First thoughts: Last night's bigger story

Posted: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:17 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

 From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Last night’s bigger story: So what event last night was more consequential: Obama’s substantial defeat in a state few had considered a general election battleground until Clinton declared it so last week? Or the Republicans losing a third-straight special congressional election in what was considered a solid GOP seat -- this one a Mississippi district where Bush won 62% of the vote in 2004? It was none other than NRCC chair Tom Cole who seemed to answer this question. “The political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general,” he said in a statement last night. “Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.” Yes, Obama might indeed have a problem with some white working-class voters, although crosstabs from national polls and key state polls, not exit polls from a Democratic primary, might offer better clues to this. And, yes, McCain is better positioned than any other Republican out there to compete in this environment. But the Republican Party’s poor brand and its voters’ lack of enthusiasm right now tell us a WHOLE lot more about the overall political climate than last night’s West Virginia results do.

*** Staying with the bigger story a minute longer: How are congressional Republicans reacting? If our email boxes and voicemail boxes are any indication, there are two guys on the firing line: House GOP leader John Boehner and the NRCC’s Tom Cole. The two may attempt to shoot at each other a bit (watch Eric Cantor; he's already be looked to by some as the NEXT great savior of the House GOP), though the person who may ultimately be blamed is Bush. After all, Republicans aren't running Congress anymore so if voters are still punishing the GOP, they are punishing them for Bush. If this isn't proof that 2006 was about Bush and not corruption, we don't know what else you need. Remember, not a single Democratic incumbent lost in ’06. Cole, in his statement last night, is advising Republicans to become change candidates. It's tough to break through the presidential clutter to do that. And the thing that ought to scare the GOP even more is that if a Democrat is elected president, he'll appear to have massive coattails and that, in turn, will create the appearance of a mandate, a la Reagan in 1980. No wonder Clinton isn't ready to throw in the towel just yet: If Democrats win this presidential election, it will be the biggest mandate any Democrat has had for governing since LBJ in '64.

*** Obama’s challenge: For the second day in a row, Obama campaigns in a general election battleground state (today it’s Michigan), and according to a focus group that Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart conducted among 12 independent voters in Charlottesville, VA, that general-election focus can’t come soon enough for the Illinois senator. Hart explains that those independents -- half of them who said they have been paying little attention to the political process -- define Obama to a large extent by his association with Rev. Wright or his Ivy League background or that he’s a Muslim (which isn’t correct). “For now, their concerns about him are not centered on his policy proposals, but rather on the limited knowledge they have of him,” Hart tells First Read. “This effort at introducing Obama to independent voters cannot wait until the Democratic convention and the fall campaign.” Moreover, there’s growing evidence that Obama still has a Rev. Wright problem with voters he hasn't aggressively campaigned for. In largely writing off West Virginia, Obama spent very little time introducing himself to those voters. The result? Per the exit polls, half of the Dem primary electorate in that state believes he shares Rev. Wright's values. That's a shockingly high number. Combine this with Hart’s focus group and it's clear that Obama has some work to do.

*** Just asking: Is there an argument that Obama's troubles are basically Appalachia, just like Clinton's troubles can be excused away by Obama's Midwestern roots? It is striking how geographic their strengths are right now. Obama dominates in the South and in the Midwest while Clinton owns the Northeast and, well, Appalachia.

*** Just how much change do you want? Hart says there’s a second important story that his focus group -- half of whom supported Obama, half of whom supported McCain -- tells us. “The overwhelming numbers which one has been seeing in the polls about the direction of nation and the performance of President Bush are here in hurricane force with these independents in Virginia… The word change was first and foremost on everyone's mind, and to these people Obama represents change.” Yet despite that desire for change, some of the respondents didn’t want THAT much change, Hart says. “One respondent summed up what some of the less ardent McCain backers had been expressing, which is that even in this time of uncertainty when they feel as if the country is headed in the wrong direction, they would rather have a president who does not make major changes than have someone like Obama, who right now is ‘scary’ to them.”

