Hmmm...can't think of any? Me neither. Of course, there have been the innumerable articles in the last three weeks about how she appears to be unbeatable (or, rather the articles cleverly ask whether she is unbeatable, so as to provide their authors with escape clauses). Maybe that has had an effect on her numbers?
Perhaps, then, what we are witnessing today is a perfect example of the next stage of the media echo chamber. Media elites have furiously talked up Clinton for three weeks. Because the voters are not paying much attention, they have picked up on this talking up and regurgitated it back to the media in the form of this poll. The media believes it has found independent evidence that Clinton is unstoppable, so the talking up will be ratcheted up.
How does this process end? Very simply. Starting this month, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drown out the media with their $150 million. They start in Iowa. Then they move on to Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and then the entire country. In so doing, they engage the electorate - which then makes a real selection between the candidates.
It's called a campaign. It has not yet begun. The real one, at least, has not yet begun.
Of course, we are in the age of the perpetual campaign. Candidates feel compelled to host campaign events and make appearances for many months prior to the election. But there is a big difference between the perpetual campaign (which we've been in - and which has become insufferably long) and the real campaign (which we are just now entering - and which is relatively short because average voters don't want it to be any longer). The perpetual campaign is more of a necessary condition than a sufficient condition for electoral victory. The perpetual campaign that we have witnessed up until this point is sort of like all of the signs that candidates have up around the debate venues or flanking them any time they walk down Main Street in Anytown, NH. The signs do not actually convince anybody to vote for the candidate. So, why are they up? They're up because if the signs were not up, voters would wonder - "Why does this guy have no signs? Nobody supports him. Something must be wrong with him. I'll vote for the other guy just in case." So it goes with all of the nonsense we have been subjected to lo these many months. Candidates are not doing it to get votes. They're doing it so that they can get votes.
Unfortunately, pundits and media types generally fail to appreciate the difference between the perpetual campaign and the real campaign. The most recent example of this failure comes in the way they treat this campaign money. They know it is very important, but honestly I do not think they know why it is important. If they did, they'd cool it on declaring Clinton the winner a whole quarter before the first votes are cast. Here's a question. If all it took to win an election was high name recognition, pulling a "Ginsberg" in mid-September, and being flawless in the perpetual campaign of July: why would Clinton raise so much money? If the race is all but over except the obligatory, "Well - it's politics so anything can happen," why bother with raising $27 million in the stinking hot of August? Why not just go to the beach? Surely Clinton intends to spend the money. And so, presumably, she recognizes that there is a need to spend it. And so, surely that is a sign that she recognizes that polling in September, before money is spent, is not worth all that much - that there is a difference between what has happened and what will happen.
Again, I will reiterate that I am not laying odds on Obama or Clinton. I am not handicapping this race in any way at all - largely because I think it is to early to do that with any precision. I indicated last week that, at this point, I would spread my money around. I'd do that because ultimately I just do not know which message the Democratic electorate is going to prefer. I have no inside track or key insight to divine who is going to win. None at all. My position here is not a product of any special knowledge, but my lack of it.
So, I am not arguing that Obama is going to win this battle. My point is simply that it is going to be one hell of a battle.
I will cede the following to the media elites now declaring - or should I say "declaring?" - the "inevitability?" of the Clinton victory. She won the pre-campaign battle. No doubt. There is also no doubt that there is some utility to this kind of victory. All else equal, every candidate would like to have Clinton's lead, even if it is not based upon very informed opinions and even if it is only from September. But something else happened during this seemingly interminable preseason. Something more important. Clinton won the battle, for sure - but it looks as though Barack Obama has learned how to fight. Remember early on how many times he seemed to screw up - just made rookie mistake after rookie mistake? Have you noticed that he's not making them any more? I have. His campaign looks mighty professional to me.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2007/10/clinton_expands_her_lead.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
