Winning On Points
Jun 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am by Susie
Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics:
From this, I would suggest that, as a prelude to unifying the party, both sides need to be a little modest.
The Clinton people need to recognize that it is not coincidence that Obama’s vote was more efficient. I have discussed this before. Part of this had to do with the fact that the delegate allocation system contains biases that happened to favor Obama. However, part of it had to do with the fact that the Obama campaign had a better understanding of the system. It found the possibilities and made the most of them. What’s more, the Clinton campaign let it do this. Simply put, Obama out-maneuvered Clinton. Clinton supporters need to respect this.
Meanwhile, Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate is the victor not because he put together a majority coalition, but because he out-maneuvered Clinton. This was a highly intelligent strategy, but it was not a grand feat of majority building. Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate won not because “the people had their say,” but because his campaign out-smarted her campaign. Accordingly, they need to respect the candidate whom they could not beat in a straight-up fight for votes.
Hate to be a nitpicker, but I think the author shouldn’t have written:
“Accordingly, they need to respect the candidate whom they could not beat in a straight-up fight for votes.”
because the rules were the same for all candidates. It was a straight-up fight. What was meant was
“Accordingly, they need to respect the candidate whom they could not beat if both campaigns had been run identically.”
because the rules were the same for all candidates
Except for MI & FL. Obama’s won, so can his supporters admit, finally, that the rules were NOT the same for both candidates there?
So now out-maneuvering somebody is some sort of false victory?
Every victory contains some sort of out-maneuvering. It’s putting in the lefty vs the righty; it’s submitting the lower bid; it’s using cumin rather than black pepper; it’s sending 15 people to a caucus state rather than 3. It’s just the scale of the victory that makes it more or less subjective.
This was a razor thin, edge of the seat contest, decided late in the game by the slimmest of margins. But the results are not less valid because somebody got ‘out-maneuvered.’
all I just read was
wahhhhhhhh
Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate won not because “the people had their say,” but because his campaign out-smarted her campaign. Accordingly, they need to respect the candidate whom they could not beat in a straight-up fight for votes.
Please.
What Cost seems unwilling to acknowledge is that Obama has never won a contested election, ever. His M.O. is to get his opponents off the ballot by hook or by crook.
How did Obama win his state Senate seat? By challenging his opponents’ right to be on the ballot and succeeding, so he could run unopposed. That race included Alice Palmer. “Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator.”
Blair Hull, his closest competitor in the Democratic primary when he ran for the Senate, dropped out when his domestic abuse allegations became public less than a month before the primary.
Jack Ryan, his Republican opponent, dropped out when the Chicago Tribune sued to have the Ryan’s divorce records unsealed. The best the Republican’s could get was Alan Keyes and to beat him, all you have to do is get the earthling vote. Obama wakes up the next morning and he’s the junior Senator from Illinois because of “the will of the people.”
Insert eye roll here. This is a unity candidate who represents a new kind of politics in Washington?
I prefer to think of it as poor strategy on Clinton’s part rather than Obama outsmarting her. She CHOOSE not to participate in the caucus states. I got numerous calls from Obama’s people before my caucus, not a one from hers. There were Obama signs all over the place and Obama t-shirt wearing people on hand to get and give information. I never saw a Clinton sign — just a few buttons on some of the other folk in my precinct.
Just as he made a strategic mistake to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan, she made a major strategic mistake in ignoring the caucus states.
Corrine - how does your theory explain OB beating hrc? her name was on the ballot in every state (iirc)…did OB work to get Edwards, Dodd, Richardson etal off the ballot?? facts please…
Your theory, if actuality, shows a fine attunement to rules (ie - one candidate had no right to be on ballot {silly petition requirement!}and the other case properly vetting a competitor)…how is this any different to what the clinton - machine has done in 25+ years of existence?
So Corinne will you vote and campaign for Obama?
“This was a highly intelligent strategy, but it was not a grand feat of majority building.”
It was an excellent way to win the primaries, but the outcome of this particular set of primaries does not preclude Obama having to work to unify the party.
“Hate to be a nitpicker, but I think the author shouldn’t have written:
“Accordingly, they need to respect the candidate whom they could not beat in a straight-up fight for votes.”
because the rules were the same for all candidates. It was a straight-up fight.”
Who got the most votes? Which candidate got the most direct, “I check this name” votes?
One could argue that George W. Bush ran the smarter post-election campaign. Then it would follow that we should all rally ’round the flag and cheer.
As far as I am concerned, it matters not in the slightest how he won. I am a Clinton Democrat and I believe Sen. Clinton is easily the best person for the job. I also believe that Sen. Obama is nothing more than a power-hungry, cynical opportunist who knows how to deliver a line, a political blank slate onto which his uninformed or plainly Clinton-hating supporters are projecting their wishes and desires. The only way Obama gets my vote is if there is HRC right next to him on the ticket. Period, full stop, end of story.
As far as I am concerned, it matters not in the slightest how he won. I am an Obama Democrat and I believe Sen. Obama is easily the best person for the job. I also believe that Sen. Clinton is nothing more than a power-hungry, cynical opportunist who knows how to deliver a line, a political blank slate onto which her uninformed or plainly Obama-hating supporters are projecting their wishes and desires. The only way Obama loses my vote is if there is HRC right next to him on the ticket. Period, full stop, end of story.
Don’t kid yourself. Obama’s supposed win was a direct result of the free ride, the raft, that the press gave him (both mainstream and web), in contrast to the continual bashing that they gave Clinton. The incredibly stupid move of the DNC to essentially marginalize two major states did not hurt either…or is this part of the intelligent maneuvering? The real Obama will be revealed soon - now this is intelligent maneuvering.
pathetic,
the “real obama” kicked hrc’s ass.
you want some cheese with your whine???
the best politician is the one that knows how to count votes to win the contest.
clinton was out organized, out fund raised, and out hustled by BARACK!!!!
she thought she was entitled to be president, but someone else figured out how to work and outsmart her.
that is what our party needs.
you people need to get over it and figure it out.
otherwise, we will truly be fucked because you cannot get over the fact that you lost fair and square.