This Is Impact

Stanley Kurtz observes that "It’s been noted how little difference a raft of high profile endorsements by the Kennedy clan and other heavy hitters in Massachusetts made to the outcome there." I have heard that from a lot of people. I think those people may have unrealistic expectations. Look at this chart from Pollster.com which fairly accurately forecast the Bay State as a solid Clinton win. That's still a state in which Obama achieved a massive late-stage surge, helped along by high-profile endorsements. If he'd had another two weeks to campaign, maybe he would have closed the gap. Or maybe not. Certainly if he'd had more time to build on the endorsements in order to construct an actual Massachusetts ground game that would have helped. But the idea that Ted Kennedy just bounced off the electorate isn't well supported by the evidence.

Comments

Kennedy's influence was national, not just in MA.

Obama would've gotten beaten in the delegate count tonight if it weren't for Teddy's endorsement.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 2:25 AM

What Petey said. Also, what Josh said.

Posted by southpaw | February 6, 2008 2:30 AM

I think part of the problem is that the media really hyped up those endorsements and the Obama campaign didn't push back against that at all. It's similar to Nevada where all the polls showed Hillary winning handilly, but the Cullinary Union endorsement suddenly changed expectations 180 degrees in the eyes of the media.

Since its impossible to measure the effect of an endorsement, it was possible for the media to make up unrealistic expectations. The Zogby polls also hurt Obama in seemingly confirming those expectations. Both Zogby and ARG have ruined their reputations (as if they weren't bad enough) this primary.

Posted by Mike | February 6, 2008 2:39 AM

God the tv people are idiotic. Everything is WON state or LOST state divorced from context or how close it was.

Posted by yoyo | February 6, 2008 3:00 AM

Also, it completely ignores that all the local machine politicians were on HRC's side.

Posted by yoyo | February 6, 2008 3:05 AM

Exactly. All the polls forecast a safe Clinton victory in Massachusetts. And yet the top story in the WaPo today quotes Clinton advisers calling Massachusetts "the biggest surprise of the night."

Clinton's people are certainly not subtle about managing the expectations game. But they seem to be winning it.

Yesterday, hardly anyone would have predicted a 14-8 state win and and an even delegate split for Obama. Now people are calling that result a draw or even a win for Clinton. Really?

I take issue with the emerging storyline, "Clinton stops Obama's momentum." On what evidence? Seems to me the results tonight are a snapshot of momentum in time. There's no indication of a rollback in momentum (as there was in NH). I just don't get it.

Posted by josh | February 6, 2008 4:00 AM

Exactly. All the polls forecast a safe Clinton victory in Massachusetts. And yet the top story in the WaPo today quotes Clinton advisers calling Massachusetts "the biggest surprise of the night."

Clinton's people are certainly not subtle about managing the expectations game. But they seem to be winning it.

Yesterday, hardly anyone would have predicted a 14-8 state win and and an even delegate split for Obama. Now people are calling that result a draw or even a win for Clinton. Really?

I take issue with the emerging storyline, "Clinton stops Obama's momentum." On what evidence? Seems to me the results tonight are a snapshot of momentum in time. There's no indication of a rollback in momentum (as there was in NH). I just don't get it.

Posted by josh | February 6, 2008 4:01 AM

Don't underestimate what yoyo said. Those HRC wins in MA, NY, and CA were built on local pols revving up their machines.

In VA (one of the Potomac Primaries next week), the governor was an early Obama endorser, and I think you'll see him win both DC and VA. Don't know how MD will go, since O'Malley endorsed Clinton.

Since a year ago she was Ms. Inevitability, and two months ago she was a national 20 point favorite, I agree with other posters who wonder how HRC stopped Obama. Seems like he did exactly what he needed to do, which is get through the biggest primary day and fight her to a draw.

Posted by Ghost | February 6, 2008 7:57 AM

Josh: please.

We all started last night thinking it'd be close in california.
Obama said yesterday in NJ he'd take nj and calif.

so did Hillary beat expectations?

many wondered if obama's fabled surge would kill her campaign? did it?

And teddy and Kerry and deval din't bring it home which in some sense is trouble at home for them: it wasn't close there.

Teddy was with dodd until two weeks ago so he looks like a phony with his new passion.

if they needed more time for these endorsements to take effect then obama and they were late and many dollar short: they mismanaged the timing.

They had kerry for weeks and it didn't help in MA or CALIF.

Don't say time worked against him: he's had more than a year and 100 million dollars.

Posted by Michael C. | February 6, 2008 8:05 AM

Teddy was with dodd until two weeks ago so he looks like a phony with his new passion.

I was with edwards until a couple of weeks ago. Are you calling me a phony, Michael, because I now support Obama?

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 8:15 AM

The MA story is complete bunk. Kerry and Kennedy are not major influences here, but their endorsements (well, Kennedy's at least) certainly meant something nationally. That was the point. Massachusetts has been pro-Clinton for years, and it was always unlikely that Obama could overtake her lead here.

Posted by tinisoli | February 6, 2008 8:59 AM

Looking at a map of Massachusetts...
One frequent line of separation in Dem primaries in the Bay State is the "beer" towns versus the "wine" towns.

In the former, a blue-collar ethic predominates, local machine pols still have considerable pull, there tends to be some residual cultural conservatism of the Catholic variety, and there's generally a lot of suspicion towards "reformist" movements/candidates. Examples include New Bedford, Fall River, Springfield, and my hometown Worcester.

In the latter, a professional ethic dominates, there's more interest in national politics, traditional machine politics is looked upon with disdain, "good government" initiatives and "reform" movements are popular, and support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights (at least among Dem primary voters) can generally be safely assumed. As epitomized by Brookline, Newton, and Cambridge, there's a ring of these towns around most of Boston, particularly to the West; there's another cluster of them out west spreading out from Amherst and Northampton.

Obama did very well in the "wine" towns and poorly in the "beer" towns. Of continued concern to Obama's campaign is that places with a heavy Hispanic population (Lawrence, Chelsea, Holyoke) went very strongly for Clinton.

Posted by Answer Guy | February 6, 2008 9:56 AM

The MA story is complete bunk. Kerry and Kennedy are not major influences here, but their endorsements (well, Kennedy's at least) certainly meant something nationally.

Right. You properly back down as soon as you state that John Forbes Kerry's endorsement means squate.

As for "the Kennedy magic", nationally it has been gone since 1968. A myth continues only in the media that have given dead martyred Saint John, Saint Bobby, and Saint Martin 40-45 years of uncritical fluffery.
And the annointed young princelings and princesses of Camelot spent the next 45 years mired in drug abuse, partying, underachieving in school, Chavez&Sandinista hobnobbing, bad flying judgement, and mindless opposition to any energy source - especially wind farms where they yacht.

The only three of "The Kennedys!!NextGen!!" worth more than a gob of spit were the three gals that married successful, stabilizing husbands - Schlosser, Schwarzenegger, and Townsend.

Teddy's endorsement, Shrivers, Caroline Schlossberg's - is as relevant as some other old fossil like George McGoverns or Harry Truman's daughter...Hillary already has the sentimental old cat lady's vote where her portrait now hangs alongside JFK's. It didn't bring any of the old farts who remember back when the Kennedys were nationally relevant - over to Obama.

And again, Kerry is a bigger joke than even the Kennedy Royals in the scheme of things outside fawning media...

Posted by chris ford | February 6, 2008 10:02 AM

How can you even glance at the graph and say the endorsement had no effect? It swung at least a quarter of the MA delegates to Obama. You can spin it however you want, but some spins are going to have to depend on people being blind as well as stupid.

Posted by generica | February 6, 2008 10:46 AM

Teddy endorsed Obama so he'd look relevent. If he'd endorsed Hillary he would have been pilloried in the press as "the old guard of the ossified wing of the Democratic Party" or some such nonsense, stories of his boozing and womanizing would have gotten big play, and forget Chappaquiddick! It was a political calcultion on his part to backstab a Clinton (which the Democrats notoriously do whenever they think they see weakness in either Clinton) so he'd look cool, and it bit him in the ass with the Massachussetts results. I don't think anybody thought Obama would be so soundly trounced there. I'll bet you won't see Teddy paraded out in public as much from now on.

Posted by fascinated | February 6, 2008 11:07 AM

Kerry and Kennedy are not major influences here, but their endorsements (well, Kennedy's at least) certainly meant something nationally.

I agree. Kennedy's endorsement almost certainly helped solidify Hillary's female vote nationally.

Posted by Jasper | February 6, 2008 12:53 PM

I read somewhere today that H outspent O, mostly on tv ads, in CA and MA something like 3 to 1, in the days between the Kennedy endorsement and yesterday. So he - they, including Caroline and Patrick - not only very likely cost her some delegates, but also a huge boatload of cash she may not be able to replace so fast.

Posted by Phoebe | February 6, 2008 12:59 PM

By the standards of three weeks ago, Obama did well in Massachusetts. By the standards of this past week, however, with its wall-to-wall Obamamania, these results have to be a bit disappointing.

Obama hoped to pick off MA, or AZ, or NJ and didn't. They did get CT, and MO and NM were draws. Obama did well in the midwest and intermountain west. He has some things to crow about. But, overall, I'd give the edge to Hillary last night.

Posted by John Petty | February 6, 2008 1:26 PM

Jeezuz, what short memories the Hillary supporters have. She enjoyed every conceivable structual advantage-- major name recognition, started with a huge warchest, has a popular ex-President for a husband, had the media pimping her 'inevitability' narrative, had more pledged superdelegates...

Obama has pulled even with her and his prospects for the coming weeks are even better. You have to be in a state of denial not to recognize the trendline here.

Posted by ghost of zorro | February 6, 2008 1:48 PM

The importance of the Kennedy endorsement should not be measured by the results in Massachusettes, but for how it will play out over the course of the primary season and more importantly with the so-called Super Delegates.

The Kennedy endorsement will prove crucial if this is to be decided at the convention - which I hope will not be the case.

Posted by Gary L. | February 6, 2008 7:38 PM