From Chris Shaffer

The following essay comes to us from Chris, one of our recent political science graduates:

Staying on Message

In presidential primaries staying on message is very important to win the hearts and minds of voters. Staying on message gives voters a sense of strength in a candidate. To go off message invites fear and a loss of confidence in a candidate, it can make a candidate appear like they are floundering and adapting to their opponents attacks. This idea of staying on message has become somewhat lost on Senator Clinton. She has floundered somewhat throughout her presidential campaign. Even though the nomination is still to up for grabs. Senator Clinton has tried 5 messages that have fallen short in trying to stop Senator Obamas’ presidential aspirations.
1) Back in Iowa her campaign tried to paint Obama’s ideas on Iraq as a “fairy tale.” This narrative could not hold up due to her vote for the authorization of the war (some democrats have never forgiven her for that). Instead of sticking to her strengths like being strong on national security due to the fact she is a 2 term senator who sits on the Senate Arms Service committee. Her husband, former President Clinton presided over an administration that kept the country safe and peaceful for 8 years. However, she never highlighted any of these credentials.
2) The next misstep took place in the disastrous South Carolina primary where allegations of “race baiting” dominated the news. A perception was formed that the Clinton campaign was trying to turn Senator Obama into the “black candidate.” This perception whether right or wrong seemed to stick. Obama has garnered the support of African Americans in very high numbers since South Carolina. A strategic mistake once again by the Clinton campaign. Instead of campaigning in South Carolina she sent her husband who became an attack dog and really tarnished his image. President Clinton has been quiet ever since the debacle. Whether or not she would loose Carolina is somewhat irrelevant. However, the rhetoric stuck and African Americans have abandoned her (she enjoyed large support from African Americans before the primaries started).
3) Slowly but surely Senator Clinton tried to morph into the “change candidate.” Governor Romney tried his version of the “change” mantra with his “Washington is broken” rhetoric (no one bothered to tell Governor Romney that the Republican Party controlled Congress for 6 years of President Bush’s presidency. And as fate would have it Governor Romney was running for President as a Republican. Perhaps not the best way to garner support from congressional Republicans). Senator Obama’s entire campaign had been based around this theme of change and new leadership in Washington. Hillary Clinton entered the race as the “establishment candidate.” She served on the committee that provided evidence to impeach President Nixon, she was the first lady of Arkansas, the first lady in the White House, and she is a 2 term senator. However, she seemed to run away from this platform. It is impossible to run a campaign with an establishment resume and a change platform. Instead of embracing her impressive resume she seemed to distance herself from it.
4) Senator Clinton than began to say that she was ready to “fight republicans” and had taken republican attacks for 16 years. This narrative was flat since primary exit polls showed that the American people want “change.” Her rhetoric of “fighting republicans” is exactly what has gridlocked Washington for 7 years. The Obama campaign has centered on reaching out to republicans and independents. She has quietly stopped using this rhetoric and changed it to be less divisive. But the fighting rhetoric is both a turnoff to independents and younger voters that are already apathetic to politics. Against Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee such harsh rhetoric will turnoff independent voters.Presidential politics is about being able to connect with voters from all walks of life. The Clinton Campaign seems to be running a big state campaign opposed to a 50 state Campaign. She has currently loss 8 states in a row and is poised to lose 2 more before the March 4th primaries where Ohio and Texas are up for grabs. However, she seems to really not acknowledge that she will potentially lose 10 straight states in presidential primary. She has written off smaller states as unimportant to winning the nomination. Democrats writing off any state is a mistake and sends a message to some voters that there vote may not be as important. Obama won Nebraska, South Carolina, and Alabama. None of these states are likely to vote for neither of the Democratic nominee in a general election. But to marginalize their vote is not an enduring message to voters. She is touting Texas as a crucial primary and it has not voted for a Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson. Winning California, New York, and New Jersey are meaningless since they are Democratic strongholds and will probably vote Democratic no matter the nominee. She should have highlighted her wins in Arkansas, Arizona, and Nevada since they are potential swing states that Democrats need to win in a general election.