LCG Election Monitor Blog

The John Edwards endorsement of Obama was perfectly timed to step all over the “Hillary clobbers Obama in West Virginia” story.  The timing was brilliant.  There is little chance this was an accident.  Team Obama knew exactly what they were doing by holding this until Wednesday.  They stemmed whatever momentum Clinton had from her 40 point win. 

This is not just a nice tactic.  The implications from West Virginia are startling.  The fact that the Democratic nominee can only get one fourth (27%) of the vote in a Democratic primary this late in the game is very problematic.  Nearly three-fourths of Democrats in West Virginia could not and did not vote for the ultimate nominee.  The Edwards endorsement was designed to mute all of that.  It also sends a signal to superdelegates.  And Edwards will have an important role in a rural and blue collar, working-class state like Kentucky. 

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

Every election is about a mix of several different things, including issues, strategic and tactical moves by the candidates and, of course, personalities.  So it would be simplistic to say that Presidential elections are about just one thing or another.  We do believe, however, that one common-and perhaps dominant- element of successful Presidential candidacies is the ability of a campaign to tap into the national mood and frame the candidate’s vision around that.  These campaigns often transcend issues and tactics (although those are important and often interwoven) and capture the national mindset.

These political advertising images represent some of those campaigns that were almost totally in sync with the national feeling.  Some, like Johnson’s “Daisy” and “Ice Cream” campaign ads, have become iconic in political advertising folklore.  But they don’t stand out because they were cutting-edge (although some were), but rather because they were spot-on and connected with voters.

Jimmy Carter’s campaign in 1976 was almost entirely about ethics in a post-Watergate environment.  The campaign tapped into voters’ yearnings for the return of honorable and hard-working people to politics. He represented himself as “of the people and for the people.”  When he told voters that he would not lie to them his campaign became almost completely synchronized with the national mood.  While President Ford almost came back, Carter held on to win because it was a change election in which the challenger captured the public mood. 

Running for reelection in 1984, Reagan recognized that the public was generally satisfied about the direction of the country and they wanted to take ownership of that.  Therefore, “Morning in America”-the Mike Deaver, Phil Dusenberry and Hal Riney ad-bundled facts about national prosperity with emotional patriotism.  The narrator (Riney himself) starts the ad with the line “It is morning again in America.”  The line was so good that they used it again at the end of the commercial. 

In 1992, Bill Clinton’s bio spot (featuring the picture of him meeting JFK) said that he represented a “new hope” and change.  It was a change election and the rallying cry of “It’s the economy, stupid” perfectly encapsulated the public’s anger with George H. W. Bush. 

What about 2008?

So the question we must ask is: what is the national mood for 2008?  Is it anger or weariness?  Is it hopeful or cautious?  Is it about our place in the world or about rebuilding America?  Is it about a “post-partisan” vision or is about redefining the weathered and frayed brands of the political parties?

More importantly, can a candidate or a candidacy define the national mood…or does the national mood define the candidate?  It is the proverbial chicken and egg.  We believe that the two presumptive candidates are people who are viewed as atypical political candidates and they both fit the post-partisan mood.  McCain went to Iowa in January and said that ethanol was not the answer.  Last week in Indiana Obama said that the “gas tax holiday” was short-sighted and bad policy.  Basically, much of this election will be determined by which of the two-McCain or Obama-can win the “political” battle without losing their “non-politician” appeal. 

We believe that the following is a concise picture of the country’s national mood:

• Tired of the war, gas prices, a stagnant economy and political gridlock
• Has evolved from post 2004-06 anger among Democrats to a weariness that is attitudinally embedded in an array of voting groups, including Independents, swing voters and even Republicans
• Worried about both their own personal economic security and the nation’s-both today and in the future

All of the above is reflected in the 80% “wrong track” polling data.  People want a national turnaround.  But voters almost always want it packaged in a vision for the future.  Look at the three words we have highlighted.  If voters are tired, weary and worried, they are basically adrift.  And if someone is adrift they need a lifeline.  The candidates have to give them hope but they also need to demonstrate that they can lead people to prosperity and security. 

