Why did Clinton lose?

Two things: the Lewinsky scandal and Hilary's female.

I think Tumulty's #1 is a big one too (I agree with all of her reasons) and is in a similar category as the Iraq vote. She cast herself as the "experience" candidate. When she did so, she thought her opponent would be Rudy Guiliani, and it made a certain amount of sense. Locking herself into "experience" when what the country was in the mood for was "change" is a big part of why she (IS PROBABLY GOING TO BUT HASN'T YET) lost.

One other big aspect not alluded to yet -- Obama has mad skilz. He's just plain an incredibly talented candidate, and that can't be counted out. As in, some things Clinton did wrong; some things Obama did right, and it didn't matter that much what his opponent did wrong or how big of a head start he/she had.

(Good idea for a thread, even if it makes me nervous, karmically-speaking.)

Obama has likely assured a McCain presidency, as I doubt the US will want a black.

Not that I care about color.

BBB
I agree with the five reason given and your comments. But there are other important reasons.

Obama had a superior campaign because he organized from the ground up as he learned as a community organizer. Clinton's campaign was doomed from the beginning because her campaign was organized from the top down. Clinton's campaign chief was a disaster and she waited too long to get rid of Marc Penn.

The result was that Obama's organization dominated the caucus states voting. He concentrated on Iowa with the theory that if white voters supported him, African-Americans would realize that he could get the White vote. This led to their transfer of votes from Clinton to Obama because they were assured their votes would not be wasted. Clinton's top down style could not match Obama's grass roots organizing power and he dominated the early caucus states and got ahead of Clinton in delegates, which she could not overcome.

Clinton obviously played the race card from time to time, which disappointed me. But Obama has played the race card from the beginning of his campaign. He knew if he could transfer the African-American vote from Clinton to himself, it would make the difference in the outcome in combination with his bottom up campaign to attract younger voters. He was very smart as he understood the voters' mood better than Clinton.

Regarding finances, Obama's bottom up campaign meshed with the internet while Clinton focused on top down wealthy donors. When they topped out on contribution limits, she was behind in internet donation sources.

I would like to see Hillary Clinton become Senate Majority Leader, which would be the perfect position for her to accomplish her goals.

BBB

How does "the race card" have any meaning if you're talking about Obama trying to get the black vote (along with every other kind of vote)? What do you mean beyond that?

Soz


Your point is valid. I used the term "race card" to mean "campaign strategy." I would prefer to not use the term race card, but it is the one commonly used by the Media.

Obama knew that to win, he had to get most of the African-American vote added to his White supporters because past history had taught African-Americans that their votes would be wasted because the majority of White people would not vote for a Black man. Obama proved to them, that was no longer true---up to now. Let's hope it remains true through the November election and he has the support of all the American people.

BBB

I agree the war was what set the two candidates apart and gave Obama a foundation to build on. Against McCain that difference will be huge.

nimh posted and very good link concerning the inner workings of her campaign staff. IMO, that largely contributed to her problems with the primary rules and such. I think she relied to heavily on people that were "in" from Bill's 1992 and 1996 campaigns as well as some long-time staffers from her 1st Lady days. The landscape has changed and her advisors/staff haven't caught up with the changes.

Thanks for the thread, Joe. I haven't really a firm opinion on this, so i find the material presented here interesting. Echoing Fishin' (if this isn't actually at odds with what he's saying), my guess would be that Clinton and her campaign staff (more important than her attitudes--advisers and speech writers can wake up candidates acting like dummies) were out of touch, and relying on a perception of the huge popularity of the "Clinton brand."

