Clinton strategist Howard Wolfson held a conference call yesterday and was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that “current Electoral College vote predictions -- based on an aggregate of public polling -- show Clinton beating McCain and Barack Obama losing to the Arizona senator.”  The Clinton team is now using these predictions to try to persuade superdelegates to support her bid for the nomination.

From what I can gather, the Clinton campaign seems to have come up with a new metric for measuring success in the primary.  First, you use the results of polls taken in each state for the two possible November match-ups, Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain.  You then project the winner-take-all electoral college votes that each would receive assuming these polls represented the actual results in November.  The overall electoral vote “winner” is thereby argued to be more electable.

Well, this sounded questionable to me, but I decided to look at the polling data.  This was easy to do since Greg Sargent provided a link at TPM Election Central to the documents presented by the Clinton campaign to the superdelegates.  After looking at the polling data presented by the Clinton campaign, it appears to me that the Clinton analysis is on shaky ground.

First of all, the polls included in the Clinton data were taken by 15 or so different pollsters over a several month period. We have already seen during the primaries that some pollsters were better than others at accurately predicting the actual election results.  It is therefore valid to question whether the polls selected by Clinton are reliable and whether the methodologies are consistent.  For example, I noticed that Clinton used polling data from May 12-20 that show McCain leading Obama in both Virgina (+8%) and Ohio (+4%).  However, recent Survey USA polls from May 18 show Obama to be ahead of McCain in Virginia (+7%) and Ohio (+9%).  These two states alone account for 33 electoral votes so the disagreement in the Clinton polls and Survey USA polls can result in as much as a 66-vote swing in the match-up between Obama and McCain.  Which polls are accurate?  What accounts for the significant differences?  We cannot know, and that is the problem with the Clinton methodology.   More significantly, it demonstrates that drastically different electoral vote totals can be obtained depending on which polls are used.

It is also impossible to project electoral votes so far in advance in the swing states where the polling results are statistically tied or fluctuating back and forth.  For example, Michigan and Missouri are too close to call (+/- 2-3%) for either Clinton or Obama in the Clinton polling data so how does one hypothetically assign their 28 electoral votes?  Well, we see that Hillary errs on the side of Hillary.  In her count, she is awarded both Michigan and Missouri even though she is tied with McCain in the Michigan poll and ahead by just 2% in the Missouri poll.  Obama, on the other hand, is denied both states because of small 1% and 3% deficits, respectively.  It is difficult to understand how the superdelegates are supposed to accept that Obama would lose Michigan whereas Hillary would win it based on a 1% difference in their polling match up with McCain in May.  More likely, such polls would suggest that Clinton and Obama have statistically equal chance of winning or losing the state. In fact, these swing states have the potential to go either way up until the election depending on how the candidates perform and how well their messages are received.

As I was looking at Clinton’s polling data, I was also struck by the fact that many of Clinton’s loudest arguments made during the primaries could be directly refuted by her own data.   For example, the Clinton campaign made a huge deal about winning the Texas primary and, in fact, the fate of Hillary’s campaign had even been staked to it (by Bill).  Yet, the polling data shows her to be even further behind than Obama in a match up with McCain (-15% and –13%, respectively).  The Clinton campaign also argued that Hillary’s double-digit victory in Pennsylvania was reason enough to prove her electability over Obama, and yet the polling data shows that both she and Obama can beat McCain in Pennsylvania.  And in Indiana, where Hillary’s marginal victory “broke the tie”, the polling data shows that both she and Obama are significantly behind McCain (-11% and –8%, respectively).  It just shows that the Clinton campaign uses election results and polling data in one way when it serves their interests and in another way when it doesn’t.

But this is all beside the point.  Polling data DOES NOT MATTER in determining the Democratic nominee.  There is a process by which the Democratic nominee is selected and it is based on delegate count.  There are the pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses and then there are the superdelegates that can be courted.  The pledged delegate counts are the most representative of the people’s will since they reflect the votes that were actually cast in the elections.  Yet the argument that the Clinton campaign seems to be making to the superdelegates is that (selective) polls from each state should somehow override the actual election results. 

I could almost understand their logic if they were using recent polls to show that Democratic voters in certain states no longer favored Obama even though their primary or caucus results gave him the victory.  Unfortunately, they aren’t using logic but, rather, Rove-inspired manipulation.  They are basing their argument on polls that pit the two Democratic candidates against a candidate, McCain, who they have not yet campaigned against.   The American people have not been able to hear the Democratic candidates debate McCain and contrast their positions and approaches.  In fact, most Americans know very little about McCain at this point except that he is a “maverick”.  So while more than 20 Democratic debates were held to help the Democratic voters determine their nominee, Clinton would have the superdelegates believe that polls taken in March, April, and May during a heated and competitive Democratic primary accurately reflect the general election results that will be produced in November.  This is ridiculous, especially when such polls were taken with both Democratic candidates still actively campaigning, thereby making it very likely that their supporters’ allegiances would influence the polling numbers. 

Such projected electoral vote predictions are especially unrealistic since they assume a static voter sentiment between now and November.  Even after the nominees are chosen, the polls do not necessarily reflect the final election results.  Al Gore was behind, 55%-39%, to Bush in the Aug. 11-12 Gallup poll leading up to Democratic convention, but he actually ended up winning the popular vote.  And in the 2006 Virginia senate race, George Allen enjoyed double-digit leads over Jim Webb and was so confident that he was even considering a 2008 presidential bid…but we all know about his infamous “Macaca” remark in August.  The momentum of a political race can change in either direction during a campaign, but especially as the election date draws near and the intensity increases.  And from what we’ve heard, McCain is a loose cannon!

At some point, though, we have to look at the bigger picture.  How do we rationalize the destruction of our democratic process, whereby suspect polls taken more than five months before the general election are used to override the delegate counts obtained in sanctioned state primaries and caucuses?  How do we even know that these polls reflect the true intent of Democratic and Republican voters?  There is absolutely no way to corroborate that someone will actually vote as they claim in the polls, especially given the rogue Limbaugh followers who have been creating mischief throughout the primaries.  If such polls were truly to be used to determine our nominee, they should be verifiable in some way to rule out rigging or fraud.  But how is that possible?  While Clinton supporters may feel at this point that the ends justifies the means, I wish they would think about the long-term implications not only for the Democratic party but also for the country.  After our recent stolen elections, do we really want to legitimize a non-transparent process that would make it all the easier for corrupt parties to “select” a president?











 

In a recent Café post titled “The Myth of Unity”, blogger DF invited discussion about how we can come together on the bigger issues that unite us while avoiding the divisive bickering on the smaller issues. One of the common sentiments mentioned in the ensuing thread was the need for respect and civility as we engage each other in our diversity of opinions. I most definitely agree with this sentiment.

However, I think that the issue of unity and respect goes deeper than just being good blogger “citizens”. DF brought up the point that “the Democratic party is often described as a “big tent” in that it values and pursues many dimensions of diversity.” I think a fundamental aspect of the “big tent” concept is the inclusion of diverse communities within our multi-faceted society. The “big tent” should welcome men and women, whites and minorities, straight and gay, etc. While this is an admirable goal, this diversity can cause the very tensions that seem to keep the Democratic party from actually being unified.

The Republican party has an easier time being unified because, in spite of its efforts to appear inclusive, it primarily serves the interests of the wealthy and privileged while promoting the white patriarchal social and religious values that appeal to its popular base. As we’ve seen in recent years, the Republican party has not been about elevating our society from the bottom up but about benefiting from the global race to the bottom, all the while using bigotry and hate to keep the rest of us divided. Unfortunately, we often end up taking sides within our own party rather than unifying against the source of such bigotry, the right-wing Republicans.

But even if we do unify in our antipathy towards the Republican party, the bigger issue is whether the Democratic party can live up to the “big tent” vision of inclusion and diversity. Unfortunately, it has become obvious during the Democratic primary that racism, sexism, and class division have reared their ugly heads in the interests of supporting one’s candidate. This should serve as a wake-up call that we cannot just challenge bigotry in the Republican party. We have to also challenge it within the Democratic party and within ourselves. This is easier said than done, though, since gender, race, and class identity cannot be neatly separated but rather overlap in all of us, making our personal experiences quite complex.

Sexism, in particular, is a difficult problem to tackle since men and women often have different ways of communicating. As a female, my perspective on this subject involves my experiences in very male-dominated educational and professional environments. I have seen how women are intimidated, belittled, and made to doubt their own capabilities and contributions not only by overt sexism but also by the subtle verbal and non-verbal language that is a part of the male-dominated culture. Women often don’t speak up or, even worse, try too hard to fit in. Too often, women simply leave. While my experiences are more typical of what women face in trying to advance in traditional male professions, the social pressures on women to be subservient and acquiescent is actually more damaging to the women at the bottom of the ladder who are struggling to get ahead. As an example, I canvassed for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in working-class neighborhoods of Florida in 1982 when I was in college. I was horrified at how often a woman answered the door and, when asked if she supported the ERA, would reply “Let me ask my husband”. Invariably she would return and say “No, we don’t”. Now obviously much has changed since 1982. But, then again, a lot has changed very little. We need to encourage women to have their own voice and to feel respected and valued when they do speak up so that they can be empowered to take control over their own lives.

Economic class can be another issue used to divide us by making us compete against each other for the ever-shrinking piece of the pie. In so doing, we lose sight of who the real adversary is. In my case, I was fortunate to be able to go to an ivy-league college through need-based financial aid (when it still existed), and my eyes were opened to the incredible privilege of the wealthy students there and to the different realities that we experienced. While I studied diligently in order to have options after college, the sons and daughters of corporate executives and Wall Street big wigs seemed to be majoring in social networking. I met students who had been kicked out of prep schools for drug use but still managed to get into an elite college. There were still others who seemed to have no qualifications except for being a multiple-generation legacy. The sense of entitlement and the assumption of success were prevalent.

And for a reason. Our political, business, and financial systems are dominated by too many of these ivy-league golden boys (and less often girls) who get prominent jobs and rise to the top through well-placed connections. They don’t have a clue about the little guy. Sadly, it is the little guy who gets all up in arms about “affirmative action” and “preferential treatment” when it comes to women and minorities while never questioning whether his “spot” was taken by those at the top. I don’t want to start a debate about affirmative action here but only to point out that the real beneficiaries of our system are the privileged elite who consistently get opportunities they may not deserve. As such, we have to stop blaming women and minorities for some perceived advantage and see them as being on the same side of the opportunity gap as the little guy.

More generally, we should strive to respect others while appreciating that their life experiences are different than ours. Just as I feel that men should be more sensitive to how male-oriented culture affects women, I think that white people should not have knee-jerk reactions when it comes to issues of race. I do not know what it is like to be black or Hispanic or Middle Eastern in this society, but I know that every time I go through airport security I am thankful that I am a white woman. I am thankful that I do not get followed around in stores by salespeople, or get pulled over by cops for no apparent reason while I am driving. While I do know about the difficulties that women face in a male-dominated society, I also recognize the benefits of my race. As such, I can only imagine that it is that much harder to be a person of color in the same society.

The Democratic party cannot truly be a “big tent” by only reaching out to diverse communities for short-term political gain. We need to try to develop better understanding and communication with each other so that we develop the bonds needed for long-term strength. Unfortunately, I have come to question whether TPM is such a “big tent” place for developing this understanding. Let me first say that I have read many insightful, witty, and sincere posts by different bloggers since coming here several months ago. However, it is getting to be too difficult to ignore or circumvent the bloggers who seem to be intent on being noticed with their offensive language and who subvert a meaningful discussion through ad hominem arguments. It is especially disturbing when bloggers argue with each other in a shockingly disrespectful manner and turn a thoughtful thread into a competition to be won through insults and intimidation.

For weeks, I have been wondering why they are here and what they are trying to accomplish. Now I wonder why I am here. I have been told that TPM is one of the better blog sites, and I keep assuming that I will get used to the culture. But do I want to get used to it? Why would any of us want to be treated with disrespect by those who are supposed to be fellow Democrats? As an example, a while back I overcame my reservations and submitted a post about my personal experiences and perspective as a woman and I was ridiculed by a male blogger for writing “pseudo-feminist gobbledy-gook”. The blogger even proudly acknowledged that he had “condescendingly dismissed the diarist”. This is the very kind of patronizing language that women are sick of, where men treat our opinions as having no value and act like they know better than us. In fact, this is one of the reasons why the idea of a female president appeals to so many women in the first place.

Some bloggers here take the attitude that politics is a dirty business and if you can’t take it then you should get out. But who said politics had to be so dirty? Do we have to emulate the politics of the Republican goons that came in with the Revolution of 1994 and their media minions like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly? Or the politics of Karl Rove? Have we become a society where every political discussion has to become a shouting match straight out of the O’Reilly Factor? Now, I imagine that there will be complaints about political correctness or censorship, but I would ask, in what way is your freedom to express your opinion limited by doing so in a respectful manner? And how many voices are not being heard at all because of the unwelcoming environment? While I have found the blogosphere to be an empowering medium that allows so many of us to have a voice, I am disappointed that the same dynamics are present that keep so many of us voiceless in the first place. If we can’t treat each other with respect as we try to convey our opinions and positions, what are the hopes for the realization of a “big tent” and a more inclusive, humane future?