sitting on the sidelines simmering in scandal soup. Meanwhile, Romney implodes and goes back to hunting varmints.
It seemed unlikely a few months, but a match-up of McCain versus Clinton or Obama is more plausible by the day. And he'd do well against either.
Against Clinton, McCain can play the character card--he's a man of conviction, not a political opportunist. With his appeal to independents and moderates, he'd probably (to quote Charles Bibilos) "clobber her".
Against Obama, McCain can play the experience card--only more convincingly than Clinton could. This match-up is a tough one to call. It could go either way, especially if Obama selected an experienced running mate, like Joe Biden, and McCain selected someone younger and more hopeful, unlike Joe Lieberman. But regardless of the outcome, McCain versus Obama would probably be something that we haven't seen in a very long time in American politics: civil.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment