How bad is it getting for Hillary?
Up until the end of October, everyone was preparing for Clinton's coronation; then, the Philadelphia debate was made into a debacle for Clinton, in part because of the media's desire to make the Democratic race more competitive than it was. And they succeeded. Clinton's lead has not only evaporated in Iowa where it was not very big to begin with, but also in places like New Hampshire and South Carolina where she once consistent had 15+ leads.
Today, a new story published by Bloomberg News's Al Hunt today is likely to fuel talk of Clinton panic -- and it is already being largely circulated. It tells the story of a focus group conducted by Peter Hart that showed how much more difficult it will be for Clinton to overcome her negatives than Obama. And it goes on to explain that Clinton's "plan has gone awry," serving some juicy information in the process about how the Hillary camp is furious at Bill for undermining her message on the trail (for example by saying he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning).
In many ways, we need a perspective check here: Yes, Clinton had built a mighty lead by October, but she did not used to be so high in the polls. Up until the end of July, Obama tied her in New Hampshire and South Carolina and came on top sometimes; and up until the summer Clinton rarely lead in Iowa. She still is coming up on top in all states but Iowa, and her national total almost always tops 40%. And she is not at all out of Iowa -- if she wins there, and she very well might, she will likely sweep the early states and the nomination.
And if she fails in Iowa, she is not likely to sink like Howard Dean did: She has the money and the organization, and she will likely compete all the way to February 5th at least even if Obama sweeps IA and NH. She would be unlikely to beat him then, but the race will not be over on January 8th for her as it was 4 years ago. So while it appears unlikely that Obama and Edwards could win without stopping her in Iowa, Clinton could still find ways of winning if she loses the caucuses. She has more possible paths to the nomination than her rivals, and that alone is a huge advantage.
Yet, Hillary's troubles are much deeper than poll numbers indicate, for it is her entire strategy that has been demolished. Her campaign was built on a sense of inevitability: Hillary was not only sure of winning, but she was the natural choice, the candidate around which the base would rally and protect. This led her to do things like vote for the Iran resolution -- just imagine how much stronger she might look right now if she had not convinced herself that she was in genearl election mode already and that it was safe for her to cast that vote. And it did look safe until recently, but her slide has made that strategy non-viable. If Clinton wants to win the nomination, she will have to rethink her campaign entirely and earn it like any other candidate. She could do it, but she needs a Plan B -- and fast.
For now, her Plan B has been to attack Obama -- but that does not sit well in Iowa, as the Des Moines Register cartoon from last Wednesday demonstrated. But that might also be Clinton's goal: She knows that she'll have a much easier time if Edwards wins Iowa than if Obama does, so she might be trying to bring him down with her to let Edwards win the caucuses. That could very well work... though it could be a dangerous game for Clinton. For one, she could come in third; her reliance on inevitability means that her backers in later states could immediately start looking elsewhere if Clinton comes in that poorly in Iowa; and Gephardt failed miserably at this game in 2004, as his attempt to bring Dean down landed me a miserable 11%.
In other words, Clinton knows she can win this by going down into the mix and run a state-by-state campaign that takes her opponents seriously; she got the warning early enough for her to come down from her general election clouds and realize she will have to fight for this. Whether she manages to change her strategy enough will determine whether she can survive an Iowa loss -- and whether she can clinch the nomination.
Today, a new story published by Bloomberg News's Al Hunt today is likely to fuel talk of Clinton panic -- and it is already being largely circulated. It tells the story of a focus group conducted by Peter Hart that showed how much more difficult it will be for Clinton to overcome her negatives than Obama. And it goes on to explain that Clinton's "plan has gone awry," serving some juicy information in the process about how the Hillary camp is furious at Bill for undermining her message on the trail (for example by saying he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning).
In many ways, we need a perspective check here: Yes, Clinton had built a mighty lead by October, but she did not used to be so high in the polls. Up until the end of July, Obama tied her in New Hampshire and South Carolina and came on top sometimes; and up until the summer Clinton rarely lead in Iowa. She still is coming up on top in all states but Iowa, and her national total almost always tops 40%. And she is not at all out of Iowa -- if she wins there, and she very well might, she will likely sweep the early states and the nomination.
And if she fails in Iowa, she is not likely to sink like Howard Dean did: She has the money and the organization, and she will likely compete all the way to February 5th at least even if Obama sweeps IA and NH. She would be unlikely to beat him then, but the race will not be over on January 8th for her as it was 4 years ago. So while it appears unlikely that Obama and Edwards could win without stopping her in Iowa, Clinton could still find ways of winning if she loses the caucuses. She has more possible paths to the nomination than her rivals, and that alone is a huge advantage.
Yet, Hillary's troubles are much deeper than poll numbers indicate, for it is her entire strategy that has been demolished. Her campaign was built on a sense of inevitability: Hillary was not only sure of winning, but she was the natural choice, the candidate around which the base would rally and protect. This led her to do things like vote for the Iran resolution -- just imagine how much stronger she might look right now if she had not convinced herself that she was in genearl election mode already and that it was safe for her to cast that vote. And it did look safe until recently, but her slide has made that strategy non-viable. If Clinton wants to win the nomination, she will have to rethink her campaign entirely and earn it like any other candidate. She could do it, but she needs a Plan B -- and fast.
For now, her Plan B has been to attack Obama -- but that does not sit well in Iowa, as the Des Moines Register cartoon from last Wednesday demonstrated. But that might also be Clinton's goal: She knows that she'll have a much easier time if Edwards wins Iowa than if Obama does, so she might be trying to bring him down with her to let Edwards win the caucuses. That could very well work... though it could be a dangerous game for Clinton. For one, she could come in third; her reliance on inevitability means that her backers in later states could immediately start looking elsewhere if Clinton comes in that poorly in Iowa; and Gephardt failed miserably at this game in 2004, as his attempt to bring Dean down landed me a miserable 11%.
In other words, Clinton knows she can win this by going down into the mix and run a state-by-state campaign that takes her opponents seriously; she got the warning early enough for her to come down from her general election clouds and realize she will have to fight for this. Whether she manages to change her strategy enough will determine whether she can survive an Iowa loss -- and whether she can clinch the nomination.
posted by Taniel at
1:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home