A few weeks ago, it seemed that the national polls offered a little something for everyone on the Democratic side of the aisle. For those who wanted to see Hillary Clinton get the nomination, there were polls showing her beating John McCain by a bigger margin than Barack Obama. For Obama supporters, there were polls showing the opposite.
More recently, however, it appears a new trend has emerged.
Real Clear Politics has a handy page displaying all the Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain polls. In the past two weeks, seven different organizations have polled the races and on average Obama beats McCain by 3.2%, while Clinton loses to the Arizona senator by 2%. Not a single polls has Clinton doing as well as Obama. Normally this wouldn’t be such a big deal–after all, most people don’t obsessively read polling data. But this year’s race might be different.
If, as seems increasingly likely, the Democratic nomination drags on all the way to the convention, it’s imperative that Clinton close the gap with Obama. Think of it like this: you are a superdelegate or party boss. You have been undecided but now must choose between two candidates with roughly equal numbers of delegates. Most of all, you want to win in November, which is now only three months away. And while one of your two choices is consistently beating the Republican nominee in polls, the other is consistently losing. It’s not hard to imagine that many of these people will be swayed by the data above.
This includes two brand new polls out this afternoon. A new AP poll shows Clinton leading McCain by one in a general-election match-up, and Obama leading McCain by six. A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows McCain ahead of Clinton by one point, but McCain trailing Obama by four. (Both polls show Obama taking the national lead over Clinton among Dems for the first time.)
The next question, of course, is how seriously, if at all, one should take the data.
The Clinton campaign hosted a conference call a couple of hours ago, in which Mark Penn made the case that the numbers aren’t relevant.
“The Republican attack machine redefines the Democratic candidate,” said Penn, pointing out that Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) both felt the sting of the GOP efforts during their respective national bids. Penn added that while Clinton is well known in national circles, Obama is less so — a lack of name recognition that leaves the Illinois senator open to being defined by the Republican nominee. “Hillary has withstood this process and this will make a tremendous difference if she is the nominee,” he said.
The other prong of the Penn argument is that the likely nomination of McCain means that national security will again be at the forefront of voters’ minds this fall, as it was in 2004. […]
Nominating Clinton would “block [Republicans] from playing the national security card,” argued Penn, adding that Republicans have already begun to attack Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) on his foreign policy credentials.
Some of this is more persuasive than the rest. First, Mark Penn dismissing the value of polling data is deeply hilarious. Second, Penn is right that the GOP attack machine would find it difficult to redefine Clinton, who is already a known quantity on the national stage. And third, Penn is almost certainly wrong about “blocking” the Republicans from “playing the national security card.” We nominated a genuine, decorated war hero in 2004, and, running against two draft dodgers, the national security card was still the only card the GOP played.
As for Obama, the Clinton campaign is also right that Obama’s margin might slip after sustained attacks in the summer and fall, but the Obama rejoinder is fairly compelling, too: if Dems are going to make their decision now, why gamble on a possible result when all of the data right now tells us that Obama would have an easier time against McCain than Clinton?
It’d be foolish to think the Republican Smear Machine would take a pass on Obama — no one, least of all the Obama campaign, believes this — but, as far as I can tell, the argument seems to boil down to a candidate who is struggling against the presumptive GOP nominee or a candidate who might struggle against the presumptive GOP nominee.
Or, as Ezra put it, “It really does seem that Obama has opened up a consistent lead in the horeserace polling, and while I’m skeptical of how meaningful that is this early in the campaign, weak data remains better than contrary data, and right now, Hillary is trailing McCain. That matters.”
As for Penn, he told reporters today that the polls that show Obama faring better “don’t actually represent the situation we would see in a general election,” but rather reflect “enthusiasm and momentum.”
I’m afraid I don’t know what this means. Any thoughts?