« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The core of the Obama problem
On second thought, it may not be an overabundance of "niceness" or weakness, as some
frustrated observers (myself included) have assumed as this wearying
general election drags on, that's causing what must be called a drag on the Obama campaign. It may be overconfidence, and a certain
dismissiveness about the continuing power of the racial dynamic in America. Listen to what
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told members of John McCain's traveling circus yesterday:
“There’sSo why aren't you having
a lot of hyperventilating about national polls,” Plouffe said, which
wasn’t a surprise since both a CBS News poll and the Gallup daily
tracking poll showed McCain taking the lead nationally in the
presidential race. “When you look at battleground states, we feel very
good about where we are.”
Plouffe argued that McCain has
“jettisoned the idea” that this election is about experience with
selection of first term governor Sarah Palin on the ticket. McCain is
now trying to make the election about change, Plouffe said, and “that’s
a debate we’re happy to have.”
it, man? The Obama campaign hasn't taken the race to McCain YET, and
we're 56 days from D-day. Worse, they've allowed the McCain campaign to remain on offense, and to dictate the daily news message, even before the Palin pick. Now let's hear why Plouffe is so confident.
Two words: ground game:
Plouffe said the election wouldOf course, he's right that Team Obama
boil down to which campaign could appeal to undecided voters in
battleground states and who could bring out the highest turnout
numbers. “We have a huge ability to grow turnout,” he said. “We have a
more credible path to 270 [electoral votes, the number it takes to win]
than McCain does.”
has a superior ground operation. The one here in South Florida is something
to see, even if it is run by the eternally flat and out-gunned Florida
Democratic Party. But what Plouffe is discounting, apparently, is the
Republican's trump card, which before the Palin selection, wasn't
McCain's to play: evangelicals. They were tepid about McCain until
Palin was chosen, but now, they're electrified by the chance to put a
woman who speaks in tongues and doesn't believe kids should be taught evolution in school, one heart attack away from power (watch for the evangelicals to begin "believing on God" for a McCain heart attack if he gets
elected...) That means that just as in 2000, the GOP will get their churchmembers out on
election day. Believe that. (And yes, Focus on the Family does operate
here in Florida, where we've also got a marriage amendment on the
ballot...)
Now, look at what Plouffe said about the impact of race on the cmapaign:
BothSorry, but this
campaigns have attempted to take race out of the campaign, and Plouffe
rejected the notion of a “Bradley effect” – voters telling pollsters
they would vote for a black candidate, but changing their mind in the
voting booth. “Swing voters that are up for grabs are not going to
factor race into the equation,” he said.
sounds exactly like the stuff Plouffe said when he addressed supporters
at a private event here in Miami early in the primary, when it looked as if Obama wouldn't be able to put Hillary Clinton's campaign away. Of
course, at that time, Plouffe's confidence was justified. But as
aggressive and skilled at political marketing as they are, the Clintons have nothing on the ruthlessness
of the Karl Rove street gang masquerading as the Republican Party. For
Plouffe to continue to be as nonchalant about the very real shifting
dynamics in this race is, to say the least, troubling. White women are
now very much in play for McCain. Evangelical voters are a lock. And
the idea that "both campaigns" have pushed aside race is laughable.
Hell, the entire subtext of the McCain campaign is, "look at this
flower of white, Christian womanhood. Wouldn't you rather have her, and her red-blooded American family, in
the White House, instead of Militant Michelle and Mr. 'community
organizer,' foreign, elite, undercover Muslim 'Obama'?"
With
Palin on the ticket, rural and even suburban white voters, like the
ones I grew up around in Colorado, or who I've encountered in Wyoming,
Utah (yeah, I'm black, but I've been there), Texas and Florida, now have a cover story
for their race-based vote: "we're makin' history by putting a woman in,
see?" Many will fall right through that trap door, and never have to
admit they rejected Obama because of race. Obama and his team can discount race all they want to. It's there, baby.
In a big way. And if he's counting on perennially underperforming black
and young voters to neutralize the race factor and bring it home for
him, he's in bigger trouble than he knows. (Earth to Obama: some
Hispanic voters are gonna deep six you because of race, too...)
Bottom
line: as much as I like and respect the Obama team members I know here in Florida, and as hard as I'm
rooting for them, Obama's team is way too confident, not nearly
aggressive enough, and not even close to consolidating a strong,
coherent marketing message.
Back when I first graduated college and was working as a beverage industry analyst in the early 90s, I learned the following lesson about the cola wars: Coke is the de facto cola, all over the world, and the market share leader, because when Pepsi tries to market itself as the de facto cola, the Coca-Cola Company squashes them like a bug. They are aggressive at retail, pushing stores to feature Coke, not Pepsi, displays, they are aggressive advertisers, and ruthless price-cutters who win by putting their products at arms length, no matter where you are, what time of day it is, or what you're thirstry for. Coke achieved what you might call "full spectrum dominance" in the soft drink market by crowding out any possibility of message theft, and by co-opting whatever good messaging Pepsi comes up with. This despite the fact that Coke usually loses to Pepsi (and RC Cola and Sam's Club Soda) in taste tests. Go figure. The Republicans are looking like Coca-Cola in this campaign. Better marketers, more message discipline, more aggressiveness, product? Who said anything about the product?
I hate to say it, but this is looking, sounding, and
feeling more and more like 2004 every day, and the Obama candidacy more and more
like John Kerry's. I watched that mess unfold from my job working for a national 527 here in Florida, and I'm getting the same sinking feeling now that I had then. That's not what Democrats want to hear right now,
but it's real (and the proof, unfortunately, is in the fundraising...)
BTW: the Obama camp appears to be getting the message that things ain't going so well. They're now looking to the 527 cavalry to ride to the rescue...
Advertisement
Comments (62)
Wrong. You're leaving out of your analysis Obama's new tack. Obama and the national media are calling mccain and palin out for being liars. you would have a hard time coming up with a more damning, compelling, and provable attack. Look for that to change the polls within a week or two as the message filters down to the independents.
September 9, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's a REACTIVE strategy.
Time to go on the offensive. Proactive.
Put away the spork, bring out the tactical nuke.
September 10, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually "tactical" this year is the SEAL team conducting raids under cover of night. The country is tired of the nukes. More nukes only loses this race for Obama.
He needs to keep doing what he is doing and damn the polls. They are all bought and paid for anyway. Totally biased based on the questions and how they are asked.
His calm, cool and collected presence will be assuring to voters down the home stretch and undecideds will break his way if he doesn't flinch and throw away his excellent game plan.
I don't suspect he will, despite the armchair quarterbacking from the cheap seats.
September 10, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point isn't that the Obama team isn't finally changing direction, it's that they have taken 11 days to get on the good foot. Giving your opponent that much time to establish a "base" in the press, and to engage their narrative is always a mistake, in marketing and in politics. The Obama team is doing better now, but let's see if they no mount a sustained volley of attacks with the same theme, or hit and back off, like they did with the McCain-Bush theme.
I hate to be overly negative, but the fundamentals of this race favor the more aggressive campaign.
September 9, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on the need for aggressiveness, initiative or being proactive. I'm not sure on Palin yet though. The initial response is great for them. Full stop, clear & simple IMMEDIATE net gain.
But. McCain is now tied to her. 100%. Her bought VP excitement, and if she breaks, he's gonna own it. And she's got problems - stuff that will render her damaged, and damaging, as a pick. Her views just ARE extreme. There's a lot of women out there who don't even know she's against choice. Like, she's not only against abortion if you're raped, she makes YOU pay for the forensic testing kit. Her religious views aren't just Evangelical, she stands up - THIS Summer - next to a guy who says Palestinian terrorists killing Jews is God's judgement. Her fiscal record has some ugly holes. She's been real nasty to people, including librarians. She's into aerial hunting, a position that has already lost twice, in ALASKA.
Revving their base is important, agreed. but if this stuff can get out and get play - driven by the Campaign or 527's or Bloggers or the Media - there's gonna be a LOT of Independents who are gonna think twice. Right now, they don't know her.
So year, we need a Cavalry. And I think we're it.
September 9, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a perceptive post that will largely go unrecommended and unbelieved. The echo chamber is just not able to hear bad news. They actually believe that Obama calling McCain and Palin liars will turn everything around.
The frustrating thing about Palin is the more you attack her the more you mobilize the Evangelical ground game which vastly outnumbers the Obama ground game. You are right. The success of Obama's ground game in the general election depended on the Evangelicals and wingnuts staying home. Palin changed all that.
Naturally, Axelrod is not going to tell Obama's supporters that. They get the memo on Nov 5th.
September 9, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Evangelical ground game which vastly outnumbers the Obama ground game."
What a silly statement. They have a ground game in all fifty states to rival the organization started by Howard Dean years ago?
Try again, that one don't make no sense. LOL
September 9, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, Zentrails, the evangelicals* have been building their ground game for THIRTY years. It was that ground game that made 2004 close enough to steal. And they have the built-in infrastructure -- the churches -- to do it, and they now have a candidate who will fire them up.
Not so simple as you might think.
*(More correctly, the fundies -- there are many decent evangelicals, who look beyond "God, guns and gays", who actually read stuff like, you know, the Sermon on the Mount, and many of whom are now supporting BHO)
September 10, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "fundies" are a marginalized minority in the evangelical community as a whole. Palin firing them up isn't going to be enough and their ground game without more moderate Christians is non-existent. I not worried about the "fundies" this year. It isn't 2004 and Barack isn't Kerry.
September 10, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you need to do a little more studying on the "evangelicals" this year.
The "fundies" who still support the GOP and Palin-McCain are not enough to win without moderate Christians, who are breaking big time for Barack. In fact, they are a steadily dwindling minority of Christians who are well-financed for circus appeal by the media moguls who make up the neoconservatives in the republican party. The end of the coup that took the party over some forty years ago at all levels.
Obama is doing fine with his messaging. I have heard a lot of "evangelicals" of a different stripe who are all about actually living up to the Jesus example rather than simply preaching about it.
Obama's ground game is much more robust and focused than the Fundamentalists. His base includes real progressive evangelicals like Jimmy Carter and his progeny. They vastly outnumber the nut-jobs you point to as evidence of Barack's imminent demise.
September 10, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad -
Thanks and agreed. And when you talk to Obama staff and volunteers, at least down here in Florida, they all sound just like Plouffe (and like Preach.) There's a kind of bunker mentality that sets in during a campaign, and that filters out to the faithful. But winning, and supporting a candidate doesn't mean being the amen chorus. The Obama camp needs to do as the head of the ticket says: listen to discordant voices who are outside the bubble.
As Lionel says on his radio show, you can't assume that everybody is like you -- smart and progressive. You can't assume that everybody watches "Countdown" and clearly knows that Palin is lying about the bridge to nowhere. You can't assume everybody has seen the latest Obama ad. That's why Republicans repeat the same talking points over and over and over, to put their message constantly at arms length, no matter who or where you are (which is why I made the Coke analogy.)
BTW the scariest words I ever heard a politician say are, "I trust the American people..." That's usually the preamble to a losing campaign.
September 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Reidblog. I watched the news coverage last night and woke up today with increasing anger at the Obama Campaign for not stepping up to the plate. This is NOT the time to prove that you are a nice guy, this is the time to WIN. It is inexcusable for us and the Obama/Biden Campaign to take anything out there for granted, and we have a lot of fodder to counter. This should be a no-brainer, and instead we suddenly have Mr. Nice Guy up there laughing everything off, and stammering around. I am a solid and loyal Obama supporter, a hard-working woman, and I am going to be working to register voters over the next few weeks, and I have a message for Plouffe and Obama/Biden: If you do not step up and make clear, strong counter attacks on this band of rapacious liars and cheaters just because she is female, or because the Repugs try to play a reverse discrimination script, I know this very real, hard-working WOMAN is going to be very upset.
STEP it up - if we lose this race, it will be because of the nonsensical tactic of taking it all for granted, and you will be blamed.
September 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I defy any member of the amen chorus on this thread to show how Obama getting as nasty as McCain/Palin will work in his favor.
There is a pervasive double standard in the media, whereby Obama's attacks will get dismissed as the rantings of an "angry liberal," or factchecked and parsed into meaninglesness, and recognizing the pro-Republican slant of very major media outlet doens't mean having a "bunker mentality."
Every time Obama has a national audience, he gets a significant bump in the polls. Both he and Biden will own their respective debates. With the race essentially tied, I still think our chances for voctory are well over 50%.
The media will turn Palin-style viciousness on our part against the Democrats. If you think Obama's seeming paasivity is the problem, you are the ones in denial.
September 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not have seen this post but for Billy Glad's recommendation in another post. Very nice work, and unnoticed because you are not on message.
September 9, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not have seen this post but for Billy Glad's recommendation in another post. Very nice work, and unnoticed because you are not on message.
You have my recommendation.
September 9, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers, Belev.
September 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers, Belev.
September 9, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think so, too, Bruce. I'm going to keep an eye out for ReidBlog from now on. A view from the ground is always interesting. A couple of others I look for are GregD and Markg.
September 9, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think so, too, Bruce. I'm going to keep an eye out for ReidBlog from now on. A view from the ground is always interesting. A couple of others I look for are GregD and Markg.
September 9, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with a lot of your post, I do have to sort of take exception to this line; "White women are now very much in play for McCain."
I think that's a very broad generalization and that the only women (white or black) in play are the ones who most likely wouldn't have gone to the polls or if they did, they wouldn't have voted for Obama. And, if pressed, I'd probably describe them more as less-dissuaded, than an actual motivated voter.
September 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great argument, great links. Thanks for the thoughtful post. Rec.
September 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any ideas as to why Obama is so subdued and flat as of late?
Didn't he promise to "bring a gun to a knife fight", if need be?
I don't understand why the campaign has been so passive in the last week or so.
September 9, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama hasn't gone on the attack? What about his latest ad calling McCain and Palin liars? What about his outright stating that "you can't just make stuff up"?
The other issue with this analysis is that it completely ignores two core differences between 2004 and 2008: Democratic enthusiasm, and young voters. John Kerry was lacking in both departments, a LOT. Obama is not. He's trouncing both Kerry's and McCain's numbers, even with enthusiasm for McCain higher now with Palin.
Obama is not over confident. He's just confident. And there's nothing wrong with confidence. Would you rather he constantly hang his head and say, "boy, the national polls (which don't really count for much in terms of winning the election itself) are showing McCain gaining on Obama... I guess we can just give up now." Bollocks. Confidence is a GOOD thing.
Call me "part of the echo chamber" if you want to, but I see absolutely nothing to suggest McCain has made any significant inroads against Obama outside of a post-Convention bounce everyone with a brain knew was coming. I predicted this exact scenario with the national polls before the Democratic Convention.
I hate to be rude about it, but those who think this race is like 2004 are being ignorant and withdrawing themselves into their Democratic defeatist shells. Hey, I get it, it was a pain in the ass, and hard as hell when Bush "won" the first time. His reelection made it all the more unbelievable and morale has been at an all-time low for many of us since then. But the differences between 2004 and now are so stark in detail that it baffles me when first: people say they're the same, and second: they actually believe it.
You make some decent points about Obama needing to start the narrative before McCain on certain issues, but as I see it, he is starting to. Look at his new attack on McCain over education, an issue that's EXTREMELY important to people, especially young voters. McCain has, in a large way, shaped the narrative from week to week, and I agree that Obama needs to start doing it more. But other than that point, I don't find much logic in your reasoning, and much of it seems to come from your own interpretation of Plouffe's words, rather than taking them at face value. Occam's razor, my friend.
September 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you, but trust me when I tell you, I worked for a Democratic 527, America Coming Together, that tried our damndest to help Kerry out in 2004. Our press releases were a lot like the ones that come out of Team Obama -- specific refutations of Bush lies; fantastic policy points, and tough critiques of Bush on the war, the economy, education, you name it. And I totally disagree that Kerry didn't have young voters -- he trounced Bush on that score, and young people that year were very much motivated, because of the war. They just didn't show up in enough numbers on election day, and historically, they never do. (I pray they prove me wrong this year...)
In the end, Bush beat Kerry, and I mean beat him like he stole something here in Florida, by doing one thing: he defined Kerry as "out of touch" with "real Americans." Bush sucks on the economy? Kerry's rich and out of touch, so what does he know? Bush's war is a failure? Kerry's out of touch again, just like after Vietnam. Bush is a moron? Out of touch windsurfer... Money for Iraq? Out of touch ... with himself... by November, Kerry, like Gore in 2000, was a name mostly said with a sneer or a giggle. And the media helped the Bushies do it, because it made great theater. Meanwhile, Kerry refused to go on offense, assuming the American people were "smart enough to figure it out."
They didn't. Kerry lost.
I'm not slamming the Obama campaign by any means. I'm just reading the press releases, watching the coverage, and talking to people here, both in and out of the campaign. The sound and structure is very similar to 2004, because this is the way Democrats campaign. The big difference this year is the candidate: Barack Obama is head and shoulders above John Kerry. And arms and legs and elbows, too.
BTW I never said confidence is a bad thing. It's one of Obama's best attributes. But campaigns are bubbles. Anyone can get the idea they're invincible. And white women don't have to go majority McCain to be in play. If he can pull within five points of Obama with them, he's in good shape.
September 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Kerry was always very low on the enthusiasm meter. He could barely break 50% in polls.
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=193178)That was October 24th, 2004.
Obama, by contrast, has had very enthusiastic supporters the entire election, usually polling around 60-70%. McCain has narrowed the gap, to be sure, but Obama still holds a significant lead from what I've said.
Simply because Kerry "won" more young voters does not mean that the landscape is the same. As I said, young voters are MUCH more enthusiastic to vote for Obama than they were for Kerry, and Obama, unlike Kerry, has greatly expanded the number of registered voters and registered Democrats in many states, especially among the young population.
I think it's completely incorrect to compare the youth vote in 2004 to what it is in this election. Things have fundamentally changed, and as a young voter who knows plenty, PLENTY of other young voters, Democrats, Independents and Republicans, I can tell you it's not the same.
It's interesting that a lot of the attacks you say Bush used against Kerry, we're seeing Obama use against McCain. Especially the "out of touch" meme. "McCain doesn't get it" is something I've been hearing a lot lately. He's rich and out of touch with middle America. Joe Biden asked the audience at a campaign event recently how many times they heard McCain/Palin mention "middle class" at the RNC. Let's not forget the seven houses gaffe.
McCain is trying to make this into a repeat of 2004 by shoring up the base and hoping to win that way. But things have fundamentally changed since then. Democratic voters far outnumber Republican ones, and Independents have shown much more of a Democratic and Liberal shift in the past couple years.
eastside below makes the great point that the electoral map is very different from 2004, with more states in play than they were, especially for the Democrat. If you actually analyze the electoral math and the map, and simulations, you see that Obama is in a much better place than Kerry EVER was.
Like I said, I agree that Obama, to an extent, needs to start formulating the narrative on issues. But I won't for a second be suckered into thinking this is a repeat of 2004.
September 9, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your mouth to God's ear, ChronoSpark. I want you to be right, and me to be wrong. And I don't think it's an exact replay of 2004, but that the Obama campaign operates much like the Kerry campaign (here in Fla, it's literally the same people.) To your point though, Obama has far more enthusiasm across the demographic divide, although I would caution that there is an undercurrent in the black electorate that is not as enthusiastic as many people assume ...
He has better ground game ...
He has decent religious outreach (though the question is, whether preachers will work, and not just preach, to get out the vote... in a non-partisan way, of course!)
And he's a smart campaigner.
Unfortunately, with a short attention span American public that responds to strong, succinct marketing messages, not languid, intelligent discourse, that's not always enough.
But again, I don't think it's fatal, and I will rejoice at being wrong.
September 9, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worrying is never a bad thing, as long as you channel the energy into positive actions that lend positive results. Basically, if you're worrying, do something to change what you're worried about. If you have a problem with the ground operation in your state, for example, get involved and do what you can to make what's being done even better.
Do I know I'm right? No. I don't know I'm right any more than the next person. But my research and knowledge on the situation has brought me to certain conclusions that, fortunately for me, are more positive than negative.
Honestly, and though I'm getting ahead of myself, I'm looking toward the debates. I think that at this point, the debates are going to be the time to make it or break it. And I have total faith that Obama can make it.
Oh, by the way, what did you think of Bill Burton's response earlier?
Me? I say, "keep 'em coming!" =)
September 9, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Like I said, I agree that Obama, to an extent, needs to start formulating the narrative on issues."
Needs to start? Needs to start, 55 days before the election?! I think Reidblog can rest his case.
September 10, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain conceded the entire message of the election from experience to change, 55 days before the election. I think you need to screw your head on tighter and open your eyes a little wider. Don't worry, it'll (probably) come to you.
September 10, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not talking about Palin-style sarcastic jibes and sneers, outright lies, and McCain appropriation, I am talking about clear-headed, direct, and uncompromising refutation with the facts. We have no reason to lie and everything in our favor. This is no time to retreat into good-natured "niceness". I want to see a leader up there who is out to win this election based on the facts. I don't want to hear the same old quote about how McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time - We KNOW this already. I want to hear clean, crisp refutation of facts and lies daily, without this hemming and hawing that I am starting to see from him. Get real - this is an election folks, that these people stole, and are now looking to steal the democratic platform! The woman is a VP nominee, McCain is running for President, we are not out there to make friends or necessarily enemies, but we are there to state our case in no uncertain terms and we are there to win. If we screw this one up, you can say goodbye to the Democratic Party and this Country; we are done. There is too much at stake here to start second-guessing ourselves.
September 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not talking about Palin-style sarcastic jibes and sneers, outright lies, and McCain appropriation, I am talking about clear-headed, direct, and uncompromising refutation with the facts. We have no reason to lie and everything in our favor. This is no time to retreat into good-natured "niceness". I want to see a leader up there who is out to win this election based on the facts. I don't want to hear the same old quote about how McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time - We KNOW this already. I want to hear clean, crisp refutation of facts and lies daily, without this hemming and hawing that I am starting to see from him. Get real - this is an election folks, that these people stole, and are now looking to steal the democratic platform! The woman is a VP nominee, McCain is running for President, we are not out there to make friends or necessarily enemies, but we are there to state our case in no uncertain terms and we are there to win. If we screw this one up, you can say goodbye to the Democratic Party and this Country; we are done. There is too much at stake here to start second-guessing ourselves.
September 9, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true, Obama is just starting to hit back on the issues now - and there are still Plenty more to be aired - but I want to see it every time, all the time from here on in. This isn't a love fest.
September 9, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for bringing up some good points, especially with your marketing parallel. Democrats are not as good at the hard sell as Republicans; it's probably the single biggest reason Republicans win elections.
As for the Ambinder post you link to at the end, I think the Obama campaign may have underestimated just how much cash the Republicans would have between the RNC and McCain's public financing. I'd like to think they knew that McCain would effectively have much more than $84 million, but the facts may prove otherwise.
I do disagree with two points you made, though.
(1) Of course race is a major issue in this election. That goes without question. Unfortunately, Obama can't raise that issue himself, and neither can his campaign. The "angry black man" angle is very real, and Obama has to avoid it at all costs.
Obama's candidacy is a lot like Jackie Robinson breaking in with the Dodgers. Robinson had to take the epithets, the half-full beer cups, the abuse - even from fellow players - and keep doing his job on the field, every day. If he'd blown up, even once, no matter how harsh or unfair the treatment, Branch Rickey would've cut him loose.
Obama can't respond the way you (and I) might like, because he'd be playing right into a stereotype that's been reinforced by the media and by previous Black candidates. He has to play for those undecideds and "leaners" who aren't hard-core single-issue voters. That's part of McCain's strategy with Palin - he's using her to hit Obama on the trail, knowing that Obama can't really lash out at her because of that existing racial issue. It's a hand he'll always have tied behind his back. So, he has to get the message out in other ways without being overly aggressive.
(2) I was involved in the 2004 campaign as well. This doesn't feel like 2004 to me at all, for several important reasons.
Obama's targeting a number of swing states that Kerry didn't even bother to run in four years ago. As a result, Obama has more ways to get to 270 than Kerry did.
Remember the American Issues Project? What about Jerome Corsi? They seem so last year, don't they? That's because Obama stepped all over those smear jobs. Press releases, surrogates all over TV, response ad for the AIP Ayers hit job - he squashed those things in a way that Kerry never did. Obama didn't take those for granted, and I'm sure he realizes that the worst stuff (including a rehash of "Jeremiah's Greatest Hits") is around the corner.
Obama is fundraising at a ridiculous pace. I believe he will pull in anywhere from $150 to $200 million additional for the rest of the general between himself and the DNC.
One big part that doesn't get discussed: I think he should reach out a fundraising hand to Hillary Clinton - not because he owes her (he doesn't), but because the HillRaisers are sitting on their Rolodexes until she gets some help with her debt. That is a HUGE pool of Democratic money that's basically on ice. (I actually diaried about this over at dKos - username blitzburgh64. Got a surprisingly good response, and a few hard-core anti-HRC'ers said they donated as a result.)
Other than that, I think we should wait for the debates. Remember that John Kerry faced a big polling deficit to George Bush, and his three strong debate performances closed that gap. I see Obama being able to do very well against McCain - but the polls are settling, and it appears to be basically even now (which is not surprising). I like where we are as opposed to 2004. I never thought Obama would win in a blowout - I would be thrilled if he could get to 300 EVs, but I'll happily settle for 270.
Very good post. I look forward to reading more. Thanks for the Obama efforts!
September 9, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is, by discouraging 527's or demanding to assimilate them, Obama killed a lot of independent energy. He chose to tack to the right, and we got to sit there and shut up. He decides not to fight back hard against Palin, and we have to assume/hope it's the right strategy. The idea proposed by some, that Hillary has to go take on Palin because she's a woman, is quite disgusting on a number of levels. There's just weird energy about. If Palin weren't so horrid in so many ways I would simply ignore everything until November 5th.
And if I hear Obama or Biden compliment McCain and Palin again I'll have to discard my pants. (Yes, I have my fingers stuck firmly in my ears, not taking chances). This is the kind of ad I want to see, not a love-a-thon.
September 9, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Message control is a big part of the Obama campaign. He was even accused of having a hand in the Palin-as-grandmother rumor mill, even though that got started at Daily Kos. So, he tries to control as much of what goes out as he can. Keeping him above the mudslinging has always been part of the Obama campaign strategy.
I think it fits with his overall campaign. A lot of people disagree, and wish he hadn't killed the 527 contributions. He's earned the right to run his campaign this way, but it means he and his top surrogates have to do the heavy lifting directly.
September 9, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama ran as a representative of a "new politics," and I think it won him the primary, where the voters were by and large politically conscious and therefore pretty sick of the way campaigns are run these days.
But now he is in kind of a bind because any attempt to win over independents / "low information" voters by going negative is immediately portrayed by McCain and his enablers in the media as "the same old politics."
Never mind the double standard that McCain can be as negative, and as untruthful as he wants with little notice by the media.
That seems to me to be his dilemma. It's not that he doesn't want to be more on the attack, it's that he has the potential to suffer blowback for it, and his opponent doesn't.
September 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are several dynamics going on at the same time:
(1) Did Obama prepare for Palin? From what I understand from the news, they had commercials, statements and strategy ready on Romney and Pawlenty, but not Palin. The effect of this is that we have a Presidential nominee running against the Republican VP, with Biden spewing gaffes like crazy. This is a problem with strategy.
(2) The Evangelicals. We all know (from 2000 and 2004) that religious issue voters are the largest voting bloc in America. That's the reason Obama spent so much time and money reaching out to them. That's the reason he went on Saddleback. That's the reason he's running abortion commercials now. That's the reason he changed his position: pro-choice but anti-abortion. But Palin changed all that by taking their vote back and rallying them.
(3) Independents. Obama's message of change is a little bit old. McCain has benefitted from picking Palin so late in the race and while Obama is busy attacking her, she's really just an opening act for him at rallies. He's hammering on change message and taking it away from Obama. Instead of refreshing his change message, Obama is wasting time and losing independenets.
(4) Women. Despite all the blowback, I predict that Hillary voters will go to Palin. The differences between Hillary and Palin are ideology. The similarities - tough, confident, fighting women. The character wins, because McCain neutralizes the ideological barries (bi-partisan message).
The effect is simple: Obama lacks strategy and the three key voting blocs of the last three elections (religous voters, independents and women) are shifting.
September 9, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The panic mode is on and alive. LOL don't say I didn't tell you guys about the landslide.
September 9, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
May you be right, and may we be wrong.
We'll know on Nov. 5. Probably.
September 10, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The panic mode is on and alive. LOL don't say I didn't tell you guys about the landslide.
September 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The panic mode is on and alive. LOL don't say I didn't tell you guys about the landslide.
September 9, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The effect is simple: Obama lacks strategy and the three key voting blocs of the last three elections (religous voters, independents and women) are shifting."
No, that's a bit of an overstatement, IMHO. There is no way the majority of HRC supporters are going to shift to McCain. The core issues are woefully different. Please do not insult the majority of HRC supporters in this Country by making a "McCain" analysis that we don't have brains and can be manipulated by empty symbolism. In terms of the Independents, we just don't really know yet.
And as for panic mode, that won't last. As soon as Barbie is released from her protective bubble and can answer unscripted questions, she's toast.
September 9, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you heard what Obama sounds like when he answers without his telepromptor -OMG it is GWB all over again. Just watch saddleback or the stephanopolis interview uh uh uh uh uh. It is becoming a joke how many um's can we count in Obama's speech today. I can't wait until Palin answers questions and wipes the floor with Biden and Obama. Oh and that Barbie comment -doesn't really go over well with "real" women.
September 9, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I can't wait until Palin answers questions and wipes the floor with Biden and Obama. Oh and that Barbie comment -doesn't really go over well with "real" women."
Any real woman wouldn't enter this race unless she was a real candidate, and real candidates don't hide from the media in the countdown to an election. The Barbie analogy is very apt, because Palin is nothing more than a prop for a traveling show-and-tell performance. The problem is, she's all show and no tell, because all of her statements have already been discounted either as outright lies or scary inaccuracies.
If she's so great, set her loose.
September 9, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes those ums drive me nuts. What's infuriating me is what powerful economic arguments he has in his arsenal and doesn't use.
McCain's health plan would actually tax health claims! I'd have thought that alone would get everyone voting Democrat - but when do you see Obama hammering that home and having it on ads in every swing state?
September 9, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good analysis and excellent points but Obama has more problems than just that his marketing message is not strong enough. He didn't really get more than half of his own party to believe in him and then dismissed a substantial portion of us as not being important because he was going to get all these new dems and didn't need us. He and the DNC decided that it wasn't necessary to bring Hilary onto the ticket because we had no where else to go. His flip flops on major issues also did not help.
Being one of those white women who has never voted repug in my life and who will not vote for Obama I can tell you the democratic ticket is in deep trouble if it lost people like me. I like Palin and what she stands for even if it is not in line with all the things I believe. I am furious when I attend democratic functions and have to hear nonsense about her baby, her daughter, her "lies" coming out of the mouths of people I used to respect. So whereas before I would not have voted repug I am seriously considering it all because of her and the misogyny that was aimed at her. It turns out it wasn't just that Hillary was polarizing it must be deeper than that.
It's that woman scorned nonsense that you guys seem to always underestimate.
September 9, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does she stand for?
September 9, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see the latest poll out of North Carolina? McCain just opened up a 20 pt lead. How do we explain that?
September 9, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the nail on the head...getting a woman on the ticket gives a large majority of Americans the 'cover' they need to note vote for a man of color. Who cares about issues? Most Americans don't even read a paper or watch more then their local weather.
But, I'm not going to sink into depression until after the first debate - the MSM is showing signs of having a spine and actually vetting her...she is going to have to answer some questions, people are going to be talking, who knows what could happen?
September 9, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So whereas before I would not have voted repug I am seriously considering it all because of her and the misogyny that was aimed at her. It turns out it wasn't just that Hillary was polarizing it must be deeper than that.
It's that woman scorned nonsense that you guys seem to always underestimate."
If you are trying to make a case for voting for Palin because of perceived "misogyny" or sexism in the Democratic Party, you certainly are choosing a very backwards way of dealing with it. You are thinking about voting for a platform with a candidate that spouts more dangerous and regressive policies for women than Republicans would dare to ever say themselves. She is the Clarence Thomas of women. You are falling for a defacto minstrel show which has replaced black face with lipstick. There is no way that "real" HRC supporters would fall for such a cheap and transparent manipulative trick, either. Sarah Palin sets women back more than 50 years, and you have taken the bait, eating right out of their hands.
If you are so severely critical of Obama's mishaps in the face of both her and McCain's failings, you most likely would have never been with Obama anyway.
September 9, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Armchair quarterbacking... useless speculation and false concern. There is no room for this right now.
This is not sports. This is the fate of our nation.
You have every right to your opinion, but you would be doing so much more if you actually volunteered time and energy into making Obama the next President. The sheer volume of nay-saying invested in this piece boggles my mind.
Deep down I wonder if some of you (Billy, Lalo, Ready, ReidBlog, and some others) have a deeper investment in appearing right than mission accomplishment.
The numbers and the polls are on our side this time. The media is deliberately gaming polls by over-sampling registered Repubs in spite of the 11 million voter advantage the Dems hold in this election cycle.
Instead of paying attention, the biker gang of pseudo-intellectual poseurs are trying to dominate the scenery by flashing their credibility and writing crap that buys into the popular media narrative. This biker gang are a bunch of gullible saps.
Quit believing the corporate media. Since when has Gallup been correct in two decades?! Or Zogby, or Rasmussen?! They don't have to be right... in fact, they make MORE money by being wrong.
September 9, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's not too late to register folks and it's fair season, so there's some buttons to be worn, but most of the remainder is up to the candidates and most anyone on the fence isn't going to be swayed by a stranger at the door.
September 9, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
IOW: I've never campaigned for or voted Republican for national office in my half-century of life. Yet, even I am getting sick of the Obama folks coming to the door and calling all of the time. Of course, I tell each and every one of them that they need not worry, but then they try to recruit me to do the same.
September 9, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Deep down I wonder if some of you (Billy, Lalo, Ready, ReidBlog, and some others) have a deeper investment in appearing right than mission accomplishment."
Strange comment. I think it's fair to say that if we didn't want Obama to get elected, we wouldn't give a damn what he's doing, or how he's doing it. I've said repeatedly that I WANT to be wrong. Cheerleading the candidate doesn't get him elected. And by the way, Team Obama is coming around to my way of thinking. They've been throwing haymakers at Palin-McCain all day. Here's hoping they keep it up, and hone it into solid talking points and ADS.
September 10, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ultimately, I think that the Democrats are going to pull through this because their numbers and successes have increased substantially on the state levels.
But Obama does nothing to energize me to vote for him (of course I will, though). He's been slightly arrogant in presentation (yesterday he actually was talking about McCain/Palin, and he said to his audience 'They must think you're stupid." He didn't say "they must think WE'RE stupid, he said YOU'RE stupid." Very bad gaffe. But it is in line with his superior attitude.
Compared to the Palins, his family looks too perfect. Cute girls, pretty, smart wife. No wonder everybody clamored to Palin, who is not afraid to stick the knife in and lick the blade and then smile (with lipsick), whose daughter is knocked up (one of the most popular movies of last year) and whose little girl used spit to comb her learning disabled brother's hair. It's America, guys. It's like watching the movies.
Who wants to watch Michelle Obama try and look like pre-vietnam Jane Fonda, when we can watch The Palins?
Lets hope that the bulging roles of democrats will carry Obama forward, because he needs the help.
September 9, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to contribute another cent until the campaign becomes aggressive and goes proactive. NOT ANOTHER CENT!
September 9, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was an interesting and challenging read. Thank you.
In terms of Obama's problems, there is one big problem I encounter consistently from undecideds and McCain leaners here in St. Louis. (I live in and canvass in what is considered the bellwether ward for the state--a surprising contradiction in the City of St. Louis where the cumulative vote is always overwhelmingly Democratic. In this ward, it went to Bush twice; finally gave McCaskill the nod in 2006 and now appears at this early stage to be going Obama's way.) The elephant in the campaign room? Obama's perceived lack of experience versus McCain's overwhelming amount. I've also taken a look at the ads selected by Blumenthal on pollster.com and I think those ads are devastating and have probably helped turn things.
I agree about the marketing message as it applies to the MSM ad buys. I also think that Obama and his campaign team do not view the MSM ad buys as a criitical factor in this election and I think that is risky. I think they need an effective counter to the classy McCain ads I cited above.
I can tell you that retired union folks and every person under the age of 35 I encounter here are so pro-Obama that my spiel seems flat. Will it be enough? I simply don't know.
I still believe we are still a bit behind the GOP ground game operation. The data and use of it is so much better than I witnessed with Kerry or with McCaskill. (McCaskills' field operations were staffed from WDC.) The Obama campaign is out much earlier than either of those two operations--but as someone mentioned above that's a two-edged sword. Too much contact can be extremely annoying, but I don't think it's widespread at this point. Later in the campaign, it could be a problem.
I see good and bad out here in the trenches--but the biggest problem Obama could solve (if it's even possible to do) is to address his experience headon with snappy ads and a more tuned message.
My two cents...
September 10, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
AGGRESSIVENESS!!!!
The Obama campaign has to show the voters that they have the chops to turn McCain back into McFuddle and send Hanna Montana back to Alaska before they will solidify any real credibility.
Where the hell is Biden and why the hell isn't he pounding that cult of ignorance into the feed slop that they are?
It's a god damn knife fight, not a game of Duck, Duck, Goose!
Pick someone on the other side and kick the holy shit out them for a change. I'm getting sick of the pussies in this party!
September 10, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points in the post and the comments.
Only one thing I can add now:
HITTING BACK IS NOT ENOUGH.
That is all.
September 10, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're overlooking a critical aspect of this situation: the effect on us, the base. You want a successful ground game? You gotta make the people on the ground believe we can win! Right now our candidate is looking more and more like a loser with no fight in his soul. Sorry, but that's how it seems to me. I'm less interested in the news because I don't want to hear the lousy soundbites of OB sounding like a whining nerd while McCain's sound like a fighter with spirit. I'm less interested in giving money or time to the campaign. What in the f*ck happened to "Fired Up, Ready To Go"?
September 10, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you aren't behind his strategy by now then you never really were. If you are saying he needs to change his tactics to gain your support then I don't think your support was ever really that valuable to begin with. If you aren't already fired up and ready to go, donating time and money, then nothing Obama does now will make that happen.
Most of his motivated supporters understand his strategy and tactics and heartily approve. It is why republicans like myself and most of my younger friends (sorry, old republicans still like McCain for some dumb reason) are voting for Barack Obama this year.
Why did he get such a large percentage of republicans in open primaries? Because Barack Obama is playing chess while the rest of the political echo chamber plays checkers and republicans are suckers for a winner. Just because some of our party is brainwashed doesn't mean we all are, which explains both Ron Paul and Ross Perot and T. Boone Pickens.
Barack's ideas make sense and he presents them in a reasonable and intelligent manner. He isn't foaming at the mouth like a good chunk of the liberals around here do on a regular basis, ready to string up the first "repugnican" they see. Obama is calm and cool and collected, exactly the demeanor we need in a president given our various and sundry problems.
We see he understands that all fighting does is brings is hospital bills. He gives us credit for being smart. He wants to build a coalition of republicans, democrats and independents to get this shit done. He has been proved right more than once on just about every choice and position he has taken, yet all you offer is bad advice from the cheap seats.
Come back with your suggestions when you have done one-tenth of what Obama has achieved in four short years.
September 10, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This campaign is not a reality show.
It's not a call-in popularity contest.
It's not a soap opera.
It's not a buy-one, get-one-free flag infomercial."
I couldn't disagree with you more. The American public likes a good story better than sleep-inducing policy discussion. If we can't tell a compelling story we're toast. All you need to do is ask yourself: what's more popular -- television or newspapers?
September 10, 2008 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment