Inevitability isn't a viable strategy against a well-funded candidate with a powerful message.

[GreatGazoo]

The Clinton campaign was meant to be shock and awe: big events in big states, sweep the board on Super Tuesday, overwhelm the less well-known competitors," said Chip Smith, who was deputy campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000. "Unfortunately, Obama uprooted that strategy. Inevitability isn't a viable strategy against a well-funded candidate with a powerful message."
...
But Democratic operatives see a number of serious mistakes in planning and strategy in Clinton's campaign. They include:

· A message out of step with an electorate that desperately wanted change.

· Failure to devise a plan B if she failed to knock Obama out of the race in Iowa or by Super Tuesday on February 5.

· Failure to build a grassroots organisation. The campaign, caught up in its self-created myth of invincibility, also lost track of spending, burning through $120m (£61m) so fast that Clinton could not run television ads in several key states in February.
...
But voters were not impressed by Clinton's skills as a survivor - they wanted to move past the battles of the 1990s. Her campaign's failure to read the signs left her cast as a creature of the status quo, said Ken Goldstein, an expert in campaign advertising at the University of Wisconsin. "Hillary Clinton could have been portrayed as a change candidate," he said. "If you look at the way women candidates typically run, they typically run as change candidates because by definition they are not old white guys."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/04/hillaryclinton.uselections20084

As in 2008, if Clinton has peaked too early it may be deja vu all over again:

Mook conceded that Sanders likely will win the next five caucuses and do well in Arizona, where he said Sanders has invested more than $1.5 million in ads.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/16/bernie-sanders-weighs-next-move-after-hillary-clinton-expands-delegate-lead/81852066/

[merrily]

1. Isn't Mook funny, talking about how much SANDERS is spending?

"Her campaign's failure to read the signs left her cast as a creature of the status quo, said Ken Goldstein, an expert in campaign advertising at the University of Wisconsin."

This is not true. They read the signs. Hillary met with Warren and started sounding like Warren. She ran against Bernie and started sounding like Bernie. However, many people don't believe or trust it.

Secretary, former Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton has not been "cast" as a creature of the status quo: She is a creature of the status quo--and the status quo is a creature of hers.

As founding members of the DLC, as the first DLC President and First Lady for 8 years, as Senator and as Secretary to State, she and her husband have had a huge role in creating the status quo.

If anything, the status quo is better because President Obama did away with or reformed things the Clintons instituted and/or approved, such as getting rid of DOMA and DADT and getting Dodd Frank in place.

[leftofcool]

2. And he still can't catch her in delegates

As soon as NY and PA are called for Hillary, Bernie should get out of the race.

[GreatGazoo]

4. do you have next week's lottery numbers ? or the NCAA winner?

[brooklynite]

3. Too bad "winning States" is meaningless...

...it's the size of the win and the number of the delegates; winning some western State Caucuses that won't be blowouts won't yield the delegates he needs to erase her lead.

[GreatGazoo]

5. +1

Sanders needs to win 60% of the remaining delegates, not "states".

[Renew Deal]

6. More than that

And every time he comes in below that, it's even more the next time.