Why the Clinton campaign goes on
Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM PDT
Recently, in the New York Times, David Brooks echoed Christopher Beam's blog on Slate discussing Senator Clinton’s ever diminishing chances of winning the Democratic Presidential nomination. Mr. Brooks put her odds at 5%, Christopher was not so charitable. Her campaign is currently being described as "Soldiering on", "continuing in grim determination" and proceeding with "the audacity of Hopelessness". The Clinton campaign shows no sign of folding up the tent before the May 6th primaries, and has recently announced Montana campaign stops. That would bring her current plans to include the last week of the primary season. These events are being scheduled despite the fact that she trails Senator Obama in all significant indicators and measurements; total delegates, pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, Super-delegates gained since "Super Tuesday", cash on hand, contributions raised in the last month, etc.
Disclaimer - Obama supporter. ...and before you call me a Troll or a Repug, work on intelligent discourse and the points I raise.
Many talking heads, commentators and contributors to blogs have commented on her apparent doggedness, and have been amazed as her campaign has risen from the dead and pressed on. Senator Clinton and her campaign staff are widely attacked for this. I personally see many whose comments to blogs and political commentary in the main stream media deride Senator Clinton for her selfishness, blind ambition, unwillingness to "see reality" and quit the race and willingness to harm the Democratic Party in a desperate bid for the unobtainable. Many have expressed the view that she sees herself as "owed" the Presidency and therefore will not end her run for the White House and cede it to the upstart. This view of her campaign has some dubious apriories, and looks at her current strategy and tactics in the shallow, simple way one would look at a run for Student President, not the President of the United States of America.
Regardless of one’s opinion of President and Senator Clinton, Peck, Wolfson and Maggie Williams, thinking of them as politically naive and unable to see reality as it is, is both insulting to them and their achievements, and risks being baffled and caught unaware by their next political move. These are very smart, politically sophisticated professionals who do not engage in doomed campaigns for spite. In the spreadsheet leaked to the Bloomberg News Service, the Obama campaign developed and laid out their predicted results for the remaining primaries after Super Tuesday. Their analysis proved to be remarkably accurate. To assume that the Clinton campaign never performed the same level of analysis stretches to the level of unbelievable. You may not like what they have done, and they did make some glaring mistakes, but they are professionals who have done this election thing before, and are basically in the same league as their counterparts in the Obama campaign. After Iowa, New Hampshire and Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign had the same basic grasp of the lay of the land as did Obama's. Their future just did not look so bright.
It appears that the Clinton campaign strategy involved marketing her as the Inevitable Nominee, and planned to reinforce this by delivering a knockout punch to their opponents on February 5th. They had a strategy based on pre-primary polling and on their assessment of the potential of the other candidates in the field. Dennis Kucinich , Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden were seen as too light weight to be worried about. Governor Bill Richardson and Senator Obama were not considered much more worrisome. They were figured to have limited appeal and were seen as likely to have fundraising challenges. Senator Edwards was seen as the major player, and the only serious threat to the nomination. The campaign based their candidate’s face time, their fundraising plan and their spending on these assumptions and the resulting strategy. Unfortunately for the Clintons, they made a serious underestimation of the Senator from Illinois’s appeal, particularly to independents and change driven Democrats, and his ability to tap into the vast well of small dollar donors. Clinton had a 5 point lead in Iowa (almost 20% ahead,) five weeks before the caucus. In little more that three weeks, this comfortable position, from which she would go on to win New Hampshire and then clean out the remaining opposition, evaporated in the Iowa winter. Through a superior ground game and a better understanding of the way of caucuses, Obama won Iowa and left the Clinton campaign stunned and in deep trouble. When the media proclaimed NH as a "must win" state for her campaign, they were not making news to boost their ratings. She really needed to win or it would be all done. Hillary’s desperation in New Hampshire was palpable. If she lost here, the entire foundation of her strategy was gone. Whether her tears two days before the NH primary were a calculated ploy or were stress induced makes little difference. Either way they show how desperate Senator Clinton was. A loss in Iowa, followed by defeat in the Granite state would spell trouble in the Palmetto State. With out momentum, going into Super Tuesday, and coming out with slim pickings would end her run.
The miscalculation of Obama’s appeal, tactical mistakes made by President Clinton and other surrogates that alienated her former African American constituency combined with the Obama campaign’s ability to organize and win caucuses resulted in a lackluster performance on February 5th. Coming out of Super Tuesday, there were really only two major players, Barack and Hillary. Both campaigns looked at similar numbers going forward and came to a similar conclusion:
If nothing major changed, Senator Barack Obama was, in all likelihood, the next Democratic Presidential nominee and probably would be the next President.
The Clinton campaign had to asses their strategy and marketing plans and find a way to deal with the new conditions on the ground. This is where we saw the roll out of new Hillarys: Ready on Day One, The Most Qualified, The Candidate of Change that can be Implemented, The Softer and Nicer Hillary, The Emotional Soft and Fuzzy Hillary, The Workingman’s Hillary, The Hillary with International Experience, the Angry and Ready for a Fight Hillary, the Negative and Attacking Hillary. As each of these failed to take hold, the next was marched out. We also saw a more subtle change. In Iowa, Senator Clinton gave her concession speech, such as it was, surrounded be Madeline Albright and others from the Clinton administration. After the New Hampshire primary, there were all young, mixed race faces on stage. By the time we got to the February 19th primaries (DC, Maryland and Virginia), both campaigns knew that this was not for Hillary to win; it was now a campaign for Barack to lose. If he did not implode in a very major way, say found in bed with a dead male Goat, there was nothing she could do to win the nomination. They had the numbers, the predicted results of the remaining primaries, could see the lay of the land. Barak had enough of a lead in popular vote and delegate that the Super Delegates would not over turn the will of the people.
Given this state of affairs, where does she go from here? She is a 60 year old junior Senator from a decidedly blue, liberal north eastern state. This is not normally considered an enviable position for a potential Presidential candidate to be in. This was a special year; the GOP had stuck with a war, tax policy and president that all had uniquely low popularity. Even being from New York, she could win this year. A moderately competent president has a good shot at a second term. A two term president has a good chance in helping their VP win the top spot. This could be 8 years of her presidency and another 8 of her hand picked successor. Unfortunately for her, if Obama wins the Presidency, she will get her next realistic shot in 2016, but more likely in 2020 or 2024. She will be 74 in 2020.
Her best and only realistic plan for winning the White House is to accept the inevitable; Barak will win the nomination, and help him lose the election. If this sounds like too Machiavellian, look her situation, at her tactics and their predictable effects. She is in a literal "no win" situation; short of his self-immolation, she does not seem to be able to hurt him enough, and she has tried, to overcome his lead. When she lost Maine and Virginia and then Wisconsin, it was clear that there was no way for her to overcome his delegate lead or popular lead in 2008. 2012 became the target and the object of her current political activities.
