Primary Reflections

With the impending arrival of Clinton's supposed bow-out of the Democratic primary, I will finally comment on how I see the primary - specifically, on how the two candidates for the general election could have possibly made it this far. The first momentous detail that must be noted is that in both cases, the party's preferred candidate did not get the nomination. Everyone naturally assumed that we would be talking about Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton in the generals. Surprise! but, how did it happen? The Democratic case is much more interesting to analyze, but I will first say a few words about the Republicans. There were essentially 5 contenders: McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Ron Paul. With Romney being the RNC favorite, and Giuliani having his 9/11 "street cred", they seemed to have a huge advantage. But then, a funny thing happened: Ron Paul became significant. He became significant because of a huge, grass-roots, Internet-based funding and publicity campaign. To my knowledge, this is the first time in history that this has occurred. Even Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were unable to mobilize voters in a primary campaign. It is very significant that a candidate who was essentially blacklisted from public debate could become relevant on the national political scene. This should serve as a message to the political parties: grass roots campaigns are here to stay. You must take them into account. Also, the Republicans had another very puzzling occurrence: McCain's campaign went broke, then he came back to win. I can recall vividly his campaign falling apart, soon after I attended one of his speeches and wrote this. This is one of the few times that primary election success has smacked in the face of the "wealth primary". McCain was able to secure the nomination - fairly easily - without having the most money. It probably helped that most of his opponents stunk. The last notable detail is the Republican primary is how their traditional "strategy" destroyed some of their stronger candidates. We all know that the Republican party has married the Religious Right. This marriage hurt Romney (the Mormon) very badly. Romney spent more time explaining his religion than he did campaigning. By contrast, Huckabee became nothing more that a bible-thumping lunatic, instead of the multi-dimensional person that he seems to be. Another message to the Republicans - be careful who you appease. To recap the Republican scenario: The RNC made 3 major mistakes- 1. They discounted the importance of grass-roots politics and the Internet. 2. They assumed that the rules of the wealth primary would hold true. 3. They were held captive by the special interests that they had catered to for years. Switching to the Democrats, this was a four horse race: Clinton, Gore, Edwards, and Obama. At the beginning of 2007, Clinton had a huge lead in the polls, and in the fundraising efforts. She pursued her campaign as if she was the inevitable candidate. Gore was never really in the race, and Edwards dropped out soon after Iowa. So, after February 2008, we essentially have a two horse race. In the Democratic race, the wealth primary and the special interest trap were essentially non-existent - Obama actually raised more money than Clinton, using the same basic mechanism as Ron Paul. There were instead two other major factors that yielded the Democratic result. The first was a factor that is often dismissed as irrelevant, but I believe is actually the most relevant - campaign tone. Historically, campaign politics is about mud-slinging and tearing down your opponent. Clinton certainly engaged in this whole-heartedly. Obama, however, took a different tactic. He was constantly upbeat and positive. He emphasized hope and looking forward. This theme, repeated over and over, helped to generate the excitement over Obama's candidacy. It also helps that he is a very good speaker, but the strategy of positivism is very important. I don't know if Obama will follow up on any of the things he said, but he has created an aura of excitement and positive vibes around his campaign. This is not easily quelled by an opponent's negativity and fear-mongering. Obama did not suddenly invent this tactic for the 2008 election. Few people remember the 2004 Democratic national Convention, but those who do surely remember that Obama was a speaker there, and gave this speech. In reading it, the same principals that guide his current campaign show up. This 2004 speech met with thunderous approval, even overshadowing former president Clinton (fore-shadowing?). So, who cares about likeability? The chart above reveals some very interesting data (more date here). When the primary was a 4-way affair, Clinton had about 35% of the vote. Obama had only about half that, at 18%, with Gore and Edwards about 12% each. However, as Gore and Edwards began to drop out, Hillary Clinton gained almost no additional support. Obama, by contrast, exploded up the polls - ultimately overtaking Clinton. The other important point regarding the Democrats is that, while Obama was out-speaking Clinton and building his positive aura, his staff was also whipping hers strategically. The Democratic primary process is very complicated, as I have noted in the past. Obama's team dug though every nuance of the process, and determined how to use it to their candidate's best advantage. Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries. Clinton's staff was made up mostly of loyalists, instead of experts. This hurt her badly, as well as exposing her feeling of inevitability. By the time she realized the problem, it was too late. There are many strange pieces to the Democratic nomination process. They are not secret, but they are unusual. There is a reason for this: The fiasco of the 1968 convention in Chicago, where police battled anti-war protesters in the streets, led to calls for a more inclusive process. Given this, changes were made: One big change was awarding delegates proportionally, meaning you can finish second or third in a primary and still win delegates to the party's national convention. As long candidates get at least 15 percent of the vote, they are eligible for delegates. The system enables strong second-place candidates to stay competitive and extend the race—as long as they don't run out of campaign money. As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system. Obama's campaign made careful note of these rules, determining how they could benefit Obama: In a stark example, Obama's victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey. We can see that a combination of good campaign strategy and a well-presented candidate with cross-demographic appeal is what ultimately defeated Clinton: "The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. "They were very conscious and aware of these nuances." But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate. "If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked," Fowler said. "The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good." It's also a good reson to supprot Obama over Clinton. Do you want someone in the White House who doesn't even take the time to understand the details of their tasks? Now for the lessons that the DNC should learn: 1. They discounted the importance of the Internet - particularly the fund-raising aspect. 2. They continued to engage in an antiquated strategy of mud-slinging. 3. they did not understand their own process well enough to craft a winning strategy. The reason I like these primary reults has nothing to do with the candidates. I don't expect either McCain or Obama to be much different than historical presidents in substance. However, their primary victories will help to change how election politics function. Perhaps the political world will learn to: 1. Pay more attention to grass-roots opinions. 2. Be less focused on campaign funding, or at least manage it differently. (Some already have) 3. Reduce the frequency of mud-slinging attacks. 4. Separate themselves from special interests. 5. Be more detail-oriented. These changes would be welcome improvements indeed.