The Real Clinton Mistakes...

[Erin Elizabeth]

The real Clinton mistakes
By Mark Mellman
Posted: 04/08/08 07:10 PM

A post-mortem on the Clinton campaign is premature, but it’s never too early to learn from mistakes. While everyone agrees mistakes were made, the nature of those errors remains a matter of debate.

• Early States vs. Many States — Some have opined that the Clinton campaign spent too much time and money on Iowa and New Hampshire at the expense of later states. I would suggest she dedicated too little to Iowa and the optimum to New Hampshire.

By the end of December, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had each raised just over $100 million and, in principle, both had about the same number of campaign days. Yet the Clinton campaign allowed the Obama team to outspend them on Iowa TV by 40 percent and to have about the same advantage in campaign events. If she had done more events and more TV in Iowa, would Hillary Clinton have won? Impossible to prove the counterfactual, but it couldn’t have hurt, and there is no doubt that had Clinton won Iowa, she would be the presumptive nominee today. Alternatively, had she not won New Hampshire, Clinton would have been forced from the race months ago.

So while some of her Iowa spending could have been misdirected, the truth is Clinton spent too little on what matters in Iowa and about the right amount in New Hampshire.

• Micro vs. Macro — Readers of Mark Penn’s Microtrends argue that his micro-messages failed against Obama’s macro-message of change. That too is not quite right. Clinton did have a macro-message early on — experience. It was just the wrong message. Every poll for two years demonstrated that Democrats prefer change over experience by 2 to 1. Good campaigns have both macro- and micro-messages, and in the very best, the two are inextricably linked.

• A Message vs. A List — While Clinton did develop a macro-message, for too much of the campaign she merely had a list of popular proposals. A strong message beats a good list.

• Big States vs. All States — To all appearances the Clinton campaign operated from the theory that only big states count; “small” states didn’t, and that was an error as big as they come. Clinton won more than twice as many states with over 100 delegates, while Obama won nearly three times as many states with under 50 delegates. Yet Clinton’s net advantage in those big states amounted to just three delegates, while Obama’s massive victories in the largely uncontested small states gave him a 55-delegate advantage over Clinton. Put differently, Obama got a greater delegate advantage from his win in Idaho than Clinton did from her Ohio victory, and he generated a bigger delegate lead in Kansas than she wrested from New Jersey.

• Big Money vs. All Money — In the money chase, too, the Clinton campaign played by old rules, apparently unaware of just how much this game had changed. Through Feb. 29, Clinton had a nearly $7 million advantage with the big donors, though Obama led the money race overall by a staggering $39 million. The entire difference came from donors who gave $200 or less — the fruits of Obama’s effective Internet strategy.

By its own admission the Clinton campaign left this very profitable stone largely unturned until she was forced to lend her campaign money. Not everyone can turn the Internet into a gusher, but the simple fact is that her campaign did not work the medium nearly as hard as Obama did, and it paid off for him. That’s why he is once again wildly outspending her on TV, this time in Pennsylvania, putting a once-sure Clinton win in jeopardy.

Lots for everybody to learn.

http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/the-real-clinton-mistakes-2008-04-08.html

[XemaSab]

1. Here's my point of contention with this article:

I don't think Iowa is about spending money, but rather it's about speaking to the voters and really COMMUNICATING with them.

Dean dumped BUCKETS of money into Iowa; Edwards spent YEARS there talking to the voters. Both of them did fairly poorly.

I think Hillary just failed to connect with the Iowans in a way that money would not have helped. :shrug:

[Erin Elizabeth]

2. I think you're right on that.

Iowa really is about connecting. Not that other states aren't, but it's even more important in that first contest.

[Yael]

3. I agree with this assessment. TwoSparkles has posted a bunch

of interesting posts about this very thing in her state.

[C_U_L8R]

4. And the eternal struggle of PR versus Branding

Penn versus Axelrod

PR may get you noticed but people fall in love with brands

[davidpdx]

5. The sad thing is

I doubt you will see any Clinton supporters acknowledge this (other then attacks). Her campaign did make too many tactical errors from the beginning. I read another similar piece on RCP which said that there were conflicting opinions whether or not to even campaign in Iowa and when Obama started doing well, they dumped a lot of resources in for fear of losing the state. The rest is history. Clinton did make a nice come back in NH and did well in Nevada, but didn't win enough states on Feb 5th. The post Feb 5th contests were really what put her up against a wall. While she did well in Ohio and RI, she didn't do well enough in Texas.

I also agree that her and her campaigns repeatedly stating small states, red states and caucus states don't count hurt her more then it helped. Her campaign also made an error with regards to fund raising, not finding more ways to bring in new donors.

The traditional top down campaign is dead.

[Cha]

7. More important points to

learn from, David. Thank you. Whose idea was it to insult Democratic voters and whole states? Talk about snipering yourself in the foot.

[davidpdx]

9. Zid, I think Penn and Wolfson had to behind it

but who knows for sure. Whomever it was provided her with VERY bad advice and shouldn't work for a campaign again (unless they are stupid enough to hire them).

