Clinton’s situational awareness keeps her out front

guest commentary by Dr. Williams Yamkam

Editor’s note: Dr. Williams Yamkam is an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith where he teaches multiple political science courses including a course on campaigns and elections. Besides the various professional trainings that he has received in campaign operations, he is a graduate of American University’s Campaign Management Institute in Washington, D.C.

Opinions, commentary and other essays posted in this space are wholly the view of the author(s). They may not represent the opinion of the owners of The City Wire or the UAFS administration.

In military operations and other security-related fields, it is said that it is essential to display a certain level of situational awareness. The success of a military operation/campaign, more often hinges on the ability of the personnel to properly assess the dynamics of one’s surrounding, identify potential threats, take advantage of opportunities, and adapt to a volatile environment.

The same requirement for success is also applicable to political campaigns, as successful candidates are those who show a deftness in anticipating potential challenges, exploiting opportunities, and being nimble enough to adapt tactics to an ever changing political environment.

In the current presidential race and in the Democratic presidential nomination contest in particular, it seems as if the candidate who is dominating in the polls is the one who has so far displayed a certain level of situational awareness, and those who are struggling are those who have not properly assessed the challenges and have not taken advantage of the opportunities that the political environment has offered them.

CHALLENGES
At the onset of the Democratic presidential nomination contest, the main challenge that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., had to address in mounting a winning campaign was to find the key weakness of his main opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and consistently emphasize it during the campaign. Given that Sanders and Clinton don’t fundamentally disagree on the salient issues most Democratic voters care about, and given the built-in advantage that Clinton had coming into the presidential race, Sanders had to find a distinctive issue/quality that would have given him a comparative advantage over Clinton.

According to polls, Clinton’s main vulnerability revolves around the fact that most Americans do not find her trustworthy. So, from a strategic standpoint, it was to Sanders’ advantage to harp on that vulnerability.

For a while, it seemed as if events did Sanders’ work for him as news cycles focused on the controversy surrounding Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server, which contributed to the erosion of Clinton’s credibility in the eyes of the voters and boost Sanders’ standing in polls. The challenge for Sanders was to find a way to keep the e-mail issue alive so as to keep his upward momentum in the polls.

As for Clinton, given that she was devastatingly surprised by the Democratic base in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination during which a then one-term Senator named Barack Obama capitalized on Clinton’s 2002 vote for the unpopular Iraq war to best her. This time around, Clinton’s main challenge was to make sure she shored up the Democratic base prior to the first electoral contest in Iowa. This meant she needed to address her controversial 2002 vote for the Iraq war – when she was a U.S. Senator, and take a definitive stand on key issues that the Democratic base is passionate about: Free Trade, XL Keystone pipeline, etc. Effectively neutralizing these challenges and getting the Democratic base excited enough to support her would make Clinton a formidable candidate and a shoo-in to be the Democratic nominee.

How were Sanders and Clinton able to turn the above challenges into strategic opportunities?

OPPORTUNITIES
When it came time for Sanders to take advantage of the opportunity – maybe the only one – he had to make some hay out of Clinton’s controversial use of a private e-mail server when she was Secretary of State, Sanders committed what many political strategists would consider an egregious act of political malpractice.

“The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails,” Sanders said during the first Democratic presidential debate. “Enough of the emails. Let’s talk about the real issues facing America.”

Though at first glance Sanders’ response may make strategic sense due to the fact he wouldn’t want to personally attack Clinton – who is still very well-liked by the Democratic base – it nonetheless is bewildering for Sanders to have unilaterally given away the one issue that could have emphasized Clinton’s main vulnerability and might have given him a fair shot at chipping away at Clinton’s lead in the polls.

Following that first debate, news stories about Clinton’s use of the private e-mail server fell off the front pages of major newspapers and stories about Sanders’ massive crowds at campaign events pretty much vanished. Because of Sanders’ refusal to antagonize Clinton as the media would have hoped, news outlets temporarily lost interest in the e-mail server issue. This likely deprived Sanders of the free media he had been receiving. Without that constant free media, the ability of a candidate to draw huge crowds is significantly reduced.

During the second Democratic presidential debate on Nov. 14, Sanders doubled down and reiterated his decision not to politicize Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.

“I was sick and tired of Hillary Clinton’s emails. I am still sick and tired,” Sanders said when prompted.

Opportunity lost.

As for Clinton, she used the opportunity of writing a book, “Hard Choices,” to anticipate on the potential drag that her 2002 vote for the Iraq war could still have on her campaign to say that the vote was a mistake. When pressed by reporters shortly after announcing her candidacy, Clinton asserted the following: “I made a mistake, plain and simple.”

This acknowledgement pretty much neutralized the deleterious potency that her 2002 vote for the Iraq war could still have had on her chances to become the Democratic presidential nominee.

Opportunity gained.

Besides, Clinton quickly moved to voice her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, which was opposed by the progressive base of the Democratic Party. She also stated her opposition to two major free trade deals (TPA and TPP) that major labor unions, a key element of the Democratic base, strongly oppose. Though Clinton’s positions on those issues may be criticized as opportunistic, they nonetheless shield her from attacks from the base of the Democratic Party.

Opportunities gained.

Furthermore, Clinton’s strong performance during the first Democratic debate and during her 11 hour-testimony in front of the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi, helped Clinton’s campaign by not only providing her with free media, but also by giving her an opportunity to look presidential.

Opportunities gained.

Clinton owes her dominance in the Democratic nomination contest mostly to the fact she has so far showed a great level of situational awareness. Should she continue to constantly adapt to the turbulent weather of the political environment and withstand the inevitable headwinds of presidential campaigns, she would steadily move forward toward the completion of her first mission: Becoming the Democratic presidential nominee.