Why Clinton didn't win: Chuck Todd
Submitted by Stan4Clark on June 9, 2008 - 3:30am.
2008 Election | Chuck Todd | clinton | Hillary | Hillary Clinton | Meet the Press | Democratic politics
You know, the biggest myth of this campaign was that somehow the Clintons controlled the apparatus. They didn't. And, and, you know, I look back and I think that the, the two moments before the campaign even started were clues as to how difficult this was going to be for them. One was the election of Howard Dean as DNC chair, and the other was Democrats winning control of Congress in 2006 and the ascension of Nancy Pelosi as one of the leaders. Here they had two of the sort of three cogs of the Democratic leadership, in Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, who were waiting for there to be a crack in this inevitability armor of, of the Clintons. And once there was, it's as if they were just waiting. And it wouldn't have mattered if it was Barack Obama, Mark Warner, had he run, or John Edwards. Whoever ended up filling the vacuum of the anti-Clinton, they were going to rush to them. And I think that that's something the Clinton campaign never appreciated. I think they thought that it was sheer will they would get those superdelegates with them. They would get whatever rulings they needed, whatever primary calendar they wanted. But every step of the way, nothing went their way on process in the inside, and I think that shocks a lot of us today that they lost the inside game. It's one thing to lose the outside game, votes and all that stuff, but they lost the inside game.
At the risk of scooping Mitch, I think that Chuck Todd really nailed it.
Also, I firmly believe that Hillary always had a natural ceiling of support. She was too known (people thought) and had pre-established opinions of her. Many of those pre-conceptions were wrong, but that didn't matter. She could not penetrate that wall enough to increase that ceiling substantially (to mix my metaphors). It took something like a Clark endorsement for empassioned Clark supporters to take a second look, and many did take her into their hearts. But everyone else had always been looking for the non-Hillary.
Even when she was way ahead in the polls, she didn't reach 50% in the national polls. Once the anti-Hillary camp coalesced around a candidate, her road got very steep. That applies to the SuperDelegates as well. Her natural constituency among the Supers went for her early, but so did the anti-Clinton camp, such as Kennedy and Kerry.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
this article by Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics.
~ snip ~
Thus, Obama has won the Democratic nomination not because his voting coalition is larger than Clinton's. As best we can tell, they are of equal size. Instead, Obama has won because his coalition is more efficient at producing delegates than Clinton's coalition. Obama's relatively narrow vote lead has produced a relatively wide pledged delegate lead, which has in turn produced an even wider lead in superdelegates. The following chart indicates this point by measuring the number of votes per pledged delegate. The idea here is that, the lower the number of votes per pledged delegate, the more delegates a single vote produces for the candidate, and therefore the more efficient a candidate's coalition is.
~ snip ~
The Clinton people need to recognize that it is not coincidence that Obama's vote was more efficient. I have discussed this before. Part of this had to do with the fact that the delegate allocation system contains biases that happened to favor Obama. However, part of it had to do with the fact that the Obama campaign had a better understanding of the system. It found the possibilities and made the most of them. What's more, the Clinton campaign let it do this. Simply put, Obama out-maneuvered Clinton. Clinton supporters need to respect this.
Meanwhile, Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate is the victor not because he put together a majority coalition, but because he out-maneuvered Clinton. This was a highly intelligent strategy, but it was not a grand feat of majority building. Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate won not because "the people had their say," but because his campaign out-smarted her campaign. Accordingly, they need to respect the candidate whom they could not beat in a straight-up fight for votes.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Very interesting piece.
It reminds me of the point guard position in basketball.
I don't know much about basketball, but I've been amazed at the special kind of strategic thinking it takes to be a great point guard.
John Stockton and Dennis Rodman were incredibly gifted at knowing where the ball would be and being there to take advantage of their position.
I think that this article is correct and that Barack Obama was a political point guard, capitalizing on his campaigns analysis of what it took to win the most delegates.