*** Five big turning points: Continuing our look at how Clinton got to this point… John Edwards hasn’t endorsed Obama. In fact, for a while, the thinking was that if he’d endorse anyone, it would be Clinton. But in our latest installment of some of the big -- yet underappreciated -- turning points in the Democratic nominating race, we look at how Edwards ended up greatly helping Obama, by deciding to stay in the race after New Hampshire and then exit it before Super Tuesday. Throughout the Dem contest, this fact often was overlooked: Edwards won South Carolina in 2004. And four years later, per the exit polls, he narrowly beat Clinton among whites, 40%-36%, with Obama getting 24%. Obama ended up getting 78% of the African-American vote, which fueled his victory. But with Edwards and Clinton essentially splitting the white vote, that resulted in Obama’s overwhelming 55%-27% win over Clinton -- which was the biggest victory of the first four Dem contests. Had Edwards withdrawn beforehand, the results might have more mirrored the 55%-43% black-white split in the race, which wouldn’t have been as impressive a win for Obama and may have led others to echo Bill Clinton's inarticulate attempt at marginalizing Obama's South Carolina victory.

*** Three’s a crowd? Then, heading into Super Tuesday, Edwards dropped out of the race, which raised this question: Would his exit benefit Clinton (because the white vote would no longer be split) or would it benefit Obama (because the anti-Clinton vote would no longer be split)? Well, even though Clinton won states like California, New Jersey, and New York, Edwards’ departure clearly helped Obama: The Illinois senator won more contests and netted more delegates on a day that always seemed to favor Clinton. But would Obama have enjoyed as much success if Edwards had stayed in the race? How many delegates would Edwards had netted in the big states which might have come more out of Obama's count than Clinton's. As they say, timing can be everything…

*** Where we stand: Obama leads in pledged delegates per the NBC hard count (1,598 to 1,445), superdelegates (285.5 to 275.5), overall delegates (1,883.5 to 1,720.5), the popular vote (16,157,639 to 15,583,020), and the total number of contests won (31 to 17). Note: We’re not including Texas in this contest count, given that Clinton won the primary but Obama won the caucus and netted the most total Texas delegates. A bit more on the popular vote. Without adding Florida and Michigan, as noted above, Obama leads by 574,619 votes. Adding Florida to the mix, he leads by 279,847 (16,733,853 to 16,454,006). And adding Michigan but not “uncommitted,” Clinton leads by 48,462 (16,782,315 to 16,733,853). But do note that “uncommitted” vote was 238,168.

*** By the way: Yesterday’s Nebraska beauty contest denied Clinton an interesting talking point. Obama won the primary by approximately 2,600 votes. Had Clinton somehow won, no doubt the campaign would be amping up their caucus vs. primary rhetoric. And if you were wondering if all this "presumptive nominee" talk was going to effect turnout, then take a look at the total vote in West Virginia. It's going to be just north of 350,000 -- approximately 100,000 to 150,000 less than was anticipated by some. It was still a good turnout, but it did seem to be on the downside of the turnout hill and that some of the enthusiasm was missing. This actually hurts Clinton a bit in her bid to winnow down Obama's popular vote lead. The campaign was hoping a 40-point victory would net them close to 200,000 in the popular vote. But thanks to lower turnout and John Edwards nabbing 26,000 votes, the net will be just less than 150,000. Still impressive, but less than anticipated.

*** On the trail: Clinton is in DC, where she has meetings, conducts interview with news organizations (including NBC’s Brian Williams), and raises money; McCain has a fundraiser in Ohio; and Obama is in Michigan, where he holds a rally in Macomb County and Grand Rapids. Also, Bill Clinton stumps in Montana and South Dakota, and Michelle Obama is in Puerto Rico.
 
Countdown to Kentucky and Oregon: 6 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 174 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 251 days
 
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone. 

EMAIL THIS