Admitting mistakes
Would it be good strategy for Hillary Clinton to admit that her campaign made mistakes as part of its final case?
It's been well discussed that they had never planned for post Super Tuesday, that they ended up broke and had no ground organization in the following contests.
Also, a decision appears to have been made post-Iowa to ignore the caucus states where Obama ran up big numbers and to deal with these contests only by deriding the caucus process.
Without those mistakes, I feel pretty confident guessing that this race would be far closer.
So, the question is, would it be to Clinton's benefit to include an admission of these mistakes in her final argument? Does this hypothetical reality strengthen her by showing what could have been or does it highlight the mathematical gap that does exist?
How would superdelegates, all of whom have been personally involved in numerous elections, judge this?
(Just filling space on a no news Sunday.)
It's been well discussed that they had never planned for post Super Tuesday, that they ended up broke and had no ground organization in the following contests.
Also, a decision appears to have been made post-Iowa to ignore the caucus states where Obama ran up big numbers and to deal with these contests only by deriding the caucus process.
Without those mistakes, I feel pretty confident guessing that this race would be far closer.
So, the question is, would it be to Clinton's benefit to include an admission of these mistakes in her final argument? Does this hypothetical reality strengthen her by showing what could have been or does it highlight the mathematical gap that does exist?
How would superdelegates, all of whom have been personally involved in numerous elections, judge this?
(Just filling space on a no news Sunday.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:23 AM
6 Comments:
Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. Admitting mistakes might take a little of the edge off the perceived arrogance of a superdelegate-decided nomination.
Instead of seeming to say, "I'm the best candidate, the people are just too dumb to recognize it...", she could attempt to say, "The people really do want me, it's just that my campaign failed to fully take advantage of that."
I guess she wouldn't want to go too far in trashing the process. But she does have a reasonable case to make that the will of Democratic voters is at least a toss-up, and that if the numbers
don't reflect it, it's because the process is skewed and her campaign failed to take advantage of the skew in the way Obama's did.
Granted, that may leave the superdelegates saying, Why should we think you're going to be any smarter in the general election?
By
Anonymous, at 4:36 PM
That's what I was thinking.
Although I doubt she'd get away with "skewed" towards Obama. She hasn't thus far, and that's kinda what I'm talking about here. Not blaming the system or the rules, but squarely taking blame on herself and her campaign.
(I still have not seen a valid reason why she couldn't have even tried to compete in all those caucus states. The rules are the same for both sides and it's all about getting your people out.)
The key would be to say not that I lost because I couldn't win within the rules, (that's not flying) but instead to say, If we'd have not made the mistake of arrogance, we'd be even. (And we've learned our lesson.)
(Followed by, the general election is more like a "big state" campaign, media, soundbytes, positioning, and we did well in those.
Not by the discredited that we'll win because we won the big states, but we'll win because we know how to run a media campaign rather than a face to face, rally campaign.
Of course, Super Tuesday runs a little against that.)
And all of this would likely require jettisoning Penn. He doesn't seem to be liked/trusted by practically anybody. Maybe name Ickes as titular head.
By
mikevotes, at 4:48 PM
However she does it, I'd like to see her throw in the towel. McCain is getting a vacation, and I don't mean just his jaunt to Israel.
There really ought to be a national discussion about what really needs to happen in America after this trainwreck of a Bush administration, and we're not going to get there by parsing Obama's relationships with church pastors.
Hillary, please -- just bag it. I like you fine, but just stop. Think of the country, think of your own future in a Democratic administration, think of whatever it takes to loosen your grip on this losing proposition.
(The best thing that's come out of the Pastor Wright discussion is that Obama-as-a-Muslim fades from view.)
By
r8r, at 8:01 PM
I don't think you're alone.
However, there's 49% of the Dem party that support Clinton, and as I've said before, there doesn't appear to be a natural exit point in the near future.
No reason to think Obama comes even close in PA.
By
mikevotes, at 9:29 PM
I'm probably repeating myself here, but I think the skews in the system are important... not to the extent that they are unfair to Hillary, but to the extent that they misrepresent the will of the voters (Florida being the prime example.) If a superdelegate is honestly trying to figure out what the will of the party is (and one hopes that's what the supers are doing, doesn't one?), the skews should matter.
Her last best hope in arguing to the superdelegates is to say that she is the people's choice... obviously the indispensable point in that argument would be pulling ahead in the popular vote, but the skews (Florida. Michigan. Caucuses. Crossover votes.)reinforce it.
I certainly think it would be a good idea for her to take responsibility for the mistakes of her campaign, and I bet it would get her a lot of free TV time, but as Obama showed us with his speech, if you're going to apologize, it's smart to find someone else to share the blame.
By
Anonymous, at 2:12 AM
But, the reason this is an interesting question to me is because there are definite potential downsides to admitting mistakes, the top being real challenges to judgment/personnel, etc.
(And, I'm going to leave "skewed" alone. In the end that's a "fairness" and there's really no resolution because "fair" depends on where you sit.)
By
mikevotes, at 6:53 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home