If you look at some of my other posts, I've been talking about someone writing a book about this whole campaign. The way I envision the book would be to tell the the story of all three campaigns (Clinton, McCain and Obama) as separate but interwoven stories. All three campaigns have had different issues and challenges (possibly Clinton and McCain more then Obama). I'd be one of the first ones in line to buy the book too.

[progressive_realist]

12. Don't forget the Giuliani train-wreck

That's comedy gold, there.

[davidpdx]

14. Yeah, but the Giuliani train wreck

pretty much started before the primaries even began with his foolish strategy of betting on a single state. In my book it's such a minor story. But you are right, it is pretty funny.

[Lucky 13]

16. Hillary supporters have become deaf to any voice of criticism, no matter the source/how legitimate.

You could be talking about policy, strategy, hirings, firings, wardrobe choices, whatever. If it's not 100% positive about Hillary they do NOT want to hear it.

I was talking to a Hillary supporter the other day and stated that there have been some tactical errors in her campaign which I think have resulted in Obama slipping in there and surprising her: i.e. the 90's big state strategy, apparently underestimating or misunderstanding how new media can be used to your favor - or against you, MARK PENN. I cited examples and facts to avoid vagueary or appearing like I was making a criticism just for the sake of critcizing.

The woman acted like I had just drowned puppies or something. I tried to point out that I wasn't saying anything negative about HILLARY or remotely trying to change her mind, I just think that the strategic, tactical decisions of the campaign have been iffy at times. She would hear none of it and got really mad. I said, "Hey, it's cool. I am just curious what your reasons are for disagreeing. I don't understand why you are angry." Nope. Conversation over.

That's been my biggest problem with her campaign and her supporters. You can't seem to have a rational conversation with them if it's not 100% positive about Hillary. I can't speak for other Obama supporters, but I'm not like that about him. Maybe because he wasn't my first choice - I was an Edwards girl. I recognize Obama's weaknesses, areas we may disagree, stupid things he or his campaign have done. But I understand I can disagree with him sometimes and still support him. I understand others can disagree with him and that doesn't make them evil.

I just don't get it. It's sad, but I'm to the point where trying to have a conversation with them is a complete waste of time. :(

[Cha]

6. Yes, it's never too early to learn

from mistakes. It was meant to be..hilary is so last century and her campaign reflected it. Of course, it didn't help that her experience is based on lies.

[AnnieBW]

8. Hiring Mark Penn?

That was a pretty big mistake, if you ask me.

[Zachstar]

10. Penn and the Big state stuff is what is doing her Campaign damage today in my view.

Overall I think it just fell apart after Super Tuesday.

Political scientists will be studying this for decades.

[RamboLiberal]

11. Here's an interesting tidbit on Penn before Gore fired him in 99

While a bloated, imperial operation could hardly be expected to pick up on warning signs, Gore insiders particularly fault Mark Penn, the lead among Gore's half a dozen pollsters. Penn shares his energies with the President, Hillary Clinton and Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. Over and over, Penn told the Vice President that Bradley posed little or no threat, that Bush was not as far ahead as public polls suggested and that most voters were confusing the Texas Governor with his father. At one point, when Penn was insisting that Gore was no farther than 10 points behind Bush, a campaign official quietly asked another pollster to check Penn's work. The number came back: Gore down by 18. Penn declined to be interviewed but let it be known through an intermediary that his position is secure.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/the_mark_penn_factor.html

[Prophet 451]

13. I could add a few more

Positioning: I would also fault Hillary's occasional positioning of herself as a victim; most obviously the allusions to the boys ganging on on the one girl. Whether true or not, it should have been obvious to everyone that was going to backfire in a big way.

Bill Clinton: Bill's campaigning on her behalf was something of a double-edged sword as well. Although Bill remains a tremendous speaker and it would have looked very odd if he weren't cheerleading his wife's campaign, it also reminded the right-leaning moderates of how much they loathed Bill and remonded the left that he was never as universally beloved as the right claimed.

Billary: I'm using "Billary" here to refer to the endless attacks of her by the right for the last sixteen (gods, is it really that long?) years by Rush, Bill-O, etc. Granted, this was beyond her control but after hearing the Billary jokes three or four times a day for years at a time, it's going to affect anyone and I think it created an atmosphere of hostility that HRC probably didn't deserve.

Coronation: To a lot of people, Hillary's campaign gave the impression that they came expecting a coronation, not a contest. Human nature being what it is, a lot of people were determined to undermine that.

Vote counts: The ways in which Hillary's campaign are tabulating the votes have become increasingly surreal; pledged delegates, popular vote, big states, "caucus delegates" and the initial agreement to strike Fl and MI and then backing out of that when it became apparent that she'd need those votes. Smart or not, accurate or not, this looks desperate and primary races are as much about perception and momentum as about issues and policies.

[Bullet1987]

15. I think the coronation meme really hurt her early on...we're Democrats

and this is a Democracy. A lot of people I'm sure was turned off by that. THAT may be what did her in in Iowa if anything.