Tag: obama

GOP nabs headlines, OFA nabs volunteers

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

While the Republican contenders and pretenders debated in the Granite State, the Obama Campaign quietly kicked off what it hopes will be a “summer of team building” with an online volunteer briefing.  Organizing for America’s Mitch Stewart led the largely unsurprising session, sketching out the campaign’s overall plan for recruiting volunteers and getting out the vote.  There were, however, some tactical points that were worth noting.

Just like the 2008 incarnation of the Obama campaign – and, really, any organization worth its salt – Obama/Biden ’12 seems rightly obsessed with amassing volunteers and securing firm commitments to action.  The central effort seemed to be a push to ask volunteers to host house parties, recruiting After Stewart’s overview of the basics, the webinar asked participants whether they could either host or attend a house party (along with inviting others to attend as well).

The neatest part came at the end, when participants were invited to turn on their webcams.  A collage of the real-time feeds allowed participants to see and even wave to each other:

This is another early preview of what figures to be a consistent theme for Obama ’12.  Remember that the announcement video for the re-election effort did not feature the candidate, instead focusing on campaign surrogates and volunteers.   Other faces – including, wherever possible, those of grassroots supporters – will allow the Obama campaign to create a wall of separation between the candidate and the dirty business of politics.

The result? Obama looks Presidential while his subordinates ramp up the country’s first billion-dollar campaign.

Cross-posted at PunditLeague.us.

Own it! (Unless it’s your health or retirement)

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Obama campaign launched a neat fundraising program this week to get going on their way to America’s first $1 billion marketing campaign for a political candidate.  The program matches first time donors with previous donors who agreed to participate it a matching program.

Cool stuff, but the rationale behind the need for such aggressive fundraising was just as eye-catching:

Taking ownership of the campaign is an essential part of the experience, right alongside making phone calls, knocking on doors, and taking responsibility for getting your network of friends, colleagues, and neighbors to join us.

Relying on each other to own this campaign isn’t just the most viable way we can grow a truly grassroots organization — it’s also the right way to do politics. Taking money from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PACs is the easy path — and every single one of our prospective opponents is racing down it.

Taking giant pools of money from political interests?  Not a chance.  The right way to do things is for individuals – not institutions – to each do their part and take responsibility to do things on their own.  Anything else would be a shortcut, doomed to create unintended consequences and fail.

At least, that’s how it works for political campaigns.  If it’s something like health care, retirement, or taking care of the less fortunate then, by all means, surrender control to centralized political entities.

Even better if they are run by special interests.

Wow, 13 million emails!

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The President’s re-election campaign sent out an email to supporters last week, linking to a video of campaign manager Jim Messina giving them a sneak peek at the plan for 2012.  With such ground-breaking strategy points as “get more votes than the other guy” and “keep track of our progress,” the video was clearly more about motivation than actual information, but it earned the campaign a round of earned media.

Politico got into the act early, chatting up the revived online effort – but like much of the coverage of the 2008 campaign, the real story isn’t what’s happening online but what’s happening offline:

The leadership of the field organization — with hundreds of employees, tens of thousands of volunteers and massive online assets (primarily, a giant email list) — is shifting from the Democratic National Committee to the new campaign in Chicago. And in mass emails and in a quiet series of one-on-one meetings with volunteer leaders, the group is resetting its relationship with its supporters.

Hundreds of employees?  Sooner rather than later, that number will grow even larger, and the field offices will multiply in critical states.  The real key is not the list of email addresses, but in the resources: with spending on the re-election campaign expected to top $1 billion, there will be plenty of people available to mobilize grassroots supporters.  And while there will likely be some folks turning away from the President, a well-funded field operation can help drag out the votes to put them over the top in the right states to get to 270 electoral votes.

At a time when much of the country is figuring out how to do more with less, the Obama campaign will have the opportunity to do less with more.

