As someone who has worked in political campaigns, this is the worst piece of political advice I have ever read. Ideally, you will be ahead by as large a margin as possible. You will destroy your opponent early, and they will remained destroyed. In what world doe you want to stay behind until 2 weeks to go? No politician wants to do anything but win, and win by as big a margin as possible. Before 2000, most elections were big wins for the presidency.I'd agree with all of that except "before 2000." I'd also add that this was never going to be a blowout against McCain. But yeah, he's right otherwise.
« Uhm, wrong Atlantic blogger | Main | PUMA vs. Feminism » Uhm, basically21 Aug 2008 01:53 pm
An ex-campaign explains why I should stick to D&D:
Comments (10)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
unhhh...
this is what i've been trying to point out to you for weeks now.
that obama should have followed clinton's '96 game plan and buried mccain at the beginning of the process. when he had a chance.
he blew his chance and now he's in the middle of a tough, close race.
it did not have to be that way.
it could have been a blowout, if obama had not been so cautious.
Sure, we'd like some healthy margins. But looking at the last 2 elections, this one will be close as well.
Hey, we seem to have established that a 3 point lead for Obama is like losing, so let's just embrace it. "Yes, he's behind! Even if he's 10 points ahead, that's like being behind! He's the underdog insurgent, and John McCain is the press-adored topdog establishment candidate." Because McCain would rather be the insurgent, too.
And Giordano is completely correct that in terms of groundgame and turnout and new voters, the perception of a close race will help your actual numbers far more than the perception that your guy has it sewn up even if you stay home. I'm not saying anyone planned this, I'm saying I'd like them to work with it (and again, until we have both conventions and 1 debate, polls aren't that exciting) rather than the handwringing that seems to infest the leftern blogosphere at every turn.
The fact that much of the country views McCain as a moderate, or maybe more accurately, not a right-winger, and that he's a war hero with a base that includes the media, along with the fact that half the country is, you know, Republican, makes it look pretty ridiculous in retrospect that so many of us (including myself) bought into the landslide hype.
Deborah: "And Giordano is completely correct that in terms of groundgame and turnout and new voters, the perception of a close race will help your actual numbers far more than the perception that your guy has it sewn up even if you stay home."
Yes, closer races in states yield higher voter turnout in those states. But the turnout comes from both sides. Obama voters, young voters black voters, McCain voters, white evangelicals who want to stop 'abortion' Obama, etc. Everyone shows up, not just one side.
And again, no candidate wants a high turnout race that is close over a low turnout race that is a blowout. Go for the blowout. Obama still can -- and should have already -- been going for the jugular for the last month at least. Stomp McCain now.
One thing regarding McCain attacks on Obama that I'm a bit nervous about. McCain has barely done any serious, harsh attacks. He, luckily for Obama, can't attack too harshly until the Dem. convention is over because, however unlikely, the Dem. superdelegates could drop Obama and choose anyone they felt like (say, if McCain unearthed some massive attack and Obama feel to 30% in the national polls; the Dems would have put Al Gore or someone in). Anyway, once the Obama nomination is official next week, that's when you'll see McCain unleash the serious negativity.
McCain was the easy winner in the RNC delegate race. Obama should have attacked him harshly earlier because he had the luxury too.
Frank,
Would you like you're own personal "Frankie was right" post too? I sell them for fifty bucks a pop. Seriously, it's just polite discussion and some debate. Lighten up. It's not like the fate of the free world is at stake or anything...
And for the record there is now way to prove--or disprove--that this could have been a blowout.
Actually, the ex-campaign advisor doesn't actually explain why you would be better to just stick to D & D. He claims that a scenario which was probably never possible is better than the one that you sketch. And he is no doubt right about that, but Obama has (and had) the choice of picking among the options that were actually open to him.
That is not to say that your suggestion is right. Rather it is to say that a more careful argument would be needed to show that you are not right.
Even the vague hints that Obama was thinking of declaring victory against Clinton early hurt him in the primaries. Anything that looked like an attempt to destroy her early and make her stay destroyed clearly would have backfired. And that was a case in which early voting allowed Obama to build an almost insurmountable lead early. Overconfidence might have doomed Obama if all of the voting was at the end as in a general election.
It is possible that the best plan for a political race is always to use ones resources to build an insurmountable lead early (as Clinton tried to do in the primaries) but it would suggest an imperfection in the racing metaphor. In actual horse races the best horses tend to do more like what you suggest, stay back and what for their moment.
I am not sure that the sympathy factor that worked in the primaries helps the underdog as much in the general election. The media piling on might or might not. I suspect a more relevant factor (which matches better with the horse racing case) is that the money spent closest to the election may be the most efficient money spent. McCain outspent Obama on TV last month, but is being outspent this month. The only question that matters is how that plays out in November.
But the US tends to like winners, so it is probably better to be winning when voters get their sense of how the election is going. But that probably isn't until October.
T-NC,
sure, i'll take at least one. bill me.
by the way, 50 bucks is kinda high!
seriously though, i mistakenly directed my comment to "you".
i really meant to direct it to "you" in the more general sense.
(if i really mean to direct something to you specifically, in hope of a response, i'll start the post with: "T-NC" to let you know that i'm attempting to speak directly to you.)
sorry about the confusion there.
Just a reminder, most people remember big wins but in change elections it doesn't always translate to reality. Reagan did beat Carter by almost ten points but he only garnered 50.7% of the popular vote.
Kennedy beat Nixon by less that half a million votes and still only garnered less than 50% of the popular vote.
The biggest wins happen in the Electoral College (Carter only got 40 something votes total) but the country as a whole is usually very closely divided when it comes to the popular vote.
It's fine Frankie. Just joshing. Now go vote for your white spokesperson! If you're lucky the process may be quasi-democratic...
T-NC,
you mean i can be an honorary white guy for a day?
kinda like eddie murphy did, ages ago, in that hilarious saturday night live skit where he got to play a white guy for a ehile?
and i don't even have to get all made up like poor eddie did?
hot diggity dog!
that just made my day!