by David Epstein
I have a new theorem about negative campaigning in primaries (which is to say it is mine (Money Python reference)). Take a primary campaign in which one candidate is more extremist relative to the national distribution of voters (e.g., Obama), and the other more moderate (e.g., Clinton). Then negative attacks by the more extremist candidate are less damaging to the party in the national election than negative attacks by the moderate.
Why? Because the attacks by the extremist (taking the Obama-Clinton example) are of the form "Your positions are too far right." So Obama says that Clinton is too hawkish on the war. This is an attack that makes sense in a Democratic primary, but it's certainly not one that McCain will repeat in the general election; if anything, it helps her in November.
But Hillary attacks Obama by saying that he's too dovish, not experienced enough for the tough foreign policy challenges that he would face as president (this is the real message of the 3AM telephone call ad). This is an attack that McCain would certainly repeat and that damages Obama as a general election candidate.
I note this asymmetry not to make value judgments, but just because it's interesting and I hadn't heard it mentioned before. It does clarify a few elements of the current situation, though. To start with, it helps remind us that in a way Obama has been running a negative campaign from the very beginning, saying that Clinton was wrong on Iraq and he was right. In fact, I see his entire policy strategy as copying Clinton on every other major issue, so that these are a draw, and winning on Iraq. (There's also the old politics vs. Yes We Can dimension, but let's not go there now.) Obama hasn't received much flack for these attacks, partly because they bolster Hillary's image as a hawk, which she will certainly want to project in the national election once she's the nominee.
On the other hand, Hillary has to walk a finer line when she attacks Obama, because she's making many of the same points that any Republican opponent would. So she gets accused of disregarding the party's overall interests, sometimes fairly (she absolutely should not be saying that McCain is a better leader than Obama; that's heresy), sometimes not. But the rules are different for her, to some degree because she's Hillary and a Clinton, and to some degree because of the geometry of the situation.
Obama did attack Hillary from the right on healthcare, which is one of the things that persuaded me to vote for her in the primaries. Not only was it an attack on Hillary, but it was also an attack on a certain policy that Democrats might be working for in the future no matter who's in power, so it was doubly offensive.
On the other hand, Hillary's remark that she and McCain and cross the commander in chief threshold, but maybe not Obama, certainly crossed the line as well. Of course she should paint herself as more experienced on defense, and she has a lot of ways to do it (for example, her military endorsements), without painting McCain as more trustworthy on defense than the likely Democratic candidate for the Presidency.
Posted by: Rick Taylor | March 22, 2008 at 01:39 PM
I thought your theorem was interesting and it help explains the dynamics of the race. I always thought of Obama being the liberal Democrat, while I always have viewed Hillary as the moderate. I just never thought some Democratic supporters would view Clinton's comments as negatively as they do. I don't agree with them, but at least I have a better idea of why they are doing it.
Posted by: Marques | March 17, 2008 at 02:13 AM
Well, I agree that when Hillary tries to expose Obama, she is doing McCain's work for him, if she is portrayed as being to the right of O. I don't think of the space between O and Mc as linear, so I don't equate H with necessarily a moderate position between extremes. But if I were H, I'd try to draw out Mrs Obama, since she is rarely heard from, with good reason, I suspect. I think Barack is the kinder and gentler of the couple. Let's find out now.
Posted by: Tony | March 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Conjecture it maybe, but it's an interesting proposition since it accounts for the Clinton campaign's, I think genuine, frustration with making criticisms of Obama. Have you considered prior primary elections or perhaps the dynamics on the Republican side this cycle?
Posted by: Tom | March 15, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Sounds like a conjecture to me. Can it be proven? Hillary oughta just say that Obama is not credible, since one day he's channelling JFK, the next day it's Reagan, and neither would place him to the left of Hil. He's campaigning on a tautology- "HOPE!!" (for what?) "CHANGE!!" (to what, exactly?) "HOPE!!!!!
Posted by: Tony | March 13, 2008 at 04:56 PM