The five mistakes that doomed the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton

quote:

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made By KAREN TUMULTYThu May 8, 11:40 AM ET For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me." It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others: 1. She misjudged the mood That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability - and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse: 2. She didn't master the rules Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately: 3. She underestimated the caucus states While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters - women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs - were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they - bewilderingly - seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become." By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it - in part because: 4. She relied on old money For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund-raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up. Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million - plus fortune they had acquired since he left the White House - first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake: 5. She never counted on a long haul Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable. Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner. View this article on Time.com Related articles on Time.com: Obama's Weekend to Win The Primary to End All Primaries? The Keys to the Dems' Delegate Race Can Obama Keep the Momentum? The Confusing Battle for Washington State http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/200805...WHQ4PQq..fBF4l4

she really thought it was going to be a cakewalk to the White House......

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX she really thought it was going to be a cakewalk to the White House......

caucusing is flawed. since the process is time consuming and has time restrictions, it draws mostly the truly devoted and discourages the mildly interested person. obama obviously had people more enthused because he does represent some degree of change. i wonder if obama would have won if polls were open the entire day in all of the caucus states. maybe Leb can shed some light on this issue. i don't know the statistics, but i do find it odd that hillary won the big states and i think she won a majority of the polling states.

The big states are the ones in which the Democratic machines - established by the likes of Terry McAuliffe, Hillary's chief campaign strategist - are best established. New York was a gimme and California is dominated by big donors, who were in Bill's pocket long before Obama decided to run.

Pennsylvania and Ohio are true to the same extent - look at the polls from last May - Hillary was ahead in those states by 30-40 points. Simple name recognition had a lot to do with her initial success in polls and fund-raising, particularly in the states with the most established (Bill) Clinton-era machines.

New York would vote democratic if Bugs Bunny were the candidate - I think it's far more compelling that Obama won places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Nebraska - states with newly established Democratic infrastructure that gives Obama a very realistic chance of winning in November. You could conceivably see an electoral map in November in which the Dems lose PA, OH, and FL but still win the election (I think Obama will pick up PA though). That makes McCain play defense in a lot more states than just Pennsylvania and Ohio - something that he simply cannot afford to do... which again leads to my hope that Hillary bows out soon. McCain doesn't have the money to hit Obama nationwide from here to November. Hillary is only helping him right now, and she's taking the blowback that would otherwise fall on his clean campaign pledge's shoulders.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov McCain doesn't have the money to hit Obama nationwide from here to November. Hillary is only helping him right now, and she's taking the blowback that would otherwise fall on his clean campaign pledge's shoulders.

that's a valid point. i never looked at it from that direction.

in reference to the rest of the post, don't you think that the caucus system lent itself very well for the obama crowd? do you think he would have performed just as favorably if each of those states had polling? i'm not sure about this, but weren't many of the caucus states red states? if that is true, i have to believe the numbers are not as supportive as you suggest. although i would agree that having someone who performed decently in those states is a plus factor. remember though, the large republican base in those states weren't voting against him in those caucuses.

i would add that obama might have to battle with McCain in NJ. I know you previously pointed out that NJ dems came to the polls in significantly greater numbers, but from past experience i have to think it's going to be close. NJ has alot of wall street bankers and fiscally conservative residents that vote republican because they believe republicans are more financially responsible. NJ, more than anywhere in the country, has a very socially liberal and fiscally conservative populous. This makes it difficult to determine how the election will turn out in the state. since mccain hasn't been portrayed as a super conservative candidate, he may grab NJ from obama, whom many view as a socialist.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on May-09-2008 at 02:38

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that's a valid point. i never looked at it from that direction. in reference to the rest of the post, don't you think that the caucus system lent itself very well for the obama crowd? do you think he would have performed just as favorably if each of those states had polling? i'm not sure about this, but weren't many of the caucus states red states? if that is true, i have to believe the numbers are not as supportive as you suggest. although i would agree that having someone who performed decently in those states is a plus factor. remember though, the large republican base in those states weren't voting against him in those caucuses.

A few were - but Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, and Maine are battleground states for sure. Again, turnout for the Democratic caucuses was in almost every case higher than turnout for the Republicans. Only two were open caucuses (meaning independents could caucus for the Dems or Repubs) - North Dakota and Minnesota I think were the only two.

Obama definitely was up in Minnesota prior to the Feb. 5 primary - I do think he outperformed polling expectations though.

quote:

i would add that obama might have to battle with McCain in NJ. I know you previously pointed out that NJ dems came to the polls in significantly greater numbers, but from past experience i have to think it's going to be close. NJ has alot of wall street bankers and fiscally conservative residents that vote republican because they believe republicans are more financially responsible. also, since McCain hasn't been shown to be as conservative as other republicans, moderate NJ residents won't necessarily be scared to vote for him.

