I would like to start with the 2008 primary schedule. For this election, we have a truncated schedule, with the Iowa caucus held on January 3, 2008, and the New Hampshire primary held January 8, 2008. That is only five days between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. For the 2004 primary calendar, Iowa held its caucus on January 19, while New Hampshire held its primary on January 27th. While there was only eight days between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, the candidates had over two weeks, in 2004, to campaign between Iowa and New Hampshire before the caucus. That is a lot of time to allow both the Iowa and New Hampshire voters to get to know the candidates right after the holiday season. For the 2000 presidential elections, Iowa held its caucus on January 24th, while New Hampshire held its primary on February 1st. That is almost a month for the candidates to stomp in both states before the Iowa caucus. For this 2008 campaign season, Iowa started its caucus just three days into 2008. This schedule is very truncated, and it doesn't allow much time for either the citizens of Iowa or New Hampshire to really get to know the candidates, that is, if they were ignoring the election news throughout 2007. I will also say that the first 2-3 weeks in January would give plenty of time for the campaign staffs in both Iowa and New Hampshire to conduct their polls, and focus groups, to determine the strategies and to target the voting blocks necessary to win. This truncated campaign schedule is completely new for both the candidates, and possibly for the mainstream news media covering the campaigns.
The second factor I want to look here is the mainstream news media. It seemed that right after Clinton's third-placed finish in Iowa, the mainstream news media jumped into this huge speculation that Hillary Clinton's campaign was pretty much finished. On January 3, 2008, MSNBC's Chris Matthews claimed that the low 30-percent finish that Clinton received in Iowa represented a resounding rejection of Clinton by 2/3rds of the Iowan Democrats. The New York Times reported in a January 4, 2008 story that "conventional wisdom is accumulating that if Mrs. Clinton loses here, the subsequent dominos will fall against her." The Washington Post had this to say in a January 5th, 2008 story about the Clinton campaign and the truncated primary schedule:
The dynamics this year are different in the two parties. Among Democrats, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has the resources and the poll numbers to potentially capitalize on his Iowa victory and overtake Clinton in New Hampshire, where the senator from New York has long led in polls. A pair of back-to-back victories could be enough to propel Obama into South Carolina and the Feb. 5 states, and undermine Clinton's claim to be the most electable Democrat.
The Washington Post also reported this January 5th, 2008 story of Clinton supporters questioning whether Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy could win:
MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 4 -- After an unexpectedly thorough defeat in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton faced a barrage of second-guessing Friday from supporters worried that her campaign strategy could cost her the Democratic nomination.
In a flurry of conference calls throughout the day, described by several participants, anxious Clinton advisers agreed to stick to her original message -- that only the former first lady has the experience to bring about change. And while they decided to increase the pressure on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) here, campaign officials were debating how hard to hit him on his experience level in the few short days until the New Hampshire primary.
So far, no senior Clinton advisers have been ousted for failing to produce a victory in Iowa, despite their spending many months and millions of dollars there only to see the candidate's status as the Democratic front-runner vanish. But supporters outside the campaign were quick to question Mark Penn, the chief strategist, whose polling data suggested she could win in Iowa; Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign manager, who moved to Iowa to try to eke out a win; and an inner circle of operatives whose "inevitability" strategy failed to blunt the message of "change" that swept Obama into first place Thursday night.
And finally, the Drudge Report posted this Jan 07 2008 story where Senator Clinton was "preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!" Drudge also reported that "Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday," while "others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory...." Everyone in the media was practically speculating that Hillary Clinton's campaign was finished--even before the presidential race had started. What is even more amazing is that for the entire 2007 year, when Clinton first announced her candidacy, the media constantly presented her as the presumed front-runner, backing her status up with the myriad of national polls. None of the national polls really made much of a difference here in determining who would win the Democratic nomination--it was pretty much a popularity contest here. It is important to understand this because instead of reporting the facts, or the issues, or the information, we have a mainstream media that is more interested in taking drama and reporting it as news. That is what happened after Clinton ended up in third place in the Iowa caucus, and all the mainstream media speculation that the Clinton campaign would be finished after New Hampshire, that the Clinton campaign would implode, that Barack Obama would be coroneted as the Democratic nominee after his New Hampshire win. We've got a media here that is more interested in creating their own dramatic story using the news, rather than actually reporting the news. And it is all for big, corporate, profits. Also remember that all this happened on a truncated campaign schedule.
