Yesterday we saw about as lame a spin memo as there's ever been, and today we get as straight an authentic non-spin recap by an Obama delegate in PA as you'll ever get:
John and interested friends:
You ask "what went wrong" -- I assume that's what you meant by "Wa d f happened?" Here's my hangover-colored answer:
He visited San Fransisco two weeks ago. That's what happened.
* Message to all Democratic Candidates: Never to go San Fransicso, unless incognito;
* Message to Barack: Don't think out loud at fundraisers in San Fransisco if you're stupid enough to go there.
* Message # 3: If someone in SF asks you about those "strange rural people in PA"...don't indulge their liberal, latte drinking bull shit...Just tell them if they want to understand rural and ethnic PA that they should get in the Prius's and drive down to Bakersfield or any of the other mid state towns in California where there are people who actually lead ordinary lives and care about God and own guns....That's what Barack should have done and then not apologized for making remarks that while poorly worded were fundamentally accurate on one level (while not others...since when times are bad, people actually start caring about the 'big" issues like jobs and health care....that's why HW could win the senate seat in 1991...)
To answer your question more specifically:
1. Bittergate hurt a lot -- bc is slowed down and then with the poor debate performance stopped what was truly real closing momentum. No question had he not gone to SF or said those comments, we lose by 3-4 pts.
2. Debate hurt him for same reason as #1, and bc it cost us a couple days and didn't help with undecideds. Thank god we had a brillant state wide tour that was very effective or this could have been a real blow-out...as it is she just got 8 more delegates than we did out of PA.
3. Field Operation didn't put all the possible assets on the table: As much as admire the campaign's field leadership (and I mean that, some very capable and good folks who have a fantastic organizational model). I do believe they were overconfident about their ability in Philly to get the vote out without paying street money or sucking up to the ward leaders so that party regulars along with BO volunteers would get the job done.....too reliant on the massive number of "volunteers" in the city -- but many not true locals or party stalwarts.
4. I would have paid "street" money... See (Legendary Philly Inquirer columnist) Tom Ferrick's op-ed in yesterday's NY Times....paying volunteers to work a whole day in the city is a long held tradition and frankly is a sure way to see that you get every possible vote. Danger of course is that Ward leaders skim some of the money, which some do or that they give it out and then help the other candidate. Well that's the risk you take. I felt it was bullshit for the Obama campaign to say they weren't going to play that "old" politics game. Yet we played the "old politics" game of massive amounts of paid TV -- and of course a nice percentage of that goes to the media consultants...but of course we can't pay some hard working local african american ward leaders and precinct captains and volunteers to spend 14 hours doing GOTV and watching the polls. Makes no sense.
5. So Message #4: Play by the local rules, unless they are actually corrupt, which they aren't. Harris Wofford, Bob Casey, John Kerry...even Howard Dean..have all paid street money...Barack couldn't? Did this cost us the election?...of course not, is it one the things on the margin that held our total down, yes...in my humble opinion.
6. Overconfident in the field -- our household got literally 15-20 robo calls and mailings from Bill or HRC at our home. Mailings for Barack -- I think zero. Robo calls from Barack, ONE and guess when it came on my phone -- 4 pm on Tuesday. I am not a fan of robo calls and direct mail is increasingly less effective. But they are tools in the arsenal...and I don't know why we didn't use them. I know my Dad made a Robo call at the campaign's request that went out on Monday....don't know how extensive, but I heard from folks about it.
7. Don't write off senior citizens....campaign perhaps wisely didn't invest time and strategy to win over seniors...they are so entrenched for HRC, campaign felt there just wasn't time to do this and still do what was needed to move our base and swing voters we had a real chance with......That said, we've just got to find a way to reach seniors, since BO has a great message for seniors and great narrative about his own grandparents.....I suggested doing a lot of intergenerational stuff that could reach young and old at the same time....
8. Working class PA folks, esp those over 45, don't trust Obama...this is a problem and other than getting them to meet Obama retail style...don't know how we solve it, unless we can get him to do a quick tour of duty in Iraq...
9. Losing the Catholic and Jewish vote: Way to cautious in outreach to Jewish community...did not put enough assets out on the table...not enough Jewish folks involved....self perpetuating problem...Think the same is true for Catholics.....A friend close to the campaign said she was surprised to see how few Catholics and Jews there were on the campaign...don't know how true this is...but most campaign's we've been on, Catholics and Jews seem to predomoinate....As a proud Wasp, I have been an oppressed minority in many a campaign...
Much of this we can correct...some we can't...I think BO wins NC and then we just have to hope he can pull off a win in Indiana. It might be over then, but I doubt it. I now believe that HRC will stay in to the bitter end.
With that in mind, I will be in Denver as a Delegate to cast my ballot for Barack. I finally won in the PA 6th CD (not counting my primary win in 2002)....I got elected as one of three delegates going to Denver representing Obama and the vaunted 6th CD....
Would trade that for 5 more percentage points for BO.
All for now.
Danny
1-2, yes, like Obama's NAFTA crapta in Ohio, he had last-weekish misteps that set him up for failure-- or more importantly, an event for the pundits to point toward as the reason for his failure to close a 55-45 gap. But, I am not sold that 'bitter & cling' took away a closer PA election from Obama. It's not like he was 3-4 points down before it happened, and none of the state polls showed a movement away from him after 'bitter & cling', and the same for the debate. Perhaps, combined, they had an effect. But it seems just as possible, given points 3-9, that Obama would have lost by the same margin, and we'd see the pundits blaming the terrible bowling score instead. Dan might be right, but the polling doesn't back him up. Clinton's uptick was more or less matched by Obama's uptick in the closing polls, the difference, like Ohio, being that the polls (some of them at least, and including the poll of polls) didn't show Clinton pulling away at the very end (but give Zogby credit, as he caught the Sunday-Monday movement to Clinton and nailed the final margin, as did Suffolk and even ARG nailed the Clinton number).
3-6, this is the most damning part of the recap memo. First of all, I don't agree with the meant-to-be pejorative use of the word "street money", which pays what Dan correctly describes as "hard working local african american ward leaders and precinct captains and volunteers". Especially when you compare it to running an obscene amount of TV commercials that rack up those media consultant commissions. These points highlight a serious flaw, a blind spot, in the media campaign of Obama's, led by media consultant David Axelrod. There is a tendency of media people to believe that TV can do everything, but to see their "eggs in one basket" strategy so nakedly exposed here is alarming.
7, the demographic problems for Obama. Dan's inter-generational idea is a good one. It is a problem of stagecraft, and campaign fatigue. I was dumbfounded, when I watched Obama give his post-PA speech in Indiana, and placed directly behind him for the TV screen were 3 white ~22 year old males sporting Abercrombie & Fitch swag that surely made the corporate sponsor proud. That's a major screw-up for a campaign, similar to whosever great idea it was to schedule Obama for a round of bowling without any prep or practice. These are not things Obama can control, he shows up where he's told to go at this point. They are signs of fatigue and sloppiness on behalf of the campaign staff-- something not entirely unexpected either, given the long haul this has been. In many ways, the reshuffling that Clinton's team has done has allowed her to bring fresh staffers off the bench, while Obama's staff has remained the same and is making tired mistakes (another case in point). Just compare that sloppy polling memo for the superdelegates by Obama's staff (not even mentioning Florida & Ohio), with the article by Geoff Garin today to see the contrast of who mailed it in and who is on their game.
8, wow, too over-the-top flippant to even comment on (probably the meant-to-be-humorous part he refers to in the follow-up).
9. This is the real crux of the matter. There does seem to have been a shift of a part of Obama's base, from Church-attending voters, toward secular warrior voters. When Edwards was in the race, many of them backed him instead of Obama, and it allowed a much fresher and younger voice of the Obama supporter to emerge. Now, the 'pissed off and not gonna hide it' Democrats have become a vocal part of Obama's base, beyond the youth and African-American supporters. This bitterness, amplified on the internet by some of his supporters, especially in their obsessive hatred tone toward anything Clinton, has replaced the hopefulness that pervaded his earlier supporter message. I'm not saying that Obama has changed his message, or suggesting this is a portrayal of all Obama supporters, but pointing toward a vocal part of what has become his part of his most strident base (on this note Keith Olbermann might reflect on his responsibility in having fostered a part of this attitude). I'm also not saying that there is nothing in the country that needs changing, there is, but Presidential elections are won by the candidate and movement message which is the most hopeful about the country.
Dan follows up with a "humble pie" email to Ben Smith in the post, stating, "I do want readers to know that the tone of some parts of the email was intentionally tongue-in-cheek and humorous (or attempting to be) -- meant to lighten up a group of close friends disappointed by the results here. My sixteen year old son has already upbraided me for using foul language in a couple of places. I've told him that life is about learning from mistakes and hopefully not making them a second time."
There's nothing in this memo other than a bit of embarrassment for having exposed an honest take. I think we'll see more of Dan in PA elections, as their voters do tend to like the politicians that speak honestly enough to insert the foot in mouth with naked truths and then have the gumption to acknowledge it afterwards.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 168 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
