Many were expecting Hillary Clinton to fall short of the challenge set
by her husband, and fail to win both the Ohio and Texas primary
elections. That she won these contests, as well as Rhode Island, has
again focused the US media on the significance of superdelegates. These
senators, representatives, governors and former presidents (including
Bill), who are likely to decide the Democratic nomination, are being
courted day and night by the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Nearly half
remain uncommitted. The key question in their minds: which candidate
has the support and policy positions to beat John McCain?
Obama’s
electability, as reflected in head-to-head polls with McCain, had
appeared robust. He has enjoyed a lead over the Republican nominee for
the best part of a year but the latest poll of polls on realclearpolitics.com suggests that this advantage has been eroded. Clinton currently beats
McCain, albeit by a tiny margin, but the Senator from Arizona had been
beating her since the end of last year. How relevant is this to a
superdelegate’s decision? The unreliability of polls was back in the
news following the New Hampshire primary. Newspapers on both sides of
the Atlantic were embarrassed when voters were greeted on the morning
after Clinton’s first victory with pictures of a smiling Obama. And
even George Gallup would not claim that opinion polls were of much use
eight months before election day.
As in the UK, general
elections in the US are not decided on a proportional basis. Each state
is assigned delegates according to its size. In most states, the
winning presidential candidate takes all these delegates to an
electoral college, which decides the outcome. Few doubt that the
Democrats will clean up on the eastern and western seaboards while the
GOP will take the Deep South and Great Plains. The election will be
determined in half a dozen swing states.
In the states where
Kerry and Bush were within three percentage points of one another in
2004, Clinton has scored better among Democratic primary voters. She
won Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and New Hampshire and is widely tipped to
win the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Although it is unclear
whether the vote will count for anything, she also took Florida, where
the 2000 election was famously decided. By contrast Obama has only won
the small Midwestern states of Iowa and Wisconsin. Of course, it is
unclear how the crucial independents and disillusioned Republicans will
vote in these states. But this group tends to be comprised of
blue-collar workers, Hispanics and ‘soccer moms’, precisely the people
who have formed Clinton’s coalition in the primaries so far.
So
much for the electoral ‘math’. What about the issues? Obama is
criticised for being light on policy but on the key topic of Iraq, he
can justifiably claim that he opposed the war from the start. The
difficulty for him is that John McCain is inextricably linked to the
increasingly popular troop surge, which began over a year ago. In May
2007, only 32 per cent of Americans felt that the US army was making
progress in Iraq. Since then, this number has increased steadily and 43
per cent are now positive about the forces’ impact. In the face of this
upward trend, the Republican attack machine will go into overdrive to
paint Obama as unpatriotic and too inexperienced to be
commander-in-chief in a time of war. Recent coverage, indeed, has drawn
attention to his decision not to wear the stars and stripes on his
lapel.
Whatever Iraq’s importance to the election, the economy
will be voters’ top concern. If the US is not yet in a recession,
there’s a high chance that it will be by November. Both candidates have
well-developed (not to say ‘techy’) economic policies. Clinton focuses
on those who have lost their homes or jobs as a result of the downturn;
Obama’s is higher-level with middle class tax cuts and benefit payments
aimed at stimulating the economy. Voters are unlikely to examine the
fine print and will instead look at the candidate’s credentials.
Clinton will claim credit for her role as First Lady in creating
America’s first fiscal surplus in 30 years but may find it harder to
shake off her attachment to the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), which is proving unpopular. On this tricky issue, Obama may
have blotted his copybook. One of his advisers told the Canadian
government that the campaign was not really protectionist. Meanwhile in
Ohio, Obama was telling voters the precise opposite. Whatever,
Clinton’s lead on this key issue – as with healthcare – is wide.
Barack’s
breed of ‘new’ politics (‘change we can believe in’) may well make all
of this irrelevant. Indeed, a unifying candidate as inspiring and
charismatic as Obama may be able to turn the tables on swing-state
electoral analysis and win by a landslide. As the campaign planes
zigzag across the United States until August’s conclusive Democratic
National Convention in Denver, the two candidates will need to convince
the undecided superdelegates of whether November’s election mantra
should be ‘it’s the economy, stupid II’ or ‘hope springs eternal’.