 |
| Getty Images |
Elijah Okon
Chief Political Editor, DBliss Media
I am highlighting striking similarities between the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign of 2008 and that of 2016. Her embrace of traditional and conventional electioneering tactics (because she does not seem to know any better) in a fast changing world and against a very creative and unconventional ‘outsider’ opponent is shocking. Can’t someone tell her and her team that she needs more creativity and freshness in her strategy if she must win?
In 2008 Hillary Clinton was 30-points ahead over any rival in the Democratic primary. She had outraised everyone at that point by more than a two to one margin. She had the backing of the majority of the Democratic establishment. She had the backing of a popular former president who happened to be her husband. And on June 7, 2008 she lost.
So what happened? Now lets look at the similarities.
SOUNDS OF HILLARY’S INEVITABLE VICTORY: You can hear that everywhere you turn.
In 2007-2008 the Clinton campaign based their tactical strategy on the idea that this would be a short race and big state victories early would decide it quickly. The primary became a long race and every single caucus or primary mattered. Clinton scrambled to retool the campaign based on a longer effort, in the midst of a heated primary. On Dec. 5, the Chicago Tribune, Barack Obama’s hometown paper, reported that new polls showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton far ahead of the Illinois senator in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania made her nomination look “inevitable.”
The Tribune’s “Swamp” blog declared that “the conclusion drawn by the polling experts appears to be: Forget about Iowa being close, Clinton’s inevitable, she’s going to be the Democratic nominee.” A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation and December’s inevitable nominee became the eventual loser.
After the primaries 2016, you could hear the same sounds as many Hillary supporters were saying that Hilary is going to win by a landslide. Majority of polling experts and pollster, media organization, commentators have already given it, saying Donald Trump can’t win, just like 2008.
TOUTED AND STILL TOUTING HER MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
In 2008 she ran for months and months as the candidate of experience and the electorate overwhelmingly wanted change. Polls showed that about three in five Democrats were more interested in change than experience, and about three-fourths of those favored Obama over Clinton. She wasted many resources and much time arguing and building a case based on experience, and two-thirds of Democratic voters wanted change. She tried turning this around late in the game and Obama owned it at that point.
In 2016, she is boasting of her great experience in politics and government, calling Trump inexperienced and unfit. In DNC convention we heard much from her and from President Obama in his speech that Hillary is most experienced candidate in this election, even more experienced that Bill Clinton and he Obama (maybe Obama shot her in the foot). As many Americans are bored of the establishment, as the email scandal flourishes, you ask “is the experience just a long political carrier or a history of intelligent, people and result-oriented leadership”?. Her political carrier has been marred with stories of scandals, mistakes and bad-judgment. Her flag of experience are her bane.
A GOOD FUNDRAISER AND A MEDIA DARLING
In 2008, so early on donors coughed up money, super delegates pledged their support, and media outlets bought into meaningless national polls showing her way ahead. She raised more money than any previous presidential candidate in history and spent more than any previous candidate in history. She was broke when she needed money the most while Obama had money more than enough. While Obama relied on small donations she had the big bags with her.
In 2016, everywhere you check now, the media are screaming that Hillary has outraised Trump, and that Trump’s funding are from small donations (as if its only the millions of dollars raised that are the main indicators of a possible political victory). Throughout most of August she has been away from public view and has been busy at fundraisers. Instead of arguing her case, she is gathering money from the big bags.
The vast majority of the media are sold out to Hillary in an openly biased manner, polls at every major pollster have already given Hillary the White House and the Democrats are to a big extent overconfident, are we going to see a repeat of history.
NO RESPECT FOR THE VOTERS ENGENDERED BY
AN SUBTLE AURA OF ENTITLEMENT
In early 2007, the not-so-secret assumption behind her entire campaign was that she was the inevitable nominee. But voters don't like to be told how they will vote by politicians or pundits. It's disrespectful. While Hillary turned out to be a much stronger candidate as time went on, one thing never changed: the sense that the Clintons felt they were owed the nomination. By repeatedly moving the goal posts on party rules, sideswiping Obama at every turn, whining about rampant sexism on the basis of two or three anecdotes she continued to reinforce the impression that she considered the title hers no matter what.
