When I’m not wearing my more traditional guise as an Old One, eating brains, and playing with my Shoggoths (Lovecraft reference per my name) I’m an attorney down in Ryleh, Texas.
As an attorney, I live on several levels — first, what I want to happen, and second, how the game is played. This is a useful dichotomy. What I want to happen in a case depends on lots of things such as equity, law, the facts, and concepts of justice. But what I end up often having to talk about is how the game is being played — the gambits in trial, the way discovery operates, how to bring your weight of persuasion to the other side, and so on, and so on.
My views of politics operate on much the same level: there’s the stuff that I want, and there’s the stuff about how the game is being played. I can criticize someone for doing something that I don’t want, but recognize that they have done it well. Likewise, I can agree with someone’s views, but criticize how they are achieving those goals. This is, I believe, the difference between strategic and tactical criticism.
And thus, the reason I am writing is that now, after months, it appears to me that the tactical decisions of the Clinton campaign are, frankly, absolutely brilliant. These tactical moves were likely developed by someone whose name isn’t going to be in the papers — in law terms, an associate, or a junior partner, or maybe even a “service” partner — but its always possible that someone higher up designed it. Whoever the hell you are, I am here to tip my hat to you. I thought you were screwing this up, but, in fact, your skill is unmatched.
I salute you.
As now becomes obvious, the tactical problem this campaign had was fivefold. First: the campaign is essentially a 3-rd term democratic administration, which means that all winds are against the democratic candidate; the electorate is going to be primed for a change, and even if Obama had proven himself to be the risen Christ, the narrative is against whoever the Democratic candidate will be.
Second, the campaign faced what can only be described as a set of HRC paid speeches which had quotes that, taken out of context, could be used to spear Clinton, and those quotes were widely known to people who were ostensible enemies of Clinton (ie, republic Goldman Sachs employees). A related point: Clinton was the first person related to a former President running for office. Every prior president has cashed in on his former office, setting up a foundation to do whatever and make money from it — and stepped out of the public eye. HRC was married to this foundation and could not extricate herself from it; while it may have been run clean, it was always going to be messy.
Third, the press, which had a long history of disliking HRC and her husband. This made life very tricky — the usual rules about leaking stories through friendly press contacts were suspended, because there were no friendly and reliable contacts to use; the republicans, however, had a massive media network, with Fox, Breitbart, RedState, National Review, and dozens of less-known sites. One could try to game Daily Kos, but, god damn it, while Kos can be played, it doesn’t have a uniform voice, and its hard to control.
Fourth— Trump. The problem with Trump was that there must be *so much* bad stuff about him that the Clinton campaign had to walk a fine line...they couldn’t completely destroy him at the outset, because he’d just quit. On the other hand, he could not be permitted to get his footing and run ahead, because this would reinforce a loser narrative. So, he had to be played — Clinton had to stay ahead, but not too far ahead, until the end when he was tied indelibly to the candidacy, and withdrawing would cause so much damage that he essentially couldn’t be replaced (and people would not swing away to the replacement).
Finally, Fifth, the calendar and the rules. As a general matter, attacks take two weeks to have full impact, plateau for 1-3 weeks thereafter, and then dwindle. For a November 8 election, that means that the latest an attack can be run in around October 25, and the earliest an attack can be run is October 4. Each side will have their conventions, and the first real part of the race will be starting on or about August 4.
So, let’s look at how the HRC campaign played this. HRC comes off the convention with a bounce, and Donald Trump fucking loses it and starts driving his numbers down crazily. This is great, HRC is up, yea! Except even by the second week of August, there’s info out there that people are starting to think Trump might step down or be forced down.
Now, look, what I thought HRC should do is start driving the negative narrative right then and hit Trump with major oppo — but she didn’t do that. Her campaign instead had her and Kaine go out and barnstorm with traditional, quiet speeches and some very high level attack ads. In other words, the campaign held its fire, which is very risky. It also didn’t leak about what was coming, it sat quiet and just took its lumps. And, when HRC got sick (because, for god’s sake, she’s been campaigning constantly), it looked like Trump would be able to pull even or ahead — though, if you looked at it, she always maintained at least a thin vote advantage in the electoral college.
It takes a great deal of strength to not get desperate and to hold fire at that point. The campaign didn’t blink; it didn’t have a shakeup; it didn’t go crazy. It just kept on with the plan.
And then, boom, first debate. HRC isn't sick, is well prepared, and gets in her barbs on a variety of topics. Trump falls for two main points thrown at him — his taxes, and his treatment of women. HRC gets a boost, and is set up for the next week — where, just at the start of the sweet spot for negatives, there is released the attacks on Trump’s businesses (the release of his taxes) and the sudden discovery of his statements about assaulting women.
Reeling, he then spends the week blathering and not preparing for the second debate, where all that is on anyone’s mind is his business relationship and his treatment of women. And, its a town hall — so its not the press releasing stories about him, its common people asking questions.
And the timing? This is right when a candidate can’t quit. The ballots have already been mailed; there are even people already voting. What is trump going to do….resign now? How does that help? Tell people to ignore that the ballot says trump, and that they are actually voting for someone else? Really? Now? When the Trumpians will riot if he’s forced out and may stay home entirely or vote for Gary Johnson?
I’m sure I missed lots of details. Those will get told later. But I’m an idiot — i thought the HRC was running a poor campaign, when it turns out, it was running a campaign that was predicated on brilliant and disciplined performance from its workers and its candidate. This was extraordinarily well played; whether it works or it fails, is irrelevant.
It. Was. Brilliant.
I stand in awe of the game, and, whoever you are, I bow to the superior player.
UPDATE:
First, thank you for the recommended list placement.
Second, yes, there were other nominees “related” to earlier presidents, but what I was thinking of was that there were no modern day “cash in" situations in prior presidencies. (the prior presidents who were related either didn’t have the “make a speech and get lots of money” culture, or came from families that were so wealthy that they had no reason to “cash in.” I apologize, but you all are right, there were plenty of nominees related to prior presidents….anyway, this wasn’t my main point, which I think was clear, but you all are correct to point it out...
UPDATE 2
Some have suggested I am taking a victory lap before the victory. To make it clear, no, I’m not — I’m praising a campaign strategy which seems to be working, and is much more subtle than anything I thought possible. But obviously, brilliant strategy or just luck, YOU ALL NEED TO GO VOTE FOR IT TO WORK. So, yes, admire its facets with me, smile at its brilliance, and reward it with your hard-earned vote.