Lesley Stahl | 03/10/2008 2:52 pm

The State of the Race: Pollster Dotty Lynch Speaks to wOw about the Mississippi Vote and More

LESLEY: Dotty. So, here we are again, the day before the Mississippi primary, with the Dems tied up in knots. I’m sure the Democrats are apoplectic that this thing hasn’t been settled — but for a reporter, it doesn’t get much better!

Let’s talk first about Bill Clinton. I’ve heard he wanted Hillary to take the gloves off early on. Now that she has — and it’s proved effective — do you have a feeling that even while he’s not as visible to the public (sent off to TV markets in the hinterland), he is actually more involved in the strategy…maybe in control of the strategy?

DOTTY: Bill Clinton’s favorite hobby is political strategy. One of his aides said years ago that "Nothing makes Bill happier than fresh data!" In 2000, the Clinton Senate campaign had to move its meeting out of the White House to keep him from chiming in. So there is no doubt that he is giving advice…and probably being listened to, although some of his "brilliant ideas" really bombed earlier this year.

LESLEY: I miss seeing him! In the last couple of days both Bill and Hill have floated the "Dream Ticket" idea — of Hillary and Obama as running mates. Why are they doing this? How does that help her?

DOTTY: Bill Clinton has had an article of faith since he lost (the race for Governor of Arkansas) in 1980, that you have to respond to attacks and go on offense to win. But she is not a shrinking violet, so there may be a mind meld on this approach. And since it worked, they may BOTH take credit.

The “Dream Ticket” does two things: lines up with polls that show that the overwhelming number of Dem voters want this (though it’s not clear who they want on top)…and it puts the discussion beyond the "math" (numbers of delegates), a conversation that favors Obama.

LESLEY: Two questions on the vice presidential issue: Now that she has raised it, will it make it harder for her to turn it down if Obama wins the nomination? And, why would anyone want to be HER veep? Won’t Bill be the real vice president? Everyone knows what a difficult time Al Gore had competing with Hillary.

DOTTY: Of course it SHOULD be harder for her to turn down. But the Clinton campaign tends to worry about things "down the road," and has shown an ability to turn on a dime. And just maybe Obama has other ideas about who he may want as his VP. Every VP (except maybe Dick Cheney) has been frustrated. LBJ hated that Bobby Kennedy had more influence than he had, and Hubert Humphrey was not happy that he had to check with LBJ every time he wanted a private plane.

LESLEY: Changing the subject…Obama is expected to do well in tomorrow’s Mississippi primary. But what about Pennsylvania? Is it really that similar to Ohio? Does Hillary have a big advantage there because of lower income voters?

DOTTY: One thing to watch in Mississippi is the delegates. Obama has a big lead in the polls, but his biggest support comes from African Americans who are concentrated in a couple of Congressional Districts. So, Clinton could do well in the delegate split.
On Pennsylvania: James Carville once described the state as Philly on one side, Pittsburgh on the other and Alabama in the middle! There are a number of blue collar Democrats who gravitate to Clinton, but the key could be the Philly suburbs, which are a mix of blue collar and upscale voters. That could be a real battleground.

LESLEY: You don’t sound as sure as others I’ve heard that Pennsylvania is a cake walk for her. I wonder, too, if Pennsylvania is in as rough a shape economically as Ohio?

DOTTY: I think Obama cold mount a good campaign. He has over five weeks to come up with a message that appeals to blue collar voters and show he can expand his reach. If he can beat her in Pennsylvania, he could end the race. So I think it will be competitive and even decisive.

LESLEY: I love when you go against the flow. The big story has been — nothing decisive will happen until the convention, so the Super Delegates will have to decide. I’ll save Super Delegates for our next chat.

Let me ask you just a few questions about recent polls:

One said that the race issue came up in exit polls in Ohio and Texas. Did you notice that?

DOTTY: Up until now I think you could argue that both race and gender have been important mainly as positives for both Clinton and Obama — giving them a leg up in publicity and excitement. But the exit polls in Texas and Ohio should show that about 20% of voters said race was important, and in Ohio they broke 60-40 for Clinton — indicating they may have voted against Obama because he is an African American. In Texas, they split evenly so that Obama gained as many votes because of his race as he lost.

LESLEY: Oh, that’s interesting. But, of course, these are mainly Democrats. Race could be more of a factor in a general election.
Here’s a question on health: I mean McCain’s! I’ve heard that polls are indicating that his age could be a factor. Will people vote against him, do you think because of his age (he’s 72) and health? He told Scott Pelley on “60 MINUTES” last night that he will release his medical records soon.

DOTTY: If you give voters a list of characteristics in the abstract they say they would be concerned about voting for a candidate over 70. And, in general, voters are not kind to candidates who have health problems. But McCain has lots of funny answers to those questions and tends to make good use of his 95-year-old mother on the campaign trail. The burden will be on him to convince voters that he is healthy and energetic AND has ideas about the future. And, of course, we all remember how well Ronald Reagan handled the issue.
LESLEY: Final question: A Democrat just won the seat that former Republican Congressman, Denny Hastert, held. He was Speaker of the House. I’ve seen quotes from some democrats predicting a tidal wave of support for Congress. Do you think this is true — that the Democrats will be so strong in Congressional races that they will end up with a veto-proof Senate, meaning more than 60?

DOTTY: Democrats are on a roll. Turnout has been two and three times higher in the Democratic primaries than in the GOP primaries this year. And fundraising for House and Senate candidates is very strong.

But Democrats are kind of like Red Sox fans, thinking they are having a great spring but then things tend to go sour in the fall. The presidential race now has those Democrats worried that they may be turning a huge opportunity into a disaster if the infighting continues until late August. But, if the economy continues to tank and the war continues, the issues should be lining up in the Democrat’s favor. And even the Red Sox have managed to come out on top twice!
LESLEY: Ha Ha Ha! Dotty, thanks so much. Looking forward to our next chat about all this.

THE END

28 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I have a lot of respect for Leslie Stahl but I hope her future articles for this site are more objective, less “girly” and more newsworthy.

By Carol Senderowitz on 03/10/2008 3:44 pm

e-mail alert

Obama-Sebelius ‘08! I’m annoyed that MSM doesn’t talk about the state convention process, which further allocates delegates elected in the primaries/caucuses. No one understands what Clinton is saying when she says she can still sway delegates. And no one understands that Obama’s campaign has been on the ground in Iowa trying to consolidate delegate support while the Clinton campaign is missing in action for the upcoming Iowa state convention on March 15. Given that this is a LEGITIMATE way to amass more delegates that’s built into the process used by many states, why isn’t Clinton using this *legitimate* means to shore up her delegate count instead of trying to force a nomination by Superdelegate means? Is her campaign disorganized to the extent that they have no follow-through? See http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/03/math-lovin-poli.html for more.

By gromyt the dog on 03/10/2008 5:26 pm

e-mail alert

I have never been more frustrated… Every one of the networks has an obvious bias towards Obama- check out Keith Olbermann (whom I used to adore) - even the only left-leaning radio wave (Air America) queen Randi Rhodes (whom I used to adore) is blatently promoting Obama and tearing down Hillary. Is there anyone out there who feels that Hillary would be a great president??? Cant’ rely on the right, now can’t rely on the left…. HELP!!! I am really getting sick of all these men in suits running things, even if Hill weren’t running and even if she wasnt’ brilliant… Eliot Spitzer is another prime example of why it would be a refreshing “change” for a woman to be running things!!!! And like it or not, Obama is a MAN first, an African American second!!!! I’VE HAD IT!!!!

By Linda Creash on 03/10/2008 10:16 pm

e-mail alert

There is a difference between running as what you are, in your own identity and skin…than running as a woman and/or African-American to DEFINE yourself and promote race/gender as the REASON to ask for a vote. The majority of Americans, thus far, have chosen to turn the page on identity and ideology politics and move FORWARD. Further, Americans and the world appreciate Mr. Obama remaining focused on what he stands for and demonstrated good judgement re Iraq, and management of his Campaign as the foundation rationale for giving him the chance he is asking for to effect fundamental CHANGE in how business is done in Washington. This is VERY difficult for an African-American, who can be continually undermined, diminished and possibily overturned by “Super-Delegates” because of his name or race and other totally subjective rationales. Since Hillary can ALSO be subjected to the same, it is more aggregious that SHE is running a Rovian campaign, that is also being mismanaged and not serving her well or her real strengths. Only lately has Hillary taken over her Campaign and “found her voice.” Barack is more comfortable with his strengths and liabilities, can admit mistakes because of this fact and, consequently, can run as what he is — unapologetically and comfortably. Until women can accept Hillary is NOT the superior candidate this round, has not run a quality Campaign — and evicerating a fellow Democrat who may have to carry the Nomination against Republicans is unacceptable, breaking all RULES of a mature and responsible Candidate — the Democratic Party itself will be at RISK. We cannot prop Hillary up at this moment in time. She is NOT Bill. The Nation has serious challenges and perhaps her First Lady bubble of 20 years, cumulatively, has insulated her too much and is actually a LIABILITY. Finally, what if Hillary is really a legislator and not an executive…after all? She has never chosen to become an executive independent of Bill in any capacity, when, she easily could have. A woman is rising through the ranks right now. Let’s not make a serious mistake that will prevent her rise because of voting for Hillary BECAUSE she is a woman, and not because of the very highest standards we can. We already made THAT mistake, unfortunately.

By Renata on 03/10/2008 11:02 pm

e-mail alert

@ Linda Creash: check out Governor Kathleen Sebelius. She’s wonderful, has a tremendous record as a liberal in what’s usually a heavily Republican state, works in bipartisan fashion, and lacks the seriously detrimental baggage Clinton has. Governor Sebelius’ star is on the rise. And she’s endorsed Obama for president. If we voted Obama-Sebelius ‘08, we could set ourselves up for 16 years of progressive change in the White House! Now wouldn’t that be something? Don’t you want that? I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

By gromyt the dog on 03/11/2008 12:04 am

e-mail alert

Bill Clinton made the rounds of the Sunday morning news shows proposing that Barak Obama accept the position of VP for his wife, Hillary Clinton. His stated reason for doing so is that it would bring unity to the Party. It seems to me that the Clintons have had very little interest in “unity” up until now, running a win-at-all-costs campaign. This proposition also reveals their blatant disregard for the will of the People of the Democratic Party who time and time again have voted their preference for Barak Obama. Wyoming presents the latest example, where Obama took 61% of the vote to Mrs. Clinton’s mere 38%. Indeed it is apparent that for the good of the Party, it is Mrs. Clinton who needs to concede to Barak Obama who is the front runner (and not the other way around). Many people found her overture to Obama to be insulting considering he leads Mrs. Clinton in delegates and the popular vote.

By Mac D on 03/11/2008 5:07 am

e-mail alert

Right on Linda! When I look at Obama as a Presidential hopeful, I don’t see a first African American president, I just see another man in the White House. I dare say Renata my sense is that he is being more seriously considered because he is African American, but Hillary more so for her outstanding qualifications and not her gender. Your arguments for Obama over Hillary just sound like the typical ones for a man over a woman. And finally, Mac D, do you really think the will of the Democrats is being fully represented in these primaries and caucuses? There’s no clear frontrunner here. Would it have been insulting if Obama had proposed Hillary as his running mate? And you fault Hillary because she wants to win? This is politics and the rules are the same for women as they are for men. Place blame on the Democratic Party if you must fault someone or thing. Democrats are being split just as the nation was slit by the two parties 8 long years ago. Change is surely needed and the most impactful change would come from a woman in the White Hous.

By Maryl on 03/11/2008 7:42 am

e-mail alert

A decision for whom to vote is personal and I am NOT going to address other women in my comments, because we ALL get to make our own decisions for our own reasons, based upon our own life experiences and perspectives. We are not monolithic nor Stepford Wives — and I am not a Republican ideologue. I am a Democrat. That is the point Hillary and her supporters repeatedly miss, sadly. Taking those who disagree with Hillary on…personally…whether it is Barack, “Super-Delegates” and voters themselves…is specious. Ditto, the MOCKERY. We live in a Democracy, not a Dictatorship — though I suppose it would be easier if the majority of Democrats in the majority of States responded to Karl Rovian tactics and messaging. We don’t. I am entitled to my own opinions, voice and rationale even if it differs with others — in America, especially if it does. We do not all see the world through the prism of Hillary or her standards. She asked us to understand her very personal reasoning for remaining with Bill, and so we have, despite the fact many of us would have made other choices. We don’t judge her. That is a right we ALL deserve and that pertinent fact seems to escape Hillary and her supporters. Consequently, they attack those who have the termidity to disagree with them…personally. A more sensible approach would be to state one’s position/opinion independent of the simultaneously unattractive and defensive ATTACK. Attack mode for the entire Bush/Clinton/Bush eras is TIRESOME, DESTRUCTIVE and TOXIC to our American spirit. How one wins is as important as winning for the first time in a generation. We have EARNED the right to make choices based upon our own, new criteria without being judged or criticized by anyone. The Presidency and its powers are not an ENTITLEMENT. Hillary asks us to vote for her BECAUSE she is a woman. Barack does not make that request regarding his ethnicity. I appreciate his not doing so, having enough respect for me to make my own decisions and his willingness to EARN my vote without games, machinations or external pressures from ANY source. The ends no longer justify the means. Americans, circa 2008, no longer have to COMPROMISE our values for a Democrat to retake The White House…unless the scorched Earth, by any means possible, ME or else…strategy continues to be pursued by Hillary and her supporters. Again, HOW one wins matters. It is an indication of how one will MANAGE and LEAD. Leadership, as David McCullough said last week, is a valuable commodity and one our most successful President had in their arsenal and skillset. We know it when we see it, because leadership brings us together for the common good and common goals. Leadership is the opposite of divisiveness and/or INTOLERENCE. I am a Democrat and that is the opposite of INTOLERENCE and concensus. Turn the page.

By Renata on 03/11/2008 8:05 am

e-mail alert

Correction: Consensus is an imperative as we navigate the future and our children need to take a larger role in their OWN identity as we boomers make our ascent into third age. Finally, the Clintons shouldn’t sell what the do not own. Barack is not their asset to trade with and/or barter as VP or anything else with unauthorized parties, the general public or world…as I just said we as voters are not as well. The Clintons do not speak FOR the Obamas…or the Bidens…or the Edwards. Hillary Clinton visited John Edwards at his home in NC and rightly does not discuss publicly the content of their conversations. On the other hand, w/out asking Barack Obama’s permission or even discussing with him (and Michelle) their intent to simultaneously publicly proffer him as their VP choice (while they are #2 w/fewer delegates, etc.) and diminishing his competency — is being repudiated by the Candidate himself and voters who support him. In the 21st Century, Barack Obama can and will speak for himself…as will the voters. He will also make his OWN choice for VP, if/when the time comes. He will not make that decision as part of a public, political game. He will make this decision in a careful, thoughtful and methodical manner. We are FOR America, not AGAINST anyone. Hilary Clinton (and Howard Wolfson) are not the SOLE ARBITERS of what the threshold is for “passing the Commander-in-Chief test.” Again, we are a Democracy. How strange Hillary would think SHE gets to make that determination and so many others, independent of us. Turn the page.

By Renata on 03/11/2008 8:21 am

e-mail alert

renata, mac… all i can say is ….. Obama who???? this guy comes out of nowhere to be the frontrunner…tell me that if a woman (white or black) came forward with his thin resume that she would be taken seriously!!! She’d be laughed out of the room!!!! His supporters can’t even tell you anything of substance he has done in his (not quite) 2 years in the Senate. His evangelical mode of speech and his arrogant attitude rub me the wrong way- as far as i’m concerned, he’s just another suit- daddy figure or rock star- just what we need!!!! and if he wins the nom, he’d better get himself ready if he thinks hillary has been hard on him!!! can’t wait to see how many repubs are going to rally round him - sure, they’re all of a sudden going to vote for universal health care, overturn their tax cuts, come down on corporations, etc…. WHAT A JOKE! and renata- hillary does NOT need us to “prop” her up- she does very well on her own, thank you. and also, renata- obama does not need to tell voters to vote for him because he is black- african americans are doing so in overwhelming numbers- you think it’s NOT because he is black? american’s are sheep- just like they were in 2000 and 2004……. sigh……

By Linda Creash on 03/11/2008 10:40 am

e-mail alert

I agree with all of Renata’s comments. We have had 8 years of a president with so called credentials, and look what that has gotten us. Maybe it’s time for a little more ‘thinking’ and a little less ‘experience in government’. I am ready to see what is on the next page.