Hillary Clinton's big crying scene. I saw this news story being constantly reported in the mainstream news, and the blogs, and I wasn't sure whether the incident was a vulnerable side of Hillary Clinton, or whether this was a crass political ploy by Clinton to garner some sympathy vote just one day before the New Hampshire primary. Politicians have certainly turned on the waterworks for political gain—just look at Representative John Boehner’s big breakdown during his May 24, 2007 speech on the Iraq war funding bill. But with Hillary Clinton’s crying episode, I wasn’t sure what to make of it. Here is the video of Clinton’s crying scene:
Looking at the video, it would appear to me that the question caught Hillary Clinton in an emotional moment—the question was a real softball question here. And an exhausted Clinton caught herself in this emotional moment, well beyond the political spin, or the campaign advisers’ advice on how she should react, or behave, during these events. Is that a bad thing? Not really. I didn’t think of it as a major analytical story to comment on here, although it is an interesting general, political interest story. She didn’t turn on the waterworks during a floor speech, or a debate, which I would have considered a crass, political ploy.
But a funny thing happened with Hillary Clinton’s big crying scene. The mainstream media latched on to this story, and ran with it the entire day before the New Hampshire primary. And a number of the pundits speaking about Clinton’s crying scene were very negative—both before and after the New Hampshire election process. In a sense, the media didn’t just report the story of Clinton’s crying scene—they expanded upon it by endlessly reporting the story, speculating on the story, and questioning whether Clinton would survive the New Hampshire primary, or if her campaign would implode. What should have been a general interest political story here probably became a key factor into sending Clinton to victory in New Hampshire. New Hampshire voters may have looked at Hillary Clinton in her vulnerable moment, and then decided to keep her into the race with a win, rather than giving Obama, and the news media, a quick coronation.
Now let us go to Chris Matthews and his misogyny. I will admit that I usually don’t watch Chris Matthews on MSNBC—I consider him an over-hyped, bloated, political pundit that is so full of himself, that I don’t think he even realizes some of the ridiculous crap that comes out of his mouth. But in the last couple of days, even I am surprised at the incredible hatred Matthews has against Hillary Clinton. Just listen to Chris Matthews in his own words:
Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton's Political Career;
Chris Matthews yells at Dee Dee Myers regarding Clinton press coverage;
Chris Matthews claims this is women’s protest vote;
And then there is this Fire Dog Lake transcript of a conversation Matthews had with Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:
Mika Brzezinski: Do you think...that there was a turn at the last minute for some voters, given the really sharp twist in the media in terms of how they went negative...
Chris Matthews: It's not in the polling. I'm just saying, it's not in the polling data.
Brzezinski: I know, that's my point. Because people went to the polls throughout the day, and maybe changed their minds, and maybe were turned off by by what they saw. By these nasty headlines.
Matthews: Well, I don't know if they all read the NYPost.
Brzezinski: In taking after her for crying.
Matthews: I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a US Senator, the reason she's a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around.
Brzezinski: Yeah, but...
Matthews: That's how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation," right? That's what happened. That's how it happened. In 1998, she went to NY and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously. But it was about the humiliation of Bill Clinton.
Brzezinski: Um...NO, okay? Well, you could take it a step back, and say that SHE put Bill Clinton where he is and then he messed around and she was humiliated and people felt sorry for her. And she does have more to her than being a victim. She does have more to her. [Mika smacks him on the arm.]
Matthews: Ow. I agree. You hit me? Hit him. [pointing to Scarborough, who cannot get to the commercial break fast enough...] (emphasis mine).
DKos user Plutonium Page has an excellent diary up detailing even more sexist, and hatred remarks Matthews made against both Hillary Clinton, and other women, on MSNBC. Even Talking Points Memo brings up Matthew’s misogyny, where Matthews questions on his June 24, 2007 Chris Matthews Show, as to whether Hillary Clinton would make a good commander-in-chief:
On the June 24 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, during a discussion about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), host Chris Matthews asked Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, if "being surrounded by women" makes "a case for commander in chief -- or does it make a case against it?" Parker answered by referring to a June 21 front-page Washington Post article about the women working as senior advisers to Clinton's campaign: "It makes a case with a certain demographic, and I noticed the picture on the front of The Washington Post the other day showed her with all these women and her crew, and did you notice, there was only one blonde out of about 15 women, so it sort of -- I thought that was very telling." Parker never explained what was "telling" about the hair color of Clinton's top aides.
Asked by Time managing editor Richard Stengel, "What are you suggesting by asking does this diminish her as a commander in chief by being surrounded by women?," Matthews replied: "No, the idea that it -- well, let me just get historic. We've never had a woman commander in chief."
As a follow-up to his question, Matthews said: "But isn't that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well." Turning to New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, Matthews added: "Elisabeth, you're always thinking about these things." Bumiller referred to Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher -- women who were elected to lead Israel and the United Kingdom -- and said: "[W]e all remember these women. ... I think we can get there." Matthews responded, "But we've got Patton and John Wayne on our side."