I really don't see how McCain is winning this election on economic policy. The gas tax debate and things like these...

quote:

On Nov. 10, while traveling through New Hampshire on his Straight Talk Express bus, McCain was asked what he would seek in a vice presidential candidate if nominated. After mentioning the ability of a potential running mate to replace the president, McCain said, 'You also look for people who maybe have talents you don't, or experience or knowledge you don't, as well.' 'What are those qualities that you don't - that you wouldn't mind complementing?' asked David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times. McCain paused. 'Uh, maybe I shouldn't say this, but, somebody who's really well grounded in economics,' he said." "McCain Tested On Economy," The Boston Globe, www.boston.com, 1/26/08) In The Recent Boca Raton Debate, Sen. McCain Denied Saying He Didn't Know About Economics: McCain Denied His Own Comments When Tim Russert Quoted Him Saying He Did Not Know About Economics. RUSSERT: " And now the economy has taken hold. Ask any of the voters; it's the economy. Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not well versed on?" MCCAIN: "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics." (MSNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Boca Raton, FL, 1/24/08) But Sen. McCain Himself Has Repeatedly Said He Doesn't Understand Economic Issues: Sen. McCain: "The Issue Of Economics Is Not Something I've Understood As Well As I Should." "Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he 'may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night,' McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. 'I've got Greenspan's book.'" (Sasha Issenberg, "McCain: It's About The Economy," The Boston Globe, www.boston.com, Posted 12/18/07)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov A few were - but Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, and Maine are battleground states for sure. Again, turnout for the Democratic caucuses was in almost every case higher than turnout for the Republicans. Only two were open caucuses (meaning independents could caucus for the Dems or Repubs) - North Dakota and Minnesota I think were the only two. Obama definitely was up in Minnesota prior to the Feb. 5 primary - I do think he outperformed polling expectations though. I really don't see how McCain is winning this election on economic policy. The gas tax debate and things like these...

i agree that mccain is weak on economic issues, but most people have default positions: republicans on economy, etc... but that aside, being fiscally conservative is not the same as economics. i haven't been following what McCain says because i know i would never vote for him, but i do believe McCain has taken a strong stance against government spending. That position resonates strongly with people in NJ.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i agree that mccain is weak on economic issues, but most people have default positions: republicans on economy, etc... but that aside, being fiscally conservative is not the same as economics. i haven't been following what McCain says because i know i would never vote for him, but i do believe McCain has taken a strong stance against government spending. That position resonates strongly with people in NJ.

Making tax cuts permanent? Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who sees the disconnect between having existing deficits and wanting to further cut revenue before making any expenditure cuts. It's at least as counter-intuitive as the "socialist" position. But at least true socialists seek to increase revenue.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Making tax cuts permanent? Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who sees the disconnect between having existing deficits and wanting to further cut revenue before making any expenditure cuts. It's at least as counter-intuitive as the "socialist" position. But at least true socialists seek to increase revenue.

fiscally conservative does not mean making tax cuts permanent; it means cutting government spending. but you are not the only one. i am for increasing individual tax rates (mind you, i am not in the 10% percent bracket) at all levels and selectively taxing products which we need to discourage people from using: gasoline, certain plastics, and other petro chemicals. I, however, also want a reduction in spending, starting with the military.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ummm....your not the only one. i am for increasing individual tax rates at all levels and selectively taxing products which we need to discourage people from using: gasoline, certain plastics, and other petro chemicals. I, however, also want a reduction in spending, starting with the military.

Quoted for total agreement.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Quoted for total agreement.

note my edit above, fiscally conservative has nothing to do with tax cuts, it has everything to do with having a bottom line in black.

oddly enough, read the definition from wikipedia:

quote:

Fiscal conservatism is a political phrase term used in North America to describe advocacy of lower governmental spending practices and a lower federal debt; it may also include higher taxes in order to lower the debt. It does not necessarily denote advocacy of free market economics as a whole, and is a distinct concept from that of neo-liberalism.

i would say republicans have strayed very far away from a tenant of the republican party. it's ironic that democrats are calling for fiscal responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 note my edit above, fiscally conservative has nothing to do with tax cuts, it has everything to do with having a bottom line in black. i would say republicans have strayed very far away from a tenant of the republican party. it's ironic that democrats are calling for fiscal responsibility.

I tend to agree with this. This really is one of the things that angers me most with Bush on the Iraq war. Screw being misled about WMD and all that stuff, the place we really got misled was what the fucking war was going to cost. For the $500 billion+ we have paid to date Saddam could have kept whatever pathetic WMD he might have had. I can think of a hell of a lot of better ways we as a country could have spent that money.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I tend to agree with this. This really is one of the things that angers me most with Bush on the Iraq war. Screw being misled about WMD and all that stuff, the place we really got misled was what the fucking war was going to cost. For the $500 billion+ we have paid to date Saddam could have kept whatever pathetic WMD he might have had. I can think of a hell of a lot of better ways we as a country could have spent that money.

That could pay the college tuiton for about 10 million american students. i would like some student loan forgiveness myself.

i will vote for anyone that will trim the fat. it looks like obama is the better choice in this respect given McCain wants to 'stay the course'