mrsuper.org

Why Did Senator Clinton Lose?

Where have you gone, Joe Inevitable?

Lots of theories swirling around the Internets as to how and why Senator Clinton lost the Democratic nomination.  CBS has a good list, as does Chris Cillizza in the Post.

Here's a collection of theories from various news sources, listed in the descending order of probability:

Superdelegates lost the election for Senator Clinton, according to the New York Times.  And while this statement is ultimately true, I don't put that much into this idea because there had to be a trigger that put the campaign in a position to even need Superdelegates in the first place.  Thus, we arrive at...

Chasing battleground states and not delegates, as cited by the Washington Post.  In defense of the Clinton campaign, this approach has been one which traditionally pays off.  It worked for John Kerry, it even worked for Bill Clinton.  But this is an unconventional year, which means Hillary Clinton needed an unconventional strategy.  Which bring us to...

Skipping Iowa, as proposed by Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry in May of 2007.  Because Iowa was rendered irrelevant in the 1992 primaries, most candidates skipped the state.  As such, there was no Clinton history or organization there to rely on.  (Incidentally, I made a similar recommendation to Bill Richardson: pull out of Iowa, focus on Nevada).  Skipping Iowa would have also absolved Clinton from signing the early states pledge, which in turn might have compelled the other candidates to leave their name on the Michigan ballot.  That doesn't change the outcome of the Michigan election, but a Michigan and Florida win with all other candidates on the ballot helps give Clinton momentum heading into Super Tuesday.  Leading us to...

Super Tuesday, which proved that the strategy to win the nomination was not inevitable as written by ABC News.  The lack of a contingency plan to recover after an essential tie on Feb. 5th knocked the campaign off of its footing - and the rest of February turned out to be a bad month as Senator Clinton went on to lose in the neighborhood of 11 consecutive contests.  Not only did this give Senator Obama an edge heading into this stretch of contests, but it gave him a platform to further his message of...

Change.  The Associate Press writes that a "thirst for change trumped Clinton's experience," which is probably the single factor that is harder to alter in the course of a campaign than anything else.  Not matter how many staffers you have, or how many negative (er, comparative) ads all of the candidates put out - it's difficult to turn back tides.  Ironically, it's a similar tide that Bill Clinton rode into office in 1992.

The Future of Senator Clinton

What now?  Does she go on to be a Vice President?  A Cabinet Secretary?  To take on either of the aforementioned positions, would be to confine her to the term limits of the executive branch and the will of a President.

Naturally, people are stuck on the issue of this current election and her role in it.  Though I think that there is a bigger picture to look at here.

Senator Clinton may find that her legacy is best paved in the US Senate.  There she can serve for decades and author meaningful reform to healthcare and all of the other issues she championed in her campaign.  And she can continue the legacy of her predecessor, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Clinton, who is already a giant among giants in the US Senate, doesn't need the Presidency to accomplish many of the things she is fighting for.  She has the ability to craft legislation which impacts education, housing, the elderly and the poor.  And without term limits, the Senate offers the benefit of longevity - which means she'll be around to see all of these things through. 

(Two in a series of three "The Future Of..." posts this week).

Obama's the One

Five months to the day from the first Iowa Caucus on January 3rd, Senator Obama claims the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.

John Edwards to endorse Obama

John Edwards will endorse Senator Obama for President tonight.  No word yet if Edwards will encourage his 19 pledged delegates to follow suit and support Obama as well.

The "Bolt Theory"

Seems that McCain's honeymoon was mainly with the media, as he's still having problems from within the GOP.  In Nevada, Republican delegates are trying to change Party rules to nominate delegates from the floor - thereby allowing Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee supporters a better change for a delegate seat.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans voted 27% against McCain.  Thus by the poll numbers there, McCain's ability to keep his base of Party support is actually worse than the hit Democrats will supposedly take when the race is whittled down to one candidate.

I've never given the "blot theory" much credit, as it rarely plays out in the end - most likely voters come around in the end.  But even if we were to give some levity to this notion, it seems the threat of bolting is happening to both parties at an equal rate, maybe even neutralizing any meaningful effect.

