Yesterday, Drexel played host to the first Democratic debate in Philadelphia in over 30 years. Which is a feat because Drexel is not the biggest, not even the second biggest, of the major universities in the city. UPenn, Temple and Villanova would have felt outwitted, outsmarted. But let’s not focus on that too much.
The debate was an interesting case in point about how desperate the other challengers in a race can get when one of them is pulling ahead and away. Instead of focusing on what they had to offer, Senators John Edwards and Barack Obama used a good portion of their air time to slam Senator (and President-in-waiting?) Hillary Clinton on her position on Iran.
I’m no psephologist, but I have seen campaign races in India wherein if a person makes himself / herself the focus of the race, he / she often emerges victorious. Lalu Prasad Yadav, for example, became almost synonymous with Bihar. So much that even today one can’t think of Bihar without thinking about Laloo. So when the Opposition went out on election campaigns, they couldn’t talk of things without referring to him, thus indirectly campaigning for him.
Narendra Modi is another example of how a person converted a controversial issue into a persona issue to win elections in Gujarat. When most pundits had written his obituary for his mis-handling of Godhra, Modi swiftly made himself the focal point of the elections. His political positioning may not be morally right, but it has kept him in the Chief Minister’s chair for the past five years.
Closer home, Jayalalithaa used the same “everyone is against me” ploy to sway public sympathy in her favour in 2001, sweeping to power when no one expected her to win.
Of course, the focal point strategy is not a surefire method of achieving success. But the rule is “If a lot of people who are competing with you are saying something against you, then you are probably doing great.” Hillary’s position is enviable because it is not just her partymen who think she is surging ahead, but people from the other camp as well. She mentioned this herself in last night’s debate:
“If you watched their (Republican) debate last week, I seemed to be the topic of great conversation and consternation. And that’s for a reason, because I have stood against George Bush and his failed policies.”
Hillary Clinton’s 30-point lead over the rest of the field might be whittled down as America readies itself for the first round of primaries. Her poor performance last night in the face of a multi-pronged attack, where only Bill Richardson came to her defense (thereby increasing his chances of securing a ticket with her) can lead to a fall. But I don’t see it making a major impact if the main feature of Obama’s agenda (and those of others too) is just to concentrate on her. In politics, where negative publicity often works better, this strategy is only going to take her closer to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Update: After watching parts of the debate once again, it is hard not to concede that John Edwards should be adjudged the victor. Though he had lesser airtime than Obama and Clinton, he seemed the most confident, and if victory were to be measured in terms of how uncomfortable one made Clinton feel, Edwards trumps Obama hands down.
The focus now shifts to Vegas, where the next round of debate will see how Clinton answers some of the questions and doubts raised by her opponents. She has two weeks to prepare for the next round of onslaught. It will be interesting to see the next round of poll numbers. I expect Edwards to move closer to Obama, and Clinton to drop a few points.
Related posts:
- “You gotta ask”Chuck Todd has been filling in for Chris Matthews this past week as moderator of Hardball on MSNBC. One of...
Matty on 
October 31st, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Nice analysis Vijay. In all these debates Edwards seems to come out on top with really impressive performances. But he seems to have no traction. The problem for him is Obama. He simply doesn’t perform in these debates and since he enjoys the support of the democratic left he simply cannot rise in the polls. So I would be surprised if the numbers continue to remain the same.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:24 am
No idea abt the US elections move. But, Jaya was destined to win the 2001 elections as she had done a superb come back in 1998 and in few of the interim elections in 1999 and in 2000.
And she had a well identified vote bank alliance in terms of Moopanar and the likes with her.
Isn’t it AIADMK always a one-woman show, be it any sort of elections ??
That particular element is slowly getting clipped by Annathe Vijayaganth. If he is able to master few proper political strings in Delhi b4 2009 elections and win some 5 to 8 seats, he will be a real threat to the AIADMK vote bank in the future.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:54 am
@ Eshwar: Yes, I’m eagerly awaiting the next round of poll numbers. Gallup’s should be out in a week.
@ GD: That she had built up a small wave is true. But none of the polls ever predicted that she would come back to power. I think Junior Vikatan predicted that the race would be close, but they also expected DMK to win.
What worked in her favour was one stroke of genius. Knowing well that there was a chance that her nomination could be disqualified, she filed four nominations (instead of a maximum of two). Her nominations being disqualified on these grounds, she took it out on the DMK, saying “Look, they have disqualified my nomination. This is their soozhchi.” This helped her project a wronged woman image.
She was also helped by the fact that a lot of people felt that “paNa puzhakkam” had reduced during the DMK’s tenure.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:39 am
Enna Sir Vijay Krishna….I am making conscious attempt not to delve into politics and write abt those….Remember these words…:)