I hope that brilliance is effective at crafting policy and pushing it through the Congress to achieve health care, renewable energy, green jobs and so on. I like what I'm hearing from him on those things.
I feel that Wes is brilliant at thinking strategically as well and would help achieve some good results.
Senator Clinton's decision to vote for the IWR alienated a core group of Democratic constituents and I admit that for me that was hard to overlook with Senators Biden, Dodd, and Edwards as well. As with everyone here, General Clark was my first choice. I then gradually listened to Senator Obama and throughout the primary he spoke to what I was looking for.
It's taken me some time to understand the dynamics of the race and I probably never will but I felt that Wes expected, like most of us, that given the political climate, and political reality that Senator Clinton was the most likely Democrat to win the election and Wes has spoken passionately about why it's critical for Democrats to win the White House.
What makes sense to me was that Wes may have felt that those few differences that he may have had with Senator Clinton on policy, such as her Middle East policy positions could be tempered by his experience and judgment as he surely would have been a key advisor.
Regardless of what anyone may now say, looking back on things, it required the enormous groundswell from previously disenfranchised voters to help Barack Obama succeed. No one could have predicted how very distressed American voters had become at the horrors of the Bush years.
I think that the cautious, traditional, Democratic politicians like Senator Clinton, Dodd, Biden and Edwards, may have been caught off guard by how attuned the country had become to what was going on politically. The electorate was seen perhaps as too busy with their families, earning a living, dealing with problems or else paying attention to Paris Hilton's latest adventures. Any of the Democratic candidates running knew what needed to be done but they came from years of having to tread carefully or else right wing radio would threaten to crush them. So it was politically risky to do and say some of what Barack Obama was talking about. Although they were in large part exactly what Wes has been talking about as well.
That's also why I think that Wes would be very sympatico with Barack Obama and be a great choice for VP.
and to many Clinton supporters, that the #1 goal was kill the Clintons and erase from history any good the Clinton presidency did. Obama accomplished the latter with his repeated lumping together of the poppa Bush, Clinton and Jr Bush years as equally disastrous, and the Dem leadership accomplished the former by remaining silent when the Clintons were declared racists, and by propping up Obama in whatever way they could throughout the process.
Still, there was an article by Anglachel yesterday that very clearly explained why we don't really have an option outside the 2 major parties to have any influence. Even in parlimentary systems, there are always 2 parties that hold the power, being right of center and left of center, with all the other parties being somewhat fringe elements, that never have enough power to advance the issues and changes they represent.
No matter what we think of the Dem leadership, no matter how many times they fail to effectively beat back Repub rule and power, we're pretty much stuck with them as the best of the 2 choices.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
in my opinion.
The anti-Hillary candidate without Obama in my opinion probably would probably have been John Edwards because he started out as a top-tier candidate and he was always in third place behind Hillary and Obama in the race while always being ahead of all the second-tier candidates.
The serious anti-Hillary candidate in my opinion would have received the full backing of most of the media which Obama got because they hate Hillary as this video and these posts will verify:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5bab7_clinton_news (01:50)
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15543
Hillary's ad against the media; McAuliffe says media ‘in the tank’ for Obama!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 19, 2008 - 3:28am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15496
Howard Kurtz: "media have all but anointed Barack Obama the Democratic nominee"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 13, 2008 - 7:22am.
However that alone may not have been enough to cause Hillary to lose the race. Hillary also lost because of the race issue and because of Obama's highly charismatic oratory skills which someone like John Edwards or Mark Warner probably could not have done like how Obama did!
Here is how Obama benefited from the race issue:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/07/sharpton-on-video-we-could-walk-if-obama-doesnt-get-the-nomination/
Sharpton on video: We could walk if Obama doesn’t get the nomination
Posted at 5:20 pm on March 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15488
The Superdelegate Dilemma: Obama's lack of electability vs. splitting the party?
