Why did Clinton lose?

not sour grapes at all set. unvarnished truth. do you deny that obama is the product with the most sizzle? I'm not saying that's the only reason and perhaps I should have been more specific but it's certainly the primary one. In a consumer driven society the most sizzling product with the most sizzle in the commercials ALWAYS is the product America goes for.

The survey data from the last forty years of presidential elections are crystal clear: "The issues" are a distant fourth as predictors of voting behavior. The best predictors are people's feelings toward the parties and their principles (which are obviously of less relevance in primary than general elections because the competitors draw on the same wellsprings of partisan sentiment). The next best predictors, and the ones of most relevance in the primaries, are the feelings the candidates elicit from voters. Next in line are voters' feelings toward the candidates' personal attributes. Among those personal attributes, the lowest on the list of predictors of voting is competence.

At base, Americans want to know three things about candidates: Do they share my values, do they care about people like me, and do I feel in my gut I can trust them to pursue those values and interests faithfully?

Hillary Clinton ran on issues and competence, focusing, like every Democrat who has failed to win the presidency in the last 40 years, on the factors least predictive of electoral success. She spent too little time creating a compelling, consistent personal narrative that could weave together her own life history with the state of a nation yearning for a different kind of leadership, and too little time attending to the negative stories told and retold about her during nearly two decades of savage Republican branding. She could have told the story of how she grew up in a traditional American -- and Republican -- home in Illinois; lived through the changes of the 1960s and learned the lessons we all learned as a nation, that we cannot be true to our national ideals while showing intolerance or prejudice toward anyone, whether women, African-Americans, or the conservative hate group de jure; but that she never forgot the traditional American values she learned at home that have been appropriated by Republicans but do not belong to them, such as hard work, personal responsibility, patriotism, and a commitment to our nation's security. A master narrative that wove together those elements would have provided a compelling alternative to the story of Hillary as triangulating, poll-driven opportunist that led many to distrust her.

maybe because she comes from a generation that didn't attach quite as much importance to it and obama's people understood that to sell to today's group sizzle is practically everything?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

maybe because she comes from a generation that didn't attach quite as much importance to it and obama's people understood that to sell to today's group sizzle is practically everything?

Could be, but sizzle has been important ever since Kennedy trounced Nixon on TV. While Clinton herself may not have seen the value, her advisors certainly should have. I don't know how any campaign manager in 2008 can ignore the necessity of sizzle.

I think it has to do with her reserved personality, which became increasingly less so as the primary progressed. At her suspension speech, she was relaxed and conveyed equal measure of warmth Obama is able to project. Given what she was facing-- being a woman in a mans field--she really did a lot toward breaking the glass ceiling.

When it comes to sizzle, that's a matter of individuality-- remember, her husband is of the same generation and he was able to sizzle up the presidency twice.

I agree about the sizzle and breaking the glass ceiling.

I would love to see a politician who enjoyed themselves, who exhibited true warmth and concern for people, and who could admit they don't know or have an answer for everything but they'd find out. Nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something, but it seems nobody ever admits that.

years ago she hadn't been beaten down and piled by everyone and their dog and probably had a little more spirit.....

years ago she hadn't been beaten down and piled by everyone and their dog and probably had a little more spirit.....

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Maybe that's a sign she's not up to the job.

I think she'd be up to the job. She got screwed over by the media, and she stumbled on her own in many ways. She's a polarizing figure who inspires people (mostly men) to loathe her. If Obama hadn't come along, I'd've supported her.

I think it has to do with her reserved personality, which became increasingly less so as the primary progressed. At her suspension speech, she was relaxed and conveyed equal measure of warmth Obama is able to project. Given what she was facing-- being a woman in a mans field--she really did a lot toward breaking the glass ceiling.

Another thing about Hillary, and I think Gore and Kerry blew it for this reason too-- they seemed so desperate, they didn't know how to enjoy themselves in the process.

When it comes to sizzle, that's a matter of individuality-- remember, her husband is of the same generation and he was able to sizzle up the presidency twice.