« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

Electability in November?

March 24, 2008 8:43 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

There has been much discussion in the 2008 presidential campaign especially as it relates to the Democratic nomination process. And there seems to be a concerted effort by the Clinton campaign to point out weakness in the Obama effort related to November electability.

Let's take a look at some insights gleamed from the last 20 years of elections.

One argument being made is that there is a relationship between primary win in states and ability to win those states in the Fall.

For example, the Clinton campaign likes to point out they won Ohio and Obama lost it, and that this bodes badly for his chances of winning that state in the Fall. The Obama campaign points out wins in red states in the primary process trying to prove their strength.

To put it bluntly, there is no relationship between primary success in any given state and November success in those states.

The big reason is that, even with record turnouts in the primaries, only a small segment of the public goes to vote in the nomination process.

It looks like about 30 million people will vote in the Democratic nomination process; in November more than 130 million will vote!!! A much different electorate at stake.

And I can recall in the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush won Iowa in the primary, then lost it in November. He lost New Hampshire by more than 17 points in the primary, but then carried it in the general election providing his electoral margin of victory.

There are many many similar examples of this in the last 20 years.

Mark Penn, Clinton's strategist this year and a major adviser for former President Clinton in the 1990s, and many other Clinton campaign folks, have stated many times recently that superdelegates (as well as Obama pledged delegates) should take into account electability in November in deciding who should be the nominee, and that Obama is the weakest candidate.

First, nearly every public poll out in last two weeks show Clinton and Obama with equal strength against McCain.

This is the case even after two very bad weeks of press for Obama. My guess is after a few weeks of favorable coverage, Obama will again be at an advantage over Clinton looking towards November.

Second, it is ironic the Clinton folks are raising this argument against Obama about electability.

They might recall that as Bill Clinton was headed towards winning the nomination in 1992, his electability in the fall was seriously in doubt. He was more than 15 points behind President Bush in May and June of that year, and in many polls he was in third place behind Ross Perot and President Bush!!!

And we know the end result of that campaign was Bill Clinton taking the oath of office in January 1993.

When talking about electability we should all keep in mind that each campaign will try to use arguments to show they are stronger, and that today’s polls are only a barometer of today.

Electability, like momentum, can be as fleeting a concept, as the deciding moments every week in this process.

This is still Obama’s race to lose at this point.

March 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (336) | TrackBack (0)

Opinion: Carrie Underwood Time

March 17, 2008 9:33 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

Ok, so there has been a ton of discussion on delegates and race and surrogates in the Democratic race, I want to move on to a different topic though it is political since it concerns the now former governor of New York caught in a sex scandal.

When is one of these wives of a high profile politician going to finally no longer be Tammy Wynette and start being Carrie Underwood?

Meaning when are we going to see a political wife take "a Louisville slugger to both headlights" (for those who are unaware of Underwood's "Before He Cheats" song) instead of doing the "Stand By Your Man" routine.

I am speaking only slightly as a metaphor. 

I have an unbelievable amount of compassion for Silda Wall Spitzer. I can only imagine what she is going through and how this has devastated her life and her sense of self. It's absolutely awful what these celebrity or political men (and it is by large men doing this) do to their wives. I don't know the dynamics of her or others relationships, but I do know the kind of hurt this causes, and the profound heart and soul affects this must have. 

And if you look back over the last 25 years, nearly every political wife has done the Tammy Wynette routine. From a President in the 1990s, to governors on both coasts, to U.S. senators; highly successful, beautiful, caring, seemingly independent professional women who have dedicated their lives to their husbands careers, have taken this abuse and then stood by their side in a public setting or press conference. 

And many of these women publicly subscribe to the mantra that "well behaved women rarely make history", but can't seem to give up the society role they somehow have bought into. 

Just one time, I would like one of these or future political wives, to gather their spouse's crap up, throw it on the front lawn, change the locks on the doors as well as their last name, and then hold a press conference of their own and tell the spouse to 'Go **** themselves'. 

Not knowing the dynamics of her family life and being accepting of decisions people make, I would think we would want our daughters to grow up with knowing if someone abuses them (and don't doubt it for a minute this kind of behavior by husbands is a form of abuse), they have the right to not stand by but to stand up. 

A psychologist could probably answer why these political women seem to consistently do the "Stand By Your Man" schtick, but my guess it has a lot to do with marriages to egomaniacs whose view of life is that all others exist to serve their needs and dreams, and in the process the wife vests her own sense of self in their husband.  And when the scandal hits, the wife doesn't have a repository of her own self esteem to tap into. My own lay analysis as I watch this unfold yet tragically time after time.

I don't judge these women at all and I send all my love and prayers to Silda Wall Spitzer. We should give these women and all other women facing this kind of thing our support and encouragement.

And let them know we have reached a point in society that its time for more Carries and less Tammys. 

March 17, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)