The Caribou Project

Obama Campaign Appears Flat Footed

In the two weeks since I last posted here the selection of Sarah Palin has proved much more astute than I gave it credit for. I (and many, many others) underestimated the appeal she has to social conservatives once lukewarm on the Republican ticket and her effectiveness as an attack dog has been surprising.

 

The Palin pick was unorthodox and surprising, but if you step back and observe what the driving engine of McCain’s surge in the polls has been it is something the Obama campaign could well have prepared for. McCain has gotten himself back into the race by using a dual approach. On one hand he has energized the conservative base by putting Sarah Palin on the ticket while at the same time diminishing Obama’s resume and alleging the things he did before coming to politics either A) do not qualify him to be president or B) were fueled by narcissistic ambition.

 

The specific implementation of this strategy, and the impressive results, have been surprising, but it is hardly a gameplan that could not have been predicted. Energize the base, dwell on potential weakness. Pretty standard stuff. The assaults ridiculing on Obama’s time as a community organizer and his years as a law professor are definitely Republican talking points and Palin’s primetime haymakers came after the foundation was laid by other surrogates touching on the subject. What makes this frustrating to me as a Democrat is that the Obama campaign had ample time to prepare an effective response but seemed blindsided with spokespeople meagerly mumbling things about “the importance of serving the community”.  Hillary Clinton did not belittle Obama’s pre-political work because it is something Democrats appreciate and it would have burnt bridges for her had she been the nominee, but it is a line of attack so painfully obvious for Republicans who can offend the Democratic base without fear that I am shocked a defense was not ready.

 

It also hurts that many Democrats (including myself admittedly) allowed themselves to get wrapped up in the cult of Obama during the euphoric final night of the Democratic convention. To the moderate or apolitical casual voter the scene at Mile High was inspiring and alluring, but the biting reality injected by Republican mocking of the histrionic aspects and the taunting about the presidency not being “a journey of self discovery” serve to bring Obama back to earth.

 

Since the nominees were set in the Spring I have held the belief that if people go into the booth in November and appraise the two candidates side by side then choose, Obama will win. But if McCain is able to make the question “Is Obama ready and deserving?” rather than “McCain or Obama?”, then he has a realistic chance of winning an election he should lose by a sizeable margin.

 

Complaining that McCain’s campaign is being nasty or that we should all appreciate Obama’s accomplishments as a community organizer will do nothing to arrest the rise of McCain. Obama’s campaign should resist the temptation to deride Sarah Palin’s lack of experience, knowledge, ability, or record which only serves to lower Obama to a place where he is bickering with someone beneath him. Instead his campaign should focus it’s energy on hammering McCain’s support for Bush on the more unpopular issues of this decade and repeating the mantra that a 10% change on the current administration is not enough.

McCain's Pick

When I read McCain's runningmate would be neither Mitt Romney nor Tim Pawlenty I kind of assumed it would be Rob Portman, mostly because the rally was in Ohio. That would have made perfect sense. A likable former Congressman from a swing state with experience in economic areas where McCain is shaky. I was completely blown away when the pick was Sara Palin. Baffled, confused, and as a Democrat, excited.

When I digested the information I ran down a checklist of what McCain needed in a pick, here are my thoughts:

 Does she help in a key swing state? A resounding no. Alaska always goes Republican and if by some miracle of organizing and outreach Obama were to wrangle it into his column, it is a worth a whole 3 electoral votes. More importantly, McCain had options that would have helped in states where the election will be won or lost. Romney in Michigan and the Mountain West, Portman in Ohio, Pawlenty in Minnesota. The blind eye to electoral relevance would be admirable if Palin brought more substance to the ticket.

Does she strengthen the ticket in areas where it is weak? Not really. McCain himself has admitted economic issues are not his strength and she does not have the CEO credentials or Romney or Carlina Fiorina who was also rumored to be on the short list. They may try to argue the Governor as Executive idea, but she has been in office less than two years in a state with less than a million people.

Is she a liaison to parts of the base uneasy with McCain? It appears that way. Although she is not a known quantity many activists have voiced their approval of the pick. McCain is vulnerable on issues like immigration and his enthusiasm for pushing socially conservative ideas and having someone who appeals to activists skeptical of McCain is crucial. That she doesn't come off as antagonistic or scary as some of the more high profile right wingers that could scare off suburbanites may also help.

Does she bring in a swing Demographic?  Clearly the main motivating factor behind the pick was the idea that she would bring in disaffected women that supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. These women are bitter about the way she was treated by the media, the thinking goes, and feel she should be the Democratic nominee. So maybe a woman on the GOP ticket will be enough to have them thumb their noses at Obama and back his opponent. I think this is very much wishful thinking on McCain's part. If she were more accomplished or had more to offer maybe, but this is a crude political move that will probably not work.

Does she reinforce the main themes of the campaign?  Absolutely not. Up until Obama's acceptance speech the attack line favored by Republicans was that Obama is too young and inexperienced to be president. And now the person they propose having a heart beat away has been Governor half as long as Obama has been in the Senate. During the months of speculation about a runningmate McCain often said he looked more for someone he felt comfortable with than a candidate that matched all his positions, but admitted he had only met Palin briefly after the pick was made. The campaign put out the notion they were interested in someone who would be ready to step in immediately in the event it was necessary and decried the idea someone would make a selection based on political expediency. This is part of the "country first" theme of noble service that has been a hallmark of McCain's messaging. But the selection of Palin is such a naked pander to bitter female Democrats that it seriously damages the claim.

One of the things I really don't understand is why Sarah Palin? The same tactic would have been better served by someone like Kay Bailey Hutchison, Carly Fiorina, or (especially) Christie Whitman. At least with those women there would have been less of an opportunist taint to the move.

The one thing Democrats will need to be cautious of is to not come across as bullies. It would be easy to make jokes at the expense of her inexperience, the remoteness of Alaska and how little it resembles the rest of America, and how someone like Palin is not ready for the big time. But if they do this in a way that is tactless they run the risk of making her a sympathetic figure. 

Still, all in all this is the best pick for Obama. 

Obama's Acceptance Speech

Watching coverage of the convention this week I thought it showcased a strong Democratic party, enthused for the coming election season, united, and ready to compete in races on all levels across the country. But a few times amidst all the preaching to the choir and redmeat applause lines I wondered how Obama would fit into the convention and speak to the country as a whole.

I didn't support Obama in the primaries and have not been crazy about him as a presidential candidate, but the speech he gave tonight was phenomenal. Unlike other times during the campaign, when it came to an end it didn't feel like an eternity had passed. The speech contained everything it needed and flowed from one point to another without bogging down. He humanized himself by speaking about his background, he took on the critics who say his campaign lacks detail, he reached out beyond the Democratic party by speaking of and to themes that are universally shared as well as urgent and pressing, and he did a superb job of preempting the smears that are going to come tomorrow. The last thing I think was particularly impressive because he was able to turn McCain's attack lines on their heads. The celebrity angle, the "to the gates of hell" line, the "nation of whiners". On all of these tactical fronts and more he claimed a solid position for himself.

There is still a lot of time left until the election and a million things can and will change, but right now it is hard for me to image that what happens in Minnesota next week will be able to simultaneously stimulate the conservative base and engage those beyond it in a way that equals what happened in Denver.

Raising Trust

If you have been watching the presidential race closely this summer you know that the McCain team's approach is to raise doubts that Obama can be trusted to do what is right as president. It is important to note that they are not doing this by directly addressing his race or background, or even his positions for the most part. It is telling because they know that if the race comes down to which of the two candidates voters like more, or who they agree with, McCain knows he will lose. So the current McCain strategy can be summed up as: Obama, are you sure?

This is not inspirational stuff at all but given the paucity of options might not be such a bad idea. Right now they can hammer away at it, and not necessarily in ways that turn people off, and later on contrast it with the kind of ads and messaging that make people say, "well I don't agree with McCain on everything, but I trust him". This may be troublesome for Obama to deal with because raising the general sense of doubt about him is not as easily countered as dismissing a false accusation about his record or denouncing attacks on his race. It is something that sinks into people's minds and may only reappear in that gut instinct moment when they make a choice in the voting booth.

