It's hard to come up with an objective measure of which candidates are being attacked the most, but this ought to be a reasonably interesting proxy.
I looked at the press releases from five sources: the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign, the RNC, and the DNC, and counted the number of times that McCain, Clinton or Obama was mentioned in the headline of the press release. (For Obama press releases, which tend to have vague headlines like "Barack Obama Statement on Iran", I also counted hits in the press release abstract). Then I sorted the hits by the month of the campaign from September onward.
These figures were tallied by hand and so may be slightly imprecise, but you should certainly get the general idea. Also, this should be obvious, but the idea was to account for attacks only, so I didn't count instances in which say a DNC press release mentioned Clinton, or a McCain release mentioned McCain himself.
Let me also give you that data in tabular form, and then a few observations.
Observations:
1. It's manifest that the big break in the Democratic campaign came in February. Obama took just 10 incoming hits in January, but 51 in February, as both the RNC and the Clinton campaign significantly ramped up their efforts against him.
2. Clinton's incoming hits peaked in January, and have since dwindled basically to nothing. She hasn't been the subject of either an RNC or a McCain press release since March. Overall, since March 1st, Obama has taken 151 incoming hits, McCain has taken 144, and Clinton has taken 9.
3. The Obama campaign does very, very little attacking (quite possibly too little), at least in the form of press releases. That doesn't mean that they won't go negative, but they prefer to wait for an opportunity to counter-punch and/or to do so somewhat surreptitiously. But what they won't usually do is to try and dictate the course of a news cycle with an attack.
4. In contrast, the Clinton press shop is always operating at a fever pitch, and much of that involves attacking their opponents. During March and April, the Clinton press shop was hitting Obama nearly once a day. But the Clinton campaign has also delivered considerably more hits on McCain than the Obama campaign has (at least through its press releases). Also, note that Clinton has considerably cut down on her hits on Obama for the past several weeks.
26 comments
Thanks for the analysis.
It's yet another reason that general election polls for Clinton are meaningless at this point - if any of her opponents thought she still had a chance, they'd be attacking her too, driving down her numbers. But they're not.
Meanwhile, Obama's getting hit from both sides, driving down his numbers. (I'm not saying it's unfair - I believe that once Clinton drops out, Obama will gradually recover among Clinton-supporting Dems over a month or two.)
I thought that the Clinton campaign was far more negative but I was careful and dismissed that thought as irrational partisanship. But now it turns out I was being rational with this evidence.
Great work Poblano - confirms what I've always suspected, but so nice to see it in 'black and white'!!! Cheers.
Interesting idea, and probably qualitatively correct. I'm not sure how you correct for things like this:
"United States Senator Barack Obama issued the following statement today after learning of the death of the police officer guarding Senator Clinton's motorcade in Dallas"
-February 22, 2008
"Today, as Senator Barack Obama continues his "Stand for Change" tour, supporters introduced him at events in Williamsburg, Coralville, Clinton, Davenport and Muscatine."
-December 28, 2007
Clearly these are not attacks, but I'm guessing - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that they get counted as attacks in your scheme.
There is a better methodology that could be employed here. It is explained in the article "Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts using Words as Data" in APSR May 2003. Authors are Laver, Benoit and Garry.
What it essentially does is take one set of text as a baseline, and estimates the probability that another text is of the same type. It has been used on party manifestos, where you take say, the Conservative party platform and estimate the probability that other, future documents are functionally similar or not, so as to find ideological change. It can be used for speeches and, I would guess, press releases. Essentially you would use some attack release as a baseline and estimate the probability that various other press releases were attacks, so as to weight them. This would also help capture campaigns that snidely slip the odd negative remark in the back.
PS: on the subject at hand, Obama doesn't need to attack Clinton, since the press does that job for him. His campaign has very successfully adopted a "jump in front of buses" approach - trying to narrow possible discourse so that Clinton must either go negative or engage in a personal qualities debate (like the change-experience debate that dominated the early race, which she couldn't win).
hosertohoosier:
"His campaign has very successfully adopted a "jump in front of buses" approach - trying to narrow possible discourse so that Clinton must either go negative or engage in a personal qualities debate (like the change-experience debate that dominated the early race, which she couldn't win)."
Could you please explain what you mean by this? Google turned up no results for "jump in front of buses" relating to rhetorical techniques and it's not at all clear what you mean or how Obama would be able to limit discourse or force Clinton's hand in any way.
I got up this morning to write to protest your reports on Clinton doing better than Obama in the general election, and was heartened to see this. It explains half the story. Clinton has been much more on the attack in personal ways against Obama than vice versa. Sure, there's been press and blogosphere attacks on Clinton, but for the past two months, those have been pretty evenly spread between the two. My point is that the Republicans would surely be attacking Clinton on a number of personal integrity issues were she to win the nomination and voters who are not reminded of these - pardons, biling records, campaign finance issues, mishandling of health care reform - are inclined to say they'd vote for her in the GE.
Second, she has ginned up her supporters to be resentful of the outcome. Part of this is the natural response of a losing campaign, but the Clinton's are taking this overboard - attacking the process as unfair, and generating resentment amongst women and lower income whites, who are thus angrily saying they'll vote McCain in the GE. It's a self-serving and dangerous (for Democrats) ways of conducting a campaign, but it's inflating her numbers relative to Obama in the GE in all the polls - which is why the polls are worthless. Why aren't you making that point?
I'm a lifelong Red Sox fan, and I never believed they'd beat the Yankees until they finally did. the Clinton's feel like the Yankees to me. Since they're not out of it yet, I hate to see her get a free pass on these issues.
Pablo
Another analysis showing that the Republicans think that Obama will be a tougher candidate to beat. If the RNC thought that Clinton would be harder than Obama to beat in November, the RNC would have been attacking Clinton at least as often as it has attacked Obama.
hardheaded, they were attacking Obama because he was the front runner. Obama is clearly the weaker GE candidate.
Those charts are very interesting.
They confirm my subjective impressions.
Would it be possible to display a diagram showing the attacks *from* a given candidate (or entity)?
Great analysis!
Brandon - Sen. Clinton looks like the stronger GE candidate today, in May, because in the matchup polls he loses more Democrats to McCain than does Clinton. That might continue into the general, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Also, it would be nice if the Clinton campaign could stop setting up the argument that he stole the election. We had a primary. The rules were clear. If he gets more delegates, he wins. Period.
Brandon...Republicans are currently boosting Hillary more than they're boosting McCain. To think that they would do so because they think she's the stronger opposition to McCain is absurd.
They still want to go up against Hillary, but their virtually panic-stricken that it looks like Obama is going to get the nomination, and they're doing whatever they can to stop it.
It's all backfiring though, just as Hillary's efforts are. Those old politics don;t work in a YouTube world.
RE: Michael @ May 29, 2008 3:30 AM
He said this above:
"Also, this should be obvious, but the idea was to account for attacks only, so I didn't count instances in which say a DNC press release mentioned Clinton, or a McCain release mentioned McCain himself."
So, he filtered out articles/releases that weren't attacks.
RE: brandon @ May 29, 2008 6:03 AM
It is untrue that Obama is the weaker GE candidate. It seems you've fallen for the Clinton Spin.
This just goes to show that this race has been over since Wisconsin. The media may not have noticed, but the Republicans did.
Great analysis. It certainly lends support to my belief that Clinton's general election poll numbers are artificially inflated due to the lack of attacks from Obama and Republicans that she would be certain to face if she were the nominee. Not to mention the fact that Obama's general election poll numbers already have built in the resentment factor of Clinton supporters saying they won't vote for him (fanned by Clinton), while the opposite is not nearly as strong (but would be if supers were to steal the nomination from Obama).
On one other issue, however, I must disagree with some of my fellow Obama supporters. While I agree that Republicans would much rather face Clinton in the fall than Obama, I do not think RNC press releases is good evidence for this proposition. Their press releases seem to track whoever has the front runner status. Otherwise, you would have to say the RNC feared Clinton more than Obama in late 2007, since more attacks were directed at her in that time frame.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
This can't be highlighted enough. Clinton would be hammered much more in the polls if Obama and the RNC weren't being so easy on her. Imagine the terrible ads that could be made against her that aren't being aired.
Yet she has been attacking him, and his supporters all along. I guess that what I take personally--all the attacks that we are naive and cultists to support him. It turns us off to no end.
Excellent analysis! Now if Hillary would just stop her whining...