Let Obama Be Obama: My Unsolicited Advice to the Obama Campaign
(disclaimer: although I am in no way affiliated with the Obama campaign, it's fair to say that I'm a supporter. If you're curious why, click here for an attempt at an explanation.)
For a moment, I'm going to pretend that I'm a hotshot political consultant and not some anonymous dude on the internets.
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's improved standing in recent national polling. Her goal has been to improve her standing with the party base while projecting an aura of inevitability that causes money and endorsements to flow her way and marginalizes her opponents. This is definitely the right strategy for her to pursue, and to date, she has executed it flawlessly. There is little doubt that the nomination is hers to lose at this point.
That said, because of our peculiar electoral system, following such a strategy exposes a candidate to one significant vulnerability. The better a candidate is at surrounding him or herself with an aura of inevitability, the more momentum an opposing candidate can generate by pulling off a surprise victory in an early contest. Like a rubber band being stretched, the more Clinton increases her national lead and cements her status as the presumptive nominee, the greater the snapback will be if she loses in Iowa. The higher you rise, the harder you fall. Just ask Howard Dean.
And therein lies the opportunity for Obama. Many have suggested that Obama needs to start going after Clinton, that he needs to do something dramatic now in order to change the direction of national polls. I think that's a fool's errand. Obama is not the slashing type and if he tried to be, much of his appeal would be lost. Moreover, it's not as if there is some gaping difference between the candidates when it comes to policy. Obama thinks that he would be a better general election candidate, would exercise better judgment as president, and would be a more effective agent of change than Clinton (and I tend agree). But those differences don't make it easy to draw sharp contrasts in a primary race, particularly without coming across as obnoxious and self-obsessed.
So rather than trying to take Clinton down a notch nationally, Obama needs to think locally. He needs to focus most of his resources on winning Iowa, where the polls indicate a much closer race. The significance of the Iowa caucuses depends almost entirely on expectations. If Obama (or Edwards for that matter) manages to pull off an upset in Iowa, it will instantly puncture the aura of inevitability surrounding Clinton and create major momentum going into the next series of contests. Overnight, Obama would enjoy a huge bump in the polls, both nationally and in New Hampshire, just like Kerry did in 2004, and he could potentially ride that momentum all the way to the nomination. And ironically, the more Clinton is perceived to be the national front-runner going into Iowa, the harder she'll fall should she lose and the more momentum will transfer to the candidate who pulled off the upset.
That's really the only scenario under which I can see Clinton losing the nomination. In light of that reality, I think the Obama campaign should focus the vast majority of its attention on Iowa. They should try to set up the organization and infrastructure in other states necessary to capitalize on an Iowa victory, but otherwise, they should focus like a laser beam on improving Obama's standing among Iowa caucus goers.
It won't be easy. Taking out the frontrunner in Iowa will not be as easy as it was in 2004. Worried about the prospect of a Dean nomination, virtually everyone in the Democratic establishment, including all of Dean's opponents, relentlessly attacked him in the weeks before the caucuses. Clinton will almost surely not have to endure such abuse. And Clinton's organization in Iowa will be far more experienced and effective than Dean's was. And finally, Clinton herself is a much more polished candidate than Dean was. She's not likely to commit any self-inflicted wounds.
Despite all that, I still think Iowa is winnable for Obama. The caucuses are notoriously unpredictable and difficult to poll, but Obama appears to be within striking distance there. And like Clinton, he will have an effective organizational presence and loads of money to spend. More importantly, though, Obama seems to have one notable advantage over his opponents; his supporters seem to be the most in love with their candidate, which could prove to be crucial in a contest in which turnout is typically very low. In other words, to win Iowa you don't necessarily need to be liked by the most people, you just need to have the most devoted fans.
If I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd tell them to focus on turnout, not polling. The emphasis shouldn't be on convincing regular caucus-goers to choose Obama over his rivals, it should be on inspiring people who don't normally go to the caucuses to turn out to support him.
And the only way to do this is to let Obama be Obama. His campaign needs to ignore the advice of consultants and bloggers who are encouraging him to be more confrontational and throw more elbows at his rivals. That will only backfire. The focus needs to be on inspiring people, not convincing them that your health care plan is marginally superior than your opponents' plans. The appeal needs to be more emotional than cerebral. What distinguishes Obama from his opponents is the historical nature of his candidacy, the idea that he represents something we haven't seen before in politics and that electing him could mark a transformational moment in our nation's history.
Before long, all the candidates will start flooding the Iowa airwaves with ads. Obama's ads should be designed to create an emotional response in those who hear or see them. The ads should aim to convey a sense of promise, a sense that we are on the cusp of a major historical development, one that the citizens of Iowa could play a significant role in actualizing. In short, they need to give people goosebumps (for an example of the kind of ad I'm talking about, see ad #14 under "TV Spots" at this link). That's the core of Obama's appeal and it's his most effective advantage in this race.