The reason I am writing this post is because it recently struck me that Obama may inadvertently be playing into McCain's hands on this. Earlier this week we learned that Mario Cuomo has still not officially endorsed Obama because he is disappointed with his lack of concrete policy proposals. Obama's vagueness and lack of substance has been a running theme in his quest for the white house but it has not hurt him thus far. But it may help McCain to make the case against him. When Obama talks in broad (and compelling) language about an issue but does not offer detailed solutions he is effectively telling people: trust me, I will figure it out. Meanwhile McCain's team is continuously planting the seeds of doubts in people's heads. I don't think either campaign is doing this after considering the other's approach, but it creates a fascinating dynamic.

It is possible that come November when Obama asks people to trust him enough people will realize they can not. But it is also possible that McCain's approach will backfire and lead to people asking of him, "what are you offering?".

Yes He Kaine?

For a while now VA Gov Tim Kaine has been considered a semi-darkhorse to become Obama's runningmate. The speculation about Kaine picked up recently when he was touted by Terry MacAuliffe, and today there was been a mini-boom in coverage of Kaine as the possible runningmate. The speculation has reached a highpoint as Obama and his top advisers, including the man in charge of vetting his runningmate, are meeting in DC and there are sources close to both Obama and Kaine suggesting he is "very, very high" on the list.

Picking Tim Kaine might pay off if the campaign is able to incorporate him as a true change agent and a signal Obama is serious about changing the way business is done in Washington, but it is a gamble and would mean giving up on a chance to address some potential vulnerabilities.

Kaine has no foreign policy experience, an area some think Obama may be vulnerable on. Names like Joe Biden, Sam Nunn, and Chuck Hagel would not be involved in every VP conversation if this liability wasn't at least close to the conventional wisdom.

There are some names that get floated for the position because their presence would bring a strong appeal to a certain voting bloc. Hillary Clinton and women or Jim Webb and working class southern whites for example. Although Kaine may have done well with some vital groups in his gubernatorial campaign he does not have the national connection with those communities to make him an asset in a presidential race.

By all accounts Kaine is a mild-mannered nice guy and does not seem like the type of runningmate who would really sink his teeth into the opponent as the primary attack dog. Democrats should be wary of this as Joe Lieberman and then John Edwards seemed incapable of going beyond the template of lines like "George Bush is wrong for America" while Dick Cheney delighted in tearing Gore and Kerry to shreds.

Geographically Kaine may have some influence. The Obama campaign has insisted that Virginia will be in play in November. Although the state hasn't gone Dem in a presidential race since 1964 a demographic shift and current success at the state level indicate an Obama win there is at least possible. Still, of the three Virginians rumored to be VP possibilities (Webb and Mark Warner being the other two) Kaine seems by far the least likely to deliver the state.

Having Tim Kaine as his runningmate may work but it is a risky move. Perhaps the Obama campaign feel confident in where they are and think that his current lead affords them room to try something different. If the polls where tighter, nationally and in specific states, maybe we would be seeing other names with specific voter groups in mind.   

Changing Values in the Electoral Map

Update: For some reason the hyperlinks are not working and they are popping up as the raw url. I will fix this soon, probably. Also I was going to start posting regularly again but with the Euros and South American qualifiers going on there is just too much soccer on top of work. So probably in July the Caribou Project will get back into gear. Until then it will be occasional posting.

Now that the candidates for the general election are set all attention has turned to November. There is a sense that despite all the talk, on both sides, about changing the electoral map when all is said and done the breakdown of states will be similar to the 2 Bush elections. Stu Rothernberg http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-different-will-2008-white-house-map.html that Obama's shot at victory is likely to be the Gore states plus some combination of Colorado, Viriginia, North Carolina, and Ohio. I personally think Missouri is a more likely pick-up than Viriginia, but essentially I think he is right. The scoreboard of the 2000 election is a good jumping off point for this year's race.