She won the nomination by beating Bernie Saunders in mischievous ways, as the email scandals shows that she is good at moving the goal post in terms of party rules. As Nigel Farage said in a Trump rally that one thing that killed the Remain party in was the fact the big politicians were at it again, telling voters how to vote. In 2016, she still carries the impression that she deserves the presidency as a compensation for the 2008 defeat.
ARROGANCE
In 2008, from start to finish her campaign gave off a distinct whiff of arrogance. Campaign staffers, internalizing that victory was inevitable, felt that Clinton's stature in the party gave them license to play rough with anyone who wouldn't come along. Unlike the die hard Clinton lovers, they felt intimidated. So later, when she desperately needed their support, they weren't there for her.
In 2016, she carries that arrogance with her, enough not to be speaking with the media, or I should say avoiding the media for a record over 297 days, because she feels it is already a done deal, she is Madam President. Her campaign had ceased ads in some states in August because they felt that those states will inevitably vote for her, this may kill her dreams as it did before.
SHE NEVER AND IS NOT SEPARATING HERSELF FROM BILL AND BILL CLINTON FOUNDATION:
Maybe I should say she can’t separate herself
Hillary Clinton never separated herself enough from Bill in the course of the 2008 race. Voters wanted to see her stand on her own two feet, and understand that on her own she could do the job and it would be her presidency. Every time Bill showed up on the radar it reminded voters that she wasn’t on her own.
In 2016, even on the Commander-in-Chief show her family negative legacies still haunt her, a history of scandals still follow her trail. How are we sure she can stand alone from her husband and with the scandals that are showing how interwoven her public and personal life are, how will we differentiate the Presidency start and the Bill Clinton foundation.
SHE IS NOT WARY OF A POSSIBLE VOTER LOYALTY SWIFT SHIFT
Two months before South Carolina’s January primary, Clinton was far ahead of Obama among African-American voters. But after Obama won in nearly all-white Iowa, more and more black voters decided that he was a viable candidate. The African-American vote catapulted Obama to victory in states across the South. “Getting (overwhelming) black support buoyed him through a lot of primaries,” said Schier.
Her campaign has been confident that as long as you are black you will vote for Hillary, black loyalty may or will change as November approaches. There will be another voter loyalty swift shift.
SHE UNDERESTIMATED AND IS STILL UNDERESTIMATING THE DEGREE TO WHICH SHE WAS A POLARIZING POLITICAL FIGURE
When the primary season began in January, Clinton’s personal approval rating stood at 58 percent, according to the Washington Post/ABC News poll. But after months of primary battling, he positive rating dropped to 44 percent — 12 percentage points behind Obama and 9 points behind Republican John McCain.
In 2016, poll after poll have shown consistently that many Americans don’t trust Hillary. Even within the DNC, many may be sympathetic to her, but not trust her.
EVERY AMERICAN ELECTION IS ABOUT CHANGE
The country is looking for something new and hip and next generational, and this is especially true for voters under 30 (the 9/11 generation). Barack Obama gave voters this, and Hillary didn’t.
In 2016, there is great apathy for the establishment that has proven to be corrupt and detached from the people. The Bernie Saunders supporters who have fallen out with the establishment will be a big threat to her. She is too entangled in politics, too much an insider and Donald Trump is campaigning on the platform of an outsider, there is wave of apathy for insiders and just like in 2008, people need change. People are likely going to try out something new and unconventional and that will swing Trump’s way.
The 2016 USA election has defied many expert predictions, I won’t be surprised if she loses to Donald Trump this time, and I don’t expect anyone to be surprised either because the handwriting is already on the wall.
I hope she loses
ReplyDelete