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 12, 2008 - 6:10am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15230
VIDEO: African-American Hillary supporters coming under pressure to back Obama!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 9, 2008 - 11:57am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15039
ANALYSIS: Geraldine Ferraro; The reasons why Obama is where he is at right now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 17, 2008 - 4:05am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15162
John Harris and The Politico implied Hillary will lose due to the race issue!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 1, 2008 - 4:35am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14894
CNN documented superdelegates are facing racial pressure & threats to back Obama
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 1, 2008 - 11:58pm.
I very seriously doubt that Mark Warner or John Edwards would have received over 90% of the African-American vote if they were the anti-Clinton candidate instead of Obama!
These links in my opinion positively confirm that with the help of his highly charismatic oratory skills, many of Obama's "enraptured" supporters were and still are emotionally following him more as a movement and as a "phenomenon" as opposed to his actual position on the issues:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14826
TRANSCRIPT: Obama is called "a guy that America is infatuated with & phenomenon"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 25, 2008 - 4:13am.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22558140/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Jan. 7
Read the transcript to the Monday show
Guests: Steve McMahon
STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: "Barack Obama is not just a candidate anymore, he‘s a movement. He‘s an idea. He‘s an aspiration. When she goes in and she tries to kill a dream that people have, it‘s more dangerous, frankly, for her than it is for him..."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/20/cnr.03.html
CNN NEWSROOM
Checking with Pennsylvania Voters About the Primary
Aired April 20, 2008 - 23:00 ET
RICK SANCHEZ, HOST: "Why are they going so behind Barack Obama? What is it?
REP. PATRICK MURPHY (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Because, you know, he represents, you know, a new chapter in politics and transcends political parties, really. It's really a movement and it's just incredible to be, you know, part of it because people are so inspired..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14352
Many "enraptured" Obama supporters do NOT know his "position on the issues..."
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 8, 2008 - 6:37am.
I very seriously doubt that Mark Warner, John Edwards, or any other serious anti-Hillary candidate could have done all of this if they did not have Obama's charisma and his level of oratory skills when giving speeches!
The bottom line is that whoever the anti-Hillary candidate was would have benefited from getting Obama's media support that he got and would probably have also benefited from Howard Dean and from the Democratic leadership in Congress who went for Obama and who forced Hillary out of the race against her will:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15707
ANALYSIS: Why I am taking Hillary's "endorsement" of Obama with a grain of salt!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 6, 2008 - 5:04am.
But would that have been enough to cause Hillary to lose if the race issue was not in play and if "a movement" were not started by Warner or Edwards like how it was by Obama?
That is unclear being how close that this race was and the fact that Hillary still won the popular vote against Obama!
Geralding Ferraro was partially right about Obama that he is where he was because of the race issue but she failed to mention his highly charismatic oratory skills and the media being in the tank for Obama.
Chuck Todd mentioned many in the Democratic leadership being for Obama which is partially right but he would never admit to the race issue being in play and that the media (especially MSNBC which he is the political director for) was in the tank for Obama.
So in conclusion Hillary's loss was not due to any one issue. It was mainly due to the three issues of race, Obama's highly charismatic oratory skills, and especially the media being in the tank for Obama. Any other serious anti-Hillary candidate than Obama in my opinion probably would not have benefited from the race issue and would not have created the same kind of "movement" that Obama did!
To be fair, Hillary did make some mistakes such as not properly planning past Feb. 5 and not putting as much effort into the caucus states that Obama did but the question that still remains is would she had to have done that IF it was any other candidate beside Obama who did not create "a movement" where people were coming to the caucuses in droves for Obama? I doubt that the same people who came out in droves for Obama would have done so for John Edwards or Mark Warner!
All of this is my opinion based on the facts that I have seen throughout this race. Each person will have to come to their own conclusion about it and I am sure that a lot of history will be written about this race!
I would definitely take the media and people like Chuck Todd with a grain of salt because most of them will probably never publicly admit to their own media biases which very clearly played a huge role in this primary race. Only Howard Kurtz, Dan Abrams, Lou Dobbs, and a few others have admitted to this from what I have seen so far and they are the exception as opposed to the rule in my opinion!