Talk Elections

AND....what should she have done differently?

her biggest mistake (possibly a fatal mistake for her candidacy) was that she had absolutely no plan post-feb. 5.  her campaign was convinced that she would wrap it up on super tuesday, when she didnt they had no idea what to do.  and obama won 12 in a row.

she should have put up a bigger fight in some of those post feb 5th contests.  instead she just ran off to texas and ohio.

I completely agree.....she thought the nails would be in the Big O's political coffin after Super Tuesday.  I also don't thinks she's been very inspiring since those 12 losses....she seems deflated (although I can understand why).

She needed to work harder in all those caucus states.

I think both candidates thought it would have been over on Super Tuesday, at least initially.  I think Obama expected it to be over by March 4.  Since then, there have been problems.

I keep going back to the American Civil War analogy.  Both sides thought it would be a quick "glorious" war.  The real question is, who is Grant and who is Lee?  Were those twelve victories for Obama the Peninsula Campaign or the Wilderness Campaign?

All that said, PA, NC and IN are the key and Hilliary needs a +35 net in those.

Stayed home.   

People simply do not like this woman.   Her unlikeability is so high, in fact, that even a relatively weak candidate like Obama can overtake her.

Unless the war takes a sharp and unexpected turn, J. J., I think that's rather obvious.

She underestimated how much people dislike her, and her caucus organization was deplorable. She's hasn't come close to beating him in any of these states. Granted, I think caucuses should be done away with, but that doesn't matter in this race. However, she was at a disadvantage because many of her voters were elderly and may have been unable to go caucusing. Absentees were also not counted, and that hurt her as well.

I think Hillary should have skipped Iowa,

I think it was less that she underestimated Obama and more that she overestimated herself.

I think it is a combination of the the two but generally I'd agree.  I'd also say she didn't learn the "Shirley Chisholm Lesson" (Rep Chisholm said "Of my 2 'handicaps' being female put more obstacles in my path than being black.")

Yes, that's true.  It wasn't that Clinton arrogantly thought that Obama would be finished on Super Tuesday.  It was that Clinton (like most other people) thought it would basically be over one way or the other on Super Tuesday.  That it would be too difficult for the loser of Super Tuesday to ever stage a comeback, and that no plans would be able to save them.  It's not as if everyone knew in advance that the two candidates would finish within about 1 or 2% of each other on Super Tuesday, making it virtually a tie.

Still, even if it was unlikely for the race to go on this long, they should have had contingency plans just in case.  However, I can understand why planning campaigns in 22 Super Tuesday states might have offered too much of a distraction to worry about what comes afer.

She should have skipped Iowa, and competed harder in the caucus states.

Exactly.  She punted WAY too many small caucus states because she figured they wouldn't matter.

Had she cared more about the bare-knuckle delegate fight, and less about "momentum," she might have enough extra delegates to have a legit shot at a convention win.  (Unlike now, where she could still win, but it'd be a dirty win that would fracture the Democratic Party for years along racial lines.)

- Should have punted Iowa to Edwards.

- How about her oppo research not finding the Jeremiah Wright tape? It took some guy on YouTube to find it? Imagine if this had come out late 2007 or even the last week of January.

- Message, message, message. I know some people here will deny it, but there are things she could have done to be more likable among the online grassroots set, and by extension, some in the media/political elite. Instead of contrasting herself to Obama's message of hope and change, she could have agreed with it, but then come back with her own inspiring message about fighting for children and the sick for decades, about how her Methodist upbringing taught her to see society as a community where we should take care first of our young and sick and old and poor; those who need it the most. She could framed it as a personal struggle too, contrasted her responsible, brainy style with the cowboy adventurism of George Bush, and been more articulate about her problems with Bill and raising Chelsea in order to express how family shaped her beliefs. In short, run a more inspiring campaign and harness her personal life more; not just assuming that people 'knew her already'. That would have allowed her to run as a woman and be more believable (one of the reasons that stories like the Bosnia exaggeration have particular potency, is that it seems like she's trying too hard to be manly) and also give her an inspiring cause to run for President that was more believable.

