As the Democratic primaries head towards their next crucial Tuesday in Pennsylvania, both the Clinton and Obama teams have begun to transform their campaigns into closing arguments to the superdelegates; the ‘jury’ of elite party members whose votes will now almost certainly be the ultimate arbiter of who the Democratic presidential nominee will be.
While Barack Obama leads the delegate count by some 130 votes, Hillary Clinton is favourite to win Pennsylvania – and was also victorious in the two disqualified states, the uncontested poll in Michigan and Florida. With only 10 states now to vote, it is virtually impossible for either candidate to reach the 2025 delegate threshold and win the nomination outright.
Unsurprisingly, the media is now saturated with contesting claims as to which candidate is the most ‘electable’ and why, with each side offering its own interpretation of how to analyse the race so far.
For Obama supporters, their candidate’s claims to the nomination should be strongest because of his lead in the popular and delegate vote, and because he has won more primaries across the country – in both large and small states. David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, claims that it is his candidate’s message of hope and change that has been successful in re-energising the Democratic party. Through a strategy of embodying change, if not actually specifying how he will achieve it, Obama has attracted new voters in record numbers and, in the words of Plouffe, brought ‘those who had lost hope back into the political process’.
Clinton’s team, however, are quick to note that she too has energised the party faithful – with record turnouts in votes across the country. She has also won in large states, such as New York, California, Texas, as well as key election battlegrounds that really matter, such as Florida and Ohio. Focusing on her competence and supposedly superior experience, from the outset Clinton’s strategy has been one focused on creating policy-based coalitions with independents and ‘swing’ conservative voters on an issue-by-issue basis. In recent weeks, the former first lady has also begun to raise serious doubts about Obama’s preparedness and his credentials on national security.
Among the electorate, the candidates are increasingly polarising the vote: African-Americans, the college-educated, the young and affluent males tend to favour Obama; Latinos, unionised workers, older voters and women have a preference for Clinton. Neither candidate has the universal appeal necessary to tip the balance overwhelmingly in their favour, for neither is flawless. But what of their strategies?
Clinton’s campaign is reminiscent of that fought by Labour in 2005, when the party’s polling focused on identifying ‘wedge issues’ that could be used to cement support among vulnerable groups and tapping into what Mark Penn, Hilary Clinton’s chief pollster, terms the ‘micro-trends’ shaping contemporary politics. Devoid of any grand narrative or rationale for a third Labour government, the task was essentially one of holding together the progressive coalition on an issue-by-issue basis.
Obama’s strategy, on the other hand, shares much more in common with New Labour’s 1997 campaign. This too, was a campaign defined by a sense of optimism and national renewal, embodied then in the personality of a young Tony Blair. And, much like Blair, Obama now also seems more popular with independent voters than he is with the party faithful.
If predictions are to be made, New Labour’s experience would suggest Obama’s message of optimism to win over. Policy focus and micro-strategies seem better suited to repairing, rather than building, grand coalitions. But the world today is very different from the one in which New Labour swept to power over a decade ago, and after eight years of failed government, and rising global and economic insecurity, Americans might well be minded to side with experience and competence over hope and inspiration. There can be little doubt that John McCain will try and frame the presidential race in these terms.
To date neither candidate has broken out of their comfort zone and offered the party a complete strategy. The superdelegates should opt for whoever has the courage to try.