As usual, I am behind the curve, but people are still madly dissecting the ‘Clinton collapse’, even going so far as to make fun of how much money she spend per delegate (over $100,000) just to lose. The only thing this says to me is that we need to make the process of running for President a heck of a lot cheaper.
I also believe that the ‘Clinton collapse’ is not really a collapse. It was partly if not wholly engendered by the media anointing her the front runner and repeating ad nauseum that it was her race to lose. Anyone who knew anything about politics had to know that Obama would be competitive.
So why do I think Clinton did not get the job done? Drum roll please…messaging.
Okay, you all knew I would say that. But seriously, her entire campaign consistently struck the wrong cord up until nearly the end.
Early Campaign
First, a bit of quick messaging overview. She started her run taking a decidedly middle ground, as if she was running a general election campaign rather than a primary one. Kerry made the same mistake in ’03 and corrected it quickly enough to stop Dean.
Clinton’s tactic was clearly aimed at bringing Independents to her cause, but like every moderate DLC Democrat, she misunderstood that Independents are not such because they have wishy-washy opinions, but because they do not like either Party. Watering down your policies does not win people in the middle over. Breaking the two-Party mold does. Standing for something wins votes. Pandering does not. Clinton, by not taking firm positions on key issues (witness her refusal to admit being wrong on the Iraq vote), simply did not excite the base nor win over Independents.
Another great example is health care. Clinton did not introduce her universal health care plan until Edwards did and started gaining traction on it. In a nutshell, she seemed too unwilling to take chances. As such, she had a lackluster first half of the primary season.
Even her campaign strategy messaging sent the wrong message. Clinton argued she was more electable since she would win Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. That does not exactly expand the electoral map for Democrats, and cedes major territory to the Republicans. In all, it is essentially a defensive strategy. It is definitely not forward thinking. Again, this excites no one and leaves many Democrats and Independents in many states feeling neglected. No wonder they went for Obama.
The Speech
But more recently, I watched Clinton’s speech endorsing Obama on Saturday. The vast majority of her speech referenced herself and the historic things she did. She rarely sounded inclusive, not using terms like ‘we’, ‘you’, or ‘us’. Nor did she do this much in the campaign. Hence it was not a movement, but The Hillary Show. Definitely not the right note to hit when trying to create a groundswell of support.
She barely mentioned Obama in the speech, nor sung his praises. Only twice that I heard did she tell a narrative about Barack:
1) that he lived the American Dream
2) that both of them shared the same optimism that America could “stretch the boundaries of the possible”
Narratives sell candidates, not policies. She did not tell much of a narrative about herself during the campaign, but did a pretty good job of it during her endorsement speech when it should have been about Obama. If she needs to sway her die-hard supporters to Obama, she has to do it by convincing them he will fight the good fight for progressive values and the working class, elderly, and women; that he will lead America into the future with passion and commitment. You do that using phrases like “stretch the boundaries of the possible”, not talking about how you have similar health care policies.
For instance, she noted that there were “no acceptable prejudices or limits in the 21st century.” Brilliant statement that would inspire anyone, no matter their political perspective. But after the statement, she should strongly impress upon her listeners (i.e. her supporters) that Obama represents that vision and will work everyday to implement it, and if that is their belief, they need to embrace the candidate who embodies it – Obama.
In other words, she needed to transition people from the Cult of Hillary to the Cult of Obama. She did not do that.
So here again she consistently hit the wrong note.
And I cannot leave any discussion about that speech without noting the angry undertone it had. Not exactly helpful. Understandable, but not helpful.
Lastly, I do happen to agree with her historical assessment of herself and her campaign. But that should have been her speech the night Obama won the nomination. In fact, if she had switched to that narrative earlier, she likely would have done better.
What She Did Right
Much of her speech detailed how she did not give up and fought hard for the hopes and dreams of hard-working Americans and women. All true. In fact, this particular narrative slowly developed over the course of the campaign not so much by what she said, but by what she did. As they say, actions speak louder than words.
This is why a much more rapid Clinton following developed starting around the key March 4 primaries (OH, TX, VT, RI). People saw that she would not give up, and if she would not give up then, even though at that point the delegate math was strongly against her, she would not take any nonsense from the Republicans if President. People began to see someone who would fight for them, their beliefs, and the country.
That narrative created the stronger support for her we all witnessed at the end of the campaign. You cannot create that with mere words. Unfortunately for her, that narrative cannot be told, only experienced, and it takes awhile to develop. By then it might have been too late, as it was in this case. However, if she had fought for every state, not just the big primary ones, that might have created her ‘fighter’ narrative earlier.
Conclusion
What did Hillary do wrong?
1) She ran a muddled, evasive campaign early, refusing to take tough stands, categorically misunderstanding how to reach non-partisan, independent voters.
2) She focused too much on her, not ‘we’ or ‘us’ or ‘you’
3) She did not create the ‘fighter’ narrative early enough
4) She did not create the ‘historical’ narrative about her candidacy early enough
5) She seemed to bitter and angry, as did Bill
6) She ran a tactically and strategically poor campaign, focusing on big states instead of winning delegates. Moreover, it was a strategy that did not expand the Democrats’ electoral map in November, leaving many Democrats out in the cold.
Oh, there may be other things, but these are the big ones I could come up with. All in all, a lackluster campaign until the very end, just at the time it would hurt the Democrats the most. Although I do have to say that seeing every state matter in the primary season was awesome, and more than anything else, should help the Democrats compete in many states they normally do not come November (MT and NC anyone?).