The clash of the ground games
Will Karl Rove really "drool?"
The clash of the ground games
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
During the Democratic convention, which seems like 150 years ago, I stumbled upon a group of Democrats who were fretting about Barack Obama's electoral prospects (and this was pre-Sarah Palin). But Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who is not part of the Obama inner circle, insisted that the candidate is actually in pretty good shape, because of what is happening under the media radar: an enthusiastic, meticulously organized grassroots get-out-the-vote operation which, in scope and ambition, is unprecedented in American politics. This operation, he said, would fundamentally reshape the electorate, adding 25 million new voters (most of whom, presumably, would be Obama voters). All told, Garin claimed, "The Obama campaign is building a ground-game organization that would make Karl Rove drool."
And it is true, as far as it goes, that the Obama camp has been boasting of its ground game to great statistical effect. Rarely a day goes by when I don't receive an email trumpeting the opening of 10 new field offices here or 20 new offices there - totaling around 350 field offices nationwide, which is roughly triple the number of John McCain outposts. The Obama people talk about a grassroots army of eight million volunteers. This weekend, they announced that Obama raised $66 million during August (with the aid of 500,000 first-time donors), a record one-month haul for any candidate, which presumably will help fund the nationwide field operation during the stretch drive.
The Obama camp says that its ground forces have been registering new, Obama-friendly voters (particularly those under age 35) at a rapid clip, particularly in battleground states such as Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa (those were all red states in '04), as well as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin ('04 blue states that need to be defended). Several key stats supposedly tell the tale: New Democratic registrants in Colorado outnumber new Republican registrants by roughly 5-1; and in Florida, by roughly 3-1. As for Pennsylvania, I've seen all kinds of numbers; depending on the time period, it appears that the Democrats this year have added several hundred thousand voters to the rolls, while the Republicans have netted virtually zero.
It's no surprise that Democrats are stressing the importance of a great ground game - and, psychologically, taking refuge in the belief that they now possess one - given the events of 2004. They woke up the day after the election to discover that John Kerry's good ground game (expanding the electorate with eight million new Democratic voters) was trumped by the excellent Bush-Rove ground game (which added 12 million new Republican voters). There had been some stories in the press about how the Bush forces were doing all kinds of sophisticated "micro-targeting" - zeroing in on GOP-friendly communities by studying consumer information and magazine subscription lists - but many Democrats were stunned and depressed by the results. Hence the determination to trump the GOP this time around.
Of course, we won't know until the votes are counted on Nov. 4 whether Obama is truly marshalling a victorious army of voters below the radar, an army supposedly impervious to the fluctuations of the daily news cycles and the daily tracking polls - most of which, lately, have favored McCain. An argument can certainly be made that the Obama ground game, matched with the underlying fundamentals of the national mood (a tanking economy, a disastrous Republican presidency), should be enough to withstand, although not without periodic crises of the spirit, the tactical pyrotechnics of the McCain campaign.
But I wouldn't be so sure about Obama's vaunted secret weapon - not so much that it will fail in its mission of expanding the electorate, but that its effectiveness might be successfully blunted by the GOP's energized ground game. The Republican National Committee, which is running McCain's ground operation, is well-schooled in the art of micro-targeting, because it has been practicing that grassroots tactic since the '02 congressional races. Plus, the RNC has plenty of money to do it again. Plus, the conservative grassroots will be increasingly energized if McCain and Palin keep dominating the news cycles (thanks, in part, to the fact that many media outlets, particularly those on cable TV, are easily drawn to the faux trivilalities, such as "lipstick on a pig").
Plus, and perhaps most importantly, McCain's choice of Sarah Palin has galvanized the conservative grassroots in ways that McCain himself could never do. A great ground game operation is useless unless it is fueled by enthusiasm. Palin is the fuel.
The best way to measure this enthusiasm is to briefly review the conservative grassroots response to Palin's ABC News appearances with Charlie Gibson. She was, at least by any empirical measure, a national embarrassment, but Republican base voters either didn't notice, or made up reasons to explain it all away. They have pronounced themselves satisfied, even though, for instance, Palin couldn't even answer basic questions about the entitlement programs that are crucial to tens of millions of Americans. Consider this exchange, during the 20/20 segment on Friday night...
Gibson: "Is there money you can save in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?"
Palin: "I am sure that there are efficiencies that are going to be found in all of these agencies. I am - I'm confident in that."
Gibson (forced again to play the role of Henry Higgins to her Eliza Doolittle): "But agencies are not involved in entitlements. The basically discretionary spending is 18 percent of the budget."
Palin (note the Bush-style incoherence): "We have certainly seen excess in agencies, though. And in - when - when bureaucrats, when bureaucracy just gets kind of comfortable, going with the status quo and not being challenged to find deficiencies and spend other people's money wisely."
The Republican base had no problem with any of that. Nor was any concern voiced about her Bush-style aversion to factual reality. At another point, she told Gibson that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy," which comes as quite a surprise to the folks who work at the U.S. Energy Information Administration - and who say that Alaska actually produces 3.5 percent of all domestic energy. And if she meant to say "oil" instead of energy, she got that wrong, too, because Alaska produces 14 percent of the nation's oil output. All told, her inability to recite the most basic facts doesn't speak very well for McCain, who recently boasted on TV that his running mate "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States."
No grassroots conservatives have emailed to acknowledge that perhaps Palin isn't fit for prime time. On the contrary, they have rallied to defend her worst interview moment. Last Thursday night, after she flunked the simple test of identifying the Bush doctrine, freezing like a clueless moose caught in the headlights, her fans sent me emails explaining that, actually, the Bush doctrine has gone through a number of permutations over the years, so naturally she should not have been expected to answer such an unfair question.
