Obama Campaign Uses Bush Tactics in Fundraising Email

by  D. Cupples |  Between 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, George Bush managed to convince at least a few million Americans that opposing Bush equaled opposing our nation.  With help from Mr. Rove and Mr. Limbaugh, Bush had many Americans getting riled up when other people criticized our president -- as though the questioners were calling their own mamas ugly.

It was a brilliant strategy, getting people emotionally invested to the point that they took personally any political opposition to a guy most of them weren't related to or even friends with. An email I just received suggests that Barack Obama's campaign staffers are using a similar tactic.  The email reads:

"...We won Wyoming on Saturday, and we just learned that we won Mississippi by a large margin tonight.

"Between those two states, we picked up enough delegates to erase the gains by Senator Clinton last Tuesday and add to our substantial lead in earned delegates. And in doing so we showed the strength and breadth of this movement.

"But just turn on the news and you'll see that Senator Clinton continues to run an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day her campaign launches a new set of desperate attacks.

"They're not just attacking me; they're attacking you."

"Over the weekend, an aide to Senator Clinton attempted to diminish the overwhelming number of contests we've won by referring to places we've prevailed as 'boutique' states and our supporters as the 'latte-sipping crowd.'"

I don't know if "latte-sipping crowd" is an actual insult or if it even came from the Clinton campaign (as opposed to a journalist who enjoys metaphors).  And, frankly, "boutique state" sounds more elegant than insulting. 

That aside, the Clinton campaign isn't attacking Obama's supporters (or their mamas).  It is merely questioning whether some of Obama's victories are truly "overwhelming," given the numbers of voters involved and the likelihood that multiple states Obama won will give their Electoral College votes to McCain in November -- not to any Democrat.

First, Caucuses are different from primaries (not an attack, just a fact).  In primaries, people go into a booth and privately vote.  At caucuses, which last for hours, people publicly defend their candidate.  Understandably, caucuses include far fewer voters than primaries (usually those who are more politically active and have accommodating schedules).  Compare these few primary and caucus states:

....................................Delegates................#Voters

Wyoming (caucus) ..........12.........................8,753

Georgia (primary).............12..................1,046,485

Hawaii (caucus)................17.......................37,247

Rhode Islandr(primary).....18.....................184,904

Iowa (caucus)....................45.........................2,501

Oklahoma (primary)..........38.....................401,230

Less than 50,000 people voted in caucuses to decide who got Wyoming's, Hawaii's and Rhode Island's combined 74 delegates. More than 1.6 million people voted in primaries to give out Georgia's, Rhode Island's and Oklahoma's combined 68 delegates.

In other words, at least 32 times more people had input into who would win the primary states' 68 delegates than had input in giving out the caucus states' 74 delegates.

The natural question: are caucuses as broadly representative as primaries of a state party's voters' opinions? 

Of the 26 states (plus Washington DC) that Obama won, 12 of them were caucus states.  Now add Texas, where Obama lost the primary (which decided two-thirds of that state's delegates) but won the caucus (which decided one-third of the delegates). That makes 13.

Hillary has won 2 caucus states -- sort of, anyway, as she won the popular vote in Nevada but Obama won more delegates there.  Not understanding Nevada's system, I can't explain why.

Anyway, it's fair and factual -- and not the least bit insulting -- for the Clinton campaign to point out that many of Obama's victories were in caucus states that had far fewer voters deciding who would get delegates.

Second, neither Hillary nor Obama is likely to win "Red States" in November, because they're flooded with Republicans.  Instead, "Red States" will likely give their Electoral College votes to McCain.

Of the states that Obama has won so far, 10 are "Red States": Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Wyoming.  Those 10 states have a combined 64 Electoral College votes -- which will likely go to McCain.  (I didn't count Texas, whose caucus Obama won but not its primary). 

Clinton has won two "Red States": Texas and Oklahoma, whose EC votes total 41 (which also will likely go to McCain).

Long story short: Obama's victories in the caucuses and primaries don't really reflect how he would do in November if he were the nominee.  The Clinton Campaign would be remiss if it didn't point that out. 

Obama's supporters may not like hearing such things, but those statements don't constitute personal attacks against those supporters.  The Obama campaign's email continues:

"I'm not sure how those terms apply to Mississippi and Wyoming -- or Virginia, Iowa, Louisiana, or Idaho for that matter.

"I know that our victories in all of these states demonstrate a rejection of this kind of petty, divisive campaigning.

"But the fact remains that Senator Clinton's campaign will continue to attack us using the same old Washington playbook. And now that John McCain is the Republican nominee, we are forced to campaign on two fronts.

