Hillary throws Osama at Obama

When I wrote last week about a possible backlash among late-deciding Pennsylvania voters against Hillary Clinton's all-negative-all-the-time "kitchen sink" strategy, it occurred to me -- although I didn't say it -- that a possible flaw in my theory was that Hillary would probably stop blanketing the state with negative ads in the final few days before the primary, precisely to prevent any such backlash.

Well, so much for that idea:

Admittedly, the ad doesn't explicitly mention Obama's name. But the implicit attack is pretty damn clear, and very much in keeping with the central argument of her campaign: that he isn't "ready from day one," whereas she is. The Obama camp's response:

When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It's ironic that she would borrow the President's tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points.  We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don't need another.

And then this:

I honestly don't know whether Hillary's endlessly negative frontal assault on her Democratic opponent's basic fitness for office will create a backlash. (Well, I know it's apparently created at least a backlash of one. But will Marty's feelings be mirrored by broad swaths of the electorate? That's the question.)

But one thing that's clear is that Hillary's people are not worried about a backlash. If they were, they wouldn't be running this ad now. They clearly believe their relentless negativity will have no adverse consequences for them whatsoever -- or at least that any such impact will be outweighed by the benefits in tearing down Obama. And they may very well be right.

As Andrew says, negative campaigning works. Generally speaking, no matter how much people profess their disgust with political mud-slinging, they are still influenced by the negative ads they decry, and any "backlash" against the mud-slinger usually pales in comparison to the ads' intended effects on his or her opponent. If there's a measurable "backlash" at all, it usually just result in a lower turnout (as in the 2002 California gubernatorial race), not an actual change in the result of the election.

I believe, however, that there is the possibility of an unusual backlash in this particular instance, because of a constellation of circumstances that you don't usually see in a negative campaign. First of all, it's a Democratic primary, not a general election, so those who are offended by the negative campaigning aren't just disgusted in the general "politicians are dirty" sense (which lends itself to simply tuning out rather than switching sides); they're also disgusted in the "how dare you so viciously tear down your own party's likely standard-bearer" sense.

Secondly, whereas negative campaigns are usually perceived as being a two-way street, this one is perceived -- Hillary's protestations to the contrary -- as being largely a negative Clinton campaign vs. a generally positive Obama campaign. (And in truth, while he has said some negative stuff, it's mostly been in a defensive mode, not an offensive mode. She's the one employing the "kitchen sink" strategy, not him. Of course, she's the one who needs to. But he didn't exactly employ this sort of purely negative strategy back when she was the front-runner.)

Thirdly, and relatedly, Obama's whole central message involves "changing our politics," so if there was  ever a candidate who an otherwise disgusted voter could feel good voting for in rebellion against mud-slinging negativity, it would be him. (Note to conservative commenters: the preceding statement is true regardless of whether you personally feel that Obama's "message of hope" is nothing but empty rhetoric. We're talking about the potential motivations of Democratic primary voters here, not the substance of Obama's message, or alleged lack thereof.)

And fourthly, Pennsylvanians simply aren't used to this kind of incredibly focused national attention -- they've unexpectedly become New Hampshire writ large in 2008 -- let alone such an intensely focused negative national campaign. So I think they're more likely to be turned off by it.

Oh yeah, and there's the racial angle too. I hate to even mention it, but it's there. Will Democratic voters (the ones who aren't already solidly in Hillary's camp) be more offended than usual by a white woman picking on a black man? (Hey, identity-politics victimhood worked for Hillary in New Hampshire when she was the "victim"!)

Again, I'm not predicting a backlash today. But I think it's possible. This is almost a "perfect storm" of backlash-friendly circumstances, so if there's ever going to be a voter rebellion against slash-and-burn politics, you'd think this would be the moment for it. As such, I think Hillary is playing with fire by running these sort of ads so late in the game.

Comments

[Marty West]

The race issue will play a large part in how some Pennsylvanians vote.

I wish I could say that the majority of the voters in my home state are as progressive as the readers of your blog. Just troll the comments on certain articles on philly.com and you will see what I'm talking about.

[Brendan Loy]

While I don't deny the significance of the white-racist vote, even in a Democratic primary, I don't think the comments on philly.com are a good measure of that. Anytime you have a large enough Internet audience, you will get lots of racist trolls. Have you ever read the comments on YouTube? Alas, that phenomenon is hardly unique to Philly.

Anyway, I take for granted that the race issue will hurt Obama with some voters. I also take for granted that it will help him with some voters, like the urban black population and the "white guilt" crowd. I'm just wondering if there might be a third group of people, who are not otherwise predisposed to vote either for or against Obama because of his race, but who might be subtly influenced in Obama's favor by the idea of a black man being "picked on" by a bunch of whites. I don't think this reaction is legitimate, any more than it was legitimate for Hillary to play the "gender card" by saying the boys were picking on her back in New Hampshire, but just because it isn't legitimate doesn't mean it won't happen.

[Jon]

I think a backlash could occur if Obama had been able to stay clean. Hilary has been throwing the kitchen sink at him, but in large part because Obama has made mistakes or associations that are able to be attacked.

Even though there has been a lot of negativity it is perceived as justified in some cases. That small amount of justification doesn't allow Obama to play victim enough to get much of a backlash. Especially when Obama comes back defensibly with negativity.