Of course, the advantages of the message she did employ are clear: it allows her to create a strong contrast with your opponent, and that's often the most important thing you want to do in any debate. So I'm in no way saying Mark Penn's message was completely wrong. But as a Clinton supporter, it would have felt a lot better if she had run the other message, and instinctively, I feel she would have done better.

Biggest mistakes
- The big-state strategy - a caucus or two in the west would have made a lot of difference

- Allowing race in any way shape or form dictate the post-NH environment. While I technically agreed with what Clinton said about Johnson and Civil Rights there was NO WAY it was going to be reported any other way than it was. Then Bill and his bloody Jackson comment. It cemented the black vote behind Obama.

Not hire high-priced idiots to run her campaign.

It's not a strategy, it's an excuse.

As to what she should have done differently...

I'll agree that she should not have contested Iowa.  That was always the only state in contention throughout 2007.  Yes, it could have given Edwards a chance, but she'd have defeated Edwards (& would easily have won a 3-way race, I think) later on.

Obama was running ads in VA & MD before February 5th.  He knew what he was doing.  Yes, he had more money, but it doesn't excuse her failure there.

Her delegate deficit is almost entirely due to caucus failures.  If she had performed respectably there, that's 100 delegates she could have made up.  If she had tried in February, they'd probably be tied right now.

It is easy to look back and see lots of mistakes in any campaign, but these seem to be some of them for Hillary Clinton:

1.  She failed to put together a winning caucus strategy
2.  Her message was wrong. She went negative i.e. "Anti-Bush" where as the "Hope/Change" message of Obama was superior.  She should have recognized that the country wanted change and hope more than just criticism of the past.  This worked against her on several levels such as:
a)  Made her look like she was "looking back" instead of forward
b)  Reinforced negative impressions of her as a critic and unlikeable
3)  She completely blew with her use of Bill. 
4)  Her exaggeration on the "sniper fire" issue is regretable
5)  Allowing the "inevitable nominee" story to grow rather than managing expectations was a mistake.

Two reasons I thought my preferred candidates -- Dodd or Biden -- actually had a chance.  Hillary's utter unlikeability and Obama's lack of experience.

My guess is, Democrats feel like they went with intellect and experience in 2000 and 2004 and it got them nowhere. <sigh>  I still prefer intellect and experience.

1-Actually tried to compete in the caucus states instead of just ignoring all of them and then afterwards arguing that they don't matter anyway (a very insulting talking point that backfired on her totally. Probably one of the reasons for her brutal February losing streak.)
2-No playing of the race card. It didn't help her jack in South Carolina, or in any Super Tuesday state. Might've cost her Missouri and Connecticut actually.
3-Actually set up a post-Super Tuesday plan. If people like me can accurately predict the race going on past Super Tuesday how could her supposed top notch campaign team not do so?
4-Realize that Obama was always going to get more support from not being Hillary than she was from not being Obama. Her post-Super Tuesday strategy didn't seem to realize that either.

This question took me a second to process.

"Wait, she won the Ohio primary?"

"OH, Obama!"

I don't think it was meant to be insulting. I think the argument was that caucuses aren't necessarily accurate predictors of electability in the general election, also that caucuses aren't necessarily accurate predictors of the popular will either. Penn statement about "significant states" might have been insulting, but it was also part of a strategy. He wouldn't have said that if the situations were reversed.


1) I doubt they were looking forward to a long and divisive primary. Who can blame them? It's not good for the party. It would have been better for everything to have been resolved on Super Tuesday-- one way or the other.

2) The post-super Tuesday states were not favorable. She might have had a chance in Maine, but even with stronger organizing, Nebraska and Washington were likely out of reach. Still, it's true that she could have cut down the margins.

Hillary Clinton was in a campaign to get the most delegates. Whether or not the caucuses are an accurate indicator of the popular will is irrelevent. That talking point was just an excuse made after the fact. It was stupid to completely ignore them.

Sure, I was just responding to the "argument afterward" about caucuses. They should have organized the caucuses more effectively preemptively to be sure. How does one organize a caucus anyway? They made quite an effort in Iowa but all the money must have done down the hole there because they apparently didn't have enough to do what Obama did in the others. It's hard to tell without a detailed spending analysis-- but I suspect that Obama ran with the kind of message that was slightly more appealing to those activist types anyways.

