2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Good Fight [View all]
One of the most interesting dynamics of election contests -- be they primaries or general elections -- is how campaigns adjust their tactics. Being the front-runner is very different from being at the back of a pack. When we look at the current republican primary, we see shifts in who will attack who, in hopes of gaining a strategic advantage. And in the Democratic primary, we have witnessed a change in tactics, for a reason that was highlighted by a recent poll.
Attacking your opponents strength can be a winning campaign technique. In recent times, of course, Karl Rove attempted to claim this tactic as his original brain-child. The republican Pillsbury doughboys lack of any meaningful success since 2004 suggests that Karl understood how, but not why, this tactic can succeed. Indeed, it can also fail.
A Quinnipiac poll from the recent Iowa primary contest showed that 93% of Democrats view Bernie Sanders as honest and trustworthy. While Hillary Clinton won the Iowa contest, it was so close as to be a virtual tie. Hence, the honest and trustworthy character traits associated in the publics mind were identified as the strength that needed to be attacked.
In a general election for the Oval Office, it frequently falls upon the vice presidential candidate to be the attack dog. This has been best illustrated, over the decades, by some of the republican VP candidates -- Nixon in the 1950s, Agnew under Nixon, Bob Dole, and Sarah Palin all come to mind. But, in a primary contest, it is usually better to have the campaign, rather than the candidate, go on the offensive. (Donald Trump is clearly an exception to this rule, which serves as an accurate measure of how dysfunctional the republican party is in 2016.)
To a small extent, both Sanders and Clinton have confronted one another during their debates. Bernie has spoken of Hillarys Super Pac, in the context of it being evidence that she is part of the political establishment that is corrupted by Wall Street. Hillary has attempted to frame this as a smear campaign. Another debate topic came from a non-debate question a journalist asked Bernie: Is Hillary a progressive? Sanderss answer was based upon Clintons telling certain audiences that she is a moderate, centrist Democrat. Her response was to falsely claim that Sanders had appointed himself keeper of the gate for defining who is progressive -- something that is pure fiction.
Going into New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton was gaining the endorsements of numerous good, high-profile Democrats. However, while this is effective in some circles, it cemented her image of being an establishment candidate in other circles. More, the fact that Bernie identifies as a Democratic Socialist -- which had been considered his greatest weakness -- was proving to be a strength, when the public learned what that actually implies.
Hence, we are seeing the Clinton campaign go after Sanders on issues relating to his honesty and trustworthiness. This comes as no surprise, as it was easily anticipated. A first step in attacking a persons character is to attempt to make them appear different. Like the infamous Dean scream made Howard seem a bit odd. Thus, part of the recent post-debate spin includes did you see how often Bernie waves a hand while Hillary is answering a question? Or, the focus on Bernies attempt to get in the last word on certain questions. Gosh! Youd think he was running for office, or something.
The new low-point that the Clinton campaign has plunged to has been its attempt to discredit Sanderss history with the Civil Rights movement. Sanders, of course, has never claimed that he was a leader in the movement. Rather, he was one of the thousands of people who put himself on the line -- even getting arrested -- during the struggle.
This Clinton campaign tactic is as unethical as anything the 2000 Bush campaign employed against McCain in South Carolina. Even when exposed, it did not hurt Bush back then, because their party values a good lie over ethics every time. But it may not play as well within the 2016 Democratic primaries. As the public learns that the Clinton campaign will stoop to low blows about an issue as important as Civil Rights, it just might backfire.
Keep on fighting the Good Fight!
H2O Man