Hillary’s momentum in Pennsylvania may have stalled according to the most recent polling. If so, why? She jumped all over the Obama “bitter” comment the moment he said it. That meant that she probably didn’t poll it. With Penn sidelined, perhaps the campaign is not as poll dependent as it once was. In any case, it appears not to have been that big a deal in a Democratic primary. After all, putting down gun owners and those who take strong stands against immigration, and religious people is not all that bad among liberals.
But here’s the key point: Hillary only has enough media running in Pennsylvania to run one ad at a time. In putting on her negative ad, she had to shut down her positive advertising. Obama has enough media purchased to run three ads at once. So he can answer Hillary’s attack and still keep a steady diet of effective positive ads on the air. With Obama on the air with positive ads and Hillary on the air only with negatives, Obama has a clear edge.
Consider also that Hillary’s voters are downscale and older. That means that they decide later in the process for whom to vote. Obama’s positive media is hitting them just as they are making up their minds. And that may be producing a swing to Obama.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
Last night on Lou Dobbs his own poll backfired on him. He had arranged the questions to guage the feelings of his viewers from “patriotic and proud” to “bitter”. Certainly he was expecting his viewers to be supportive of his views which are anti-Obama. To his surprise, I am sure, 52% responded “bitter”. While Obama could have chosen his words about guns and religion more carefully it seems did have finger on the pulse of the people … even those who watch Lou Dobbs. Hopefully the people of Pennsylvania will respect truth and ignore a few poorly chosen words.
It has been demonstrated in the past for Hillary, that negative campaiging does not serve her candidacy well…..but she continues to use the negative rather than the positive. Her negative campaigning has the effect of an acid: it does more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured. Obama continues to be shot at by Hillary, with no results and that is so exhilarating for his campaign.
I should qualify my comment by saying I am not a Democrat but I am drawn to Obama. Like many, I want solutions to our serious problems.
There may be an unintended benefit to Obama from Clinton’s attacks. He has based his campaign on moving forward with a new approach to stop the divisivness of the past two decades and focus on finding solutions to the problems facing us today. She is giving him the opportunity to demonstrate that approach to the American people through the very way he parries her attacks. My first reaction to her attacks in last nights ABC debate was discomfort. Then I realized she and the moderators were, unwittingly, creating the opportunity for Obama to showcase his approach and skill at staying focused on the real issues (jobs, healthcare etc)and not be led by anger down the path to divisivness. I was impressed. Contrary to some, I believe her attacks now are dulling the “Rev Wright”, “bitter”, “elitist” and other issues rendering them ineffective for later Republican recycling. The latest polls seem to show they are having little or no negative effect on Obama’s march to the nomination. By the time McCain gets to his negative ads these issues will be old news, will appeal only to diehard Republicans and will alienate many independents.
Hillary is a master with words, if you want to believe that, and uses words as a basic tool for the manipulation of reality. She believes that if you can control the meaning of the words, you can control the people who must use the words. Another confabulation of her mind.
I’m amazed that this gent who isn’t qualified to be a dogcatcher here in Bonita is likely to be the President of the United States. Hang in there, Matt