Tone, Negativity and Strategy
Tensions Between Sanders and Clinton Camps Remain Unresolved Regarding DNC April Debate
(3/31/16, 6:30am) This analysis, despite the suggestion of the title, begins as most contemporary American political commentary seems to: with Donald Trump. Wednesday, March 30th, was witness to unrelenting, near-unanimous, bi-partisan outrage in response to remarks made by Donald Trump during a Town Hall discussion with MSNBC moderator, Chris Matthews. The ex-reality star insinuated that women who receive illegal abortions would be ‘punished’ under a Trump presidency.
This volatile statement, in tandem with the continuing controversy spurred by Tuesday’s arrest of Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, has provided news networks with enduring, gendered, charged debate in the latter half of this week. These most recent critiques of the Trump campaign are legitimized and intensified by the nature of the arrest: part of an ongoing investigation into misdemeanor battery of a journalist by Lewandowski — provoked by allegations of female, Floridian reporter, Michelle Fields.
Understandably, the growing coalition in opposition to a potential Trump presidency has monopolized on these glaring gaffes. However, the media attention on the recent advent of further opposition against the Republican front-runner functions identically to previous episodes of The Presidential Apprentice; Trump’s domination of 24 hour news cycle coverage.
One story shrouded by Trump-engineered journalistic tunnel vision, is a brewing storm between primary contenders across the aisle: whether or not the scheduled April DNC debate will take place in New York before the allegiance of the state’s 274 delegates will be determined by April 19th’s primary.
Some details regarding this story, particularly the nature of additional efforts made by the Sander’s campaign, prior to this past weekend, in order to schedule a New York debate, remain murky. Fortunately, a narrative pieced together by various reputable sources (Politico, Bloomberg, CNN and The Washington Post) is serviceably coherent.
This past weekend, Sen. Sanders said in his appearance on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd: “I would hope very much that as we go into New York state, Secretary Clinton’s home state, that we will have a debate — New York City or Upstate, wherever — on the important issues facing New York and, in fact, the country.” Sen. Sander’s remarks were followed later Sunday by campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, publishing of an open letter to the Clinton campaign. The letter levied allegations against the Clinton campaign. Weaver identifies the failure of Clinton’s campaign to negotiate the scheduling of a New York debate as a deprivation of the opportunity to compare the two progressive rivals via debate to a significant body of Democrat constituents. Here is the letter:
Understanding the reality of what is transpiring between the two democratic campaigns requires distillation of subtext from published statements as well as hair-trigger hesitation to call malarky on political maneuvering as performed by either candidate, which is inherently manipulative. To produce a more objective portrayal of these events, often-skewed by public perception of political in-fighting, four questions must be answered: 1. What does Sanders stand to gain and/or lose from a New York debate? 2. What does Clinton stand to gain and/or lose from a New York debate? 3. Why did the Sanders campaign expand the exposure to this controversy from the professional to the public sphere? 4. Why has Hillary initially refused to entertain this proposal?
Before considering the above questions, it is essential to have contextual understanding. The suggestion of an April debate is not new. As mentioned in Weaver’s letter, the debate was included in the terms of the agreement made between the Clinton and Sanders camps beginning in late-January, continuing into the first week of February. The concession of additional debates in March, April and May by the Clinton campaign according to the terms set out by the Sanders campaign resolved Clinton’s pursuit of a late-scheduled New Hampshire debate, leading up to the state’s early primary. That debate, then the Flint, Michigan debate in March and the agreed upon April and May debates were agreed upon outside of the purview of established DNC process.
The first question begged by analysis is: what does Sen. Sanders have to gain and/or lose from a New York debate? Answer: there is a lot to gain, and there is very little to lose.
Sanders returns to the East Coast in April with a freshly emboldened sense of political momentum. Bernie secured five sweeping victories after last week’s Pacific primaries and caucuses; however, despite this recent showing of strength, Sanders remains behind Clinton in the delegate race and in New York democratic primary polls. 1,267 delegates are pledged to Clinton, whereas there are 1,037 pledged to Sanders. It is therefore understandable that Sanders would place great intrinsic value on the 247 delegates to be claimed on April 19th.
Furthermore, New York would be a symbolic victory for Sanders; delegates won by the senior Vermont Senator would serve as a profound example to the nation. Their shift in support, despite their history with two-term New York Senator Clinton, to a different candidate for president in 2016, authenticates the Democratic underdog’s threat to the ordained defender of the left-centric status quo.
As far as potential loss of political capital is concerned, if Sanders’ debate performance was poor, he could potentially compromise the support of New York voters leaning towards him. Contrary to this assertion, if one considers the impromptu New Hampshire debate in early February as a case study of Sanders’ debate proficiency, it seems highly unlikely that this worst-case scenario would manifest in reality. If we presume debate to be an opportunity for candidates to rock the status quo of support suggested by polling, Sanders was in a far more precarious position in New Hampshire.
As January drew to a close, he held an undisputed lead on Clinton in the polls (a similar situation to the one in which the Clinton campaign currently finds itself). After the debate — in which, many pundits argued Clinton’s performance was stronger — Sanders still routed her in the New Hampshire voting booth, carrying %60.4 of the vote to Clinton’s %38.
The clear strategy for Sanders’ campaign, as it sets its sights on April, seems to be the one which Sanders’ campaign has taken: the offensive. With much to gain and little to lose, the confidence and (apparent) transparency of the Vermont Senator’s bid to schedule a New York debate provides a banner under which momentum of support catalyzed by his late-March results can gather, a platform for Bernie to highlight his Brooklyn roots and an opportunity to intimately address voter’s Wall Street concerns. As the window for Bernie to catch and surpass Hillary’s delegate lead closes, the Sanders camp’s current strategy is seemingly the only one. Additionally, (as is indicated in the baiting end to Weaver’s letter: ‘perhaps there is some tactical advantage…’) by putting Clinton on the defensive, there is opportunity to make the former Secretary of State appear weak or inconsistent. This last advantage manifested in a tweet from Sen. Sanders’ campaign on Tuesday:
Continuing our analysis, alternatively, what does Hillary stand to gain and/or lose from a New York debate? A mirror image of Sanders’ asymmetrical advantage to disadvantage outlook, Clinton has a lot to lose and not very much to gain. As discussed in defining Sanders’ potential benefits, Clinton is ahead in the New York polls, and even providing the opportunity for disturbance of that fact is imprudent. Also, as the frontrunner and establishment candidate, to allow her opponent to dictate the terms of where and when the two debate suggests weakness.
In accordance with the above assessment, the Clinton response to the Sanders’ campaign proposal and open letter has suggested that the ‘contentious’ New York debate is an artificially contrived controversy. As Clinton campaign manager, Brian Fallon, explains it, the letter is both a blatant disregard of a pursuit for an additional debate according to DNC policy, as well as indicative of an increasingly negative tone in Sanders’ continuing race against Hillary. Tuesday, Fallon stated that the Former New York Senator and Secretary of State is: “perfectly willing to debate in New York and other places” provided that the Sanders’ campaign adopt a distinctly less negative ‘tone.’ Furthermore, Fallon grounds this request by citing the pledged non-aggression of the Sanders campaign during the Fall.
The answers to the 3rd and 4th questions for analysis have become somewhat apparent in answering the first two questions. The Sanders campaign brought discussion of a New York debate under the public microscope to force either the debate, or a showing of weakness in some medium from the Clinton camp. This move was deft and effective, as could be suggested by the Washington Post editorial: “The Idea that Bernie Sanders has been too Negative to Debate Hillary Clinton is Ridiculous.”
Finally, Hillary has either denied or delayed the New York debate proposal in an attempt to make her current lead in New York a concrete reality. If Clinton is able to win the delegates she’s projected by polls to, then she will eventually win the nomination for democratic candidate — the underlying, presumptive goal for either party.
As things stand, the Sanders campaign will continue to push for a New York debate. The Clinton campaign would be best served by either accepting the proposal or finding a more convincing alibi to justify a boycott than the flimsy ‘negative Bernie’ red herring.
As the presidential primary season draws to a close, it is important to remain informed on these stories as well as spending additional time to disseminate a more accurate truth from these stories. In the spirit of this second sentiment, I echo the words of economist and political pundit Robert Reich in asking: what do you think?
