Why did Clinton lose?

joefromchicago · Posts: 7937 Location: 1060 W. Addison, Chicago, Illinois

The corpse isn't quite cold yet, but the post-mortems are already starting for the Clinton campaign. Karen Tumulty in Time magazine listed the five major mistakes made by Clinton, including: (1)she misjudged the mood of the country; (2) she didn't master the rules of the Democratic Party; (3) she underestimated the caucus states; (4) she relied on old money and didn't exploit the potential of internet fundraising; and (5) she never counted on a long haul after the Feb. 5 "super Tuesday" contests.

Those are what historians might term "immediate" causes of Clinton's defeat. But there are also "remote" causes that should be taken into account. Ari Berman in The Nation identifies one cause that scuttled Clinton's campaign even before it began:

The biggest factor that doomed Clinton, from day one, was Iraq. Her vote for the war and subsequent lack of apology cost her the support of a huge segment of the party that flocked to Obama (and, early on, Edwards) and tarnished her brand from the very beginning. That vote, more than any other, reflected the hawkishness, caution and calculation that soured many Democrats on Clinton and hurt her with young voters, new voters, independent voters, etc.That makes a lot of sense to me. Without the Iraq vote issue, Obama wouldn't have even entered the race. All of the other major contenders for the Democratic nomination, with the diminutive exception of Dennis Kucinich, voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution. Even progressive favorite Chris Dodd, everybody's third choice, voted for the war. True, most of those who voted in favor of the war resolution later recanted -- most notably John Edwards, whose mea culpas were a standard part of his stump speech. But Obama was the only viable candidate who could honestly say that he was against the war from the start. That gave him an opening wedge into the Democratic field that he, as a relative neophyte on the national political scene, would otherwise not have had. And Clinton's obstinate refusal to apologize for her vote, or even to explain it in some sort of forthright or comprehensible manner, left her vulnerable to an insurgency from the left -- something that she never counted on.

Clinton made a lot of mistakes in 2008. But her biggest mistake was made in 2002. That's when she lost the election.

Chumly · Posts: 7712 Location: Vancouver BC Canada

Two things: the Lewinsky scandal and Hilary's female.

sozobe · Posts: 43544

I think Tumulty's #1 is a big one too (I agree with all of her reasons) and is in a similar category as the Iraq vote. She cast herself as the "experience" candidate. When she did so, she thought her opponent would be Rudy Guiliani, and it made a certain amount of sense. Locking herself into "experience" when what the country was in the mood for was "change" is a big part of why she (IS PROBABLY GOING TO BUT HASN'T YET) lost.

One other big aspect not alluded to yet -- Obama has mad skilz. He's just plain an incredibly talented candidate, and that can't be counted out. As in, some things Clinton did wrong; some things Obama did right, and it didn't matter that much what his opponent did wrong or how big of a head start he/she had.

(Good idea for a thread, even if it makes me nervous, karmically-speaking.)

Chumly · Posts: 7712 Location: Vancouver BC Canada

Obama has likely assured a McCain presidency, as I doubt the US will want a black.

Not that I care about color.

BumbleBeeBoogie · Posts: 20037 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

I agree with the five reason given and your comments. But there are other important reasons.

Obama had a superior campaign because he organized from the ground up as he learned as a community organizer. Clinton's campaign was doomed from the beginning because her campaign was organized from the top down. Clinton's campaign chief was a disaster and she waited too long to get rid of Marc Penn.

The result was that Obama's organization dominated the caucus states voting. He concentrated on Iowa with the theory that if white voters supported him, African-Americans would realize that he could get the White vote. This led to their transfer of votes from Clinton to Obama because they were assured their votes would not be wasted. Clinton's top down style could not match Obama's grass roots organizing power and he dominated the early caucus states and got ahead of Clinton in delegates, which she could not overcome.

Clinton obviously played the race card from time to time, which disappointed me. But Obama has played the race card from the beginning of his campaign. He knew if he could transfer the African-American vote from Clinton to himself, it would make the difference in the outcome in combination with his bottom up campaign to attract younger voters. He was very smart as he understood the voters' mood better than Clinton.

Regarding finances, Obama's bottom up campaign meshed with the internet while Clinton focused on top down wealthy donors. When they topped out on contribution limits, she was behind in internet donation sources.

I would like to see Hillary Clinton become Senate Majority Leader, which would be the perfect position for her to accomplish her goals.

BBB

sozobe · Posts: 43544

How does "the race card" have any meaning if you're talking about Obama trying to get the black vote (along with every other kind of vote)? What do you mean beyond that?

BumbleBeeBoogie · Posts: 20037 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

sozobe wrote:

How does "the race card" have any meaning if you're talking about Obama trying to get the black vote (along with every other kind of vote)? What do you mean beyond that?

Your point is valid. I used the term "race card" to mean "campaign strategy." I would prefer to not use the term race card, but it is the one commonly used by the Media.

Obama knew that to win, he had to get most of the African-American vote added to his White supporters because past history had taught African-Americans that their votes would be wasted because the majority of White people would not vote for a Black man. Obama proved to them, that was no longer true---up to now. Let's hope it remains true through the November election and he has the support of all the American people.

BBB

blueflame1 · Posts: 4275

I agree the war was what set the two candidates apart and gave Obama a foundation to build on. Against McCain that difference will be huge.

fishin · Posts: 9151 Location: Boston

nimh posted and very good link concerning the inner workings of her campaign staff. IMO, that largely contributed to her problems with the primary rules and such. I think she relied to heavily on people that were "in" from Bill's 1992 and 1996 campaigns as well as some long-time staffers from her 1st Lady days. The landscape has changed and her advisors/staff haven't caught up with the changes.

Setanta · Posts: 45238 Location: On a rocket to the fourth dimension

Thanks for the thread, Joe. I haven't really a firm opinion on this, so i find the material presented here interesting. Echoing Fishin' (if this isn't actually at odds with what he's saying), my guess would be that Clinton and her campaign staff (more important than her attitudes--advisers and speech writers can wake up candidates acting like dummies) were out of touch, and relying on a perception of the huge popularity of the "Clinton brand."