Clinton’s Giuliani Strategy, An Insult to Rudy

Ever since Hillary Clinton decided to basically secede the entire month February to Barack Obama, the pundits on TV and across the blogosphere have been referring to it as her "Giuliani Strategy." Frankly, this is insulting to Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's Florida Strategy, while ineffective, was at least based on sound logic.

First, Giuliani was facing four viable candidates. And as he hoped, the early wins were spread equally among his competitors. Although he was not contesting for the early states, neither was he letting one candidate sweep them with huge margins. Allowing one single competitor to win 10 basically unchallenged victories was never part ofGuiliani's plan.

Second, the idea was to win the last contest before Super Tuesday to build momentum going into the day when half the delegates were at stake. By March 4th over two thirds of all the pledged delegates will already have been assigned. How did you use wins in Ohio and Texas to build momentum? The only other contests taking place later in March are the Wyoming caucus (March 8th) and the Mississippi primary (March 11th). It is then over a month until the next primary in Pennsylvania, on April 22nd. In this election cycle a month is an eternity.

Finally, Giuliani's Florida Strategy was actually a strategy. It had been planned out months ahead of time with a clear path to victory. The Clinton campaign has no strategy at this point. It never expected the race to go on past Super Tuesday and was caught completely flat-footed. A last-ditch effort on March 4th is not a strategy; it is a bloody hasty retreat.

Who Wants to be Walter Mondale or Al Gore?

Throughout the last month I have been hearing two analogies to describe the democratic primary. The race is often framed as the reincarnation of Walter Mondale vs. Gary Hart, or Al Gore vs. Bill Brady. The implication is that Barack Obama is Gary Hart/Bill Brady. They are insurgent youthful figures, who give soaring speeches, have enthusiastic young volunteers, and appeal to the wealthier liberal wing of the party.

Walter Mondale, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton are the experience and establishment candidates. They have slowly worked their way up the party ranks and appeal to the older traditional union/lunchbox voters. They are boring technocrats, who stress their complex plans to help Middle America with small incremental changes. Walter Mondale and Hillary Clinton also used their powerful political connections to give them an edge in the delegate count.

And while these analogies have some merit almost no one mentions that Walter Mondale and Al Gore went on to lose the general. Walter Mondale suffered the most crushing defeat in presidential history. Al Gore lost to a political neophyte with youthful indiscretions and a terrible business record. And Al Gore was part of a fairly successful and popular administration. There is no knowing how well Bill Bradley or Gary Hart would have done in the general elections. Of course it would have been basically impossible for Gary Hart to have done worse than Walter Mondale. And if the 2000 election really came down people voting for who they wanted to have a beer with, who does want to have a bud light while watching the game with a pro athlete? The point is the experienced, establishment, and boring candidates have terrible track records.

What a Difference a Few Days Make

It is amazing the difference that just three or four days make. It is very lucky for Hillary Clinton and very unfortunate for Barack Obama that there were five contests this weekend.

Despite all five contest (Maine, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, US Virgin Islands) being massive landside wins for Barack Obama, the press coverage was minor. On Saturday CNN and MSNBC clearly had their B squad doing the coverage, and the Maine caucus went by on Sunday without any punditry and the usual hours of talking head spin.

Hillary Clinton really dodged a bullet in Maine. Maine’s demographics looked very favorable for her. So far she has done well in the northeast. Maine is also an all white blue-collar state with a high average voter age. The Washington Post even published an article (Women Could Give Clinton the Edge In Maine's Caucuses) the day before the caucus prediction a possible win for Senator Clinton. The Maine Democratic Party also allowed people to vote absentee if they could not attend their caucus, so Hillary Clinton could not level her common complaint against caucusing. Even with all the favorable indicators Hillary Clinton lost my 19 points. If the pundits had been talking about the Maine caucus the coverage would not have been favorable for Senator Clinton.

If the five contests this weekend had been just a few days earlier or later the impact would have been much more powerful. Had the four states voted on Super Tuesday they would created a clear victory for Obama. He would have won twice as many states as Clinton (17-8 instead of 13-8), and netted a positive ~60 pledged delegates instead of a plus ~5.

If this weekend’s primaries had been scheduled a few days later, the “Potomac Primary” it would be called Super Tuesday II instead. With 8 contests (4 primaries/4 caucus) representing a broad cross section of the nation. If Barack Obama had won all 8 primaries by double digit margins with the whole pundit universe watching results trickle in over several hours, I suspect Obama would be crowned the presumptive nominee that night. But fortunately for Hillary Clinton the loses will be spread over 4 days and the pundits are all looking to Texas and Ohio on March 4^th instead. The irony is that this weekend had 185 pledged delegates at stake more than Ohio (141) and basically as many as Texas (191). But it is amazing what a difference a few days make.