Finally, Media Matters has a number of reports showing Matthews’ misogyny. What I find interesting here is the extensive hatred that Matthews has against Clinton, and I wonder how much of that hatred Matthews expressed on his show, and in the MSNBC campaign coverage, that led up to the New Hampshire primaries. How many women voters watched the MSNBC coverage, listened to Matthews’s hatred, and then voted for Clinton just to spite Matthews for his misogyny? Could it have been enough to bring Clinton her victory in New Hampshire?
Now I want to go with the poll results. The media has been going crazy, wondering how they got the polls all wrong. They have been analyzing the poll numbers, and have revealed some interesting details. McClatchy reports:
Women represented a lopsided 57 percent of the vote, exit polls showed; they went for Clinton by a margin of 47-34 percent, while men went for Obama by 42-30 percent.
In the Iowa caucuses, Obama had taken the female vote from Clinton, 35 to 30 percent. So something happened within the five days of Iowa, where New Hampshire women, perhaps, went from supporting Obama to supporting Clinton. I can’t find any polling information on how New Hampshire women were inclined to vote on the Democratic nominees just before the primary (or the information is hidden behind subscription walls). I’m guessing that Obama may have had a post-caucus bounce coming out of Iowa, and generating a greater number of support from women in New Hampshire. But then in the last couple of days before the New Hampshire vote, women may have shifted their choice from Obama to Clinton due to the combination of Clinton’s crying episode, the mainstream media’s negative writing off of the Clinton campaign, and perhaps even Chris Matthews’ misogyny. It could be that this combination of Hillary Clinton showing her humanity, and the negativity of the media against the Clinton campaign that brought an overwhelming female vote to Clinton, whereas in Iowa, the vote was somewhat more split evenly.
The second issue I see with the poll results are with the undecided vote. According to this January 10, 2008 New York Times analysis of the New Hampshire vote:
As late as the week before the primary, many New Hampshire voters were not fully committed to a candidate and said they might change their minds. In last-minute polling by CBS, which ended Sunday, the network’s pollsters found an unusually high number of voters who said they could still change their minds, 28 percent, and another 9 percent who said they were still undecided. Those who said they were going to vote for Mrs. Clinton were more strongly committed to her than those who said they would vote for Mr. Obama. (The New York Times conducts polls with CBS News but did not participate in the polling before the New Hampshire primary.)Graph showing Clinton and Obama strengths in both Iowa and New Hampshire polls. From New York Times.
This is a very important detail that I never saw expressed in the mainstream media during the primary day coverage. A nine percent undecided vote, on the day of a close election, can easily swing the vote from one candidate to another. What was the big news coverage taking place just one day before the primary election? The over-analysis of Hillary Clinton’s crying. And again, in the five days running between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, we had the mainstream media endlessly reporting the demise of the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton became the underdog here, and the New Hampshire voters decided to go with the underdog, and keep Clinton’s campaign alive. And it was not just the undecided voters here—28 percent of the voters were uncommitted to the choices they gave. According to this CNN exit poll, of the voters who decided on their candidate on the day of the election, Hillary Clinton received 39 percent of the vote, to Barack Obama’s 36 percent. So New Hampshire voters went into the polls, and chose Clinton at the last minute. And the last thing that these New Hampshire voters saw on the mainstream news was Clinton’s crying episode, the endless pundit commentary on the Clinton campaign’s demise, and the coronation of Obama as the Democratic nominee.
There was no one clear factor that caused Hillary Clinton to win the New Hampshire primary over Barack Obama. Instead, each of these factors played a contributing role in this upset—the truncated election schedule made it difficult for the campaigns to set up their strategies. The mainstream media went into this endless speculation of Hillary Clinton’s demise in the five days between Obama’s win in Iowa, and the New Hampshire primary. Hillary Clinton’s crying on the day before the primary election may have generated enough sympathy among New Hampshire voters—and perhaps women voters—to select Clinton on Election Day. There is the role of the pre-election polls, and the exit polls, with how they never bothered to look at the undecided voters, or even the non-committed voters. And finally, we have Chris Matthew’s misogyny. The mainstream media likes to boast that they never had the problem in predicting the Republican election with their pre and exit polling, but the mainstream media never had to deal with these factors on the Republican ticket. In addition, let us also make an important distinction in that, in the Democratic Party, we have both a woman candidate, and an African-American candidate, who are running for the Democratic nomination. They both have a very strong chance for making history in winning the White House. This is no ordinary election here. This is history.
No comments:
Post a Comment