Wash. Post's Birnbaum suggested -- contrary to the evidence -- that midterm election results bode well for McCain in '08, not Clinton
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Jeffrey Birnbaum reported that Sen. John McCain has "long been seen as a champion of independents" and the "good news" for him is that this voting bloc played a significant role in determining the outcome of this year's elections. However, that logic overlooks the fact that independents cited the Iraq war -- which McCain supports -- as one of their top reasons for voting Democratic this year.
In a November 9 Washington Post article, staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) learned from the results of the 2006 midterm elections that "her positions on Iraq might be an electoral handicap," while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "was handed another reason to think his reputation as a maverick has its advantages." According to Birnbaum, McCain has "long been seen as a champion of independents" and the "good news" for him is that this voting bloc played a significant role in determining the outcome of this year's elections. But that logic overlooks the fact that independents cited the Iraq war -- which McCain supports -- as one of their top reasons for voting Democratic this year. While Birnbaum highlighted Clinton's previous support for the war as an "electoral handicap," he made no mention of McCain's position on the issue.
Further, Birnbaum described McCain as a "much-sought-after GOP surrogate on the campaign trail" this year, reporting that McCain attended 346 events on behalf of Republican candidates nationwide during the 2006 election cycle, compared with Clinton's 131 appearances in support of Democratic candidates. But Birnbaum failed to note that 32 of the 46 candidates (with three races undecided) Clinton campaigned for won on November 7, while only 12 of the 43 candidates (with two races undecided) McCain campaigned for were victorious.
In the November 9 article -- headlined "Results Give Clinton and McCain Food for Thought on the Future" -- Birnbaum focused on the effect the midterm elections had on both senators' possible bids for the White House in 2008. Citing "analysts," Birnbaum reported that the results proved that Clinton's stance on Iraq could be a liability and that McCain's "reputation as a maverick" could be an asset. From the article:
Democrats romped this year, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), who polls say is the party's front-runner for president, learned that her positions on Iraq might be an electoral handicap, analysts said. And, they said, while the Republicans were set back severely, the GOP's leading presidential contender, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), was handed another reason to think his reputation as a maverick has its advantages.
Clinton voted to allow the president to go to war in Iraq and long defended that view. Although she turned into an opponent of the president's war policy last year, the party's liberal wing -- which played a key role in inciting the Democratic wave that swept through Congress this year -- has not forgiven her for the delay.
McCain, on the other hand, was a much-sought-after GOP surrogate on the campaign trail because he was widely accepted as independent of his party and President Bush in particular.
Birnbaum later reported Democratic pollster Mark Mellman's assertion that "the midterm results served as a reminder to Clinton that she must be careful to highlight her opposition to the war in order to avoid alienating a sizable number of Democrats." Birnbaum then explained how the results benefited McCain, who was purportedly "able to mine some good news from the rubble":
Republicans may have lost control of the House, and perhaps the Senate, but McCain was able to mine some good news from the rubble. One of the secrets to the Democrats' success was winning over independents and moderates, exit polls showed. McCain has long been seen as a champion of independents; in the 2000 GOP primaries for president, that trait proved to be a liability, but it may now be a benefit.
"After a year in which independents determined the outcome of the election, maybe Republicans will be more interested in nominating a candidate in 2008 that plays well with moderates and independents," said Jon McHenry of the Republican polling firm Ayers McHenry & Associates.
But in characterizing independents' influence on the midterm elections as "good news" for McCain, Birnbaum ignored two facts that appear to undermine his premise: that McCain continues to support the war and that independent voters increasingly do not. Indeed, while Birnbaum focused on the possible negative effects of Clinton's early support for the invasion of Iraq, he ignored entirely the substantial difference between McCain's views on the war and those of a majority of independents.
Polls conducted in the weeks prior to November 7 and on Election Day show that independents' growing support for Democrats was largely due to the Iraq war:
- An October 19-22 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that independent voters favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by a margin of "roughly 2 to 1 -- 59 percent to 31 percent." The poll further found that the largest share of voters -- 27 percent -- cited Iraq as the "most important issue determining their vote in November" and that "[i]ndependents are almost as likely as Democrats to cite Iraq as the single most important issue in the campaign."
- A November 9 New York Times article reported that approximately 60 percent of independents -- "driven by their distress over the Iraq war, disapproval of Congressional leadership and concern about the direction President Bush was leading America" -- voted for Democrats on Election Day, according to exit polls.
In light of the fact that McCain has repeatedly affirmed his support for the war and opposed Democratic efforts to begin considering withdrawal, the fact that the Iraq war led independents to vote Democratic would appear to be a worrisome trend for McCain.
As Media Matters for America has noted, while McCain has selectively criticized the White House's handling of the war in recent years, he has also repeatedly defended Bush's management of the conflict. For instance, on the March 1 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, he said that Iraq is "on the right track" and claimed to be focused "on the bright side of this." On the March 7 edition of ABC's This Week, he expressed confidence that "we're on the right course" in Iraq. And on the August 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory asked McCain if he had confidence in Bush and his administration to "lead the war" in Iraq. He replied: "I do. I do. I have confidence in the president and I believe that he is well aware of the severity of the situation."
Furthermore, in the November 9 article, Birnbaum suggested that McCain -- "a much-sought-after GOP surrogate" -- had been a greater asset on the campaign trail this year than Clinton:
How they and other potential presidential aspirants were perceived during the campaign has been important because the midterm elections were always about more than electing people to Congress and governors' mansions. They were also opportunities for aspiring presidents to gain allies around the country to help them with their quests for the White House.
During the two-year midterm election cycle, McCain attended 346 events and raised more than $10.5 million on behalf of Republican candidates across the country. Clinton, who stayed close to home to campaign for her own reelection, still managed to raise more than $21 million for Democratic candidates and headlined 131 events in 51 cities.
But Birnbaum did not mention the fates of the various candidates McCain and Clinton supported. According to lists published on National Journal's The Hotline -- here and here (subscription required) -- Clinton's candidates fared much better. Indeed, McCain stumped for 43 candidates during the 2006 election cycle -- only 12 were elected on November 7:
- Candidates elected
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ)
Rep. Dan Lungren (CA-03)
Rep. Mike Castle (DE-01)
Rep. Steve King (IA-05)
Rep. Steve Chabot (OH-01)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
Rep. Todd Platts (PA-19)
Rep. Frank Wolf (VA-10)
Rep. Thomas Davis (VA-11)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA)
Gov. Jodi Rell (CT)
Gov.-elect Charlie Crist (FL)
- Candidates defeated
Sen. Mike DeWine (OH)
Mike Bouchard (MI-SEN)
Sen. Rick Santorum (PA)
Michael Steele (MD-SEN)
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Mark Kennedy (MN-SEN)
Sen. George Allen (VA)
Tom Kean Jr. (NJ-SEN)
Mike McGavick (WA-SEN)
Asa Hutchison (AR-GOV)
Jim Nussle (IA-GOV)
Judy Baar Topinka (IL-GOV)
Chandler Woodcock (ME-GOV)
Richard DeVos (MI-GOV)
John "Ken" Blackwell (OH-GOV)
Ron Saxton (OR-GOV)
Rep. Nancy Johnson (CT-05)
David McSweeney (IL-08)
Rep. Chris Chocola (IN-02)
Mike Whalen (IA-01)
Jeff Lamberti (IA-03)
Rep. Jeb Bradley (NH-01)
Rep. Charles Bass (NH-02)
Rep. Sue Kelly (NY-19)
Rep. John Sweeney (NY-20)
Rep. Curt Weldon (PA-07)
Martha Rainville (VT-01)
John Gard (WI-08)
Christopher Wakim (WV-01)
- Undecided
Rep. Deborah Pryce (OH-15)
Rep. Heather Wilson (NM-01)
Meanwhile, Clinton campaigned for 46 candidates -- 32 were victorious:
- Candidates elected
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ)
Sherrod Brown (OH-SEN)
Sen. Bill Nelson (FL)
Bob Casey Jr. (PA-SEN)
Sen. Daniel Akaka (HI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI-SEN)
Rep. Ben Cardin (MD-SEN)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI-SEN)
Jim Webb (VA SEN)
Amy Klobuchar (MN SEN)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA-SEN)
Jon Tester (MT-SEN)
Sen. Robert Byrd (WV-SEN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
Chris Murphy (CT-05)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA-03)
Rep. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
Joe Sestak (PA-07)
Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
John Hall (NY-19)
Gov. John Lynch (NH)
Gov. Ed Rendell (PA)
Bill Ritter (CO-GOV)
Eliot Spitzer (NY-GOV)
Ted Strickland (OH-GOV)
Gov. John Baldacci (ME)
Gov. Jennifer Granholm (MI)
- Candidates defeated
Ned Lamont (CT-SEN)
Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (TN-SEN)
Diane Farrell (CT-04)
Dan Maffei (NY-25)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-06)
Lois Murphy (PA-06)
Steve Harrison (NY-13)
Judy Feder (VA-10)
Phil Angelides (CA-GOV)
Rep. Jim Davis (FL-GOV)
- Undecided
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Christine Jennings (FL-13)
Patricia Madrid (NM-01)
...is not an "independent" or a "maverick" in the Republican party, he is a typical conservative no matter how much they try and paint him as such . I don't care how many independents voted in this election it doesn't mean they are going to vote for him, especially with his lust for the war in Iraq and his caving in on torture to Bush and Cheney.
McCain is one of the biggest phonies around.
i still would have voted gore in 2000, but i would not have been as bothered by the prospect of a mccain presidency as i was by bush. now i simply don't trust mccain. and considering hillary's overwhelming victory, anyone who takes her lightly is foolish. the republicans seem to think that they can keep up their dragon lady propaganda. the problem with that is she comes across as very reasonable and likable when people actually have a chance to listen to her. she could easily be our next president.
Hillary has done a fine job straddling the fence, but if and when she throws her hat in the ring, she will have to start answering questions. She will have to start hitting the Meet the Presses and call in to the Imus show and other not so sheltered venues.
It will be interesting to see is she "comes across as very reasonable and likable " then. She will not be able to get away with "Plantation mentality" gaffes and "Racist immigrant" gaffes that she was given a pass on during her senate stumping.
Don't listen to me though...just go ask John Kerry about foot in mouth disease.
those "gaffes" really hurt her, huh? i've seen her on meet the press before. and no one cares about imus. if she has foot in mouth disease, bush has his whole leg in there.
Those gaffes did not hurt her. That IS the point. If she throws her hat in the ring, the press will not be able to give her a pass on those anymore. She will have to come out of that protective NY shell and stump in enemy territory at some point.
The left may not care about Imus, but for the beltway it's a right of passage. Just think about the demographic for a second. The LARGEST radio and now TV market in the nation. She will ignore Imus at her own peril.
Clear as mud for you now...again?
since the whole country, which would include new york, heard about her supposed "gaffes", what exactly what she given a pass on? and washington is the number one radio market? in that planet you live on i suppose.
Becuase she has huge problems in New York, in your dreams.
She somehow needs Imus because of New York where she is WILDLY popular and you call someone ELSE dense? Denial, your name is Wesley
Denial is HOGPRINTS name
Imus show is out of NY. That would be your #1 market. Do you even read the posts or just hit your send button at will?
the corporate-run media and its wingut troglodyte followers like you . . .
In the 72+ hours since regime change was enacted, everything we've heard from the media and/or the trolls falls under two categories:
1} the Dems won because they were "Republicans in disguise"
2} the Dems win benefits Bush, McCain, Giuliani, et. al.
both of which are specific denials of reality . . .
The people voted Democratic because they embodied the positions/principles that the people wanted: such things as raising the minimum wage, better health care, and a COHERENT policy in Iraq, not just that "stay the course" crap. None of those were, or seemed to be according to voters, Republican ideals, particularly the last one.
The only way a Democratic majority benefits Bush, as far as I can tell, is that, at least in the short term, he will be held to more accountability, instead of just having a rubber-stamp in congress . . . Puddinhead may not see that as much of a benefit, though . . .
mr. "right" of passage. i think that's something ships have. here's what you wrote: "..for the beltway it's a right of passage. just think about the demographic for a second. the largest media and now tv market in the nation." now follow closely. i am quite aware new york is the no. 1 market. but she was running for the senate in new york, and by your own words, she ignored imus there. so when you started talking about "the beltway", and how she will "ignore imus at her own peril", i did not think you could be referring to new york, because she already did ignore him there and won by a huge margin. i think maybe you're the one who needs to think before you hit the send button. ask yourself this: am i contradicting myself?
Imus = NY Beltway= DC Hills=NY
Beltway right of passage is to go on and schmooz with Imus and the boys. DC goes to NY. See how that works.
You are correct that Hills hasn't needed to go on Imus up till now. Hills has been able to avoid Imus because she's in the hive known as NY. It is a big enough hive for all. At some point she' going to have to leave the hive and answer questions in not so friendly environs that don't throw her softballs.
I will be surprised if she can avoid shows like that (assuming she runs). No matter what you think of Imus, he draws heavy hitters to that program.
Are we still confused?
first of all it's "rite", not right. spelling mistakes are one thing. and you are starting to grasp the concept. you acknowledge my point that it is correct that hillary coasted to victory in new york while ignoring imus, which would seem to be a contradiction of you because you want to place him in new york, no now he's important in d.c. the people that like him like him, fine. but to think he somehow has some influence on what goes on in this country is absurd. yes hillary will have to answer tough questions, no doubt. but the idea that the imus show is some big hurdle for her to jump over is nonsense. she ignored him in his home market, as you concede. there's no indication that it would hurt her in the other 60 stations he's on.
I used the wrong right/rite/write!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All your/yore/you're points are valid. Now I must go the misses/Ms/Mrs is making steak/stake. What effect/affect will this have?
Again though you seem to miss my point that DC's movers and shakers seem to filter through the Imus talk show on a frequent basis. Don't believe me? Just tune in every morning 6-9 EST. Can't stomach that? Watch the first five minutes to see the who's who from DC and NY.
I will agree that she can probably parry from Imus with no problems. I still stand behind that she can only do this so many times before she has to pay the piper. I can't think of one tough interview she has been given since her run for office.
Now she has to explain why she staunchly supported this war. The war that was the main reason the Dems swept to power this mid-term and the same war that had activists trying to unseat (successfully) a sitting Democrat Senator (Lieberman). Although that backfired. Will these same activist go after Hillary in the same manner?
you're an "imus and the boys" fan. i can see you sitting there with your cowboy hat and mumbling along. and i never denied she's going to get some tough questions. i just don't buy that the road to the white house goes through imus. and for the hundredth time, lieberman did not get the opposition he did because of supporting the war. other democrats did that. lieberman went beyond that by repeating the gop talking points and attacking his own party as out of the mainstream and partisan, while giving bush a complete pass. what about this do you not understand?
I'm not necessarily an Imus fan, but I do like the format and the guests he brings on. If you give it a chance and block out some of the BS you get to see some of the politicians in a way that the MSM doesn't allow. They seem to let their guard down at times and it gives you an insight into the man or woman you'd probably not see. The two impersonators he has on there are dead on and hilarious. They are equal opportunity insulter's (Limbaugh, Falwell, and Clinton) and roasters of public figures. It serves as good morning background filler.
Point taken on Lieberman. I didn't follow the race close enough, so I defer to you.
You keep talking about how Hillary "never has to leave her 'hive' in NY" . . . correct me if I'm wrong, but seeing as she's a U.S. Senator, and the United States Senate meets IN Washington, DC, and she doubtless has office space in DC, where do you get "she never has to her hive in NY and face tough questions in the beltway"?
If you can show me where she has had a tough interview I'll stand down. Yes we all understand the link to DC, that wasn't the point.
Hillary is going to have to come out of her protective cocoon at some point if she's going to make a serious run. That's all I'm saying. If you read the tea leaves from what your own party is saying you would understand this. I can point you in the right direction...I only hope you don't heed the advice!
[link to www.time.com]
The media is behind the curve as usual, as is John McCain. He started running hard right when Bush was more popular, supporting Bush's War, and pandering to the religious extremists, assuming this was necessary to win the Republican nomination in 2008 - Big Miscalculation. A lot of the establishment Presidential hard right wingers like Macaca Allen and Rick Santorum lost. Bill Frist is toast, tarred by the Schiavo fiasco & by mismanaging a do-nothing Senate - he no longer has any media access as a regular citizen. Guiliani (a long shot) is a moderate. Newt is making little Newt noises again - and threatening tol run as a conservative outsider critical of Bush. Romney is another conservative outsider. Chuck Hagel has more cred than McCain does on the War and has been untouched by the Bush third rail.
Funny thing was McCain's best shot at becoming President in 2008 probably would have been if he had accepted the offer from Kerry to run with him as VP in 2004, become VP, then broke with Kerry in 2008 to run on his own. But he bet on the wrong horse. He loses.
I believe he will get a lot of early press but become more irrelevant as time goes on. I doubt we'll be talking about him vs Hillary when the campaigns get down to the wire.