Though the odds favor Hillary Clinton at this point, the race is not over. The Obama campaign needs to hold back the urge to panic. They need to be patient, to focus on Iowa, and to stick to the themes that drew people to Obama in the first place. If he is able to inspire enough Iowans, he may be able ride a surprising outcome there all the way to the nomination. It may not be the most likely outcome, but it's not implausible either.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, I do think Obama should continue to draw substantive distinctions between himself and his opponents on issues of importance--like Iraq--and continue to deliver substantive policy proposals and speeches. I just think that ultimately that kind of stuff--at least by itself--is not going to deliver him to victory. He's only going to win if he can manage to move people, to inspire them. He needs to motivate people to show up at the caucuses who wouldn't otherwise bother. He's the only person in the race remotely capable of doing that and he needs to take advantage of that.
For a moment, I'm going to pretend that I'm a hotshot political consultant and not some anonymous dude on the internets.
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's improved standing in recent national polling. Her goal has been to improve her standing with the party base while projecting an aura of inevitability that causes money and endorsements to flow her way and marginalizes her opponents. This is definitely the right strategy for her to pursue, and to date, she has executed it flawlessly. There is little doubt that the nomination is hers to lose at this point.
That said, because of our peculiar electoral system, following such a strategy exposes a candidate to one significant vulnerability. The better a candidate is at surrounding him or herself with an aura of inevitability, the more momentum an opposing candidate can generate by pulling off a surprise victory in an early contest. Like a rubber band being stretched, the more Clinton increases her national lead and cements her status as the presumptive nominee, the greater the snapback will be if she loses in Iowa. The higher you rise, the harder you fall. Just ask Howard Dean.
And therein lies the opportunity for Obama. Many have suggested that Obama needs to start going after Clinton, that he needs to do something dramatic now in order to change the direction of national polls. I think that's a fool's errand. Obama is not the slashing type and if he tried to be, much of his appeal would be lost. Moreover, it's not as if there is some gaping difference between the candidates when it comes to policy. Obama thinks that he would be a better general election candidate, would exercise better judgment as president, and would be a more effective agent of change than Clinton (and I tend agree). But those differences don't make it easy to draw sharp contrasts in a primary race, particularly without coming across as obnoxious and self-obsessed.
So rather than trying to take Clinton down a notch nationally, Obama needs to think locally. He needs to focus most of his resources on winning Iowa, where the polls indicate a much closer race. The significance of the Iowa caucuses depends almost entirely on expectations. If Obama (or Edwards for that matter) manages to pull off an upset in Iowa, it will instantly puncture the aura of inevitability surrounding Clinton and create major momentum going into the next series of contests. Overnight, Obama would enjoy a huge bump in the polls, both nationally and in New Hampshire, just like Kerry did in 2004, and he could potentially ride that momentum all the way to the nomination. And ironically, the more Clinton is perceived to be the national front-runner going into Iowa, the harder she'll fall should she lose and the more momentum will transfer to the candidate who pulled off the upset.
That's really the only scenario under which I can see Clinton losing the nomination. In light of that reality, I think the Obama campaign should focus the vast majority of its attention on Iowa. They should try to set up the organization and infrastructure in other states necessary to capitalize on an Iowa victory, but otherwise, they should focus like a laser beam on improving Obama's standing among Iowa caucus goers.
It won't be easy. Taking out the frontrunner in Iowa will not be as easy as it was in 2004. Worried about the prospect of a Dean nomination, virtually everyone in the Democratic establishment, including all of Dean's opponents, relentlessly attacked him in the weeks before the caucuses. Clinton will almost surely not have to endure such abuse. And Clinton's organization in Iowa will be far more experienced and effective than Dean's was. And finally, Clinton herself is a much more polished candidate than Dean was. She's not likely to commit any self-inflicted wounds.
Despite all that, I still think Iowa is winnable for Obama. The caucuses are notoriously unpredictable and difficult to poll, but Obama appears to be within striking distance there. And like Clinton, he will have an effective organizational presence and loads of money to spend. More importantly, though, Obama seems to have one notable advantage over his opponents; his supporters seem to be the most in love with their candidate, which could prove to be crucial in a contest in which turnout is typically very low. In other words, to win Iowa you don't necessarily need to be liked by the most people, you just need to have the most devoted fans.
If I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd tell them to focus on turnout, not polling. The emphasis shouldn't be on convincing regular caucus-goers to choose Obama over his rivals, it should be on inspiring people who don't normally go to the caucuses to turn out to support him.
And the only way to do this is to let Obama be Obama. His campaign needs to ignore the advice of consultants and bloggers who are encouraging him to be more confrontational and throw more elbows at his rivals. That will only backfire. The focus needs to be on inspiring people, not convincing them that your health care plan is marginally superior than your opponents' plans. The appeal needs to be more emotional than cerebral. What distinguishes Obama from his opponents is the historical nature of his candidacy, the idea that he represents something we haven't seen before in politics and that electing him could mark a transformational moment in our nation's history.
Before long, all the candidates will start flooding the Iowa airwaves with ads. Obama's ads should be designed to create an emotional response in those who hear or see them. The ads should aim to convey a sense of promise, a sense that we are on the cusp of a major historical development, one that the citizens of Iowa could play a significant role in actualizing. In short, they need to give people goosebumps (for an example of the kind of ad I'm talking about, see ad #14 under "TV Spots" at this link). That's the core of Obama's appeal and it's his most effective advantage in this race.
Though the odds favor Hillary Clinton at this point, the race is not over. The Obama campaign needs to hold back the urge to panic. They need to be patient, to focus on Iowa, and to stick to the themes that drew people to Obama in the first place. If he is able to inspire enough Iowans, he may be able ride a surprising outcome there all the way to the nomination. It may not be the most likely outcome, but it's not implausible either.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, I do think Obama should continue to draw substantive distinctions between himself and his opponents on issues of importance--like Iraq--and continue to deliver substantive policy proposals and speeches. I just think that ultimately that kind of stuff--at least by itself--is not going to deliver him to victory. He's only going to win if he can manage to move people, to inspire them. He needs to motivate people to show up at the caucuses who wouldn't otherwise bother. He's the only person in the race remotely capable of doing that and he needs to take advantage of that.
posted by A.L. at 5:58 PM
6 Comments:
I mostly agree with what you have said, A.L. As a fellow Obama supporter, I too believe he should avoid the gimmicky political stunts that so many pundits are saying that he must employ. The best thing about Obama is his refusal to play that game, and he should not start now.
Still, I believe he needs to go beyond hope and inspiration and clarify the major substantive differences between him and Clinton.
Difference #1 is Iraq. This is really why I believe Obama will win. He was against it, Hillary was for it. The democrats want a president that can clearly state that the Iraq War was wrong, and we need a new direction in our foreign policy. Hillary is tainted on this score.
Just watch, as the primary season heats up in November and December, Iraq will become the Big Issue (much as it did in 2004, bringing Kerry back into the race). The focus on Iraq can only work to Obama's advantage. His message will sound clear and consistent, while Hillary will be forced to revisit her conflicting stance.
I also think that most people do not really know Obama personally yet. They think of him as a "black" candidate, when really he can be better described as "post-racial." It may sound bad to say, but I believe once white Americans realize Obama was raised by whites, they will feel more comfortable with him.
If the withdrawal from Iraq starts to go badly - and it will...,
Hilary will shrink back from the "left", and the posse will leap on her for flip-flopping...again.
Those 5,000 soldiers coming home for Christmas will determine both parties' nominations. It totally depends what the Iraqis do about it. Maybe nothing. Maybe they trumpet that this is the beginning of the rout. Maybe another Tet. How that story gets framed will determine the fate of the surge supporters and opponents.
I've been convinced for some time that Edwards will win. He is the safest choice. Obama is probably the smartest choice, but these are the Democrats we're talking about. A Clinton win will do nothing but vindicate George Bush, if only in a small way. After getting everything wrong his entire Presidency, he'll be able to say he picked the race for his successor accurately.
I largely agree with the comments posted above. For me, I am currently an Edwards man, with Obama a close second.
Hillary is just too 'establishment' for my tastes. She doesn't appear to be much different than the current Administration w.r.t. Iraq and the GWOT. That issue alone is so big (or will be, as stated), and so far-reaching, that it may well tip the balance toward one or the other of the front-runners amongst those who desire a fundamentally different approach to the rest of the world.
Edwards and Obama scare the establishment--no wonder that they are appearing more and more to coalesce around Hillary. I want my country back, and currently, Hillary is not the one to make that happen. She appears to simply continue the current trend, with a few twists here and there--when what we need is a foundational change in approach.
I like Obama, but I think that he's too green. It's showing in the debates. But maybe he'll find his footing-sooner would be better than later.
As an Obama supporter, I think that your advice is very good. Going negative will dent some of the enthusiasm of Obama's current supporters while repelling those who are undecided but have a liking for the Clintons.
I think if he keeps his criticisms indirect and highlights especially his judgment regarding the Iraq War authorization, I think he can quite capably win Iowa.
Edwards in on the downturn, not even leading in Iowa, where he's been campaigning for years and where he's pretty much invested his whole campaign, and now he's been forced to resort to public funding and attempt to spin it as a principled stand, while political strategists note that it will throw his electability argument out the window.
I think that you hit the nail on the head when you touched on the weak point of Clinton's inevitability argument. She doesn't have the feet on the ground that Obama or even Edwards have here in Iowa and her lack of a real grassroots movement is going to come back and bite her in the end.
The handwriting is on the wall that the Democrats will conspire to "unelect" Obama.
Obama has two choices: run as an indepedent or, I propose, hook up with John McCain and create a Moderate ticket that spans more than 80% of Americans in a single vision.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home