Matthew Dowd
Matthew Dowd has been a campaign strategist in races throughout the country. In 30 years, Dowd has worked for Democrats and Republicans, most recently serving as chief strategist for President George W. Bush in 2004.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama Didn't Buy the Presidency
- Dowd: Top Five Reasons McCain Will Likely Lose
- Obama's Race to Lose; Pressure Points on Palin
- The Remaining Game Changers
- Two Conventions Down
- Democratic Convention: Mechanics Good, Message Missing
- VP Choice: Another Meaningful '08 Moment
- Michigan Memories & Musings
- It's the Economy...Again
- Obama Brand: Truth or Consequences
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« Previous | Main | Next »
Does Experience Really Matter?
April 08, 2008 7:26 AM
Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC New Political Contributor
At a time when Hillary Clinton falls further and further behind in the delegate count to Barack Obama, and the chances of her winning the Democratic nomination look more and more like drawing to an inside straight, let's take a look at how the general election stacks up.
There has been a ton of discussion on which Democrat is stronger in a race against John McCain so let's take a look at some key things to remember when looking forward to the fall.
Hillary Clinton, obviously, has a broader experience in the rough and tumble world of national politics. She has been through more wars and battles than Obama, and would seem to have an “experience” advantage. But has that always been the best predictor of success??? When looking at recent presidential campaign experience over the last few decades, it seems that candidates with less national “battle” experience seem to have more success in winning elections.
In 2000, Bush had much less experience than Gore on the national level, and won the race. Bill Clinton, in 1992, had much less experience than then President Bush, but ended up winning. Jimmy Carter had basically no national campaign experience in 1976 against then incumbent President Ford who had much more experience, and Carter won.
So with polls bouncing around this year, and experience not the best predictor, what should we look at?
Many Clinton advocates (including Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania) say that since Clinton is more defined and Obama less defined to the public, that this means she is a stronger candidate in the fall. I would actually argue the exact opposite. I would much prefer to have a candidate with more “maneuvering” room with the general public and be able to run a little freer of set attitudes so the margin for victory or loss is broad.
Hillary Clinton’s margin for defining herself and open running probably is around 8 to 10 percent of the public -- meaning that 90 percent of the public is already either solidly for her or solidly against. And best case for her is those numbers are even. So she is fairly defined, and not in a way that helps her positively in the fall.
Obama, on the other hand, has around 20 to 25 percent of the public who aren’t solidly for or against him. Therefore, he has a greater ability to run free and better determine his future. I would rather have a candidate less defined going into the fall than one defined nearly completely with a large amount negative.
This is why if you gave the McCain campaign folks truth serum, they would say they prefer Clinton to be the Democratic nominee because most of the work has already been done for them. Though the longer this Democratic process goes on in a bitter battle, the Clinton folks are making sure Obama may also be weakened going into the fall.
April 8, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (150)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
You answered your own question Matt. You cited Bush (2) and Carter as President's with little experience before they came into office. Given both of their records, I think the experience questions is obvious. IT MATTERS!
Posted by: mhhunt | Apr 8, 2008 8:15:51 AM
Hillary Clinton, obviously, has a broader experience in the rough and tumble world of national politics. She has been through more wars and battles than Obama, and would seem to have an “experience” advantage.
HOW DO YOU FIGURE?? JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS THE PRESIDENTS WIFE AND HE HAD TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS, AND SHE LIVED THROUGH VIETNAM....DOES NOT MAKE HER EXPIERIENCED
HERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE THAT MIGHT MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE REST OF YOU..MY STEP-FATHER IS A COMBAT ENGINEER (BUILDS SCHOOLS, BRIDGES, CHURCHES ETC..) I AM WILLING TO BET THAT MY MOTHER DOES NOT KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT ANY OF THAT
Posted by: GODISNOTREAL | Apr 8, 2008 8:24:18 AM
Hey mhhunt, you miss the point, read the article. Article speaks electability, not how great the president is. You must be one of Clinton's supporter, figures, they don't seem to be bright. They are like cattle, just following something.
Posted by: Surething | Apr 8, 2008 8:24:33 AM
I want one who owes no favors to anyone...One who will put the people of this country first.One who is willing to learn if they don't know the area well,one who will appoint a person who knows how to do the job they are given.One who will not jump into war one who reads what they are handed NOT one who thinks they know it all and know nothing except what they are told....Think that pretty well sums it up.
Posted by: honest | Apr 8, 2008 8:34:11 AM
OBAMA IS AN EXPERIENCED "LIAR".
Obama said, "I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill." --- LIAR, Obama's bill was rejected by his own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation --- mainly because of Obama's Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came. He has told too many lies! Remember, Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers, Rezko, among others?
Obama’s supporters would cover the world with smoke and mirrors to try and make Barack Hussein Obama look good, regardless of all his lies and ties to radical anti-Americans. Obama could butcher a kitten on the White House lawn and his followers would try to make it look like a good thing.
I imagine some of the people who have already voted for Obama would like to change their votes! Obama, along with Dean and Pelosi, are destroying the Democratic Party. They say we have 48 states … not 50.
Hillary '08!
Posted by: CAROLINA | Apr 8, 2008 8:50:32 AM
Experience is less important than good
judgement in handling crisis.
At the same time leadership is inborn.
We have seen some leaders do fail to
carry their tasks, because they lack tactics, strategies. PR (Public Relationship), etc.
A person who has experience already, sometimes feel comfortable with the
experience she/he has, and do not take
initiative to craft solutions and look at alternatives!
Posted by: Peace | Apr 8, 2008 8:50:40 AM
the best barometer is how they run their campaign, now compair Obama's campaign to Hillary's. Now who has more experience when it comes to management, far cry its Obama.
