The more analysis I see, the more it seems that the calendar of primaries was probably the greatest strategic obstacle in the nomination process ... especially given the Democratic candidates' near cookie-cutter policy platforms. Three particularly salient examples:
1) Michigan and Florida - Nothing that hard to master strategically here, but the struggle over the delegates in these two states continues to illustrate the jockeying that goes on to dominate the calendar itself.
2) Early Caucuses, Late Primaries - This Politico profile of Obama's delegate counter is telling. Obama was able to build nearly insurmountable leads by understanding the calendar. Yes, there were big states on the horizon for April and May when Obama's team was toiling in the February/March caucuses, but accumulating delegates early was the right strategy given his evident weaknesses in states where working-class voters dominate Dem primaries.
3) Candidate Identity - Check out this Ben Smith post on Sen. Clinton. I have seen arguments that say things like, "Had Hillary embraced the culturally conservative, gun-loving, champion of the working-class persona earlier, she could have won." Smith debunks this completely by illustrating how there is virtually no chance that a more conservative Clinton would have done better in the early primaries given that: 1) earlier states had more liberal, affluent voters; and 2) John Edwards had already cornered the market on the populist persona, and much more convincingly at that.
Anyway, I thought that was fascinating. Makes Obama's imminent victory all that much more remarkable, given that he was - for the most part - able to stick to a single, coherent message throughout the primary season.
-Education Dude
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment