I read a couple of posts recently by Soren Dayton Patrick Ruffini and Aaron Marks concerning the David Ploufe interview . Great points from some smart guys but I gotta make a couple of my own.
Before I rant, full disclosure – I worked for the RNC Victory Operation in conjunction with the BC04 operation so I am far from unbiased.
Ok, credit where it is due – Obama and his team started as deep underdogs and took on the big time establishment candidate in the primary and had a huge victory. I think it is fair to say that his primary campaign was very impressive and should be mentioned when considering the best campaigns of all time. However his general election campaign was mediocre at best. Before we anoint his team as without peer lets compare the OB08 effort with the BC04 effort.
OB08 Ground game – This has been getting a lot of press lately and no doubt it was impressive but c’mon it was not like they started from zero. How many hundreds of millions have been spent on the left in the last 4 years by numerous 3rd party groups to build this capacity? And what about Howard Dean? Yeah, that guy. I humbly submit that there is no way Obama’s team could have had their success (online and off) without the experiences of Howard Dean’s team in 03 and 04. There is also a lot of hay being made about only 50% of his cash on TV (still broke every record for spending in this medium) and more than usual on Field. That is great (I am a HUGE fan of Field ops but that is another post) but when you have a few bucks short of a billion dollars you can do that kind of stuff. Again, I will give him credit for breaking all kinds of new ground with online organizing to reinvent how Field Ops work. But at the end of the day, after the hype and flash there was almost no increase in turnout when compared to 2004.
BC04 Ground game – Starting from less than zero in most battleground states they had to change a deep seated culture that “phone banks are for College Republicans and door-to-door is for Democrats”. Had the $ advantage of an incumbent President but also the baggage of an unpopular war and an upside down right track/wrong track. Had to work with staff and activists who had little to no experience on how to organize quality Field Ops. When the polls and experts said that they would lose…something amazing happened…they found MILLIONS of new voters that made the difference and set new records for turnout.
So in summary OB08 had a double digit generic ballot advantage, record amount of $ to spend on Field Ops, a historic economic collapse associated with the incumbent party, a candidate able to motivate and maximize large parts of the Democrat base and a Republican Party brand that had completely cratered…the better question is how did anyone expect them to lose?
The Obama Team’s accomplishment was “probable” not “historic”.
Chris Faulkner
December 15, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Good points. I agree. I’ll add that the strength of BO’s general election ground game can’t be separated from his primary campaign. Throughout the excitement of the Dem primaries that had the rare feature of extending through all 50 (or 57 depending on who’s counting) states, BO was able to build organized teams of volunteers. Ironically, we have Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos partially to thank for that. If Republicans had instead rallied behind Obama in the February open primaries and induced Hillary to bow out with half the states yet to go, would things have turned out less great for Obama down the road? I think so (but probably not enough to have cost him the election).
December 16, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Chris, I agree that according to all the metrics (e.g., economic performance, presidential approval, right track/wrong track), Obama was supposed to win.
By the same token, I am surprised that you selected BC04 rather than BC00 as a superior operation. BC04 had run 4 years earlier; the advantages of an incumbent President who was wildly popular with his base and reasonable support among independents; the economy was doing well enough; and facing a less than inspiring opponent. In short, all the models predicted that Bush would win in 2004, albeit narrowly.
2000 was a different story. Some of the result was luck (i.e., the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County), but the victory really ran counter to most of the models. The BC00 team was new to national politics, but managed to put together an impressive field operation and donor base almost from scratch.
Could you say more about why you thought BC04 was more impressive than BC00?
December 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Fair questions David.
As a Republican I am not fond of recalling this but, one of the reasons why BC04 was better than BC00 is…we actually won the popular vote. I would say that any reasonably honest person familiar with both operations would tell you that our Field Op in 2000 was sparse at best. 2004 was a fundamental shift for the GOP in the way we approach Field Ops and GOTV. The Field Op for 04 was tested in 01 and 02 in target areas then put in place in 03. We were on the ground 18 months out in most battleground states. We also were FULLY funded, for the first time in recent memory the BC04 Field Operation lacked very few resources, financial or otherwise, to accomplish its mission.