One thing that has not been getting a lot of attention is how certain states are worth more, and others less, this time around. Electoral votes are assigned by the number of Congressmen and Senators a state has, plus 3 votes for DC. There are still 538 votes up for grabs, but because of the Congressional redistricting that came into effect in the 2002 midterm elections, some of these votes now exist in different states. You can use this graphic from CNN to see  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/ before and after the 2002 midterms.

A total of 12 Congressional districts were shuffled around. If 2008 were to be an exact repeat of 2000 John McCain would win 278-260, a margin 13 votes larger than Bush's victory over Gore. Gore's states lost 8 votes in the redistricting and picked up only one, in Calfironia (Gore also had one less vote than Obama can count on because a DC elector left the ballot blank in protest.). Assuming Obama is able to hold all the Gore states he must flip 9 votes, exactly the number Colorado is worth. However, if John McCain is able to hold New Mexico, a state which borders Arizona and Bush managed to wrestle into his column in 2004, Obama must then pick up 14 votes to draw even (which would probably be a victory since the US House would break the tie and is controlled by the Democrats). Under this scenario McCain could lose New Hampshire and still win.

Of course all of this is speculation on things that are going to change a million times before the voting actually takes place, I just think it is interesting to see how a boring quirk like the redistricting six years ago has moved the goalposts enough to potentially decide the next president.

McCain Wasting Opportunity as Dems Fight Continues

When John McCain secured the Republican nomination months ahead of his general election rival it was widely assumed to be a huge asset for him. McCain would be able to consolidate Republican support (and there was plenty of in-house fence mending to be done with some parts of the GOP), raise money from the entire spectrum of the Republican coalition, and reintroduce himself to the public setting his campaign theme while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continued to bang each other up in the battle for the nomination. The last two months have not followed that script for McCain and he is not in a stronger position today than he was when Mike Huckabee dropped out and effectively confirmed him as the Republican nominee.

McCain's campaign has lacked a clear focus since then and he has wobbled between different messages. This hasn't necessarily hurt him, but he has squandered an opportunity to get a head start on the general election. I have always thought McCain's biggest concern should be ensuring strong support from the conservative base of the Republican party. It is worth noting that the last three times Republicans have lost big-scale national elections (Bush Sr. in '92, Dole in '96, and the midterms of 2006) it has been due largely to disillusioned conservatives either staying home or casting protest votes. He should be using the last weeks of the Democrats primary battle to solidify his support with Republicans who he has been at odds with. There has been some of that going on, like his speech to the NRA, but McCain has not focused on it as a priority.

McCain could use his VP pick as an olive branch to bring them in to his campaign. He recently hosted three prospects: Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist, and Mitt Romney. Crist is a moderate who is unpopular with the party's conservative base. Although he is the Gov of a large state, McCain is likely to win Florida anyway. Bobby Jindal would have been Governor of LA for less than a year before running for VP. I guess that is not impossible but I don't see that happening. Mitt Romney is an interesting choice. He was very much a moderate Republican until he ran for president, but conservatives rallied around him in the primaries (this may have to do with him not being McCain or Giuliani, but he seemed to make a real connection with some conservatives) and is strong on economic issues, an area where McCain is vulnerable. Perhaps more important, having a Mormon on the ticket would probably take the Mountain West region off the table in November. Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are states the Dems would likely target but could be neutralized with Romney as McCain's runningmate.

Despite the unfavorable national climate for Republicans I have always thought the general election will be more difficult than many other Democrats. Despite the enthusiasm disparity in the primaries, the electoral map remains competitive and McCain (plus the RNC) now has more cash on hand than either Dem. But McCain's squandering of the opportunity to consolidate conservative support this spring may hurt him in November.

Supers on the Fence

With only a few contests to go in the race for the Democratic nomination, it is evident that whoever wins will do so with the help of superdelegates. Obama supporters are fond of pointing out that it is all but impossible for Clinton to catch him in the delegate count. This is true, but at the same time it is virtually impossible for Obama to reach the magic number of 2,025 solely on pledge delegates. With recent happenings swinging the momentum Clinton's way the uncomfortable idea of superdelegates deciding the nominee now seems inevitable.

