Matthew Dowd
Matthew Dowd has been a campaign strategist in races throughout the country. In 30 years, Dowd has worked for Democrats and Republicans, most recently serving as chief strategist for President George W. Bush in 2004.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama Didn't Buy the Presidency
- Dowd: Top Five Reasons McCain Will Likely Lose
- Obama's Race to Lose; Pressure Points on Palin
- The Remaining Game Changers
- Two Conventions Down
- Democratic Convention: Mechanics Good, Message Missing
- VP Choice: Another Meaningful '08 Moment
- Michigan Memories & Musings
- It's the Economy...Again
- Obama Brand: Truth or Consequences
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« Previous | Main | Next »
How Obama Won and Clinton Lost
June 03, 2008 6:20 PM
Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor
A year ago, Hillary Clinton was 30-points ahead over any rival in the Democratic primary. She had outraised everyone at that point by more than a two to one margin. She had the backing of the majority of the Democratic establishment. She had the backing of a popular former President who happened to be her husband. And she lost.
So what happened?
Like any story, the reasons and causes aren't easily reduced to a one paragraph explanation and there were multiple causes for why Clinton lost. I will reflect on just on a few from my perspective.
This is a race that Clinton could have won and should have won, and came very close. And her gender ultimately didn't have much to do with the loss.
The following is my attempt at explaining what happened:
1. She ran for months and months as the candidate of experience and the electorate overwhelmingly wanted change. She wasted many resources and much time arguing and building a case based on experience, and two-thirds of Democratic voters wanted change. She tried turning this around late in the game and Obama owned it at that point.
2. The political environment of this race was much different than 2004 or 2000. In those elections, strength was the key attribute the country was looking for. The country desired more of a father figure. Today, the country is looking for more a a healing presence, someone more nurturing and demonstrating an ability to bring the American family together –- more of a mothering persona. The country wanted a Mom, and Hillary gave them a Dad. She tried to hard to demonstrate her toughness and strength and voters wanted more caretaking and sensitivity.
3. Presidential campaigns are always about understanding voters fears, but then asking them to vote their hopes. Clinton did an unbelievable job speaking to voters fears but she never crossed the bridge to speak to voters hopes. She got stuck in the fear equation and voters needed her to move to hope at some point.
4. The Clinton campaign based their tactical strategy on the idea that this would be a short race and big state victories early would decide it quickly. This primary became a long race and every single caucus or primary mattered. Clinton scrambled to retool the campaign based on a longer effort, in the midst of a heated primary.
5. Hillary Clinton never separated herself enough from Bill in the course of this race. Voters wanted to see her stand on her own two feet, and understand that on her own she could do the job and it would be her presidency. Every time Bill showed up on the radar it reminded voters that she wasn't on her own. And couple this with fact that Bill Clinton, while having a great political ear and voice advocating on behalf of himself, seems to not be as adept at advocating on behalf of someone else.
6. The country is looking for something new and hip and next generational, and this is especially true for voters under 30 (the 9/11 generation). Barack Obama gave voters this, and Hillary didn't. Obama was the Ipod of this election, while Clinton was the Walkman. The Walkman is reliable and easy to use and works great, it just doesn't have the hip factor that an Ipod does.
Obviously, this is only a short list of causes from my own perspective, and equally as important was Obama's candidacy, his message, and his campaign's tactical successes.
But in the end, this race was in Hillary Clinton's hands and it is a race she should have won, no matter her opponent.
And dealing with a loss where you didn't have to lose, but for your own actions, is heartwrenching. I do feel for the process she must be going through and will go through. Peace to her.
June 3, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1022)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
SHE WAS TO SELF CENTERED ALL FOR HERSELF AND TO HECK WITH THE REAS OF YOU,NOW SHE WANT VEE P NO way THE ARE ALREADY USING HER WORDS TO SMEAR HIM THANKS HILLY YOU WITCH
Posted by: white woman ind. voter | Jun 3, 2008 6:33:59 PM
You left out the most important factor: Clinton voted for the Iraq war, and Obama was against it from the beginning. If Clinton had voted against giving Dumbya the authorization to go to war with Iraq, she would already be the nominee.
Posted by: Ed S, Lexington KY | Jun 3, 2008 6:37:02 PM
what a load of crap - this guys opinion stinks - and whatelse - he played for both teams (repub and demo)
go figure some loser would write this garbage
Posted by: jozy | Jun 3, 2008 6:39:19 PM
Hill was a weak candidate who had lot of weak advisers around herself. She made lot of strategic mistakes and said lot of wrong things about Obama which today McSame is using against Obama. The best has won and the game is over. Viva America y viva Obama.
Posted by: BKMC | Jun 3, 2008 6:40:48 PM
The country wanted a Mom, and Hillary gave them a Dad... and a wacky uncle-by-marriage that your family tells you to not give beer to or be caught alone with.
Posted by: PJ | Jun 3, 2008 6:42:19 PM
The reason Hillary lost is a lot more complex than you suggest:
http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2008/05/why-hillary-los.html
Posted by: Jim Buie | Jun 3, 2008 6:45:45 PM
This writer left out a main point in her campaign.
Today most people want to tell you how the other is wrong instead of just stating what she is for or against. She answered questions beating around the bush and telling us how Obama messed up. If she cannot even answer a debate question what makes you think she can answer something specifically in the White House? Then again she will blame it on someone else.