The John Edwards Primary

Someone posted a comment yesterday that stirred thought about John Edwards.  The post came on the same day that the New York Times ran an article about his clout in the presidential nomination contest, especially with the North Carolina primary approaching.  There's something to keep in mind about his candidacy:

John Edwards didn't end his presidential campaign on Jan. 30th - he suspended it.

A suspended campaign means that a candidate is out of the race, but that the campaign still holds on to its pledged delegates.  So John Edwards holds 19 of his original 26 delegates.  Some of his delegates were filtered when state conventions were selecting national convention delegates, leaving him with 19 - but that is still a significant block of delegates.

Because typically, though it's not a guarantee, once a former candidate makes an endorsement, the pledged delegates will follow as a block.  The last time this happened was in 1992, when Paul Tsongas suspended his campaign and later transferred delegates to Bill Clinton - adding to his momentum and helping him convincingly defeat Jerry Brown in the primaries.

And because support has historically transfered as a block, and because Democratic primaries award delegates not on the basis of winner-take-all but rather on proportional allocation, it means the 19 delegates in the John Edwards Primary represent a larger haul than what can be expected to be won by at least one of the candidates in some of the upcoming primaries.

Thus, when compared to stand-alone elections, the "John Edwards Primary" is worth more than the Guam, West Virginia, Montana or South Dakota primaries.

Senator Edwards is not a Superdelegate himself, but he controls the largest pool of available delegates outside of a state election.

John Edwards: Super Duper Delegate?

Update from the Weekend

Was in an upcoming primary state over the weekend, had a chance to hear from voters in these areas.  Not surprising to know that, in states which have yet to primary, these voters are not nearly as eager for Superdelegates to weigh-in on the nomination right now.  I suppose most people in their situation would feel the same way.

Also spoke to personnel from the national campaigns.  Both are moving forward and preparing to be the presumptive nominee.  One of the camps is preparing to push this effort to Denver if necessary.

An effort to take this to the floor of the convention will not receive any meaningful support from Supers.

"The June Solution"

As I have stated before, neither of the candidates have indicated that they will drop out before all of the nomination contests are over, so we should let the voters have their voices heard without Supers tipping the balance in the interim.  And after that, if it's even necessary, the Supers can step in and close the deal.

Several good points are conveyed in a Boston Globe article posted at MSNBC's First Read today:

"Either way, a June superdelegate declaration wouldn't change the race's underlying reality, but simply accelerate a result that will be all but inevitable."

The June Solution makes sense.  It's timely, easy and all but puts to rest that ridiculous idea of a "Super Convention" (we already have one, it's called the national convention).

Another good point in the article is one brought up by George McGovern.  He points out that if you don't have a nomination wrapped-up by convention, then you also don't have a runningmate lined-up by convention.

Does a post-June battle mean that each of the candidates start vetting and choosing their running mate nominees just in case they get the nomination in Denver?

Right, because investing more people in an intra-party fight is a dandy way to heal a rift.  Just one more good reason to give people confidence that we Supers will do our part to rubber-stamp the nomination in June.

The Bitter Truth

A misstatement on the campaign trail isn't something that most Supers will hold a candidate accountable for and vote against.  If we did, we might not have anyone to vote for.  So while Obama express regret over his comments, and Clinton works to get past the Bosnia issue, I think it's safe to say that neither candidate will be judged to harshly on this.  At least, not by Supers.

At the same time, there is a divide between rural and urban voters, and I don't know that there is any easy way to verbalize it.  This divide has been something Democrats have struggled with for more than a decade. 

Stumping Surrogates

We Supers have the privilege of hearing from quite a few notable campaign surrogates.  I had a chance to interact with Chelsea Clinton recently.  She is a better advocate than her father - which is saying a lot, because he's pretty damn good, too.  To be fair, I've spoken to some impressive folks from the Obama campaign as well.

It is interesting and flattering to receive the attention of these prominent names.  Yet we Supers weigh those voices just as carefully as we do the feedback we receive from regular folk.

I believe that I would be less of a representative if I were to make a decision solely on the basis of such higher-profile appeals.

I got a letter from an elderly woman the other day professing her hopes for a Clinton nomination.  I've also received letters from students working their hearts out for Obama.  Emails, phone calls - hand written letters.  All very honest and sincere.  I've spoke to other Supers, we really do appreciate the feedback and it does mean a lot.