Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

The Campaign Hasn't Yet Begun

When I turn my thoughts back to the days before Obama's victory in Iowa, I recall sitting in a graduate Political Science seminar at an un-named Midwestern University.  The professor posed the question: what is Obama doing?  The plurality consensus was that he didn't really know how to run a campaign, followed closely by the hypothesis that he wasn't actually running for President (rather, he was running for VP or, more likely, the Governor's seat in Illinois, using the primary campaign as a way to boost his political capital back home).  It turns out he was building a ground game and sowing the seeds of remarkable underdog victory against the supposedly well-oiled Clinton machine.  While Clinton was playing the media, he was playing the electorate directly.  And it worked.

Now, we have what might turn out to be a similar scenario.  As McCain storms the media, playing the character card in ways that horse-race watchers seem to love, Obama focuses again on building local operations all across the country.  And if campaign cash works for buying air-time and paying image consultants, think of what it can do for paying  for canvassers, ride-sharing, and all the last-minute mobilization efforts that make the difference in swing races (and there are lots of swing races this year). 

On top of that, whenever Obama makes a move on an issue of substance (e.g., his foreign policy tour), he prospers.  Sure, McCain managed to neutralize to a degree Obama's momentum after that trip, but as the campaign really begins (ie, the conventions and the debates), the picture he has painted of Obama will have to match up with what the voters see in these campaign venues.  Otherwise, McCain's only consistent campaign theme (Obama qua Britney) will be dead in the water unless the Democrat breaks out into "Hit me Baby One More Time" in the town hall.  Kerry lost in part because, although he won the debates on points, the message matched up with Bush's criticism (surrendering American soverignty).  His campaign staff should have packed their bags and reserved plane tickets home when they heard the two words, "global test."  Bush beat Gore (or came close enough for government work) because their comparative debate performances confirmed Bush's central campaign message: "you'd totally rather have a beer with me."  Furthermore, Gore and Kerry lost largely because they lacked style.  And McCain's camp has one thing right: Obama has style, grace, and charisma.  But he also has substance, and the debates are the perfect venue for those two characteristics to work together.

It bears mentioning that the two candidates are running two different kinds of campaigns, just like Obama vs. Clinton.  McCain is running a fairly typical Republican campaign of character-painting and playing the refs.  Obama's running something more akin to an old-fashioned mobilization campaign mixed with modern technology and a twenty-first century fund-raising strategy.  It's the second such campaign we've seen (the first being Howard Dean's primary run, which was monumentally successful considering the odds and might not have imploded were it not for the supposed "shriek"). 

It's frustrating to see McCain's disgraceful juvenile sneer campaign working as well as it has.  But it doesn't necessarily follow that Obama should dive into that cesspool (yes, he should respond, and forcefully).  To do so would be to let the Republicans dictate (yet again) the manner in which the campaign should run.  To win anything but a Pyrrhic victory, the Democrats should devise a new method and manner of running for President.  The active, visible, instrumental part of that campaign hasn't begun yet (just like it hadn't begun before the results of Iowa were known).  That part starts in Denver, and it's going to be interesting.  If it works, it will become the model for future campaigns, and it
truly will have changed our politics.  For the better, I might add.



Comments (21)

I think you have it exactly right.

Gore, Kerry, and Clinton ran typical DLC campaigns designed in the mid-80s in response to the so called Reagan Revolution.

Obama, Axelrod et al have recognized that the electorate has change quite significantly, have fine tuned the Dean/Trippi model, and so far have run a brilliant campaign.

avatar

If you're right, how come the McCain campaign feels so good about where they are right now?

Chuck Todd, Meet the Press today:
"I tell you, the McCain campaign--the current people running the McCain campaign, they have swagger right now. They listen to that and they laugh and they say, "Hey, everybody told us we were going to be down double digits this summer going into the conventions. Everybody said this guy was going to overwhelm us financially. All we've done is stay dollar-for-dollar with him financially. All we've done is brought this race even." They, they are, they are borderline cocky right now in how they feel. They feel like they have brought Obama down a notch. They feel that they've--this celebrity stuff has been so effective against Obama that they've already, they've already beaten down the hype of the Denver speech. The fact that he's moved it to a football stadium, they already feel like they, they--"See, there he goes again, Mr. Rock Concert Guy, Mr. Rock Star." It isn't--they, they already feel as if they've lightened up his persona and, and really softened him up. So I think it's got Democrats a little--look, you talk to some in the Obama campaign and they'll say, you know, "Maybe we haven't been tough enough on McCain. McCain's been very tough on us. We haven't gone out and gone after him enough."

avatar

This called "spin".

You might want to assume that anything the McCain camp says is propaganda, because it probably is.

The Cinton folks were pretty cocky too. And Chuck Todd is just another media echo chamber talking hairdo.

A good, relevant McClathcy report.

You assume that the McCain team has a clue, too....

I'm sure they believe that they have reason to celebrate. Indeed they might. People keep using that style of campaign because it works. But it's not the only way to build a mousetrap. Obama's novel strategy is a higher risk than McCains's (and Clinton's likely would have been), but it will reap a much greater reward if it works. If it fails, people will surely chastise him for losing an election that was his to win, for giving McCain a chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice or two, and for extending the Iraq occupation. But winning the old way would mean a narrower mandate (measured by the manner of campaigning and mobilizing, not the vote spread) and would limit his range of action. So, on the one hand, he's risking losing his substantial head start. On the other hand, that may be the best time to take such a risk.

The other dynamic here is that it doesn't hurt Obama to make this thing look closer than it may end up being. Let McCain think he's on the winning path. Let them get cocky.

Obviously, the "celeb" line of attack is designed to neutralize Obama's convention speech. I suspect, however, that during that speech we will see the celeb narrative come back and bite McCain in big way, effectively washing away all the work they have done over the past month in trying to paint that picture.

How? We have seen glimpses of it already, but I think (hope?) the message from Obama at the convention is going to something along the lines of this:

The people here tonight, and the millions of people that have contributed and are participating in the campaign, are not doing so for me. It is not my voice or my words that they have come to hear. It not my voice or words that John McCain is attacking and trying to diminish. It is your voice. They are your words. They are words and voices I have heard from coast to coast...(insert cities/towns)... the people of this country want change. After 8 years of disastrous policy...(list examples) it is time for change. People are excited, as they should be, because they see now that this is the moment and time to bring about real change.

So when the John McCain attacks me as being nothing more than a "celebrity" with no substance, offering nothing but empty rhetoric and false promises, understand that who they are truly attacking is you. Because for all his rhetoric John McCain, like Bush before him, are the profiteers of the status quo. They do not want change, and they want to silence the call for change.


...or something like that.

avatar

Wow, what you said!

This sounds dangerously close to the nonsense we heard in the primaries. You mean Obama is DELIBERATELY PRETENDING he's in a shaky situation?

On August 18, 2004, Kerry was ahead of Dumbya by 3 points in the Rasmussen tracking poll and ended up losing by 2 and 1/2 points in November.

On August 18, 2008, Obama leads by 1 point in the Rasmussen tracking poll.

Right now, Obama is behind Kerry in the state polls at this time in 2004 in OH, FL, MO, WV, CO, NV, and GA.

Still not doing so good on the distinguishing human faces bit, are you? It is OK, one always learns to recognize the features in one's own species by far better than others.

Try this simple mnemonic: O-ba-ma is is the human who is running now, that is "when the sun has risen last." He is a bit darker-skinned and -furred than Ker-ry was. Ker-ry was the human who ran before, that is, the sun has risen many times and many tasty grubs have been eaten after that.

Tomorrow, that is, after the sun rises again, I will bring some coloured wooden blocks so I can illustrate to you their policy- and other differences.

If you study hard, there could be cookies!

You should replace Chuck Todd. You have such a great way of explaining stuff.

If Obama were running the same strategy as Kerry, that might be a lot more informative. Also, if the underlying fundamentals were the same, your intra-party matchup might tell us something. But the major economic indicators are way down, as is public support for a military adventure that has passed its sell-by date. So, we have different fundamentals and a different strategy. Why, then, should we expect the same dynamics?

I am a fan of, and former competitor in, motor racing; in particular, motorcycle racing, and especially roadracing. I'm going to draw some comparisons between racing strategy and political campaigning, so please bear with me.

When you have a strong race package (handling, power, and a good setup) there are two ways you can go about winning a race:

1)Go all out from the drop of the green flag and push as hard as possible, building a gap on your competition, and making them try to keep up with you. The advantages in this strategy are that you force your opponents to show whatever they have early in order to match your pace; and by building such an early lead you devastate your opponents' confidence. The danger in this strategy is that you could use up your tires or your fuel supply, or you could make a mistake and run off the track while pushing so hard. In essence, you beat yourself.

-or-

2)Hang back just a bit for the majority of the race, watching for weakness from your competition, noting in which corners they leave little openings, where they don't use the brakes as effectively, etc. Then, a lap or two before the checkered flag, you make your move decisively and give no quarter for the rest of the race.

The advantage of this strategy is that you have conserved your resources so that at the end you have the ability to use everything to maximum effectiveness. The danger is that if your opponent has also been holding something in reserve you can now have a real challenge on your hands and what seemed like an easy win becomes a real struggle.

When it is time for the pass, you have to be willing to stick it up in there, push your opponent aside and even off the track. You have to be willing to put your opponent into the gravel trap or on his head.

Just like this last-lap footage of a MotoGP race: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFy3rqE_pqk&NR=1

And so it goes in politics: as described by Pickabone above, Obama's campaign:

"focuses again on building local operations all across the country. And if campaign cash works for buying air-time and paying image consultants, think of what it can do for paying for canvassers, ride-sharing, and all the last-minute mobilization efforts that make the difference in swing races"

This, to me, is analogous to saving the tires and the fuel. And I hope the Obama campaign is taking note of numerous McCain gaffes along the way, places where the McCain race effort is 'leaving the door open,' as racers say.

Gaffes like misplacing countries on the map, or making jokes about bombing other sovereign nations, or declaring that you need $5M in the bank to be considered rich.

And given McCain's voting record, personal history, and ethical shortcomings, I contend that McCain's race set-up is considerably weaker from the start.

I see the conventions as the beginning of the last lap. The VPs will be known (including their weaknesses and strengths). All the money will be on the table; no time restrictions will remain. No holding back. The debates will be the probing moments, and any weakness will be exploited. I hope and pray that the Obama campaign has the resources and fortitude to make that last lap pass.

I want Obama to make that decisive pass when the time comes. I don't want him to go out like the Spanish gentleman in the video. He needs to race like the Italian World Champion: he needs to push McCain out into the kitty litter. Racing is just a sport; in politics, lives depend on the outcome.

avatar

God Bless you for what you just wrote! I think we'd all be a lot more relaxed and willing to trust that our guy knows what he's doing, but we've been so devastated by the nastiness and the willingness to cheat and lie and smear that we feel doomed and hopeless. I love it when someone posts an intelligent look at what the true race is all about. Thank you.

avatar

Give Dean some credit for getting this started with his 50 state campaign.

Obama clearly knows what he is doing. This election will not be close unless the Repubs manage to rig things a lot more than they did in 2006, which they won't. Too many eyes on them now, and too few electronic voting machines still in use.

Meanwhile, McCain is spending everything he's got, which he has to before the federal funds get there - on political ads in selected states. It will have a temporary effect on the polls, but the polls don't win you anything.

Meanwhile, after McBush runs out of cash, the Obama people will continue setting up shop in ALL 50 STATES, registrating, registrating, registrating new voters. And ALL of them are "unlikely" voters according to the polls. LOL

I absolutely give Dean massive amounts of credit, both for setting an example with his '04 primary campaign and for his 50-state strategy as DNC chair. If Obama wins and the Democrats expand their majorities in Congress, the Democratic party will officially be the Obama/Dean Democratic party.

avatar

It's admittedly a small point, but Bush didn't actually beat Gore.

True, hence "close enough for government work."

Dear Pickabone:

I respect your PhD, but I'm wondering if you are glossing over some important details when presenting your theory.

Obama had money and organizing when he was campaigning against Clinton. He won because he was able to take advantage of her mistakes. Even then, despite the ground game and $$$ it was pretty close.

You also admit that the techniques McCain employes work.

So to use the MotoGP analogy, it would seem that it is McCain who is slowly catching up and we are wondering if Obama is running out of gas.

Point being that nothing is proven until someone actually gets to the finish line.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address