Fibonacci curves and the Democratic primary

nautilus shell cutaway. From Wikipedia
(photo from Wikipedia)

At the heart Obama’s campaign was the decision to be great at retail. At the heart of the Clinton campaign as the call to be great at corporate.

Her heart was never really in retail or the web. She is more comfortable in the cozy world of elites.

So now, as in all natural systems, the differences are widening. Small differences in the [Fibonacci] curve widen exponentially over time.

Thus, Clinton’s decision to base her campaign on elites and the backroom have put her trajectory way off the mark. What was originally billed as a slam-dunk nomination by She Who Is Inevitable has morphed into anything but that, given Obama’s take-it-to-the-people campaign and expert use of the web. By contrast, the Clinton campaign has been uninspired and by-the-numbers.

A warning to all who think that the backroom is still the key to power.

As mentioned before, I’m still not convinced Obama is anything genuinely new. But his campaign style and ability to motivate across all the normal boundaries most certainly is.


  1. Beware: the Democratic Party leadership retains 20% of the vote at the convention, in the form of superdelegates. As of yesterday, many of these remained uncommitted. That means the back rooms select more delgates than any single primary or caucus.

    In contrast, the Republican leadership retains only 5% of the votes at its convention.

  2. Superdelegates are openly balking now saying Hillary needs to win decisively in OH and TX or else it’s probably over for her. TPM has been covering this.

    “And one other point: this debate is going forward with what appears to be the strong implicit assumption on both sides that the Supers will break strongly for Hillary. But I’m not sure there’s really an basis for that assumption.”

  3. I’m baffled at the reference to Fibonacci numbers. I know what they are and am quite familiar with Phi and phi and all the other transcendental numbers, but I don’t follow what you’re getting at. Can you elaborate?

  4. It’s a bit oblique. If you follow the spiral path early on and stay there, you end up where you want to be. But a slight deviation at the start of the spiral means you end up seriously askew from the projected endpoint.

    Clinton pegged her campaign on insiders and corporate rather than retail started her off in the wrong place and that initial deviation has now spiraled into major errors.

Comments are closed.