What Hillary Advisers Are Privately Telling Jittery Donors

[Coexist]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_advisers_privately_rea.php

By Greg Sargent - February 22, 2008, 2:20PM
Two Hillary campaign sources -- an adviser and a major donor -- have provided to me the argument that Hillary's advisers and pollsters are privately making to donors and supporters as to why it's too early to count her out of the race.

According to the adviser and donor, Hillary advisers are telling people -- when they're sounding optimistic tones designed to sooth jittery donors -- that the campaign's internal polling shows her up over five points in her key firewall states of Ohio and Texas.

<snip>
Third, Hillary advisers are hoping that narrowing the delegate count will enable the campaign to change the subject from a discussion over their need for super-delegates to a conversation about what's going to happen with the Michigan and Florida delegations. In an interview published today, Hillary herself reiterated that she'd make an aggressive push to get them seated.

<snip
Indeed, the donor tells me that he's frustrated that the campaign has failed to do more to stop the media from portraying her candidacy as doomed.

Interesting strategy - not to win, but to cut the delegate lead in half, then push to seat the MI/FL delegates as they are now.

I don't see that happening, maybe FL, but no way MI.

[anamandujano]

1. This part is pretty funny--"he's frustrated that the campaign

has failed to do more to stop the media from portraying her candidacy as doomed."

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Who can stop the media?

Whoever wins, when the statistical studies of press bias come out, there is going to be some serious, ahem, talk about this. In no way should the press collectively decide who will be elected, and they certainly should not be engaged in social engineering.

Sure there are other factors involved. Hillary's campaign seems to have been conceived under a bad star, but she has to bear the responsibility for all things under and outside of her control -- like anybody else.

This also does not do service to Barack Obama. He is a strong candidate in his own right, and his coronation by the press is their incidental way of "showing him who's boss".

Besides which, the press will certainly turn on him. They have turned on EVERY major Democratic statesman in the last fifty years.

As a Hillary supporter, I've searched my soul high and low to make sure this is not some explanatory strategy for my candidate's failings. Indeed, it is not, since I have been writing about the same topic here since 2002. Politics is a rough, tough game, Hillary is a big girl, and in the event the tide turns her way, Obama is a big boy. Loss is part of politics -- and for a true leader, loss is only temporary. (For both cases, this would be Hillary's first and Obama's second loss. Not too shabby.)

But the mass media way overstep their bounds when they game the political system. We need a strong, adversarial press, but the cycle of infatuation and character assassination of Democratic leaders is beyond the pale. It bought us Truman's pillorying, Stevenson being ridiculed for his intelligence, the destruction of the New Left in the early 1970s, the ridicule and near-destruction of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton's impeachment, and the elections of 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. We are fortunate to have two strong candidates this time, because they can only destroy one of them. And neither Hillary nor Obama will wither and die in defeat.

The first item of business is to re-establish our party's power. The second is to put a leash on the media -- to be held by the Public alone.

--p!

[anigbrowl]

6. So what did the MSM do for Bob Dole? Or George HW Bush in 1992?

John McCain would remember where he put it if you would just shut up for a few minutes, Dolores

As for 2006, The democratic party did well in that election and got plenty of support from the media.

Sorry, I think this is conspiracy theorizing. The does not have a single unified agenda; it's like a broken mirror in which the American people's concerns are sort-of reflected, but which inevitably distorts them some of the time.

The media (particularly the TV media, but nowadays also the internet) largely caters to middlebrow and lowbrow voters, because they're the ones with the biggest demographics that spend the most money. This is not some grand conspiracy, it's just how it is.

I too would like to see the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine and a brake put on the conglomeration of broadcast and print media, but on the other hand the internet has lower the barriers to entry in the media and information markets like never before, so to some extent it's swings and roundabouts.

Consider the one company now has a worldwide monopoly on the Telex system. Now ask yourself why you don't really care.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. There are a number of content studies that have been done

This is not a new insight on my part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_analysis">Content analysis of text of all kinds has been an academic discipline for over 30 years. It is well-suited to political discourse, and both Columbia University's and Temple University's schools of journalism/communications publish many such studies. It is also easy (if tedious) for amateurs and undergrads to do simple, but useful, content analysis. I was required to do a content analysis of Star Wars advertising when I attended Temple U. in the late 1970s.

There also need not be an explicit, coordinated agenda. Spontaneous and "semi-planned" organized activities are well known and documented. The Powers That Be have also a strong non-political incentive to spin elections: maximizing ad revenue. Some of the media reflect the megalomania of their owners and directors (e.g., Fox News and Roger Ailes). And the spin is not entirely pro-Republican. The various motivations center around the Traditional Business Values: Money, Ego, Power, and Domination.

And I actually AM aware of the Telex situation, IBM v Telex and all that (unless we are talking about a different Telex). The state of the communications industry is frightening. But it's no less a conspiracy than other organized interference in our lives. The Internet is next in line, and the well-spun net neutrality fight is just the latest round (when internet pedo frenzies are not getting attention). The Libertarian response to this in part fueled the candidacy of Ron Paul. If you're keeping up on these issues, a visit to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.EFF.org) is essential -- but you have probably already found it, though most people have not.

--p!

[TheDoorbellRang]

12. Yes. We need MAJOR changes regarding the M$M

I agree with you that the media had too much of a hand in framing the candidates. Even tho I never supported Edwards, I could see how they minimalized him because it wasn't as good a "story" as the black man vs. the white woman.

But just to be contrary, might I say that if the media were owned by the public, we would be taking it off its leash. Even back in Murrow's day, there were pressures to suppress certain stories, and today it's so much worse. Right now corporate sponsors control, twist, or suppress the news. There was a video on here not too long ago about some investigative reporters who sued Faux News for twisting and suppressing one of their reports, and the judge actually ruled that there was no law that said a news station actually had to tell the truth. Mindblowing.

I also remember reading at factcheck.org a few years ago that there is no law enforcing truth in political ads. Oi!

And for goodness sake, bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

That's got to be on the agenda of our next president: Free the Press!

[ieoeja]

14. Who decided not to let the press pool travel in Hillary's plane?

Given: members of the press have admitted they started looking for negatives on Bill Clinton when he banished them to a separate part of the plane in 1992.

Given: members of the press have admitted they favored GW over Gore because GW served them better food.

Then: banishing the press to an entirely separate plane this campaign was amazingly short-sighted of the Clinton campaign and a guarantee the press would turn against her.


In good news, McCain today banished the press to the back of his plane. If we're really lucky he will continue holding this grudge all the way to November.

[Bongo Prophet]

16. Great post, p! Let the people decide, let us vote. Step aside. n/t

[LSparkle]

3. Are the same people still doing their internal polling?

Like the $10 Million Man, Mark Penn? The one who probably got it wrong about Super Tuesday????

[yourguide]

4. HRCs internal polling

was also dead wrong in NH too.

[BringBigDogBack]

5. what would it matter if she got FL?

Does she not realize that it would be proportionally split, according to votes, and it wouldn't matter?

She trails by too many delegates, if trends continue, for FL, or both FL and MI to make a difference.

I guess desperate times call for desperate measures, tho. I just don't like when someone tries to change the rules DURING the game.

[anigbrowl]

7. Precisely. Seating Florida gives her a whopping....35 delegates.

Seating Michigan would give her 22 more (I think we know who those undecideds are going to vote for). I'm pretty sure they'll all get seated and get to cast their votes...and Obama will still win.

Interesting that HRC internal polls only put her at 'above 5%' in OH and TX. That is absolutely dreadful, considering they were suppose to be a lock for her a few weeks ago. With 10 days to go it really looks like her back is against the wall.

[BringBigDogBack]

19. yep

these next 10 days should be interesting.

The poo-flinging will be at Disco level.

[katty]

8. may hold on until after OH and TX

[KittyWampus]

9. Mark Penn's polls are bullshit. I wonder if Hillary even realizes it.

[AtomicKitten]

10. Obama intends to win so big none of this will matter.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

11. I've got Obama up by 27 points in my own internal numbers...

you know, the one's I made up in my head, which are just as reliable as theirs.


This is all about capturing cash to pay off debt before quitting the race. And that's it. A five point H win in TX would be a net delegate loss for her there. And that's all they can dream about at the moment.

[high density]

13. The math doesn't work out if she only has 5 point wins

She needs to quadruple that lead to make a difference.

[Azathoth]

17. Gee, we've never seen Obama close a 5 point gap before

:rofl:

[City Lights]

18. She's bragging about a 5-point lead that has shriveled from 20+?

That's what she's offering to calm their jitters?

What am I missing here?