Posted by: Rebekka | Jun 3, 2008 6:45:47 PM
Congrats Senator! YOU RAN A CAMPAIGN FOR THE AGES.
I HAD DOUBTS ABOUT BARACK, BUT WHEN HE MAKE HIS STANCE AGAINST THE PHONY PANDERING ON THE GAS TAX , I SAID HE WAS SPECIAL AND DIFFERENT.
IT TOOK CAHUNAS AND HEART.
HE IS THE REAL DEAL.
THE OTHERS PLAY POLITICS
HE WAS RIGHT.. YOU CANT SEND THE SAME PEOPLE BACK TO WASHINGTON AND EXPECT CHANGE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT GENDER OR RACE BUT WHO CAN GET THE JOB DONE.
SO TO THE WOMEN OF HILLARY THIS IS NOT AMERICAN IDOL WHERE YOU MAY NOT BUY THE WINNERS ALBUM
THIS IS THIS COUNTRY FUTURE, YOUR POCKET BOOK AND YOUR LIFE . AND NO PARTY PROTECTS AND HAVE WOMEN BACK LIKE THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.. FROM POLICIES TO HELP KIDS... ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT.
.
Posted by: susan34 | Jun 3, 2008 6:46:46 PM
"But in the end, this race was in Hillary Clinton's hands and it is a race she should have won, no matter her opponent".
Yes it was a race that she was odds on to win...but her opponenet in this was such a big issue...she would have beaten Gore, Kerry, Edwards and the like. She was just tremendously unfortunate to come up against a once in a generation sensation like Barack Obama.
Posted by: Louise | Jun 3, 2008 6:47:26 PM
Easy answer voter fraud at caucuses and at the DNC.
Fraud is Chicago politics as usual.
Too bad voter intimidation and rigging caucuses with out of state students wont work in a general election.
He is unelectable and Democrats are dumb. 35% of Clinton voters are walking.
Posted by: s.b. | Jun 3, 2008 6:48:53 PM
Good summation Matthew. Pretty much covers it.
Posted by: natal | Jun 3, 2008 6:50:12 PM
Hillary underestimated her opponent and treated him with contempt. This led her to believe the campaign would end on Super Tuesday, and she had no plans for the day after, when Obama began his historic string of victories that gave him an impregnable delegate advantage. You must always respect your opponent before you can defeat him.
Posted by: FilmMD | Jun 3, 2008 6:50:16 PM
I did love your equating Obama with the ipod and HRC with the Walkman. That was funny. And am I, the Apple lover for many, many years about to go in a different direction.
I found your reasoning interesting (do you even read these remarks?) but disagree when you say gender didn't have much to do with the loss. First, I think it had quite a bit to do with it, but -- and in a sense you're right -- it had MORE to do with the media's overwhelming fawning over Obama and giving him a pass instead of a critical eye. I think that had that happened much sooner in the race than it did (after Obama already had a significant lead), then HRC would have won. She almost did -- and instead, the infatuation of the media, as well as voters, of the new hip young thing, pushed the race ino the other direction.
But the love affair won't last. Obama has significant weaknesses and I think he will ultimately fail come November. I think of even my family, several of whom have said they'll vote for McCain in the fall. Unlike me, they're not bitter (I, on the other hand, AM bitter); they're matter of fact. Obama simply doesn't have experience, they sayd. McCain is a moderate and he'll be fine for them.
(And my two voting age children are Obama all teh way.)
Posted by: Beth | Jun 3, 2008 6:50:39 PM
bilderberg hillary the war candidate boo hoo!
Posted by: yourauthor | Jun 3, 2008 6:50:45 PM
Ed S, Lexington KY - Obama did not vote because he was not even a Senator...he would have sat on the fence like he has in the past with all major issues until the smoke clears then pick a side maybe..he has bad judgement and no experience but plenty of experience in Chicago politics and manipulating people..
Posted by: dell | Jun 3, 2008 6:51:31 PM
Where's the typical race-baiting Hillary supporters always on ABC blogs? Kinda quiet these days.
Posted by: ROB | Jun 3, 2008 6:52:46 PM
waaaaa waaaaa waaaaaa.......
hillary wanted to burn down waco again
Posted by: yourauthor | Jun 3, 2008 6:54:19 PM
Easy answer:
Stealing votes from Hillary
Posted by: GeorgeChriss | Jun 3, 2008 6:56:51 PM
This article is wrong on so many points! The reason that Hillary lost was because the Dem Party leaders chose Obama from the very beginning! They cannot possibly accept Hillary. The only reason that Obama is ahead in pledged delegates is because his gains in caucuses, which are dominated by the party operatives and they are on the line with the party leaders. If you only look at the pledged delegates by primaries, Hillary won more delegates, no question, and she won the popular vote. At the end, it was again the DNC gave the nomination to Obama, including giving some of the delegates Hillary actually won in MI. So much victory by Obama and his message. Obama did not win, the DNC handed the nomination to him! And Obama has no substance in his so-called message, and he is not honest with the American people. I have always voted for dem in presidential election. This year I will vote for McCain!
Posted by: Jake | Jun 3, 2008 6:57:34 PM
hillary what a disasta...just like nafta...shakin' hands with newt....keeping the vote open past 15 minutes and bribing houston congressperson with million dollar contracts....0 the humanity!...maybe she'll get fsc
Posted by: freetradein | Jun 3, 2008 6:58:20 PM
Post a comment
