Truth or Consequences: Perception and Reality in the Chase to be the Democratic Party's Nominee

Although the media and the candidates themselves often live by the notion that perception is reality, carrying on about “momentum,” “change,” “comebacks” and “solutions,” while talking little about the issues important to voters, perception isn’t, in fact, reality. Frequently voters don’t get this until it is too late, something Democrats seem especially prone to, when they choose nominees like McGovern or Dukakis that have little chance of winning the Presidency. Anyway, in recognition of this phenomenon, to which Republicans are not immune, detailed below are some frequent perceptions associated with the Democratic and Republican presidential races and the realities.

Perception: Obama’s victories in red states such as Idaho and Utah are meaningful as it indicates his ability to possibly win these states in November’s general election.

Reality: Democrats will win these states in the general election when hell freezes over.

Perception: Clinton must win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and by wide margins, in order to beat Obama and eventually win the Democratic party’s nomination.

Reality: Clinton must do well in these states but barring a sweep of these states by high margins in all, neither candidate will have anywhere near the number of delegates to lock up the nomination. Also, it is increasingly likely that something will happen with the delegates in Florida and Michigan, states Clinton won handily and which she would be the favorite to win again if, say, there were a “do over.”

Perception: If either candidate wins more states and/or the popular vote, the superdelegates should go to that candidate.

Reality: Winning more states is meaningless unless it results in winning these states in November. Idaho and Utah, which Obama won, are out of reach for Democrats in November and many of the states he has won are caucuses which attract party activists only and thus are not representative of how voters in these states will vote in the general election. Similarly, someone could even win the popular vote and still be the weaker of the candidates in the general election. Obama, for example, could win the popular vote even after losing California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. This is exactly the kind of scenario in which the superdelegates have meaning as they could give their votes based on the one thing that matters at the point: who is the candidate most likely to beat John McCain?

Perception: Independent voters are more likely to support Obama in the general election than they are McCain.

Reality: Many of the independent voters Obama is now getting will not be voting for him in the general election. Incredible as it may seem, many of these voters appear to be unaware that Obama has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate (number 1 in 2007 according to a National Journal assessment of senate voting records). And conservative Democrats? Seventy percent of voters in the Virginia primary who identified themselves as conservative voted for Obama! (Edison exit polling). How many will be there after McCain and the 527 groups desconstruct his voting record?

Perception: Obama is beating Clinton across all demographic groups.

Reality: Clinton is consistently winning geezers and white lunch bucket democrats, two groups critical to a Democratic victory in November.

Perception: Obama is more electible than Clinton.

Reality: It is Obama’s mantra that he can get Clinton’s voters but she cannot get his. The truth is likely otherwise. If she is the Democratic nominee she will take all of Obama’s constituencies other than perhaps young voters which make up a small percentage of overall voters anyway. She will take back blacks and white liberals and combine these with the constituencies supporting her now: latinos, older women, and moderate to conservative Democrats.

Perception: Obama’s “change” candidacy means that he will be more likely to vote his conscience and eschew the kind of political casuistry typical of other pols.

Reality: Despite his opposition to the war in Iraq he has voted to continue its funding. In addition, he recently did not vote on the reauthorization of the FISA bill instead of voting one way or another out of fear that Republicans would say he was soft on terrorism.

Perception: The wheels have come off Clinton’s campaign and epic strategic blunders have led to her current state at the edge of the abyss as she approaches the Wisconsin primary on February 19, and the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas.

Reality: Clinton has a lot of baggage that she needed to lighten to even challenge to be the party’s nominee and she has done that by appearing more moderate; letting Bill run interference in especially the red states where white males believe she is the devil incarnate; focusing on the big delegate-heavy states; and, most important, recognizing the role that Florida/Michigan could ultimately play, and locking up as many superdelegates as possible from the beginning. This doesn’t mean that there haven’t been missteps—she should have put more effort into contesting the caucus states, for one—just that the blunders aren’t nearly so big in comparison to what she has accomplished.

Perception: Obama will do more to unite Republicans and Democrats than Clinton.

Reality: Uniting Republicans and Democrats is a myth and, in fact, is not something to be wished for as such unity leads to things like the War in Iraq. As soon as more is known about the liberal Obama’s economic, health care, and security policies, he will be demonized by the Republican attack machine as just another liberal Democrat like McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry. So much for the hope of unity. Ironically, and for better or for worse, Clinton has worked closely with Republicans on many important issues, from war to security matters.