A piece in today's (4.29) WSJ suggests Obama will win the superdelegate fight and take the nomination. The reasoning behind this is that superdelegates will back him because they A) they think he has a better chance in November and B) he is popular with their constituents. The first of these is an evolving calculation. It may have seemed true a few weeks ago, but recent polls show Clinton to be the better candidate in November. The second point may sway some superdelegates, especially where new voters are concerned. "Taking the nomination away" from a candidate that has brought new voters in his/her district into the process is not something any elected official wants to do. On the other hand, being on the side of the next president, and having her owe part of her victory to you, may be a desirable trade-off.

What caught my eye in the WSJ piece is the following paragraph:

Among elected officials, Sen. Obama leads in endorsements from governors and senators. He is behind among House members by one, but both camps expect him to pull ahead unless he does badly in next Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries. If he doesn't stumble, enough elected Democrats are expected to back Sen. Obama after the last primaries June 3 to give him the delegate majority needed for nomination.

It essentially says that superdelegates are waiting around, hoping Obama finally puts her away next week so they don't have to jump in and decide it themselves. But if he doesn't, they will do so in his favor in June anyway. I disagree strongly with this view. In the run up to PA many outlets were reporting a large number of superdelegates waiting to endorse Obama. Although there have been some, many remain silent and some have even endorsed Clinton. If Obama wins both states on Tuesday, the race is essentially over. But if he misses yet another opportunity to close the door I have a hard time seeing how a mass of superdelegates board a sinking ship.

This dynamic is good for the process. Since a significant chunk of the superdelegates do not want to tip the scale unless they absolutely have to, a premium is put on the remaining contests. The superdelegates that have not endorsed yet are likely to reflect what the voters in Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Montana, Oregon, and PR do at the polls.

What the "Can't Close" tag means for Obama

Barack Obama was not able to knock Hillary Clinton out in Pennsylvania yesterday and at least for now the race goes on. If he had kept the margin within a couple of points it might have been enough to nudge her toward the exit but her double digit win owed much to a strong performance in the Philly suburbs, a place Obama was expected to dominate, and that seems to have breathed new life into the Clinton campaign. This the third time Obama has been unable to "finish her off" as they say. After his stunning victory in Iowa he went to NH for what appeared like a victory lap and got shocked back to earth. Then after a gigantic triumph in South Carolina both Clinton's wobbling and some in the media wondering if Obama could take Clinton strongholds like Mass and California she came back with a very good showing on Super Tuesday. Through February Obama put together a string of victories by impressive margins only to lose Ohio by ten points and Texas by a smaller margin, although many thought he would split the two with Clinton. Now after the latest example of his inability to deliver the knockout two talking points coming out of the Obama campaign highlight his potential weaknesses as a general election candidate.

The first is the notion that "because he did not beat a Democrat in PA in April doesn't mean he wont beat John McCain there in November". In isolation that statement might be true, but since it is being used to explain away one in a series of setbacks a pattern begins to emerge. What is relevant about his defeat yesterday is less the margin and more the dynamic. Obama has shown an inability to buckle down and vanquish an opponent in the critical last few days of a campaign. Through the 3AM ad and then the flap he caught over his pastor and the bitter comment that when he is hit with the tough stuff that inevitably comes at the close of an election, no matter who the opponent, his instinct is to address it quickly and then reclaim the high ground as if nothing has happened. In both cases his insistence that it wasn't a big deal and that people are "tired of the old politics" gave Clinton an opening that let her stay in the race. Its almost as if for Obama decrying an attack as old and tired is the same as neutralizing it and winning. This should concern Democrats because John McCain, and more importantly the 527 GOP hit squads, will not be restrained and selective the way Clinton has been. They are going to come at him harder than anyone has hit a presidential candidate before and he has to figure out how to close a race when it gets tough.

The second talking point is the notion that Obama's performance was somehow a victory because of where polls had him 2 months ago. It is true that at some point earlier this year Clinton held a lead larger than her margin of victory yesterday, but virtually every poll taken in the run up to Tuesday's vote had the margin in the low to mid single digits, one even had Obama by 3. The RCP average was Clinton by 6.1. By that measurement he actually underperformed. This could be just spin or over-analysis, but a look at the exit polls sheds light on a trend that should worry Obama. He lost the late deciders by about 20 points, which accounts for his under-preforming the most recent polls. That supports what the concern I outlined in the paragraph above, that in the last few days of a heated campaign he is unable to put it away. Then there is the money factor. The sheer gap in spending in the state is astonishing. Obama outspent Clinton 3 to 1, and in the process spent more money in the state of Pennsylvania than any candidate in history, for any office. Given that PA is a swing state in presidential elections that is a significant statement. It would have been a debacle of Romney-esque proportions if that kind of money did not move the numbers in his favor at least a little, especially given his unrivaled ground game.

To be fair, during this campaign Clinton has also been guilty of taking her foot off the gas. Her campaign held the view that the nomination was likely to be decided on Super Tuesday. Feeling good about themselves with wins in CA, NY, NJ, TN, and AZ it almost seemed like she didn't compete in the states immediately following 2/5 until it was too late. Obama ripped off wins in places she should have been competitive because she essentially ceded them to him until the last minute. But the way Clinton learned from this setback signals she understands how to win. She shook up her campaign, firing the campaign manager and bringing in new talent, and she didn't repeat the mistake. Even with weeks to go before the crucial vote in PA the Clinton team sent its best organizers to North Carolina, because they didn't want to repeat the 2/5 scenario and knew a win in PA needs to be followed by strong showings elsewhere.

The legacy of the 2008 PA primary is not that Obama was done in by misspeaking at a fund raiser in SF or his association with Rev. Wright. Its not even really that Clinton won by a slightly bigger margin than expected. It is that one candidate has shown the ability and willingness to learn from her mistakes and win when she has to and the other keeps passing up chances to lock up the nomination. Obama is still the frontrunner and will probably be the nominee, but as the spring rolls in he is leaving Clinton and opening to climb through.

On the Eve of PA

Tomorrow is the Pennsylvania primary, the first in weeks, and in a way it feels like a different campaign season. The ritual of winter Tuesdays (and the odd Thursday or Saturday) seems a distant memory from another cycle. Clinton is expected to win tomorrow's isolated contest, but the margin of victory (or an Obama upset) will probably define who is the Democratic nominee.

I think an Obama victory or a Clinton win by less than 2 points would lead to her dropping out of the race. A Clinton victory between 3-6 points and the race drags on, essentially unchanged from today. However, if Clinton were to win by high single digits or more she might have a realistic chance of taking the nomination.

Last week she picked up her first new superdelegates in what seems like forever when US Reps Tim Ryan and Betty Sutton endorsed her. Many superdelegates remain uncommitted, and it is assumed they would rather let the voters decide than jump in. A strong Clinton victory would probably keep those people on the sidelines a bit longer. It would look very awkward to have abstained this long and finally intervene when the race has become competitive.

If Obama were to lose by a big margin tomorrow it will have been two months since he won a large, populous, competitive contest. During those two months he has been hit with the Rev. Wright controversy and made the unfortunate "bitter" comment, things that have led some to question his viability with key voting blocs. During this time his only visible triumph will have been his fundraising ability which has dwarfed Clinton's But in the event of a loss this will go from potential general election strength to reminder of his inability to close the deal (yet again) despite outspending his opponent 3-1 in Pennsylvania. On top of this Obama refused to participate in a debate in North Carolina, which holds its primary in early May, a move that will make him look weak and nervous in the wake of having suffered his worst debate performance in the ABC debacle last week.

My personal gut feeling is that the margin of Clinton's victory will fall somewhere in the middle, moving the race forward for yet another contest.  In a sign the Clinton campaign plans on marching on after PA two prominent supporters have sent this letter to the DNC w/r/t the state's delegates which remain in limbo.