Why Clinton Lost (according to engineer)

- She started positioning herself as right as possible for the general election before the first primary assuming the Dems would have no choice in their votes and that she could take the independents and moderates.
- She ran as the "experience" candidate. This presented two obstacles. First, voters prefer change to experience two to one in just about any election. Second, her experience is mostly second hand. When pushed, we ended up with Bullets over Bosnia.
- Reliance on the "machine". The Clinton's owned the machine and the machine is supposed to deliver in terms of money, organization and votes. It did all those things, but Obama was able to create another machine from the grassroots organizations. Clinton's machine looked old and slow in comparison.
- Reliance on the "big lie" in the age of the Internet. Once upon a time, you could toss a whopper out there and then claim to be mis-quoted if it came back to bite you. Not these days. Both Bill's and Hillary's more inflammatory remarks took on new life on the Internet and they were hard to refute. It also allowed people to see the actual comments themselves instead of hearing about it second hand. Bosnia was the most extreme example of this. Even the "it was late and I misspoke" excuse was fodder for Internet fact checking.
- Arrogance in abundance. Bill Clinton is the recognized master and Hillary Clinton had all the advantages on day one. Even as Obama was mounting very serious challenges to her in every state, the Clinton campaign was saying "wait until Super Tuesday" or "wait until Texas and Ohio". It was only after Texas and Ohio that the Clinton team really bothered to find a voice and speak clearly to the voters. Even then, the philosophy was to bury Obama in innuendo rather than debate on the issues.
- Obama is good. He ran a near perfect campaign and utilized every advantage afforded him. Clinton can console herself that sometimes you loose to the better team.

I don't know why she lost other than what's already been said. But I had some thoughts today that are semi-related.

Clinton ran on toughness (related to experience) because she had to because she's a woman and she can't afford to appear soft at all. Unfortunately, that meant more or less imitating the old white-guy republicans of the last 8 years that folks are kind of fed up with. Obama ran soft against her for two reasons: he had to because he's black and he can't afford to look like an angry black guy, and he was running against a woman and couldn't be seen as a bully.

As to why she lost, aside from making some problematic mistakes, I think her time was in '04. The war vote is a problem for her now, but would not have been as big a problem then because "toughness" was still a valuable commodity. Today, I think most people are a bit fed up with folks with brass balls leading our country as we see where it has led us. This election season presents us with the best opportunity we've had yet to break out of this Republican-defined macho contest. I hope Obama can help us do it.

I don't think Obama "played the race card" at all. I think blacks started coming in droves when he won Iowa and they saw he was for real, and their hopes wouldn't be getting pinned to an empty "symbolic" candidacy.
I think he also benefited from things like Bill's comparing him to Jesse Jackson and saying that his claim of consistent opposition to the war was a "fairy tale". But playing the race card? How?

clinton lost because she stood still as america moved ahead.

hey snood!

The short answer; the incredibly incompetent group known as the Democratic Party, who amazingly had every intention of repeating their 2004 feat of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, by nominating one of very few Democrats who wouldn't win against the Republicans in the General election (even in an antiwar climate), made one fatal error back in 2004: They asked a competent newcomer to speak at the 2004 DNC. Americans, not being the idiots the incompetents took them for, latched onto this competent man and propelled him right past the party's idiotic choice for runner up. Now, the whole world will be set on their ear as this competent newcomer blazes past the Republican's choice and becomes the very first black President of the United States.

Why will McCain have lost? I have to give credit where credit is due. The Republicans have fielded what I believe to be their strongest candidate in this antiwar climate… and he would have edged out Hillary by virtue of being able to separate himself from Bush in the General… but he doesn't have the skills to defeat the competent newcomer. At the end of the cycle; both Hillary and McCain's losses can both be attributed to the Democratic machine's error of allowing a freshman Senator to speak at the DNC in 2004. :wink:

So, in a nutshell, who's America gonna vote in as their next President? Obama or McCain?

I'll bet you dollars-to-donuts.......it's McCain!

I'm in. How many dollars would you like to wager?

$100.00 The question as to an equatable amounts of donuts is an "open" one however.

How many donuts?

Just kidding.

Post something to this effect:
I, OCCOM BILL, hereby agree to a wager of $100 (American) with Chumly on the coming Presidential election. If Barack Obama doesn't win; I will within 48 hours send $100 via PayPal... or forever be known as a dishonest Welcher.

Then bookmark the thread. I am, and I am trusting you, to be a man of your word.