"It's up to you to fight back. Please make a donation of $25 today:

"https://donate.barackobama.com/math...."

Telling thousands of people that Sen. Clinton is attacking them (or their mamas) is as divisive as it is factually questionable. Thus, its a tad hypocritical for the email to accuse Clinton of "divisive campaigning."

Given that the get-them-to-take-it-personally tactic was used by George Bush, et. al. (circa 2001-2005), it's equally hypocritical for the email writer to accuse Clinton of "using the same old Washington playbook." 

And isn't it interesting that the email suggests that the way to fight Clinton is to give Obama $25?  That's similar to televangelists who prescribe monetary donations as the way for viewers to secure salvation in the hereafter.

Given that the Obama campaign has tried to paint itself as employing a new style of politics (i.e., clean and nice), I'm surprised that the media isn't focusing more on such emails.

Note: I don't know how to put an image of an email into a blog post, but I'll be happy to forward the email to you if you email me.

Comments

[Adam]

When I look at the big board of states, I don't see many Obama caucus wins that stick out as likely primary losses. Texas, obviously. Maine, maybe, although Obama won Vermont so who knows. For whatever reason, most of the caucuses have been in states that have fit Obama's support profile.

My guess is that if every state had had a primary, Obama would have a wider popular vote lead than he currently does, but a smaller delegate lead. Hey, something for everyone, just like the rest of this campaign.

[D. Cupples]

How are ya, Adam? You're right: Obama might still be in the lead if all states had had primaries.

[Adam]

It's of course speculation on my part, but it seems plausible that, with the extremely obvious exception of Texas, Obama may have won the primaries in the states where he won the caucuses. And Hillary did technically win the caucus in a state (Nevada) where the demographics lined up for her. So part of Obama's caucus advantage may have just been the demographics of the caucus states.

And you're right that Obama's wins in more states don't inherently mean anything for November. I think the surveyUSA results (which have Obama picking up a handful of traditional red states, but roughly breaking even with Hillary (vis a vis McCain) due to losses in Pennsylvania and Florida) are more meaningful, although they're still VERY speculative.

I'm terrible, thanks for asking ;). I've had the flu since Sunday. The fever/aching/fatigue finally broke this morning, hence my newfound ability to sit at my computer and type. Now I'm only dealing with the more manageable sore throat and sinus/chest congestion. (You're forgiven if you've involuntarily leaned back from your computer monitor.) Unfortunately, this comes when stuff at work is crazy, so I'm tempted to go back in tomorrow even though I'm still a basketcase. Anyway, I hope you're doing well!

[D. Cupples]

I was wondering where you were. 'Hope you feel better soon.

Thanks for pointing out Nevada (which I'll mention along with Hillary's other 2 caucus wins).

Frankly, I don't know who would do better in November against McCain. He has a chance of winning, whoever the nominee is.

I just disagree with the number-of-states argument because nearly half of Obama's wins are in caucus states and a sizable portion are red states that (SUSA aside) I don't think will turn Blue.

Since college stats class, I've had trouble with trusting polls about voter preferences (and other topics). Zogby, himself, admitted that they make about 5,000 calls to get 900 people to agree to even participate -- meaning that sampled populations are a bit self-selecting.

I see Obama's win in Georgia as likely representative of how DEMS in Georgia feel about him, but I don't see wins in caucus states (where far fewer people vote) as representative of those states' Dems, because very special (i.e., fairly politically active and not in the norm) people go to caucuses.

Here in Fla, we have early voting for a week or two (several locations, not crowded). Though the turnout is still smaller than in a general election, it has a better shot at being representative of the state's party than a caucus (or even a one-day primary).

Of course you're right: all of this is about speculation.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

One more thing: do you think that Hillary is attacking Obama's SUPPORTERS?

[Adam]

The basic idea, as I understand it, is they are accusing the Clinton campaign of nullifying the support of those who have voted for Obama by minimizing the significance of the wins those votes delivered. I think they chose an unnecessarily inflammatory way to phrase it, but the idea is not completely outlandish. And of course, asking for money is part and parcel of any campaign missive.

Basically, it looks like pretty run-of-the-mill, "rally the faithful" campaign rhetoric. I understand your point that you think it's hypocritical for the Obama campaign to engage in this sort of campaign rhetoric while they promise a break from old politics.

And for the record, I doubt Karl Rove was the first guy to come up with this strategy. He simply raised it to an art form, such that even the most abstract policy critique could be spun into a personal affront.