I recently watched a rerun of the 100th episode of the wildly popular NBC game show Deal or No Deal. Part of the show’s appeal is its habit of throwing surprise twists at its audience, and this particular episode was no different. For their 100th show, the producers decided to give a previous contestant, arguably the biggest loser in the show’s history, a chance at redemption. During his previous attempt at the game this contestant had the opportunity to walk away with over $200,000; nevertheless, he ended up with only $10 for his trouble. His was the classic case of someone who didn’t know when to quit, and bares some remarkable similarities to Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign for the Democratic nomination.
For those not familiar with Deal or No Deal, contestants are asked to choose a particular briefcase from a set of twenty-six. Each case represents an amount of money ranging from 1¢ to $1,000,000. The value of each briefcase remains secret until it is opened; thus a player chooses a particular case without knowing its true value. This case represents a guaranteed opportunity - the player can hold on to the case until the very end of the game, open it, and receive whatever dollar amount is displayed inside. However, before this happens the player has the opportunity to open the remaining cases one-by-one to try and get an idea of what his/her own case might be worth. As these other cases are opened, the show’s “banker” will offer the player various amounts of money to buy his/her case. If a player is fortunate enough to open cases with low dollar amounts (thus increasing the odds that his/her own case contains a high amount) the bid goes up. If a player has the misfortune of opening cases with high dollar amounts (thus increasing the odds that his/her own case contains a low amount) the bid goes down. At any time a player can surrender his/her case (sight unseen) and take the banker’s offer instead. It’s pretty common to see players work their way up to a really good bid from the banker, only to continually shout, “No deal!” and persist in opening cases to try and secure higher and higher bids; inevitably they start opening all the wrong cases and walk away from the show with almost nothing.
I can’t help but draw some analogies between these game show contestants and Senator Clinton’s primary campaign. Hillary was the initial frontrunner for the Democratic nomination - Barack Obama’s candidacy got some early attention, but most agreed that he was a long-shot at best. Fast-forward to the present, and Barack has enjoyed the title of presumptive nominee for quite some time. Despite Obama’s persistent lead in pledged delegates, Clinton has run a very strong campaign and has been right on Obama’s heals. This close race has effectively split the Democratic party between pro-Barack and pro-Hillary supporters, and created a lot of animosity between both sides. Democratic leaders are terrified that they may not be able to heal this schism and unite the party in time to defeat the Republican nominee in November.
This concern for party unity has given Clinton tremendous leverage and influence. Despite Barack’s lead in pledged delegates, Hillary has enjoyed a lead in superdelegates for most of primary race. Furthermore, outstanding questions about what to do with the controversial primary votes of Florida and Michigan (where Clinton defeated Obama) suggested that she had a chance to catch up with Barack. All these things gave her continued campaign legitimacy; to drop out of the race when she still had a strong, fighting chance would constitute a tremendous act of self-sacrifice. Senator Clinton could have easily parlayed such sacrifice for substantial political favors among the Democratic elite - perhaps even a position on the ticket as Vice President.
Let’s compare the recent blows to Senator Clinton’s political leverage to a game of Deal or No Deal. By holding out as long as possible before conceding, and attempting to make the Democratic Party as desperate as possible, perhaps Hillary was hoping to drive up the banker’s bid (aka promised political favors) to higher and higher levels. Unfortunately, these last few weeks have opened all of the wrong briefcases. First, she opened the briefcase of defeat in North Carolina and only marginal victory in Indiana - breaking her comeback momentum. Then, she opened the briefcase of losing her lead in committed superdelegates. Next she opened the briefcase wherein John Edwards’ perfect smile gave his endorsement to Barack Obama. And finally, she has just opened the briefcase wherein Florida and Michigan will only be awarded half-votes for their delegates, thus eliminating any possibility for a Clinton victory. Given the absence of any remaining legitimacy for her campaign I strongly suspect that Hillary will not be able to secure the same favors for relinquishing her own briefcase (aka her presidential aspirations) that she might have enjoyed just three or four weeks ago.
Recent news reports suggest that Hillary will make an announcement tonight acknowledging that Obama has enough delegates to clinch the nomination (although her campaign continues to insist she’s not conceding). Rather than a noble act of party loyalty, this admission will only be seen as an acknowledgment of the inevitable. Much like the game show contestant who failed to take the offer of $200,000 and only ended up with enough to buy a cheap lunch, Senator Clinton would have been well advised to push the big, red button and yell, “Deal!” several briefcases ago.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
June 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I really like your analogy here. I got pulled into watching Deal or No Deal by my young kids. Initially, I wanted to ban this silly brainless game show, but my husband convinced me that there was value in watching this show. I think he was right. A lot can be learned about winning, losing, real chances, wishful thinking, and just stupidity and greed. Knowing when to quit is as important as fighting on.
So I agree with you: In politics, as in life or on a TV show, stupidity and greed lead to poor decisions and defeat.
The contestants on “Deal” tend to be predictable in their behavior AND in the outcome of their games. To think that we allowed Clinton, who really is no different than those poor souls who scream “NO Deal!”, to advance so far in her political career is rather scary. If we, the voters, are the banker in “Deal,” we’d long gone broke.