Her wording of it was in the worst possible way however. The basis premise is valid, a win in California is more important than a win in Kansas, yes. But you don't need to argue this by saying "I won all the states that count and Obama won all the states that don't count." Some of the periphery talking points were also ridiculous, like that she's the only candidate who can win California and New York in the general. No caucuses aren't accurate predictors of electability in the general election, but neither are primaries, was Phil Angelides the best candidate for California Governor? Was Randy Graf the best candidate for AZ-08?

She also took it way too far. It wasn't just caucuses. That state doesn't count because it's too black. That state doesn't count because there's too many latte liberals. That state doesn't count because it's a red state (Oh and then she went and staked her entire campaign on Texas and Ohio.) It basically boiled down to "The only states that count are the ones that vote for me" and it became a joke. People began to talk about how they were proud residents of a state that didn't count. Remember Joe's old sig?


This is politics. You can't assume that things will go the best way or that you'll get what you want. Maybe resolving things after Super Tuesday would be better. But that doesn't mean you can assume it'll happen and put on blinders to the scenario if it doesn't happen.

Besides as I said, even I saw that coming. Hillary actually achieved her Super Tuesday goals, which was to win all the big states (except Illinois) and then figure that'll propel her to the nomination. And she did, but it didn't work. And it's not surprising either, did she really think she could say "OK, Obama has slightly more delegates and won more states and still has broad support but I won California so let's just anoint me and then pack up and go home."?


Yes. But you can't play Rudy Giuliani in politics and just ignore everywhere that doesn't favor you. If she had kept down the margins a bit, she might've been able to come back in terms of delegates in a scenario that's actually realistic and not J. J.'s masturbatory fantasy. The problem wasn't just that she lost, it was that it was all blowouts. Much like how Giuliani would've been on better terms if he had actually won a non-negligible portion of the vote in the pre-Florida states even if he didn't win any. At least look like you have strong support. And she didn't wash all of that away on March 4th either, especially considering she barely made a dent in Obama's delegate lead and led by much bigger margins before the brutal streak in those states. Had she made post-Super Tuesday plans, she could've lost by moderate numbers, then bounced back with landslides on March 4 and at least have been competitive in delegate numbers now instead of being told to drop out because it and all potential future wins are too little, too late.

Divorce Bill back in 1999, and marry Barack Obama.

True, and that was basically Obama's coalition: caucus states + large black populations + latte liberals. If you want to break it down that way. Of course, it's possible to lose a Dem primary campaign with that coalition. There are a bunch of other intangibles to consider. But in terms of mentality from team Clinton it set the bar too low for them to not compete in any of his coalition and that was a mistake.


She was probably hoping for a solid 5-10 point (instead of 0.5) or more lead in the popular vote and a 100+ delegate vote lead. However, the last week before Super Tuesday was utterly brutal for Clinton and no one could have anticipated-- Obama delivered his best speech in a campaign of good speeches after South Carolina and basically every news outlet was overwhelmingly positive for Obama; they completely shut out the results in Florida and they made him peak at just the right moment.


That's depends on the circumstances. She took a huge gamble on Iowa even though the conventional wisdom was that the politics didn't favor her, and it was a massively blown investment.

And at the very least they could've at least spun losses among that coalition by not rudely dismissing the people in them. All it's done is backfire by increasing turnout. Do you think youth support for Obama would be so massive if it wasn't for the subtle ageism of Hillary's campaign and the blatant ageism of some of her supporters? (Not obvious on this forum, but very obvious on others.)


And yet, Obama still lost California. What if he didn't? Sure in hindsight, we know that would've ended Hillary's campaign long ago, but it was a realistic possibility, and you'd think Hillary would've at least prepared for that. Turns out she couldn't even prepare for a substanial win in California that wasn't backed up by wins elsewhere.

As I said, Super Tuesday wasn't even a defeat for Hillary. It was a draw. She didn't even prepare for a draw.


Iowa is one state. And not a very big one either. Not 5 states as in Giuliani's case, or 11 states as in Hillary's, containing a few fairly delegate rich states in each case.

One of the big mistakes of the Clinton campaign was her annoying surrogates referring to states she didn't win as small states, or states with large black populations, or caucus states.

They are states, period, every bit as American as anywhere else in the country.