My rejoinder is twofold: (a) Gibson specifically asked her about the 2002 Bush doctrine, which is the most famous of the permutations, and she still couldn't say what it was, and (b) if she'd known anything at all about these permutations - as anyone prepared to be president should be expected to know - then her very first response to Gibson would surely have been: "Which version of the Bush doctrine are you asking me about, Charlie?" Instead, she could only hazard a wild guess about any of the doctrinal contents ("His world view?"), albeit with jut-jawed certitude.
But the grassroots conservatives love that certitude, and to heck with trifles such as empiricism. They're soldiers now in an energized McCain army, newly committed for the duration, and no Democrat should still assume that the vaunted Obama operation will dominate.
Polman should read the full transcript of the interview, instead of relying on just the ABC soundbites. Anyway, I wonder if anybody is concerned about the Obama contributors going on the internet and putting those campaign donations on their credit cards...thereby increasing their debt? I really question these voter registration drives....it does not mean those people will actually vote.— tom - wilmington, de- It wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so many of the Bush Nitwit Crew on the Teaching Staff at the Caribou Barbie campus. The Mis-education of Sarah Palin continues... How is it that McCain/Palin represents so much reform & change from the last 8 years when lobbyists are McCain's closest advisors, Rove proteges run his campaign & so many NeoCons are involved in Caribou Barbie's After Care Tutoring Program?— yobill626
- Quick, off the top of your head Mr. Polman, what did Bush say in his 2005 state of the union address? (This is exactly what you are complaining Governor Plain did not know off the top of her head.) Also, she DID ask Gibson to be more specific. He REFUSED. It was like something out of an oral test. Ths interview was bizarre. ----- As for the ground game stuff, I never bought into it. The media loves to throw a narrative on a political victory. With Bush it is always the ground game that supposedly pulled him through. If Gore had won a few hundred more votes in Florida in 2000 the media would say that the ground game for Bush failed. That seems pretty arbitrary. (How is something a success if it turns out a few hundred thousand votes, but a failure if it turns out a few hundred thousand minus a few hundred?) Discussions of things like the ground game are just a smokescreen to avoid having to do actual reporting.— bon
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Cemeteries don't count for new voters; a typical democrat move that will reduce those "huge" numbers. The fact is Polman is a lap dog and has been given his barking order. He barks, "just like bush" so he'll get a reward; he barks, "(generic Palin insult)" so he'll get a reward. Polman, the fact is this most people start paying attention to the election from the conventions, and McCain had a HUGE pop from Palin and a great convention. Polls after polls after polls are showing McCain gaining ground in every category and widening the gap to his favor in the swing states. America is starting to pay attention and they are letting eveyone know they want McCain/Palin in '08. America didn't want Kerry, Gore, Dukakis or McGovern; they won't want Obama either.— thelastRepublicaninPhilly
- Comment removed.
- bon, no this is not the same as reciting what was said in a State of the union speech. The Bush Doctrine is a major shift in US foreign policy instituted by george bush, that was essentially laying the foundation for starting a war that he knew would eventually be questioned. This is the CYA moment as he sold the big con to the American people. This is a rather important shift in american foreign policy.— gee1971
- tom - some of us pay off our credit card bill each month, thus not "increasing our debt." Clearly, you right-wingers aren't too familiar with that concept. Let's do a little mini-poll. How many of you McCainiacs have been involved in his "ground game"? Wonder how many Obamabots have been involved...hmmm. Smoke screen? Right, because the Gallup tracking poll is what generates votes. Not, you know, voters. Mirroring Bush's TV ads without mirroring his campaign organization is beyond foolish.— squintymc
- Given Obama's history with ACORN, and their record of registering people with false names, etc. (they have been fined and are having actions against them in several states).— tom - wilmington, de
- BKLYNBOY: we have troops in Iran? .. bon: he's not referring the the 2005 state of the union address, he (and most people) are referring to 2002, when the White house issued the updated National Security Strategy of the United States. Salient quote below: "It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense."— still_independent
- gee1971: Mr. Polman admits that the Bush doctrine means a lot of different things. His gripe with Governor Palin in this piece is that she did not know which part of the Bush doctrine was put forward in Bush's 2002 state of the union address. Mr. Gibson was, in effect, asking Mrs. Palin to recall Bush's state of the union from 2002. Given that we have established that the Bush doctrine means many different things, it was incumbent upon Mr. Gibson to ask the question with more specificity. (That is if he actually wanted an answer to the question, instead of a gotcha moment.)— bon
- squintymc: I am not sure why you are being so defensive about the ground game issue. Republicans bragged about it in 2000 and 2004, too. It is not a partisan issue. If you want to think it will pull Obama through then go right ahead. In the end, though, the election will be decided by people getting up and going to vote themselves, and the media will simply use the ground game as a self fulfilling prophecy. If Obama wins it was a success. If Obama loses it was a failure. (The elderly and disabled are, of course, the excepetion and efforts should be made to get them to the voting booth. Since Obama expects to lose both groups, though, don't expect him to be helping them out much.)— bon
- Hey, guys, get over it. She didn't have a clue what the Bush doctrine was. She doesn't have a clue about a lot of things. She's the perfect Republican candidate.— Djoko Pritza
"She was, at least by any empirical measure, a national embarrassment.." It would be difficult to use empirical analysis on the Palin interview due to the questionable edits to the footage by ABC. Palin also had to school Gibson as to our responsibilities in NATO, and that the Bush Doctrine is more than just pre-emptive war. Gibson also lookes like a fool when he snapped "exact words" to Palin regarding her challenging him on her precise comments about Iraq as God's will. It took about 2 seconds of research to find that Gibson had the quote and it's meaning wrong. You would think such an esteemed newsman would make sure he had the exact quote. The Palin interview only served to cement the media as the national embarassment.— jmc
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