Trump, GOP ’12 hopefuls, and The Birth Certificate of Destiny

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Up until the last month or so, President Obama had no reason to release a birth certificate and every reason to let the conspiracy theorists opine that he was a secret Muslim born in Kenya.  Every time they did, established Republicans had to scramble to distance themselves from the so-called “birthers.”

Then came Donald Trump’s big mouth, and the birth certificate came soon after.   Why would the President engage on this issue now?  Without the birth certificate, the Republican 2012 primary debates would shape up with the more traditional candidates (Romney, Pawlenty, et. al.) distracted from their core issues.

It may be that the President has internal poll numbers which show that the issue is taking a solid foothold among the electorate (despite more public polls that demonstrate a collective “meh,” even among those who think Obama is from Mars).

But maybe the President wants the GOP to avoid the distractions after all and engage in spirited discussions on their core issues – namely, federal spending.  After watching the ever-more-moribund Republican messaging on smaller government over the past few weeks, the President may look at this as a fight he can win.

When he tunes into Fox news in a few months for the first primary debates, the President would rather have Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty argue over who will cut entitlement spending than have them both deny conspiracy theories.

Obama’s release also solidifies Trump’s candidacy.  A month ago Trump was a novelty; now there can be no denying that his campaign has had some sort of impact.  When the President of the United States reacts to your Today Show interview, you are no longer a complete joke.

And with the certificate released, Trump may have a chance to mouth off on other, more important important issues such as energy policy, health care, and the size of government.  A blunt, unapologetic voice countering the policies of the current administration is what makes Chris Christie and exciting candidate.  Since Christie remains firm that a 2012 shot is out of the question, that role is most likely filled by Trump.

The Obama campaign is probably delighted by the idea of Republicans having to deal with the Trump candidacy in the early primaries, betting that his loud, unfocused rhetoric will distract the rest of the field.  The best way for him to claim his share of attention is, ultimately, to talk about real issues rather than moot issues.  By taking the birth certificate conspiracy theory off the table, the White House made Trump a slightly more serious voice for the primaries.

Whew, that was close!

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

A little over a week ago, President Obama launched his relection bid the way he announced his first campaign – with a YouTube video.  The video highlighted campaign volunteers in an effort to stress the grassroots nature of his campaign (which will still of course be run from the White House).  This continued on the Organizing for America blog, which has done little else but highlight volunteers re-enlisting.

But while they were getting the band back together on a mission from God, Washington, D.C. was breaking out with shutdown fever.  Congress and the President didn’t reach a budget deal until late into the evening on Friday, and OFA was nowhere to be found.

For Republicans, the President apparently could not have announced at a better time.  With OFA focused on the re-election campaign, there was no one beating the bushes for grassroots action in the week leading up to the deadline deal.  Just as Republicans have been wasting the buzz around Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity video, OFA sacrificed a chance to score major points.

As the deadline for a shutdown grew nearer, well-timed pressure on wavering GOP lawmakers might have helped the Democrats come out of the first budget battle a bit stronger than they did.  As the Obama 2012 campaign kicked off, OFA lost focus.

The Republicans should be prepared to fight a little harder during the next budget battle, because chances OFA won’t miss the opportunity again..

Obama announces; Pawlenty fires back

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 2 Comments

Since it was no secret that President Obama would run for re-election, Republican opponents had no reason to be slow in their response.  Tim Pawlenty took the first crack today with his newest video, “A New Direction“:

Pawlenty’s immediate, polished, and pithy video response shows keen preparation and intelligence.  The fact that he was the only Republican challenger in a position to make a video like this is one more reason one more reason he was smart to form his exploratory committee when he did.

Check out the contrast in style between Pawlenty’s video and the Obama announcement:

Pawlenty’s response mimics his previous trailers/videos, with thunderous background music and a serious tone.  Recognized voices of the left (like Paul Krugman) are skillfully used to point to the flaws in Obama’s policies, and the candidate (or candidate-to-be, officially) is the star.  Since the knock on T-Paw has been that he’s too bland and “Minnesota Nice” to rile up and motivate voters, the stirring rallying cry is his way of making the election seem like the fulcrum on which the lever of history will turn (or something like that) and positioning himself as the Man Our Times Cry Out For.

Meanwhile, Obama’s laid back video focuses on volunteers.  The criticism that Obama is self-centered and self-aggrandized is counterbalanced with the low-key collection of individuals talking about what they can do to re-elect the President.  If fact, Obama doesn’t even appear in the video, though he did “send” the email to supporters that announced the video.  Significantly, the first three supporters hail from North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada – three traditionally red states that Obama carried in 2008.

The different styles reflect two different audiences.  Obama and his campaign handlers know that his announcement video is going to make the evening news, whether it’s a thoughtful call to supporting the policies of the last two years or the President delivering an autotuned address about the wonders of Friday.  (Actually, that second option would probably get an awful lot more press, but in a not-as-good kind of way.)  So his video is directed at the people who put him in office: the ones who made phone calls, knocked on doors and urged friends and neighbors to schlep out to polling places.  The video attempts to frame his re-election as every bit the grassroots movement as his 2008 election, despite the vast advantages of incumbency.

(Also worth noting is how one Obama supporter, Ed from North Carolina, echoes an old George W. Bush talking point from 2004: “I don’t agree with Obama on everything.  But I respect him and I trust him.”)

Pawlenty’s team also knew that the President’s announcement would be  guaranteed coverage.  So his video is built to take advantage of that press exposure – and earn coverage of his own to help lift his name recognition numbers.

Obama’s Libya speech and 2012 vulnerability

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

In his speech Monday night, President Obama set out to answer questions about the kinetic military actions in Libya, over a week after air strikes started.  The President has been nearly universally criticized for this delay.  More troubling for his political operation is the fact that the speech had to answer questions, rather than frame the need for the mission.

The American public is used to a certain script for military actions, even if they aren’t warned in advance.  Just after the initial strike, the President appears on television, sitting at his desk in the Oval Office.  He reassures, he provides reasons for the action, he presents both strength and a desire for peace.  Though subordinates give further updates in the ensuing days, weeks, or months, the President makes the initial announcement.  Obama did none of this, in what seems like an attempt to downplay the current conflict.  Instead, it looks like he cribbed his messaging strategy from a young Kevin Bacon:

You can’t nonchalantly drop bombs on other countries.  That’s the type of thing people talk about – and without the President’s authoritative explanation, the conversation could go in any direction.  Polls show that America is ready to get behind their President and support the Libyan mission – but the public is also understandably wary about taking on too much responsibility.  A five minute speech at the outset could have answered many questions before they were even asked.

Taken with some other patterns that have developed within his presidency, though, this may prove troubling for Obama’s reelection.

Flippant remarks – from Slurpees to salmon – have a way of eclipsing the content of his speeches.  His rhetoric on regulations and Iraq have a way of mimicking his opponents.  Tasking Congress to construct legislative packages from health care to financial reform previously looked like a strategy that allowed the President to set a broad policy direction without having to answer for the peculiarities of the specific legislation.    Many of these seemed like great strategies at the time.  In light of Libya, was the President getting too much credit?

“Looking Presidential” should be a major advantage to an incumbent.  Distraction from major issues in favor of likability isn’t usually bad, either.  But distractions can cross the line and the President loses control of his image and his agenda.

The mishandled messaging of the Libyan situation may be an isolated incident, but it may be a harbinger for a very disappointing 2012 for the Obama camp.

Results don’t lie

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

My latest post over at Pundit League talks about the Obama White House’s attempt to shift the focus on budget debates from the money to the benefits.  This month, they’re talking about education as a sacred cow; future budget battles are sure to treat other programs similarly.  As difficult as budgets are, it’s still a tough sell to cut back on government programs everyone is used to.

But what if those programs, for lack of a better-refined and focus-group-tested term, suck?  That reality may be the best arrow in any small government Robin Hood’s quiver.

The Heritage Foundation points out that a boom in education spending has not bought higher performance in America’s public schools.  Thomas Sowell made a similar point this week, when he wrote about the allegedly ecologically friendly policies of urban liberals in San Francisco pricing low- and middle-class blacks out of the city.  Private unions – who represent workers who actually have to worry about their jobs – are concerned that the EPA would cause layoffs from companies forced to spend extra complying with extraneous regulations.

For each of these programs and others like them, there’s always talk about the benefits.  But as Speaker Boehner said this week, “Talk is cheap.”

3 Reasons Why This Is Christie’s Time

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 3 Comments

Politico reports grumblings out of New Jersey that Governor Chris Christie is mulling the first tentative steps of a Presidential run.  Up to now, Christie has been consistently adamant that he isn’t running, but his candidacy was extremely likely even before this revelation.

The bottom line is that if Chris Christie wants to be President, a 2012 run makes the most political sense for three big reasons:

1.  Christie is well-positioned to deliver the right message for the times.

The protests in Wisconsin may have been a tipping point for Christie, as they look to be the first in a series of clashes between public sector employees unions and the unfortunate realities of states in the upper Midwest, Northeast, Rust Belt, and West Coast whose tax bases are dwindling and whose budget deficits are expanding.  If the abstract concept of reducing government spending was the central theme of 2010, the issue of whom gets what from shrinking government doles will be a recurring discussion leading up to 2012.

How this discussion is framed will go a long way toward deciding how many seats Republicans gain in the Senate and how successful the 2012 GOP candidate is.  Unlike many national elections of recent vintage, 2012 has the potential to pose to the voters a meaningful question about the role and size of government.

Christie has already waged this fight in New Jersey (the only GOP candidate who has done so recently).  But what’s more important than that has been the direct, unapologetic tone he has used in doing so.  With tough financial decisions on the horizon, Christie has become Mr. Tough Love – and unlike most successful politicians, he has not shied from confrontation.

If the momentum from the tea partiers continues into 2012, and there remains a swath of the Republican electorate that still feels government is not working for them, is there a better person to lead the charge against entitlements and special interest groups – and get rank-and-file Republicans excited about it – than Christie?

2.  Christie’s larger-than-life personality can go head-to-head versus President Obama.

That isn’t a fat joke.  It is a recognition that the sitting President enjoyed a huge charisma advantage over all his opponents in 2008, and the electorate still likes him.  Why not?  He’s a cool guy, he fills out an NCAA bracket every year, and he jokes around about salmon during his addresses to Congress.  More important, he still has a remarkable campaign infrastructure in place and is well-positioned to take on any Republican who can’t provide some level of excitement.

But he also has trouble with confrontation.  From the town halls of 2009 to the tea parties of 2010, President Obama has consistently shown that a full frontal assault on his initiatives is the best way to throw him and his administration off their talking points.  Christie’s blunt style seems best suited for flustering the President – and making the election narrative follow the script Christie sets out.

3.  Christie is popular among Republicans now, but political memories are short.

Hillary Clinton might have been President if she had run in 2004 – President George W. Bush squeaked out a reelection victory over a challenger who looked like a sad puppy, talked like the Mayor from T’was the Night Before Christmas, and provided precious few reasons to switch horses.  By 2008, she had become Washington establishment – part of the problem that the Obama campaign sought to solve.

Her husband, of course, beat the first President Bush in 1992, less than two years after the incumbent enjoyed record-high 90% approval ratings.

In between 2012 and 2016, there are plenty of things that could go wrong for Christie.  His hold on the blue New Jersey electorate could slip, he could enter into a legislative compromise that sours his standing among social conservatives, or he could simply become yesterday’s news with a lost reelection bid 2013.

Christie running in 2012 isn’t just a convenient answer for Republicans looking for a leader.  Second chances in presidential campaigns are rare.

The biggest obstacle to Christie’s candidacy will of course be his promises that he won’t run.  His denials have been just as adamant as Barack Obama’s in 2006, and getting around the statement “I swear I’m not running” is one of the easiest maneuvers in politics.  If anyone could get away with, “eh, I changed my mind” as a response, Christie’s the one to do it.