Posted by: alexis compton | Apr 8, 2008 8:52:44 AM
the best barometer is how they run their campaign, now compare Obama's campaign to Hillary's. Now who has more experience when it comes to management, far cry its Obama.
Posted by: alexis compton | Apr 8, 2008 8:55:04 AM
Does experience matter? YES! The crazy right wingers gave us 8 years of George W. Bush, who ran on a ticket of CHANGE is better than experience. Now we have the left wing crazies saying the exact same thing about Obama. Obama is new, different, black, wow, cool...It is a disaster for America if this man is elected, just look at what Bush Jr. gave us. By the way, Obama is not running his campaign. David Axelrod is.
Posted by: rs | Apr 8, 2008 9:01:38 AM
To Carolina:
Dear Carolina it's obvious that you are a sore looser. Even though you picked Hillary, why on earth don't you admid she had loss period; instead of trying to persuade that Barack Obama is not good. Stop your nonsense, but most of all be fair. It's amazing how Hillary supporters can be so mean.
Posted by: foreigner | Apr 8, 2008 9:07:46 AM
rs...... if Axelrod is the one running Obama's campaign according to you and it is successful because of Axelrod but the question is..... who hired Axelrod, it is Obama stupid.
Posted by: alexis compton | Apr 8, 2008 9:14:45 AM
I don't want to vote for someone because of who their husband is or because their victory would make history on a gender or race level. I want to look at their public service and their ability to unite, inspire and lead. If we are to believe much of Hillary's experience comes from her time in the White House, then we must also understand that Bill is going to have an unregulated by check and balance yet influential role, according to that formula. Is that wise? And is it not a step back on female equality to say the potential first female president could win that honor in large part because of her husband? Hillary is a 2nd term Senator. Obama is a 1st term Senator. And both want to serve their country as commander in chief. So let's take experience as a supposed differentiating factor out of the equation and decide who the best person for the job is moving forward!
Posted by: Tracy | Apr 8, 2008 9:25:32 AM
Yes it does. Obama actually said in 2006 that he did not have enough experience to run for President. And most important, when we sit in front of our tv's on Tuesday night in November, we will be watching for Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan to go blue. Without Clinton, this will not happen, and if it does, it will possibly be Michigan. No chance for Ohio and Florida. We need Clinton to actually win in November. And as for the sold out media, they will be watching with us and talking about the importance of these states going Democrat for the Dems to win. Nothing has changed. Hopefully, the elected Democrat Super Delegates understand this. And the democrat voters in Pennsylvania and the remaining 9 contests. If not, and Obama is the candidate, we lose. Clinton is needed to win.
Posted by: Texas democrat | Apr 8, 2008 9:25:42 AM
Yes it does. Obama actually said in 2006 that he did not have enough experience to run for President. And most important, when we sit in front of our tv's on Tuesday night in November, we will be watching for Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan to go blue. Without Clinton, this will not happen, and if it does, it will possibly be Michigan. No chance for Ohio and Florida. We need Clinton to actually win in November. And as for the sold out media, they will be watching with us and talking about the importance of these states going Democrat for the Dems to win. Nothing has changed. Hopefully, the elected Democrat Super Delegates understand this. And the democrat voters in Pennsylvania and the remaining 9 contests. If not, and Obama is the candidate, we lose. Clinton is needed to win.
Posted by: Texas democrat | Apr 8, 2008 9:25:45 AM
obama the creation is being slowly picked apart to show the rot that is covered up by axelrod. That makes him less electable in november.
Posted by: toby | Apr 8, 2008 9:36:30 AM
One must not forget Ronald Regan (known for his foreign policy expertise) had little to no experience nor did JFK. Those who have held political office or been related (Bush and Clinton) often owe many as they climb. THis is one of the few jobs that experience is not a tell tale sign.
Posted by: JBC | Apr 8, 2008 9:43:35 AM
Duh. Obviously if you have a candidate with formidable intelligence and a command of all the issues facing us......plus the experience to whip this country back in shape asap-that is the best person for the job. You can talk all kinds of vague platitudes, but I don't want some guy who is so ambitious and impatient to be President, that his learning curve will come at my expense.
Posted by: greenfun | Apr 8, 2008 9:46:27 AM
Clinton will be torn apart from the REP they have waiting from law enforsement names and they will send her into orbit.Her camp for this whole thing should tell you how she would run this country in debt.All her special programs will cost you big time where is she getting the money?????? You and me will work for good pay and HALF will be given to those who sit in their aqq and do nothing but have hand out.LIke the houses deal I paid for mine was not easy but we did it,we read the fine print didn't have all new furnature ,all new cars and all new toys we lived with in our means
She has nothing against the rich...understatement of the year......
Posted by: h | Apr 8, 2008 9:50:58 AM
HEY GODISNOTREAL: If you think Clintons supporters are "like cattle" then go back yourself and READ THE ARTICLE AND THEN REREAD WHAT YOU POSTED!
Whoever pronounced you "educated" is themself an idiot also!
Obviously you must be a political novice.
Your lack of historical perspective is shocking.
How else can you explain your posting.
THIS IS NOT A NO CREDIT COURSE...
THIS IS FOR REAL.....
OBAMA IS NOT!
Posted by: NoBama | Apr 8, 2008 10:01:47 AM
Foreigner's note to Carolina has uncovered an interesting phenomenon. The Hillary supporters are extremely mean spirited. It is not about ideas, but some more like revenge for all words spoken about Bill and Hillary.
I am impressed that anyone would vote for a Clinton after the stealing, lying, threatening women and other misdeeds that they call politics. But there I go.
Posted by: disambiguates | Apr 8, 2008 10:08:04 AM
Post a comment