Clinton campaign: we wish we had attacked Sanders sooner

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All hyperbole aside, it really is astounding that despite cleaning house almost entirely between 2008 and present, Clintonworld has managed to yet again put together an underwhelming team and strategy. Perhaps even more so, it's astounding that the campaign seems to be making some of the very same mistakes (not necessarily related to this piece) that they made 8 years ago.

[Lief 🗽]

Uh, let's see how the primaries play out before we call what Clinton has done a mistake. Clinton has this ridiculous, sexist double standard where literally anything she does is immediately attacked as a horrible campaign strategy, or a sign of desperation, or whatever. Iowa is basically a tie at the moment. If she wins there, then this thing is still over, with Bernie winning no more than 2-3 states.

[Ebsy]

I think a big issue with Clinton's camp is way too much self doubt and buying into media hysteria about every little facet of the campaign. She'll either be blasted by the media for changing course, or for sticking to a working strategy, so her campaign might as well just do what it thinks is best and hope that voters agree.

[Adam Griffin]

Uh, let's see how the primaries play out before we call what Clinton has done a mistake.

Iowa is basically a tie at the moment.

That alone is enough to render the judgement call of "underwhelming team and strategy" accurate. She can win Iowa and at this point, it would still be true. Same for the primary. Same for winning every single state. The guy threatening to topple her was an absolute pariah with O'Malley levels of support just a few months ago. He's much weaker than Obama. It's a joke.

[Ebsy]

That alone is enough to render the judgement call of "underwhelming team and strategy" accurate. She can win Iowa and at this point, it would still be true. Same for the primary. Same for winning every single state. The guy threatening to topple her was an absolute pariah with O'Malley levels of support just a few months ago. He's much weaker than Obama. It's a joke.

I think it is mostly those without the Clinton campaign that were expecting this to be a cakewalk. I always thought Sanders would be able to get around 40% early on, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire. In reality, Clinton has 20% more support at this stage in the campaign than she did in 2008, and particularly strong numbers among minority voters.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Lol. If Hillary had started attacking Bernie when he was in the distant 20s or even 30s the outcry would have been huge. "She's the prohibitive favourite, hitting nice old man Bernie Sanders when he's already down and doesn't stand a chance." She would have basically been elevating him to the status of serious opponent, which honestly could have hastened his rise, accentuated Hillary's own negatives, and created an even more bitter segment of the party that would be unwilling to eventually vote for her in the general.

The fact is, Hillary is always in the position where, at least according to a large number of people, nothing she does will ever be right. Her strategy has been fine, all things considered. She has limitations as a candidate that prevent her from catching fire like Bernie has. Now it's time to use the strengths she does have to put out the fire. I'm confident she'll be able to start doing that tonight.

But I think it's so silly to call out her strategy without knowing what the results will be. Any other strategy could have been just as bad (or worse), because there are people out there like Griffin and jfern who are unwilling to give Hillary credit for anything.

[IceSpear]

Uh, let's see how the primaries play out before we call what Clinton has done a mistake. Clinton has this ridiculous, sexist double standard where literally anything she does is immediately attacked as a horrible campaign strategy, or a sign of desperation, or whatever. Iowa is basically a tie at the moment. If she wins there, then this thing is still over, with Bernie winning no more than 2-3 states.

Nailed it. Regardless of Hillary's actions or lack thereof, the media already has their "WHY HILLARY SUXXXXXX" narrative ready to go. If she started attacking Sanders earlier, they'd talk about how it was such a huge miscalculation to run a nasty, negative campaign like the shrill unlikable bitch she is and that she should've stayed above the fray and glided to victory.

[Adam Griffin]

Looks like some salty hacks in here can't tell the difference between criticism being levied at the Clinton campaign and criticism being levied at Clinton herself!

I, for one, would like to see what that specific perspective looks like when reading stuff like this. I imagine something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The organizational infrastructure isn't run by Clinton. The combined campaign staff doesn't have a gender. The criticism and analysis of under-performance would be levied at any campaign that enjoyed such a commanding dominance of the field just a few months ago, only to watch it crumble - especially if a less dominant but nevertheless comparable scenario for the same person existed in the last Democratic primary. The reason it hasn't been levied before isn't because Clinton is a woman or is being unfairly picked on: it's because there has never been such an egregious example in a open Democratic primary - ever - in which a dominant campaign has managed to piss away such a mandate.