對Clinton陣營來講,Wisconsin不是一個可以少輸就是贏的地方，
這篇文章講的不錯，如果號稱務實，擅長解決民生問題的Clinton沒辦
法凝聚這裡大量的教育程度跟收入都不高的藍領勞工，獲得勝選
，那麼她要在哪裡才能做得到呢?
不過Clinton陣營在戰術上的決定基本上算是很準確的，目前正是
Obama贏得八連勝，士氣正旺的時候，原本在2/6號在該州領先9%
的民調現在也轉為落後，正面硬碰硬實在有點不太方便。
如果聲稱他們不打算把Wisconsin當做決戰點，輸了也不會讓選民跟
媒體覺得他們是落水狗，還可以討個"少輸就是贏"的口頭便宜，意外
贏的話雖然2/9號後的戰績是1勝9敗，還是可以大肆宣揚他們成功的
重挫Obama的士氣。
也有媒體提到，雖然他們表面上聲稱把重心放在Texas跟Ohio，不過
事實上還是有低調的在Wisconsin做布署，如果能讓Obama陣營因此
輕敵，栽了跟頭，那就更好了。
初選是一連串的馬拉松賽，並不是一擊決勝負，如何去解釋在
各個中繼站的領先或落後也是很重要的策略應用。雖然有放掉cacus
states的重大戰略失誤，不過至少在對勝敗做spin上，Clinton
陣營一向做得很成功。說起來就算輸了也可以用媒體操作
搞得看起來像是沒那回事，這也是Clinton女士堅忍不拔，
毅力驚人的高超人格特質的展現吧。
Wisconsin Should Be a Showdown
http://www.slate.com/id/2184491/
The case for expecting Clinton to thrive in the green-eyeshade state.
By Jeff Greenfield
Posted Friday, Feb. 15, 2008, at 11:13 AM ET
On the night she fell victim to Potomac primary fever, Hillary Clinton was in
El Paso, Texas. Her campaign promised that the Lone Star State, along with
Ohio, would make March 4 the day Obamamentum was stopped in its tracks.
No mention of Wisconsin, where Barack Obama was that night and where the last
primary before the March 4 showdown will be held on Tuesday.* Why not?
Judging by the state's demographics and by its political history, Wisconsin
ought to be prime territory for a strong Clinton showing. Indeed, its
potential for Hillary is so promising that it's worth pondering whether the
"on to Texas and Ohio!" battle cry of her campaign might be one huge head
fake, designed to turn a strong Clinton showing—much less a victory—into
one of those "Oh my God, what a shocker!" reactions that changes the whole
tenor of the political conversation. Clinton is spending three days in
Wisconsin before the vote, but her campaign says that's to ensure she gets as
many delegates as possible, avoiding the kind of blowout that has cost her in
the delegate count since Super Tuesday.
Obama is supposed to win Wisconsin because it's the home of modern
progressivism, not to mention a perennially juiced-up student population and
ground zero for the kind of "challenge to the system" campaign that Obama
exemplifies. Well, yes and no. It's true that Madison—the home of the
University of Wisconsin, where I more or less studied some time ago—is a
town that appears at times to search the world for sister-city compacts it
can form with leftist nations. And Wisconsin is the state that, a century
ago, Gov. and then Sen. Robert La Follette turned into a laboratory for ideas
like workers' compensation and the income tax that helped inspire the New
Deal.
But that's only one side of the state. At the end of the 20th century,
Wisconsin's principal political ideas were tax cuts, school choice, and
welfare reform, championed by long-serving Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson.
The state has been far more purple than blue in recent presidential
elections: Gore beat Bush by only 5,000 votes in 2000; four years later, John
Kerry edged out Bush by 1 percent of the vote.
Even within the Democratic Party, there's more complexity than unvarnished
liberalism. Sen. Herbert Kohl votes a moderate-to-liberal line, according to
the Almanac of American Politics; he supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001.
Russ Feingold is rightly regarded as an ardent liberal on matters such as
civil liberties and foreign policy, but he's also a deficit hawk and has
angered liberals with votes to confirm John Ashcroft as attorney general and
John Roberts as chief justice. (And remember Sen. William Proxmire, who
during his long service from the late 1950s to the late 1980s invented the
"Golden Fleece" awards for wasteful federal spending projects—the sort of
award more likely to warm the hearts of the Chamber of Commerce than the
AFL-CIO.) That kind of green-eyeshade liberalism seems well-suited to a
figure like Clinton, who stresses her credentials as a detail-oriented,
policy-wonk problem solver.
In Wisconsin, according to exit polls from the 2004 presidential primary, 57
percent of the voters called themselves moderates or conservatives.
Seventy-five percent had incomes of $75,000 a year or less; 50 percent earned
less than $50,000 a year. A third of the voters were Catholic. More than half
had no college education and more than one in five were union members. This
is the kind of electorate Clinton is counting on in Ohio and, in April, in
Pennsylvania, because it's the electorate that favored her up until Obama's
big victories in Maryland and Virginia.
True, there are countervailing factors. Wisconsin is a wide-open primary, and
with John McCain now the presumptive nominee, independent and Republican
crossovers may weigh in on the Democratic side of the ticket. (They made up
nearly 30 percent of the 2004 primary vote.) Obama has the support of Gov.
Jim Doyle and—perhaps more significant—the support of longtime Rep. David
Obey, originally a John Edwards backer. Obey has been one of the strongest
voices against the free-trade policies that so anger the unions.
But if the hopes of Sen. Clinton rest on the votes of white working-class
voters, Wisconsin ought to be fertile ground for a campaign reset.
Conversely, if Obama can produce another February blowout—in a primary state
with a tiny African-American population—that will tell us something as well.
After all, if Clinton cannot rally the beer-drinking Democrats in the state
that gave us Pabst, Schlitz, and Miller, where can she?
Correction, Feb. 15, 2008: The original sentence wrongly said the Wisconsin
primary would take place next Wednesday. (Return to the corrected sentence.)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 122.127.70.106
※ 編輯: swallow73 來自: 122.127.70.106 (02/16 20:13)