?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

This is a brilliant account of the 2008 US presidential election, concentrating particularly on the Obama/Clinton dynamic (since that turned out to be much more important and durable than the Obama/McCain dynamic). The authors claim to have got detailed accounts from campaign insiders of key conversations and exchanges right up to the level of the candidates, and it rings true without revealing anything about the two key personalities that I had not already guessed. (It seems to have been published as Game Change in the USA.)

Three aspects of the narrative really struck me.

First, that the candidates themselves tend to be pretty flawed human beings. Successively the Edwards and McCain campaigns crashed to disaster largely because of the personalities of Edwards and McCain themselves, unwilling to adapt to the discipline necessary to keep their teams motivated and to avoid gaffes to the press. Both Obama and McCain suffered serious wobbles in the last few weeks before the election due to the indiscipline of their running-mates. All of those individuals had previous won elections for public office, so it is surprising that Edwards and McCain were not able to deal with the demands of the presidential campiagn. I can cut Biden and Palin a bit more slack, as the vice-presidential slot is much more peculiar, and perhaps Edwards is explicable because he was in complete denial about the state of his marriage. But McCain's behaviour is just bizarre.

Second, and linked to the first point, the peculiar desire of the media - particular the US media - for spectacle rather than story means that any electoral campaign is vulnerable to a single killer moment. Occasionally - as with Hillary Clinton's tearful interview in New Hampshire, which it is pretty clear won her the primary there - it works to the candidate's advantage. Much more often, of course, it reacts to their disadvantage, as Rick Perry is discovering.

Third, and also linked to the first point, the fact that the US system is so very candidate-based rather than party-based makes the professional campaigner's career much more volatile and much more based on personality. That has consequences for how campaigns work internally. Staffers are jockeying not only to get the credit for getting their candidate elected, but also for positioning in the victorious candidate's administration and/or for a better-paid role in the next campaign. It can also be much more difficult to tell the candidate home truths about their own performance, compared to the situation if both candidate and staffer are beholden to a political party structure rather than staffers being utterly dependent on the candidate's whim. It also feeds into the dependence of the campaigns on continual fund-raising.

In the end, Obama won because his fundamentals were sound; he had a good narrative in the first place, he was disciplined about sticking to it, and he was fortunate in both the character of his opponent in the general election and the economic circumstances which made Republicans unelectable in 2008. Clinton was unlucky in that her narrative was almost as good and her discipline equal to Obama's, but her campaign team was less coherent (for the reasons given above) and she carried unfair negative baggage in the shape of her husband. McCain lost because he deserved to. (The authors are surprisingly sympathetic to Sarah Palin, and blame McCain for choosing her without sufficient forethought and exposing her on the national platform without adequate preparation.) An excellent book from which I learned some interesting things.

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
bemused_leftist
Nov. 12th, 2011 08:39 am (UTC)
An ex-President who balanced the budget and still has a favorability rating of 67% is not 'negative baggage.'

Hillary won the popular vote in the primary, won the big states, and won most of the later primaries. Obama 'won' by taking his name off the ballot in Michigan so that the Rules and By-laws Committee could later award him some of Hillary's delegates, and similar tricks.


nwhyte
Nov. 12th, 2011 09:15 am (UTC)
My comment about Bill Clinton's "negative baggage" is based on Heilemann and Helprin's take from Hillary Clinton's campaign staff. Myself I admire him.

Your account of the Michigan primary is rather distorted. In fact Hillary Clinton attempted to exploit the Michigan legislature's efforts to pre-empt the campaigns calendar, resulting in a mess which the DNC had to sort out somehow. It's a good illustration of why the entire primary system is crazy, but doesn't show Obama in a bad light as far as I can see.
bemused_leftist
Nov. 12th, 2011 09:23 pm (UTC)
That's attributing a motive to Hillary's action of staying on the ballot. I was attributing a motive to Obama's action of taking himself off.

Regardless of motives, the effect was to throw the decision to the Rules and By-laws Committee. This, and similar backroom rulings, were what gave Obama the nomination: not 'fundamentals' and 'narrative.'
(Anonymous)
Nov. 12th, 2011 09:53 pm (UTC)
lorac
It is literally a violation of DNC rules to take electoral votes from one candidate and give them to another, and also a violation to take electoral votes from the "noncommitted" choice and give them to one of the candidates. The RBC, a part of the DNC, did both when they stole delegates from Hillary (thousands and thousands of people who voted for Hillary had their vote STOLEN and given to Obama) and took ALL the noncommitted delegates and gave them to Obama. THOSE are the "motivations" you should be impugning, not Hillary's.
nwhyte
Nov. 12th, 2011 11:14 pm (UTC)
Re: lorac
Who mentioned motivations?
(Anonymous)
Nov. 12th, 2011 11:30 pm (UTC)
Re: lorac
"Your account of the Michigan primary is rather distorted. In fact Hillary Clinton attempted to exploit the Michigan legislature's efforts to pre-empt the campaigns calendar, resulting in a mess which the DNC had to sort out somehow. "
nwhyte
Nov. 13th, 2011 07:12 am (UTC)
Re: lorac
Oh, I see. I was confused when you put "motivations" in quotation marks; for me that would normally mean a direct and accurate quote.
(Anonymous)
Nov. 13th, 2011 02:17 am (UTC)
Re: lorac
"Your account of the Michigan primary is rather distorted. In fact Hillary Clinton attempted to exploit the Michigan legislature's efforts to pre-empt the campaigns calendar, resulting in a mess which the DNC had to sort out somehow. "
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

January 2018
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel