June 25, 2008 5:52

Obama's Plan

Posted by Jay Newton-Small | Comments (55) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe spent a little over an hour briefing the Washington press corps at the DNC today. In a tone that could only be described as confident, Plouffe laid out their General Election strategy in a power point slide show. Here’s a brief summary:

1) Hold the states that Kerry won in 2004, which accounted for 252 electoral votes. Plouffe noted they are polling ahead in Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania – the three states he said McCain is targeting.
2) They will go on the offensive in 14 states Bush won in 2004, including North Carolina, Nevada, Montana and Georgia. Obama is already polling ahead in six of those states: Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico.
3) An early and prolonged advertising offensive to help “fill in the gaps” and expand people’s knowledge of Obama’s biography and platform. They are already up with tv ads in 18 states and, speaking of states Bush won, those include Alaska, North Dakota and Indiana.
4) An emphasis of a 50 state strategy where they can draw every electoral vote they can, including, for example, Nebraska where they hope to break away one electoral vote in the eastern part of the state around Omaha.
5) Voter registration. They will be making an enormous push in all 50 states. “We think this is a place where we’ve going to have an enormous advantage over John McCain, it’s a place where George Bush had an advantage over Democrats in 2000 and 2004,” Plouffe said. The registration is not a random, set up a table in the mall kind of operation, “it’s highly targeted,” he added.
6) The Persuasion Army. Plouffe repeated this term often. “We’re absolutely committed to building the best persuasion army. We think that’s something Bush did really, really well in 2000 and 2004.” Plouffe said it’s much more powerful to have people from your own neighborhood not only explaining their support for Obama but being able to answer questions and correct wrong impressions. “And it’s not just about quantity, though a critical volume to get the work done is important, it’s about quality and we’re lucky that one of Obama’s strengths is that he draws some really talented people,” he said. Plouffe pointed to yesterday’s L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll: “If only 13% of your voters support you enthusiastically, your volunteer base will be very low, versus when more than 40% say they are very enthusiastic about you, your volunteer base is very high.”

Other points included reaching out to women and Latinos (polls show things are going well with both demographics) and registering African Americans and young people (big push that started more than a month ago) but these were the six he spent the most time dwelling on. Plouffe noted it’s obviously still very early in the campaign but they feel much better about defending the Kerry states than he suspects McCain feels about defending Bush states. Here is part of the slide show that the campaign released for your viewing pleasure. And for fun comparison purposes, here’s McCain’s slide-show strategy briefing from last month.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (55)

rainbow68:

Sounds good to me!

Posted by rainbow68 | June 25, 2008 6:05 PM

attaturk:

Well this is fine and at least involves "reporting" instead of cutting & pasting.

However, is it at all possible that any of you other than Joe Klein are actually going to report on the ISSUES?

Or is it going to be all "character" and "process"?

Because if it's going to be that, then we commenters are going to keep being cranky.

Posted by attaturk | June 25, 2008 6:09 PM

Paul Dirks

Of all that material, 'the entusiasm gap' is the one thing I found both most meaningful and (as an Obama supporter) most encouraging.

But I think I've already made clear that I get impatient with all the pigeonholing and stereotyping that is necessary in order to do this sort of analysis.

It's also ironic that 'enthusiasm' remains one of the points of attack for people who wish to derail the campaign or insult his fan-base.

Posted by Paul Dirks | June 25, 2008 6:24 PM

texte:

Was this press release written by Time magazine for the Obama campaign or written by the Obama campaign for Time magazine? Please advise. Thank you.

Posted by texte | June 25, 2008 6:27 PM

ivb:

4) An emphasis of a 50 state strategy where they can draw every electoral vote they can, including, for example, Nebraska where they hope to break away one electoral vote in the eastern part of the state around Omaha.

Is Nebraska one of the states that allots its electoral votes in relation to the popular vote instead of winner take all?

Posted by ivb | June 25, 2008 6:28 PM

Ralph:

ivb- yes.

I guess it's all we have to go on, but polling at this stage is really suspect and soft. For example, the new SUSA Missouri poll shows McCain with a 7 point lead. Other polls have it the other way around. fivethirtyeight.com is showing MO light blue, but their numbers look pretty squirrelly. Yeah, I know, I'll take it up with them.

But the 50-state strategy is the way to go - thanks, Governor Dean! It'll pay big dividends in the down-ballot races. We've seen how important state races are - you get a few Republicans in the wrong places and they'll have their thumbs on the scale like in Ohio '04.

Posted by Ralph | June 25, 2008 6:43 PM

Paul Dirks

texte,
It was written by the person who is assigned to cover the Obama campaign.

If you want to read a McCain press release, you'll have to wait for Scherer.

Posted by Paul Dirks | June 25, 2008 6:45 PM

wvng:

TEXTE. I'm don't see a press release. It is a clear description of the Obama strategy - a strategy that will make McCain's life, and repub lives generally, very very difficult. It is unusually transparent, but they have no reason in the world to hide this.

Posted by wvng | June 25, 2008 7:11 PM

Rustydog:

You forgot #7, "How to get really rich quick by bilking millions of dollars from unsuspecting, naive, and totally clueless welfare contributors.

Yes, "change" is what we need.

SAY NO TO OBAMA '08
NO INTEGRITY - NO CHARACTER - NO OBAMA

Posted by Rustydog | June 25, 2008 7:28 PM

obamish

"The Persuasion Army"

I'm sure that church-meets-salvation use of "Army" for the sake of some Chicago block slacker that will BY CHOICE gut our own military, Carter clown style, and prop up every towel-headed thug in modern Islamist sight, IS a great hoop of news to the actual troops.

The DOD resignations will be flowing like Monica at a Clixon fundraiser, should this pandering domesticated DOLT false promise his Hawaiian occupying way to the Persuasion Land.

= OBFUSCATION ACCOMPLISHED =

Posted by obamish | June 25, 2008 7:29 PM

obamish

"How to get really rich quick by bilking millions of dollars from unsuspecting, naive, and totally clueless welfare contributors."

STOP PICKING ON CALIFORNICA.

Posted by obamish | June 25, 2008 7:34 PM

Paul-no not that one:

Is there a way for McCain to have the word "Republican" taken off the ballot next to his name?
If not then this race is already over.

Posted by Paul-no not that one | June 25, 2008 7:54 PM

53_3:

"The DOD resignations will be flowing ..."

And well they should.

These Nintendo "Sock and Awe" strategists don't even know how, or when, or even why, they fight wars.

They let dubblya do that and peek up the pisses later...

Posted by 53_3 | June 25, 2008 8:36 PM

jayackroyd

Is Nebraska one of the states that allots its electoral votes in relation to the popular vote instead of winner take all?

NE and ME cast their electoral votes by congressional district. Both states have two districts.

Posted by jayackroyd | June 25, 2008 8:46 PM

texte:

Why is Obama wearing a flag pin on the cover of Rolling Stoned magazine? That has to be the fakest display of "patriotism" in history.

Posted by texte | June 25, 2008 9:15 PM

Jake Gittes:

I know how dearly the Swamplanders love the Politico...

Here is an article from them on McCain and his illegal spending re: public financing.

Maybe someone could start a clock showing how long it will be until it is covered by one of the writers here?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Plouffe_McCain_spending_unlawfully.html

Posted by Jake Gittes | June 25, 2008 9:26 PM

Ralph:

Jake - that clock started months ago. I've been commenting on it for the past 2-3 months, but there's been no acknowledgment by the Time writers, even when they do a story about Obama and his public financing issues.

It's good to see the Politico doing a story on it. Up until now it's just been Josh Marshall, I think.

Posted by Ralph | June 25, 2008 9:38 PM

NoMoreBlatherDotCom

One of my pet issues is bringing the internet to the countryside, and helping bring that about sounds like a perfect job for the "Persuasion Army"! That and directing a reeducation program.

Perhaps they could even have a Pioneers program.

JNS: could you ask the BHO campaign about this?

Posted by NoMoreBlatherDotCom | June 25, 2008 9:59 PM

GySgt213:

"Here is an article from them on McCain and his illegal spending re: public financing."

Jake and Ralph,

I did a story for them. Since they seem unable to find any information on it. It might need some editing because I don't have a ACCESS or BLACKBERRY, but you would think they could copy and paste. Hell they could even put Michael's name on it. I don't give a crap:

Jay,

Here is the story that you and your fellow Swamplanders can not bring yourselves to address.

Basically, McCain secured 2 loans totaling about $4 million last fall, using as collateral the federal matching funds he'd receive if he opted to into the public campaign-finance system. By using potential public money as collateral, McCain effectively opted into the public system, effectively agreeing to cap his campaign spending at $54 million prior to the GOP convention in September. McCain spent $49 million as of January 31 2008. You don’t have to be a math guru to figure out he more than likely has spent well over 5 million since January 2008.

McCain's lawyers argue it wasn't potential public money they used as collateral; it was McCain's overall fundraising potential.

"[McCain lawyer Trevor] Potter said the campaign offered as collateral its assets, including McCain's massive fundraising lists and his willingness to keep raising from them. But that may not satisfy the FEC, which requires that politicians borrow using only terms that assure repayment."

"If the bank is saying they lent him money on the basis of future receipts, well, in presidential campaigns, their future receipts can be zero or millions," said Marc Elias, an election lawyer who arranged a loan in 2003 for the presidential bid of Sen Kerry. "The idea that this would be a dependable source of collateral is preposterous."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603328.html

Unless everyone has just simply forgotton, Mr. McCain’s campaign was on life support last fall he had zero fundraising potential. In fact, if Mr. McCain's fundraising potential (lists) were worth something, he wouldn't have needed a loan. At least not a hugh one. He could have instead been working the lists to raise money. But if he couldn’t do that then I guess he did need a loan, but what good would the lists have been as collateral to a bank when he can’t raise money off them? Is it proper for a bank to give a loan based off of fundraising lists as Mr. McCain’s campaign claims it did since there is absolutely no assurance of repayment?

There are only two plausible scenarios here, either McCain used the promise of public campaign funds as collateral for his loan and locked himself into the public campaign finance system (and its strict spending limits) or he didn't use potential public funds as collateral, which means he didn't have anything to offer as collateral, which means he received an improper loan.

The bottom line: McCain did this to himself. He painted himself into a corner on this. So all the media hand wringing over Obama is misplaced.

Posted by GySgt213 | June 25, 2008 10:24 PM

GySgt213:

Its hard to believe Charlie Black is the smartest guy McCain has:

In a new Fortune magazine article, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) chief strategist Charlie Black claimed that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be “a big advantage” for their campaign. On Dennis Miller’s radio show today, former top McCain strategist Mike Murphy attempted to explain away the gaffe with a crude joke:

MURPHY: Well, he’s an old friend of mine, so I’ll defend him. I don’t know what happened. I think there must have been tremendous reporter cleavage involved or something.

MILLER: hahahahahahaha

MURPHY: Charlie got off his focus, he’s a good guy, he’s apologized for it.

http://thinkprogress.org/

Posted by GySgt213 | June 25, 2008 10:27 PM

Malcolm:

"Is Nebraska one of the states that allots its electoral votes in relation to the popular vote instead of winner take all?

NE and ME cast their electoral votes by congressional district. Both states have two districts."

To clarify, each of these states awards 1 electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district and awards the rest (i.e., 2 EVs) to the winner of the popular vote for the state as a whole. So a candidate could win 0, 1, or 4 EV in ME and 0, 1, 2, or 5 EV in NE (NE has 3 CDs, not 2). These rules have been in effect for a while but neither state has ever split its vote.

Posted by Malcolm | June 25, 2008 10:28 PM

Malcolm:

@texte,
"Why is Obama wearing a flag pin on the cover of Rolling Stoned magazine? That has to be the fakest display of 'patriotism' in history."

B/c people like you and Rustybitch seem to care about sh*t like that.

Posted by Malcolm | June 25, 2008 10:32 PM

Ralph:

Gy - in addition, McCain used the fact that he was taking public financing to get on the ballot in Ohio. Other candidates had to collect signatures.

Posted by Ralph | June 25, 2008 10:40 PM

DougJ:

Unless Obama can convince voters he is not an elitist, arugula-eating professor-type, he has no chance in middle America.

The enthusiasm I see for him here is no doubt typical of coastal elites. That don't mean squat, though, electorally speaking.

Posted by DougJ | June 25, 2008 10:48 PM

Paul-no not that one:

"Unless Obama can convince voters he is not an elitist, arugula-eating professor-type, he has no chance in middle America."

Define "middle America" Which states exactly and what polling numbers are you using? Or did you just pull that from your....ear?

Posted by Paul-no not that one | June 25, 2008 10:53 PM

DougJ:

Define "middle America"

If you have to ask....

Posted by DougJ | June 25, 2008 10:57 PM

Paul-no not that one:

Define "middle America"
If you have to ask....
Posted by Doug

Yeah that's what I figured.

Posted by Paul-no not that one | June 25, 2008 11:11 PM

Paul Dirks

Middle America is that mythical place where they resent smart people. Mainly because anyone who is smart enough, gets the heck out of town as soon as they can.

Posted by Paul Dirks | June 25, 2008 11:24 PM

Rose:

This is all very good news. But... what if the McCain campaign returns to a basic level of competence again, like they did after their horrible start in the primaries? We need to remember that things may get more difficult. And if they don't, there's no danger in preparing for a tougher opponent.

Posted by Rose | June 25, 2008 11:41 PM

DougJ:

We need to remember that things may get more difficult. And if they don't, there's no danger in preparing for a tougher opponent.

They will get tougher. This election is about character and Obama doesn't have it.

Posted by DougJ | June 25, 2008 11:56 PM

53_3:

"They will get tougher. This election is about character and Obama doesn't have it."

Well, it seems to me that that might just be wishful thinking on your part.

So far, Obama is opening up wider and wider leads, and the extinction, er, election, is drawing closer day by day.

Posted by 53_3 | June 26, 2008 1:29 AM

KYJurisDoctor

BRILLIANT strategy, if it'll work! OsiSpeaks[dot]com

Posted by KYJurisDoctor | June 26, 2008 1:46 AM

BrooklynGurl:

Don't believe the hype.

Posted by BrooklynGurl | June 26, 2008 2:09 AM

matt:

Overextending themselves is a worry here. Alaska? Georgia? It's nice that Obama's up in the polls, but sanity has to take over at some point.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | June 26, 2008 8:00 AM

Keith Hood:

It has always seemed like a no-brainer to me that Obama would win the states Kerry won and I've presented that POV for months. It sounds like Obama's plans line up with what I've been saying from the beginning.

Posted by Keith Hood | June 26, 2008 8:25 AM

Ames:

Unless Obama can convince voters he is not an elitist, arugula-eating professor-type, he has no chance in middle America.

I live in Des Moines, Iowa. I've been a delegate (Edwards) to the county and district Democratic conventions, and I'm a delegate to the statewide convention this weekend. At every stage of the process, from before the caucuses until this very morning, Obama's had incredible support. Not to mention that he won the caucus back in January.

How much more middle-America do you have to get than Des Moines, Iowa?

Posted by Ames | June 26, 2008 8:31 AM

Rustydog:

Posted by GySgt213 | June 25, 2008 10:24 PM
The bottom line: McCain did this to himself. He painted himself into a corner on this. So all the media hand wringing over Obama is misplaced.

No Gysgt, but the "bottom line" here is integrity. Who has it and who does not. All politicians since the ancient Greeks have flip-flopped on this issue or that. But, Obama has consistently demonstrated that he will say anything or do anything.

The comments you and others have made to again say McCain has done some illegal thing is totally absurd. He did nothing illegal, prove it if he has. Show anywhere in the public records of the FEC that McCain embezzled or otherwise public campaign money.

No you can't, and this is the entire point. However, when we speak of integrity. Promises and statements made by each of the two candidates to wipe out private donors in the likes of MoveOn.Org or George Soros. Who is the benefactor of these private major LOBBYIST donations?

None other than Barak Obama. PERIOD He has stated on record (video to prove) and in writing (Mid-west democracy questionaire), that he would "vigoursly persue" public political financing for ALL campaigns, including his own. Is that the road he now has embarked. ABSOLUTELY NOT

If you want the links, go to a previous post I did on this exact subject yesterday. If that is too difficult, I will definately repost the links so you can both see and read how Obama's total lack of integrity and character continues from his days in the most recent democrat primary.

NO INTEGRITY - NO CHARACTER - NO EXPERIENCE -SAY NO TO OBAMA '08

Posted by Rustydog | June 26, 2008 8:31 AM

brokenbottle:

"But, Obama has consistently demonstrated that he will say anything or do anything."

WOW. Should we take a look at McCain in 2000, McCain in 2004 and McCain now and then start this debate on integrity? There are things (like off shore drilling) that McCain said ONE MONTH ago that he's flipped on. McCain had lobbyists working out of the back of his Straight Talk Express for crying out loud.

If you put anyone under a tight enough microscope you're inevitably going to find things that you can question but you can't question Obama's integrity and then try and hold up McCain as a role model given his behavior since he kicked off his campaign.

Posted by brokenbottle | June 26, 2008 8:46 AM

Rustydog:

What is so terrible about seeing that off-shore drilling is a good thing for our country? You are not in favor of passing legislation that potentially will drop the price of oil immediately for the speculators who have continuously driven up the price of oil? You do not want to provide a means of relief for the lower income people of this country, making minimum wage and paying over half of that for a gallon of gas to get to work?
This is not flip-flopping, it is seeing a need and having the ability to rationalize that a once stance on a specific issue is now wrong due to changes. It is not holding steadfast as Obama, with the pipe-dream of taxing "windfall profits" of oil companies that this would some how bring down the price of oil. But, Obama cannot flip on this issue he is so far in the deep pockets of the far-left liberal extremists, tree hugging democrats that he could never, even if temporarily, take a position which would benefit us all in the short-term.
No Obama is a classic, Jimmy Carter, Tax and Spend liberal who will continue to burden the average American with his pipe-dream policies and actions.

Posted by Rustydog | June 26, 2008 9:18 AM

SpotWeld:

What is so terrible about seeing that off-shore drilling is a good thing for our country?

Because even McCain has admitted that the effects would be mostly "psychological". It's the economic equivalent of given a bratty child a cookie so it'll shut up. Rusty, you ingrained fears have made you willing to jump to support anyone who will treat you like a nanny. You’re an adult Rusty, you don’t need a politician to hug you and tell you everything will be fine.

Do you get it Rusty? The GOP officially considers you dumb enough to have your vote bought for the promise of cheaper gas (not actual cheaper gas, just the snake oil promise).

We've just come off 5 years of seeing what a President with "screw the long term, it's all about the short term" economic policies will do. I for one don't like it.

No Obama is a classic, Jimmy Carter, Tax and Spend

Even if true, it's superior to a debt and spend "conservative". High gas prices and a crapped out housing market are the economic burdens that we're already paying. Do you really want to make them worse?

For what it's worth I do agree that windfall taxes are a poor idea, I'd rather the government subsidies (direct and indirect) to the oil companies just be yanked entirely.

Posted by SpotWeld | June 26, 2008 9:30 AM

Ames:

What is so terrible about seeing that off-shore drilling is a good thing for our country?

Ignoring all the environmental concerns held by tree-hugging liberals like me, consider that high oil prices are currently high due to:

a) a real, worldwide shortage of oil that will grow worse by the year; or

b) an artificial run-up in the price of oil, fueled by speculators, the oil companies and the oil-producing nations.

If a) is the case, wouldn't it be prudent for us to hang on to as much of our oil as possible until everyone else's pumps run dry?

If b) is the case, why would the potential for additional oil production, years or decades down the road, pop the speculative bubble today? Remember, many of the same people who will be financing and developing these offshore sites are the ones who most benefit from stratospheric oil prices.

Posted by Ames | June 26, 2008 9:39 AM

scalD:

To all those Hillary supporters that are filled with hate, that are voting for McCain instead of your party. Remember Hillary is planning on running again.

When that time comes don't be surprise if the Obama supporters switch side, and don't vote as well.

If the GOP get in there she will lose again in the coming years.

Because "Krama" is something else...

