The Rise of Obama

There is no shortage of bloggers lavishing Obama with superlatives, but few really acknowledge the extent of his achievements. Those who regard Obama as some sort transcending messianic figure do him a disservice I believe, because such a perception gives the impression that his meteoric rise was inevitable and almost fateful. His rise though meteoric, was by no means inevitable and so very unlikely when you consider what challenges on the road to the presidency.

His election victory though spectacular, was almost a formality compared to the much more difficult task he faced in usurping the established Clinton aristrocracy of the Democratic Party, an aristrocracy that had regarded the Democratic Primaries campaign as more of a coronation procession than as an actual contest between equal candidates. His electoral success I believe, can largely be attributed to his fundraising strategy and also his “fifty state” strategy, in the beginning both these strategies were derided as being too ambitious or unorthodox, yet these are now the templates with which all future campaigns will be fought. Even if Obama had had all the personal and mental qualities of a latter day Jesus it is unlikely he could have upstaged Hillary Clinton and later John Mccain so dramatically without his ambitious and innovative fundraising and campaign strategies. In this entry I will try to give a brief analysis of the strategies and the extent to which they had an impact on the election. The point I try to make with this, is that whatever sort of president Obama turns out to be, the strategies through which he got elected are revolutionary in of themselves and foretelling of the future of campaigning both in America and abroad.

When the election campaign began, Obama was a public unknown with no prospects for corporate donations as Hillary was the presumed nominee. Yet by the end of the election campaign, Obama had almost twice as much money as his Republican rival and best of all Obama owed no favors to corporate lobbies or vested interest groups. For Obama’s money was funded by millions of middle class, middle income individuals each donating a small amount. Around 3 million people donating less than $100 each. What made this astronomical numbers possible was the innovative use of the internet for first cultivating a support base within the blogosphere and then as a platform for donating small sums of money. While other candidates would break their backs for whatever TV coverage they could attain, Obama relied on the internet in order to gather momentum and doing so provided him an active and mobile support base. This method of fundraising is surely preferable to politicians who would feel uneasy and compromised accepting large donations from specific special interest groups. The other advantage is the flexibility afforded by this method. It is hard to beg for donations from corporations when your campaign is faltering or there is a financial crisis erupting. It’s much easier to send an e-mail out to your devoted support base asking for $10 each.

The key strategic decision taken by Obama’s team however, was to campaign in all states particularly during the Primaries season. The “Fifty State” strategy was first proposed by Howard Dean but it was derided by Hillary Clinton’s team as being a waste of money, opting for heavy investment in populous states such as California that would guarantee plenty of delegates or electoral college votes in the primaries and general election respectively.

Obama sent his army of volunteers out to gather support for Obama in the smaller generally midwestern and southern states that Hillary neglected. Although these states only delivered a small proportion of votes relative to the larger states that Clinton was relying on, Obama was able to build his delegate lead over Clinton by winning nearly all the minor states. Obama’s previous experience as a community organizer no doubt helped as he built up a well organized online and regional election campaign infrastructure that proved invaluable as the Presidential campaign wore on. Obama’s advances into traditionally Republican leaning states such as Virginia caused John Mccain to divert much of his resources to defending his traditional strongholds.

So Obama’s election strategy can be distinguished from his opponents in several key ways. Obama hoped that by appealing to his key constituency of students and young party supporters, he could generate great enthusiasm and increased turnout for minorities. His opponents however, never had the confidence to extend their focus beyond appealing to the “white working class” demographic. They relied on winning the news cycle night in and night out, while Obama extended more confidence in the power of the internet and of his own grassroots campaign across America.

Did it work? Well many critics have pointed to the unspectacular turnout at the election which some take to mean that Obama’s get out the vote campaign was not so successful. Yet one needs to take into account that those voted Bush in 2004  would have stayed at home, not voting Mccain in 2008 (notably Evangelical Christians). This view seems logical when one takes into account that voting in traditionally Republican areas was down from 2004 levels (Utah, South Dakota, West Virginia) yet the turnout was above 2004 levels in the key battleground states and traditional Democrat states.  In short, it worked.

What I admire in Obama’s road to the presidency, is that is has alleviated my growing pessimism that modern election campaigns can only be won the conventional way. Through drowning the airwaves and television in a steady rhythm of hollow soundbytes, hoping to harness the supposably decisive power of “Rudd’s Working Families” or “Howard’s Battlers” or “White Working Class” demographic or whatever you call them. Obama alternatively, harnessed the power of his most energetic support base, to knock on doors, tell friends, spread the word. Using the power of social networking, this style of campaigning seems much more genuine and community based, as opposed to participating in the campaign through the occasional viewing of the nightly news.