By Carol Norris on 03/11/2008 11:32 am

e-mail alert

I am a Lakes Coast gal (as in the Great Lakes), who has spent much time working in the East as well as the Southwest. I am married to a Swede and have a small apartment in that country. I’ve gotten around. I was raised in a very male household, and treated exactly as my brothers. My own life has worked well in part because I learned to play with boys and work with men. I didn’t come to the game expecting that because of my gender I might not be let in. I learned about exclusion later, but because of such a strong foundation, it never derailed me. Now, I have three daughters. I cannot give them the same environment I had, but I so desperately want them to experience a female President of the United States. Yesterday sledding with my youngest, my daughter got in line to take the biggest of the bumps. A boy behind her yelled over to his friend who was not in line, “Hey, how much of a chicken are you? You’re gonna let a girl beat you?” My daughter rode her saucer down the hill, hit the bump, took to the air, came down hard, half on half off her sled. It looked like she was about to cry, but she didn’t. She got up and gathered her stuff. As we walked away from the park at dusk, she asked me why I didn’t say something to the boy who had teased her. “Your taking on that course proved that girls are tough, certainly more than anything I could have said,” I told her. We do not, as a gender, seek political office in adequate numbers. (I witness the activities of women in government in Scandinavia, for example). We do not, as a gender, take enough chances and work for more control in government and commerce. Half of me is appalled that my main focus this election is gender; the other half believes that in the long run, a greater good will come of our breaking the log jam and electing a woman, if for nothing else than to start to put an end to the pervasive, limiting, “just a girl” assumptions and to encourage more female participation. And because actions do speak louder than words, I believe we need to do what it takes to get Hillary there. I know there are many problems with this approach, I know the strengths of the other candidates, and I know - thank goodness - that we as women are not a single-minded entity. But I cannot shake the impressions of my own experience: I was in elementary school at the time she ran, but I remember Shirley Chisolm. I remember thinking the 1972 version of this is way cool. Now enough with possibilities. Our girls and boys need realities.

By Catherine Berlin on 03/11/2008 11:45 am

e-mail alert

The media bias for Precious Obama has been so one sided and blatently sexist that I have wondered what has happened to so called liberals who have suddenly morphed into self righteous Obamatons? There is nothing behind the rhetoric, and nothing of accomplishment, yet Media Obama Love and Hillary Hatred prevail. I had no special approval for Hillary, but when contrasting her ability to Obama it is hard to recommend him as the next nominee. The Democratic party also seems to be going off the cliff with Dean’s inability to resolve counting millions of votes in Fla and MI. The rules were broken, but these are self imposed rules from what I would call an unruly party operatus. Sanity would be to include everyone, and then at least we could be a bit less uncomfortable as we watch Obama run for the presidency. He is an empty suit who has had an unsavory past in Chicago and a deplorably lazy one in the US Senate.

By simmy sussman on 03/11/2008 7:52 pm

e-mail alert

All I can say is WHY does our election process have to last for 2 years? Why can’t we have a couple of months at most of campaigning, then the election? Is anyone else as sick of it all as I am?

By Turkey Vulture on 03/11/2008 8:57 pm

e-mail alert

I’m getting sick of the process and sick of Hillary too! Her campaign’s win at all cost strategy is probably no worse than other primaries but I thought this primary was going to be about ideas, not this crap! I have gone from being an Obama supporter but OK if Clinton wins to Obama had better win because I’m not sure I can gulp and vote for Hillary. An older white feminist civil rights worker , retired, who thinks this country is going to hell in a hand-basket right now. I don’t see how Hillary is the right person to change it, now that I am getting to know her as a candidate.

By Rain 39 on 03/12/2008 1:05 am