Posted by scalD | June 26, 2008 10:23 AM

ny nick:

One gets the sense Obama has a much more detailed plan for getting elected than he does for actually governing. I know if you want to do the former you must first do the latter but there is a pretty large gap between the detailed planning being done on electoral mapping by Obama's team and his proposals related to governing. One is thorough in the extreme and other other is vague in the extreme.

Posted by ny nick | June 26, 2008 3:08 PM

ny nick:

umm...sorry, that "former/latter thing should be the other way around.

Posted by ny nick | June 26, 2008 3:15 PM

ny nick:

Scald,

First Hillary supporters were racists, then they were just stupid now if we don't march in lockstep with you you're vowing to not vote for Hillary in some hypothetical future election? I'm guessing you're not a recent Dale Carnegie grad. How about this, you vote for who you think is the best candidate and allow others to vote for whomever they like best? If Barack Obama gets more electoral votes, he's going to win. If he doesn't, he won't. It's his job to convince voters that he's the superior candidate. Should he lose, he will have failed in that mission. It won't be Hillary's fault, it won't be her supporters fault, it will be his fault. I know that concept is foreign to many Obama supporters who view him as infallable but there it is.

Posted by ny nick | June 26, 2008 3:34 PM

RubyPanther:

ny nick, it sounds like you had a better plan for the type of comment you wanted to make, than you did for actually typing it out.

But as in the other case, it's just blahblah to point it out. Typically people think Obama doesn't have a clear plan when they already support somebody else, and don't really pay attention to what he's saying.

But by all measures the electorate is more interested and engaged than they have been for decades, and the candidates both seem eager to have a lot of debates, so presumably even those who aren't otherwise knowledgeable about the actual plans the candidates have will tune in and get a large dose. Because he does spend a lot of time talking about real plans, real things he will do differently, and how he will do them.

And no, the list isn't any party's platform. And no, he's not simply in between the platforms of the parties. (Clintonesque Triangulation) Instead, he thinks for himself, and makes real proposals to do things differently. Anybody who actually listens to a single whole speech already knows that. That you don't, exposes you as somebody who only listens to MSM sound bites. That's why the same young voters previously accused of being apathetic are showing their true colors, and supporting him enthusiastically.

Posted by RubyPanther | June 26, 2008 4:44 PM

pippin:

"Unless Obama can convince voters he is not an elitist, arugula-eating professor-type, he has no chance in middle America."

Uh, Obama is a senator from ILLINOIS, which is pretty middle American. Hardly coastal.

I'm from Indiana, also MIDDLE, and he's beating McCain here. While Indiana voters frequently elect Dem governors, and there's a Dem senator, the state almost always goes for the Republican presidential candidate (since FDR, probably).
So Obama being ahead of McCain here is unprecedented.
And your attempt to portray a mixed-race child of a single mom who attended college on scholarships as "elitist"-- well, yeah, he's "elite" in the sense that he's obviously much smarter than most of us, since he was able to overcome a lot to get where he is today.

Look at Bush and McCain, whose fathers and grandfathers were way up there in the American hierarchy. Neither of them had to work really hard to get into their elite colleges, did they? Didn't even have to work to pay off student loans. Heck, would you rather have an earned elite, or a nepotist? I think "middle America" will always choose the one who earned his way up, not the one who was born up and didn't achieve much at all on his own.

Posted by pippin | June 26, 2008 5:26 PM

motownmanc:

I'm sure Joe will be along soon to explain how Obama's campaign strategy is good news for Republicans and bad news for Democrats.

Posted by motownmanc | June 27, 2008 9:35 AM

ny nick:

Ruby P,

"And no, the list isn't any party's platform. And no, he's not simply in between the platforms of the parties. (Clintonesque Triangulation) Instead, he thinks for himself, and makes real proposals to do things differently. Anybody who actually listens to a single whole speech already knows that."

Examples please? I've listened to a lot of Obama speeches. Yes we can, blah, blah, blah,
post partisan blah, blah, blah. I don't hear many specifics. He hasn't demonstrated anywhere in his history the slightest interest in actually governing.

Posted by ny nick | June 27, 2008 11:56 AM

scorpionnn:

عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار