Yesterday the Edwards Campaign held a conference call to discuss the Iowa SEIU endorsement. Out of curiosity I listened in. I wanted to know what the campaign sounded like, what it felt like, the vibe.
I came away with three clear impressions:
First, the communications director, Chris Kofinis, is good. I'd never heard him before, and I still don't know what he looks like. Along with JRE's campaign director, Paul Blank, he ran the labor-backed Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign. When they came on board in the summer, their opponent in the Wal-Mart wars said, "Wal-Mart's entire defense campaign was essentially a reaction to these two, and when you can hold the attention of the world's largest corporation for two years, you have abilities any campaign would value."
Indeed. On the call David Bonior gave slightly rambling answers that were redeemed by his grizzled authority. Kofinis was strong, clear, and articulate. On message, as they say. When a reporter tried to downplay the signifigance of the Iowa SEIU endorsement, Kofinis pointed out that the Clinton and Obama campaigns fought hard to stop Iowa SEIU from backing Edwards, just as they did at the national level. There's a reason why they didn't want him to get the endorsement.
Second, the campaign's criticism of Hillary could be sharper and more consistent. When a reporter pointed out that Hillary was holding an event with health care professionals to coincide with the conference call, Bonior said that Hillary always followed Edwards, on health care, on tax reform, on any number of issues. He's right, but this line of criticism obscures their most important line of criticism: that she's a corporate, hawkish Dem whose committment to progressives will last only through the primary season, perhaps not even that long. (She's already moved into general election mode.) Is she copying Edwards, or are her policies and positions inferior? It can be both in the real world, but in politics you have to choose one.
Third, they're confident about their chances in Iowa. Of course every campaign tries to project confidence, but to my ear at least, their confidence seemed genuine. They were predictably defensive at times--refusing, for example, to admit that they were dissappointed not to get the backing of SEUI national--but when Iowa director Jennifer O'Malley talked about the caucuses, she was relaxed, almost serene. O'Malley ran JRE's ground game in 2004 (as well as Tim Johnson's, which was credited for his narrow and impressive 2002 victory over John Thune), and her confidence is that of a person who's done this before. His campaign knows it knows how to win.
A less confident, less disciplined campaign would have gone up on TV already. As this graph shows, Edwards has only spent around 20 k on TV, compared to Obama's 3.5 million and Clinton's 1.6 million. Obama's TV hasn't helped him (or it's prevented a slide, perhaps), but Clinton's TV has helped her to wipe away JRE's lead in the polls, and his campaign had to be tempted to answer. But it's wisely holding its fire. If his richer rivals were going to bury him, they already would have. Plus TV generally gives you a boost at the outset, then you fall back; just ask Bill Richardson. Edwards will hold off as long as he can, then go ad for ad with his rivals in the final month, to coincide with the decision-making of the thousands of late-breakers.
The caucuses, in any case, will not be won on TV. As O'Malley kept saying, it will be won on the ground. The only supporters who matter are those who venture out into the January cold and, in a room full of both friends and not-friends, declare their support. Time and again, in Iowa and elsewhere, we've seen superior poll numbers and intensity of support trumped by strength of organization--an unquantifiable variable that should humble all prognosticators. It's perhaps the most fundmental task in politics, getting your supporters to vote, and Team Edwards thinks they'll be better at it than any other campaign--that's where SEIU's political expertise will help.
[One quick note on SEIU: people are overlooking the importance of the SEIU endorsement in Nevada, just as they're overlooking the importance of Nevada itself. With the potential backing of both SEIU Nevada (supplemented by neighoring California's SEUI) and the powerful Culinary Workers Union, Edwards will be strong in Nevada. If he wins Iowa but loses New Hampshire, he'll have a chance to regain momentum there. He's just tripled his staff in the state. Vegas baby, Vegas.]
I can't tell you the keys to getting-out-the-vote in Iowa, because I don't know what they are. Who does? The campaign with the widest and deepest roots in the state, is my guess.
But then organizational strength needs to be combined with a certain level of enthusiasm. Edwards has it. Nothing has been able to deplete his resevoir of support: not the national fixation on his grooming habits, not the millions of TV dollars spent by Obama and Clinton. Edwards has visited almost every county in the state, most several times over. His campaign is premised on his lawyer's belief that if he gets a chance to talk to people, he can persuade them. Just give him ten or twenty minutes, and he'll make the case, seal the deal. That's what happened in 2004, when his late surge almost brought him a victory that would have likely led to the presidency:
Besides the birth of the Dean phenomenon last year, I haven't witnessed anything in this campaign as exciting as the Edwards events I've attended over the last few days. A Dean event is like a Grateful Dean concert, where the faithful show up and groove to their favorite hits. There is a knowing, insiderish connection between the fans and the musician. The applause is boisterous yet perfunctory. There's no expectation of hearing something new. (For all those Dean fans who think this analogy stereotypes Dean supporters as hippies, please direct your complaints to Dean media adviser Steve McMahon, who coined the Grateful Dead comparison in a conversation with me Saturday night.)Edwards's events here are like watching a roomful of formerly deaf people listen to music for the first time. People walk in as skeptics and leave as believers.
Of course, many, if not most, Iowans know him by now. There won't be the excitement of newness. He's more like a favorite son. He has maintained most of his supporters from 2004, and his campaign believes that in the final weeks of the campaign, those who may have flirted with other candidates will come home, more loyal than ever. And he'll get some new backers as well. Most important, a distinctly high percentage of his supporters will, with the "assistance" of his expert campaign, actually go and vote.
UPDATE: It's been suggested by other bloggers who were on the call that I mistook Chris Kofinis for Chris Chafe, who did more talking, and I think I did. (Great reporting by me.) So...they're both good--how's that? Chafe, former chief of staff for UNITE-HERE, is a senior advisor, responsible for outreach to unions.|
|
|
Permalink :: 55 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
