A mini-backlash?

Hey, maybe there was a backlash, after all! John Judis writes:

Clinton seriously damaged her own cause by going negative on Obama during the April 16 debate--and probably, too, by her subsequent ads. ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson had already done sufficient damage without Clinton piling on. According to the exit polls, 68 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, and they backed Obama by 55 to 45 percent. It's hard to know for sure, but these tactics probably cost her among white college-educated voters who don't like to think of elections as prize fights.

Maybe if Hillary hadn't gone so negative, she actually would have won by double digits, instead of a mere 9.2 percent. :)

P.S. Let the record show that I'm actually rather skeptical of Judis's conclusion. Given the final numbers, I doubt there was much of a meaningful, measurable backlash. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like Clinton's negative ads hurt Obama very much, given that her margin was actually smaller than in Ohio, and she lost ground with key demographics. Bottom line, I don't think the negativity had much effect at all, in either direction (or whatever effects it had cancelled each other out).

Comments

[Andrew]

So in your post below, you not your head in agreement with Kaus and are skeptical about exit polls, but in this post, you readily agree with Judis' analysis, based on those same exit polls? Niiiiice.

In any case, Judis is drawing a conclusion based on weak data in the sense that there are many more variables. For example, two-thirds may have thought HRC was unfair, but they only broke for Obama 55-45. Those who thought HRC was fair and square went for her 73-27. Let's suppose only half thought HRC was unfair (the same percent that thought Obama was unfair), and that those who thought HRC was unfair split 55-45 in favor of Obama as before. Now suppose the voters who thought HRC wasn't unfair had less of a negative view on Obama and HRC wins that group 55-45. This comparison would show HRC gains two full percentage points by going negative. Still, it's apparent there are simply too many variables to calculate what HRC would have gotten had she not gone negative. The better way to judge the debate is on historical campaigns, and history repeatedly suggests that going negative works.

[Brendan]

Insisting on logical consistency over the course of 10 hours? Puh! The things people demand from bloggers these days. :)

I'm actually skeptical of Judis's conclusion, for that reason among others. I just couldn't resist citing it because it supports my "backlash" post. But I actually doubt a meaningful backlash occurred. This is mostly a case of looking at numbers and finding what you want to see in them.

[Toby]

Obama made an even bigger mistake by seeming to go negative himself.

His attitude immediately after the debate was fine. But he would have been better to maintain that friendly ok-you-got-me-that-time attitude, and continue regardless.

He seems to have learned that lesson for Indiana.