«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Obama's Campaign Manager Displays the Confidence that Comes with $300 Million

David Plouffe looks ready to roll. At a Washington, D.C., press conference, Barack Obama's campaign manager surveyed the general election political landscape for several dozen reporters, and he spoke confidently, like a man who will have the money to do all that he believes is necessary and optional. Which he is, because he can expect to have $200 to $300 million to deploy--now that Obama has decided to sidestep the public financing system (which awards $85 million to party nominees) and raise much more from individual donors.

Plouffe repeatedly noted that the Obama campaign will have the resources to challenge John McCain in practically every state and to pursue multiple strategies for victory. That is, the campaign can attempt to win by holding on to every state John Kerry won in 2004 and swinging only Ohio from R to D, or it could win by bagging Iowa plus Colorado and New Mexico. Or how about losing Pennsylvania but winning Virginia and North Carolina? Plouffe claimed that Obama was already competitive in states that are not traditionally Democratic in presidential races, such as Alaska and Montana and that he can make a run at McCain in Georgia (where Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman from Georgia, might draw votes from McCain). Plouffe has the money to invest in a number of game plans--to run ads and set up staff in various states. And as the election approaches, he will be able to determine which states to stick with or abandon. He's in a candy store with plenty of allowance.

How will he use the money? Plouffe told the reporters that a top priority is to "shift the electorate." He wants to spend a lot on registering African-Americans and voters under the age of 40 to "readjust the electorate" in assorted states so the voting pools in these states are more pro-Obama. "A couple of points here, a couple of points there," he says, and red states can go blue. Especially smaller states, where a swing of 10,000 votes could be decisive. And, he emphasized, his campaign will have sufficient resources to identify the people it needs to register, contact them directly, and mount targeted get-out-the-vote efforts. The campaign, he said, is not just going to set up registration tables outside community events.

And there's more. Plouffe boasted that Obama's campaign will not have only an edge in volume (more volunteers, more organizers, more door-knocking, more phone-banking, more precinct work, more advertising); it will have an advantage in quality. There's a "persuasion army" working on behalf of Obama, he said. He pointed to polls showing that Obama supporters and Democrats are far more enthusiastic about this election than McCain supporters and Republicans. Consequently, Obama persuaders--supporters who volunteer or merely talk up Obama among friends and relatives--are likely to do a better job than McCain persuaders. This is "a hard thing to quantify," Plouffe remarked. But he added, "we think it means a lot."

It was an impressive performance: more cash, more volunteers, more ads, more opportunities to go on offense, more enthusiasm, more...everything. And when I asked Plouffe about possible racial bias among voters, he said that based on the campaign's own research, "we certainly don't believe it will be a major impact....It's not a barrier for the people who will be deciding this election." In other words, voters who won't vote for Obama because he is biracial are the same voters who wouldn't vote for any Democratic nominee. Is Plouffe right about that? Well, he seemed confident. But, then, he seemed confident about everything. He did acknowledge that all elections have unforeseen twists and turns. Yet whatever comes, he and Obama will not have the excuse, "if only we had more money, we could have tried...." Plouffe essentially said that he is going to play every angle he can imagine. And that's not spin.

Comments

Hmmm. Maybe this is the year we'll finally shatter the myth that Blacks only comprise 12% of the U.S. population...

Posted by: nic on 06/25/08 at 3:15 PM Respond

"In other words, voters who won't vote for Obama because he is biracial are the same voters who wouldn't vote for any Democratic nominee."

Ummm... WRONG!

I'm afraid that this totally ignores the existance of a whole lot of older, southern Democrats who were at one time given the label "Yellow Dog Democrats".

I have to be honest and admit that this includes some of the older members of my own family, and I can tell you for a fact that they've never had a good word to say about any Republican who ever lived. They've made no secret of the fact that they voted for every Dem the party has ever put up for Prez, but they're not going to be enthusiastic about voting for Barack Obama.
Chances are they'll choose the option to stay home on election day for the first in their lives.

Sad to have to say it in the 21st Century, but I DO believe for far too many Americans, they'll be making their decision based on things other than the candidates politics.

Posted by: Fact Check on 06/25/08 at 3:43 PM Respond

They call it in politics “moving to the middle” and the practical translation to that is: Selling Out On Principles. Thus, David Plouffe my rattle his feathers and boast off his wishful thinking; the grassroots who propelled Obama to where he is now are watching very closely.

Plouffe should be very naïve if he believes that Obama’s color makes him invincible. The last thing Obama Supporters want is another Condoleezza Rice or Clearance Thomas in the White House. Rice and Thomas are where they are to convey a perception of equality; while in fact serving their handlers in the RNC and Corporate America.

We are sick and tired of being taken for granted by the establishment in the Democratic Party. The Pelosi who won’t impeach, the Reid who will not restore our civil liberty and the rest of the Democratic Majority who are not only unable to end the War in Iraq, but keep funding it at will.

And here comes Obama and Plouffe speaking with so much confidence as if they are taking millions of our votes for granted. Soft-Peddling to Corporate America on NAFTA, Caving in to AIPAC and Flip-Flopping on taking Public Finance are not the shortest routes to the White House. If Plouffe is as an astute guru of politics as they say he is; he should know better. There is a different political paradigm in American politics today: The politics of having-it-both-way is over. It will take one mistake on the part of Obama and those million enthuse voters who stood behind him will switch their votes to Nader or simply retreat back and stay home on Election Day.

Posted by: Zack on 06/25/08 at 4:07 PM Respond

He's taking MY vote for granted. I am very disappointed about the FISA bill and his lack of response to the grassroots people who got him exactly where he is.

My vote is not guaranteed. Not at all.

Posted by: Cheryl on 06/25/08 at 7:09 PM Respond

And the Glitzkrieg wages on. Who can stop the mega-bucking? Some Hillary supporters in Iowa are calling for voters to vote McKinney.

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 06/26/08 at 4:07 AM Respond

I agree with Zack. Pelosi should've shut the government down before she funded the Iraq war.

At any rate, my whole (east Tennessee) family is Democrat, too, and several of them are having problems with Obama... the ones over 50, anyway.

Posted by: Austin on 06/26/08 at 7:48 AM Respond

["I agree with Zack. Pelosi should've shut the government down before she funded the Iraq war."]

Yes, so do I.

I'm afraid, however, that taking such tough, principled stands are something we'll only be hearing about at election time. At least..., that's what's been proven about the 2006 campaign that gave the Democrats control of both houses of Congress.

I'm reminded that Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 running on a platform of ENDING Johnson's Vietnam war, and instead of the "Peace With Honor" many were expecting when they chose to vote for him rather than War-Mongering Johnson's vice president, they got 5 more years of war, including an expansion into Cambodia.

Posted by: Fact Check on 06/26/08 at 8:30 AM Respond