Note that none of the above is about national security or foreign affairs.  Iraq is no longer a key driver in this election.  The war against terrorism has receded as an issue the more we are distanced from 9-11.  This, of course, could all change very rapidly.  Among the voting public there remains a dormant but politically powerful attitude that supports an aggressive posture against terrorism.   The question is whether it remains dormant.

Tags: 2008 General Election, Barack Obama, Campaign Spots, John McCain by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

We have said it before, the day to day battle during a primary season is almost all about expectations.  And on Tuesday, Obama beat expectations.  He won decisively in NC and came close in Indiana. 

How did Obama come so close in Indiana?  He was able to cut into Clinton’s core vote thereby limiting the margins she could run up among her demographic groups and in her areas of the state. 

For example, Clinton lost the Indianapolis metropolitan area by more than 15 points.  And while he did so because of his overwhelming victory among blacks he also cut into Clinton’s lead among white voters.  Exit polls show that Obama only lost white women by 20 points, far less than the 36 point margin Clinton had in PA.   Obama lost white Catholics by 22 points, again, far less than the 44 point margin Clinton ran up in PA.  Basically, by cutting into her margins with these demo groups and doing well in college towns and with black voters, Obama almost stole IN and beat the pundit betting line. 

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton, New Polling Data, Uncategorized by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

It appears that Barack Obama’s media free-fall halted last week, as his polling positions in North Carolina and Indiana have leveled off.  Having said that, his electoral status is greatly diminished compared to where it was 30 days ago.   Our sense is that Wednesday will be Groundhog Day, with both Clinton and Obama locked in a struggle for the nomination, each candidate having won one state the night before.The last two months of the Democratic primary has been almost all about demographics…and tomorrow will be no different.  Obama wins among the young and the black, in urban areas, affluent suburbs and college towns.  Clinton wins among the elderly, women, Catholics and union households, in rural areas and working class suburbs.  This has remained consistent throughout the primaries.

North Carolina’s demographics are tailor-made for Obama.  The black vote is expected to represent between 25-33% of the Democratic primary turnout on Tuesday.  If it is closer to 33%, Obama wins by 10 points.  In addition, the state has large urban areas and several prominent colleges and universities.  Our analysis suggests that while Clinton has been trending up, we project an Obama victory of 7-10 points in NC.

Indiana of course, is a different story.  Here the demographics favor Clinton.  It is a fairly rural state with a large segment of Catholics and union households.  In fact, the trade and labor unions have come out strongly for Clinton and they are expected to show up on Tuesday.  And the black vote is projected to only represent approximately 10% of the primary vote tomorrow.  While some of the latest polls show Obama and Clinton even, we believe that the undecided and late-decided vote will go with Clinton (as they did in Pennsylvania and Ohio) and that she will win the state by 3-5 points.  If late deciders break for Clinton by a 2 to 1 margin, she could win by 7-10 points.

Again, Obama will have had an opportunity to close this election out and-again-he will have failed.  Part of the problem is the Wright controversy and the “bitter/clinging” comments, but he is also being hampered by a growing perception that he is not tough enough (Clinton’s constant refrain that she is a “fighter” is her not-so-subtle way of reinforcing this point).  The latest CBS/NYT poll completed between May 1^st and 3^rd shows that both Clinton and McCain are viewed as significantly “tougher” than Obama.  When asked if the candidate is tough enough to make choices confronting the President, 70% said Clinton was tough enough and 71% thought the same of McCain, but only 58% thought Obama has what it takes. 

After Wright and Bitter-Gate, now Obama has to worry about the wimp-factor.  Not a good spring.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released today shifts focus from the remaining nominating contests to the environment heading into the general election campaign.  Most striking is the split in party identification: 51% Democrat versus 33% Republican.  The generic congressional ballot is similar, with a 49% to 34% Democratic advantage.  We’ve talked about the party ID issue before and this simply reaffirms that Republicans have an enormous structural disadvantage in 2008.

While the WSJ/NBC release does not include crosstabs, a recent release by Pew shows the Democrats’ party ID advantage is especially large among voters who have turned 20 since the Bush administration took office in 2000.  As the “Echo-Boom” generation comes of age, the low opinion of the Bush administration–demonstrated by its abysmal approval ratings–has driven these new participants away from the Republican Party for reasons that have little to do with social values or domestic policy.

The tremendous Democratic advantage in party identification means John McCain has to hope that his values and personal appeal will trump his party’s policies and President.  If, as is most likely, he faces Barack Obama in the fall, the election may be decided by which candidate does a better job of distancing himself from the crazy uncle in his family.  In the WSJ/NBC News survey, 43% of respondents had major concerns that “John McCain will be too closely aligned with the Bush agenda,” by far the most concerning negative statement about any candidate offered in this poll.  By comparison, 34% of voters had major concerns that “It is hard to know Barack Obama’s values because he has friends like Reverend Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.”  Despite this result, our sense is that it will be easier for McCain to address voter concerns on this issue than it will be for Obama.  When the general election campaign begins in earnest, no one will confuse the maverick McCain with George W. Bush.  But as recently as a week ago, Obama was unwilling to distance himself from Reverend Wright.  Elections are won by defining the differences between yourself and your opponent, but in this election, making a clear distinction from these other toxic figures will be just as important.

Tags: 2008 General Election, Barack Obama, John McCain, New Polling Data by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

Team Clinton “won” the free media war last week and, as we turn the corner on the final week before the May 6^th Indiana and North Carolina primaries, it is pushing hard against Obama with a brilliant tactical move.  Clinton’s push to debate Obama one-on-one with no moderator is an old tactic, but, in this case, an awfully good one.  This election cycle is about “earned” media victories-not paid media wins-and in the last 60 days Clinton has dominated Obama in this area.  In fact, this cycle, there is almost no correlation between advertising spending and the eventual winner.

A cursory look at three key states tells the story.  While we recognize that a myriad of other campaign variables (such as a state’s demographics and the issue matrix) help drive a win or a loss in a particular state, there is no doubt about the diminished impact of paid television advertising.  Obama outspent Clinton in Ohio on the air by nearly a 2 to 1 margin and yet lost by 10 points.  He spent more $2 million more on television ads in Texas and lost by 4 points.  And, of course, he outspent Clinton by a 2 to 1 margin in Pennsylvania and lost by nearly 10 points. 

We have seen this trend for the last three Presidential election cycles; earned media trumps paid media almost every time.  This is because in an increasingly cynical society people are tuning out political ads.   The nature of political advertising has largely gone unchanged over the last 20 years; as a result, voters have seen it all before.  Political ads these days are like bad sitcom re-runs that TBS won’t stop airing.  And with the exception of two Clinton spots (3AM and Kitchen), the impact of advertising this year-on both the Republican and Democrat sides-has been negligible. 

More importantly, voters now look for unscripted visual and oral “cues” from candidates (or their surrogates)-these usually come from debates, interviews and other appearances-for guidance as to how to vote.  And in this department Obama has had a bad two months.  Sure, Clinton has had issues as well (sniper fire and President Clinton’s comments on race), but the most overwhelmingly provocative cues have come from Obama and his Pastor, Reverend Wright. 

We are not saying that there is no value to political advertising.  Rather, we are saying that its effectiveness has greatly diminished.  Furthermore, it works best when it reinforces some pre-existing notion that voters have and simultaneously gives them something new to think about; it has to be woven into a strategy.  That is why Clinton’s 3AM ads are so good.  Those ads take the underlying impression or concern that some Democratic primary voters have of Obama’s main weakness-that he isn’t ready for prime time-and cement it. 

Those ads, though, are the exception in this cycle.  For better or worse, these days it is all about the media that these candidates create on their own (that is why they call it “earned” media). 

As Reverend Wright takes to the podium this morning at the National Press Club, the effect of “free” media is unlikely to recede any time soon.

Tags: Barack Obama, Campaign Spots, Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

Last night Clinton beat expectations, which-in case anyone wondered-is the name of the game in politics.  Clinton won Pennsylvania by 10 points after leading by 20 points 45 days ago.  However, the average of polls conducted the last 10 days including our own projection (which showed a 4 point win) indicated a single digit, 5-8 point victory.    Clinton over-performed, and that has created a media event that will give her some momentum.

In the midst of the current Hillary love-fest the facts remain clear; this is still Obama’s nomination to lose.  He has the lead in pledged delegates and popular vote.   However, he needs to change the current trajectory. 

Our sense is that Pennsylvania was a referendum on the Reverend Wright and “bitter/clinging” controversies.   Let’s be clear, the Wright controversy and Bittergate have had a damaging effect on the Obama campaign-particularly with working class voters-because these issues crystallize a problem they see with Obama: he doesn’t appear to be like them.  Barack Obama has a huge perception problem.  Clinton, against all odds, has connected with white, blue-collar voters in a way that Obama has not.  This is almost entirely about his inability to connect with the blue-collar, less affluent, less educated segment of the Democratic coalition.

Furthermore, Clinton is also viewed as tougher.  In a time when Americans want someone to fight (the economy, terrorism), the Obama of the last 30 days seems, to them, like a wimp.  Obama’s body language last night showed it.  His non-verbal communication is way off. 

While the exit polls should be taken with a grain of salt (more on that later) it is informative to look at how certain groups and regions voted:

• Obama lost white women by 32 points (Clinton 66%, Obama 34%) and white men by 12 points (Clinton 56%, Obama 44%).    Obama will never win when he’s losing white women by 30 points. 
• Clinton ran even in the Philadelphia suburbs.  Obama needed to win them by 10 points.  The game was over as soon as those numbers came in.  Clinton won Bucks County by an astounding 24 points.
• Clinton won Lackawanna County (Obama endorser Senator Bob Casey’s home) 74% to 26%. 
• She won among gun owner households and seniors by a 2 to 1 margin.

What happened to Obama?

1. Obama was taken off-message 30 days ago and has never regained his footing.  We have said it before: you do not win elections by playing defense.  What happened to hope and change?  For the time being, they’re gone. 
2. He allowed Clinton to own the economic message.  It seems that team Obama has allowed Clinton to be the messenger on the economy at a time that the economy is far and away the number one issue in America.  Bad decision and bad timing. 
3.  Obama over-polls.  As I mentioned earlier, there were problems with the exit polls.  The final wave showed Obama winning by 52 to 48%.  They were wrong.  Perhaps the polling technique (the probability model) was off, but we believe that there is an argument to be made that Obama over-polls in exit polling and, perhaps, in surveys prior to the election.  We have seen this happen to black candidates before but the assumption was that it was not occurring with Obama.  Since we have seen this occur in New Hampshire and Texas and now Pennsylvania, perhaps we need to take it into consideration moving forward.
4. He has been unable to expand his coalition.  Yes he gets the black vote, the youth vote, and the NPR vote - but he has been unable to go beyond that and it has hurt him.  Blacks represented only 10% of the vote yesterday.

Last night, Clinton apparently raised $2.5 million online.  Approximately 80% of that was from new donors.  While the math is still with Obama (he has more popular votes and more pledged delegates), he has a problem.  And it is not just that he lost last night but that he seems to be “losing”.  The swagger is gone.  Last night he did not look like the same candidate who gave a brilliant concession speech in NH three months ago. 

Indiana and North Carolina are On May 6^th.  If Obama loses Indiana, Clinton will not quit until the closing ceremony in Denver.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton will win the PA Democratic primary and effectively lose her party’s nomination for President. Our LCG regression trend analysis suggests a 4-point Clinton victory.  Assuming undecided voters break for her by a margin of 65-35, her victory could be in the 6-9 point range.  As we have said before, Clinton needs to win by 15+ points to effectively lay claim to the idea that Obama is an unelectable general election candidate.  Therefore, absent a surprising surge for Clinton, her battle for the nomination will be over tomorrow night.  Whether she decides to carry on will be a question for another day. 

While Obama dominates in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Clinton will do well in the Western part of the state and in the area between the two urban centers.  The true battlegrounds will be Allentown and Lancaster and, while they lean Clinton, Obama could cut her lead by over-performing in these two areas.

In some respects Clinton has been hurt by the long campaign and might have been better off if it had come more quickly on the heels of OH and TX.  The six weeks in between gave Obama the time to use his fundraising and organizational advantage to narrow the gap.

Obama went negative over the weekend with ads attacking Clinton’s health care plan and suggesting that she was beholden to special interests.  This suggests that the Obama campaign’s internal polling may have shown the race tightening.

As in Ohio and Texas Obama has outspent Clinton 3 to 1.  He has dominated the airwaves.  However, there is little doubt that the “bitter/clinging” comments thwarted his ascent.  Up until that time, the Clinton drop was very steep; it seemed to level off a bit over the last seven days.

Tags: Barack Obama, Campaign Spots, Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

If this were a boxing match, Obama would be in his corner getting cut treatment having lost the last three rounds (weeks).  Clinton may not be moving in for the knockout but Obama has been staggered.

Obama was on defense the entire night last night and you don’t win elections that way.  Team Clinton is on the air in PA with not one but two negative ads.

It is startling that the leader in PA (most polls have her up 5-9 points) is going negative.  The only reason has to be that polls were moving toward Obama (the gap has closed from 18 points) and Clinton is going for the jugular. 

The net effect of the Wright issue and the “bitter” comments is that Obama is no longer talking about hope and opportunity.  He is desperately off-message.  While this is still his nomination to lose, he has to find a way to get back on track or Clinton could soundly beat him next Tuesday.

Tags: Barack Obama, Campaign Spots, Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »

Just when we thought it was safe to declare last week an Obama “win” (the reemergence of Bosnia really hurt Clinton), the Senator himself snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by saying the following at an April 6^th fundraiser in San Francisco (which was widely reported on Friday evening and over the weekend):

• “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.  And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.  So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Let us be clear about the political implications of this.  While this will hurt Obama in the short term in Pennsylvania, comments like this are potentially fatal in a general election.  The problem for Obama is that it is part of a pattern, and voters look at patterns when making judgments about candidates.  The cumulative effect of these remarks-combined with the Wright controversy and comments made by Michelle Obama about it being difficult to pay for piano lessons and the fact that the only time she has been proud of this country has been during her husband’s primary and caucus victories-suggests elitism.  Voters are repelled by elitism. 

Voters look for “cues” in making their decision, and this one is as big as the San Francisco Bay Bridge.  Prior to the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry led or tied George Bush on nearly ten major issue areas (including the economy and healthcare) but lost by more than 10 points on two deciding factors:  national security and moral/family issues.  Barrack Obama is in danger of morphing into John Kerry.  

Sensing political blood in the water, team Clinton jumped on this over the weekend.  This was an enormous political gift for them and they took advantage.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeV2KzGGC38

 Just a week ago a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University showed Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania had shrunk from 12 points to 6 points (50% to 44%).  This same poll showed that Obama had made most of his gains among white men without a college education. 

The LCG average of the last 6 polls in PA suggests that Hillary’s lead on Friday of last week was approximately 7 points. 

Obama was well within striking distance and the trend was in his direction. 

Be looking for polls taken today through Wednesday which will serve as a good indicator of the “bitter” effect. 

We will be back again next week and look for more commentary on our blog during the course of the week.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Primary, New Polling Data by Steve Lombardo
No Comments »