February 22, 2008

Money and Planning, or Message and Listening to the voters?


Primaries in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are still weeks ahead, but newspapers are already publishing obituaries of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. The Christian Science Monitor writes that: "When the dust had settled after Super Tuesday, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton were locked in a dead heat for the Democratic presidential nomination. Since then, over the past two weeks, Senator Obama has gone on a tear, winning 10 straight primaries and caucuses, and forcing Senator Clinton's back to the wall. Obama now leads the former first lady by almost every conceivable measure – total delegates, total popular vote, national polls, and finances. What happened? On Clinton's part, her straits represent a massive failure of planning and organization, analysts say. Her campaign operated on the assumption she would have the nomination effectively locked up with the 22 contests on Feb. 5, and it spent accordingly. The lack of a Plan B has left her scrambling for cash and organizing late in the post-Super Tuesday contests." So, it was a technical problem, a defect of planning. Too bad that now it is too late.
While there is a kernel of truth in the analysis, all this remains within the boundaries of a mistaken vision of American elections. True, the know-how of electioneering is important, resources and planning are as important as they would be in a military campaign, but it is wrong to look at American elections as games of chess, baseball or football. The media love the format of competion, they crave for personal duels, and nothing excites the journalists pack more than candidates going mano a mano (the bizarre, faux-Italian, slang for "close combat").
This approach neglects the facts that voters, too, want to have their say. Public opinion remains less compliant that many would love it, and Political Communication is not yet an exact science. While the list of successes in manipulating citizens through skillfull propaganda is longer than the Mississippi river, sometimes the "handlers" of politicians fail miserably not because of a lack of professional skill but because they don't register with citizens' fears and hopes.
Clinton's mistake was not in the technicalities but in the central assumptions of her campaign: that experience was all important, that name recognition was a priceless asset, that the network of supporters hard-won before and after the White House years was a resource that could not be matched by Obama or Edwards. Unfortunately, in 2008 experience and name recognition are not central considerations in the minds of voters. Hillary should have looked to the polls that show how only TWELVE PER CENT of likely voter think that Congress is doing a good job, while FORTY-SIX think it's doing a poor job. Just 4% of Democrats believe the nation is better off today than it was four years ago, while 91% disagree. According to Rasmussen Reports, "Sixteen percent (16%) say the country is heading in the right direction while 78% disagree and say the United States is on the wrong track. These figures are slightly more pessimistic than they were in December. Women are more pessimistic than men." And what about the issues? 80% of voters think that the Economy is of top importance to them, a few points ahead of Government Ethics and Corruption, a top issue for 76% of Americans.
These numbers do tell a story: voters want change. Change in Iraq (two thirds want the troops home in a short time). Change in the "benign neglect" Congress and the President adopted toward the economy. Change in the "productivity" of institutions, paralyzed by special interests (a polite word for corporations' lobbysts).
All this explains McCain's and Obama's successes. Voters want to turn the page, and therefore rejected "experience" as an important qualification for candidates: Giuliani had experience in dealing with 9/11, and went nowhere. Romney had experience as a businessman and a governor, and voters snubbed him. Hillary Clinton had a lot of experience, and in fairness it appears that she has learned from it, but this is not the right year for the message.