Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
Lured by the Yahoo! headline "Why Hillary Lost," I clicked. But I don't think I agree with the AP's Beth Fouhy. She posits that Hillary's downfall was caused by her vote to authorize the Iraq war over six years ago:
Her refusal to admit error failed to satisfy Tilton, a 46-year-old financial analyst from Nashua even though he loved her position on health care and capping Iraq troop levels.
That exchange, pounced upon by some reporters to the displeasure of Clinton's aides, foreshadowed her demise. Her refusal to back off that vote tied her to the past and to an unpopular war. It embodied her campaign's fundamental miscalculation: the decision to present her as the standard-bearer for Washington experience, ready for office on Day One.
Maybe I am forgetting something, but it didn't seem to me that the major issue of the Democratic primary was Hillary's vote to authorize it in 2002. I don't even think it foreshadowed anything, as Fouhy suggests (it's easy to find foreshadowing when you're looking with hindsight). From my vantage point, it seemed that Hillary's statement regarding Iraq ("If I had known then what I know now...") satisfied most Democrats, especially since she appears committed to ending the war. Fouhy goes on to list other problems with Hillary's campaign:
By itself, Clinton's Iraq vote didn't cost her the nomination. There were other culprits: her ever-changing campaign themes, poor financial planning, squabbling staff and a field organizing plan designed for quick victory rather than a 50-state delegate hunt.
It seems to me that the first item listed above--her every-changing campaign theme--was a bigger problem than Hillary's refusal to admit that, at the time she made the decision, she had enough info to vote against the war in Iraq. People don't want to vote for someone who appears to have no idea why it is they want to be President (other than for the love of power), and I think that was Hillary's biggest problem.
What do you guys think caused the downfall of Hillary's campaign?
Our RSS feed
I think that the
I think that the "progressive" left hit the ground running with a sharp and felixible game plan and focused resources for Obama, and Clinton and her DLC faction overly discounted the p-left's ability to organize and was slow off the mark in responding. Once she got rolling she did well, but it cost her early and she never could catch up from that early damage on Super Tuesday.
More genrically, the party split between factions is closer than the Clinton team calculated.
two hypotheses
Tactics is my first hypothesis, and the other is personality:
1) Her campaign's decision that they could safely win without contesting in all the caucuses was an error of ego and assumption.
2) high negatives/clinton fatigue- she is simply far less likable and inspirational than her opponent. I think Hillary Clinton exudes competence, policy knowledge, and toughness. And she doesn't seem to genuinely like people...she is without much charisma to speak of.
Attributing her defeat to her war vote is the obvious hypothesis that all the anti-war folks are going to lean towards, but I'm unconvinced. Democratic doves deeply WANT her defeat to be about the democratic party finally learning the lesson of the merits of pacifism. And I don't buy it. There are PLENTY of democrats who are not against war on principle, they simply feel that this war was a suspect proposition from day 1 for a variety of reasons.
I think that she navigated her foreign policy positions as masterfully as anyone could have. It would have been a mistake to have run for her vote. And she would have had to continually finessed an "I was for it before I was against it" position. We all know how that worked out for John Kerry.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
Multiple reasons can apply.
Multiple reasons can apply. No need to confine yourself to either/or.
I agree with Brian's point 1 -
She was done in by errors of calculation, primarily, and the compressed primary schedule. As Brian said, failing to recognize that the caucuses could supply substantial votes to her opponent was a major mistake. Furthermore, she didn't anticipate a serious challenge, and initially geared her campaign around a knockout in Iowa; when that didn't happen, she was slow to retool the campaign. By the time she finally got things back on the rails sometime just after the Wisconsin primary, it was too late. By then, Obama had the momentum and the numbers, and the hole was just too deep for her to climb out of.
Isn't that what I just
Isn't that what I just said?
In any case, it was ground game and strategy errors, not this vote or that vote or the other things that the determined shirt-wavers will claim. She lost by inadequate execution in the trenches, not in the press box.
Atmospherics and ethnicity
To me this was all about atmospherics ("Change" vs "experience") and ethnicity ("working white" vs "black")
If Hillary got 30% of the Black vote consistently, would she have won? In the long run it seems like this was the time for the black vote to go overwhelming to a candidate who also got traction with other blocks (unlike Jesse or Al) Or put another way I have to wonder how much this was about being able to vote for a black candidate that you could "feel good about". If there's any truth in that then this would be a watershed. So for future contests we will have "gotten over it".
Chris
PS I'm no political analyst so I may just be talking out of butt!
Yes
If Hillary got 30% of the Black vote consistently, would she have won?
Probably. It would have given her several more swing states to brag on and several dozen more delegates in "mixed" districts*. The way the Dem delegate distribution is stacked favors hard-core constitutency districts...such as black neighborhoods. In such nearly all-Dem black areas, which get awarded extra delegates out of proportion with the overall numbers of Dem voters in them, Obama ran 90% plus. You can't get any delegates at all in a district/caucus in the proportional Dem system without clearing at least 15% in the area. Had Clinton gotten 30% in those areas, she would have gotten roughly 2 out of every 7 delegates awarded in them, instead of NONE.
[*--Remember we are talking about "swing" here. Every delegate moved from one side to the other counts as 2 in changing the "spread," as it is subtracted from one side and added to the other. That's what political analysts mean when they talk about "swing," and why swing is so critical.]
I certainly agree that war wasn't the issue, although the
anti-war types will make it about that. I think as you said Tully, that it was part strategy, and also I think people were (and still are) drawn to Obama's change theme. Many see the Clintons as the old order. I also don't neccessarily see this as a rejection of the center, either, despite many of the p-left Dems backing Obama. That is, I don't think Obama is the anti-centrist candidate.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
I have to harken back to
I have to harken back to posts we did many months ago where we feared of having another election with either a Clinton or a Bush. So in that respect this campaign has been a success. However, I fear that was the "low bar" of "change" the electorate was looking for.
Chris
That was me. In my adult
That was me. In my adult lifetime I have never once been able to vote a presidential ballot that didn't have a Bush, Clinton, or Dole on it. It's now been 36 years since we had a presidential ballot without at least one of those names on it. (Nixon/Agnew vs. McGovern/Shriver)
booby prize
Sounds like one of those "be careful what you wish for lessons, though? I mean, at the time I bet you didn't count yourself lucky to be choosing from among Nixons, Agnews, McGoverns and Shrivers. :-)
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole