Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama and organizing

By

I don't want to talk about an Obama primary win as a fait accompli, but there are some interesting, and possibly related tidbits in the NYT today:

  • SEIU seems poised to endorse Obama. I don't know what their power is like in swing states like Ohio, Missouri, and Florida, but it's my strong impression that SEIU can be a difference maker in Massachusetts elections. I see those purple jackets everywhere — they seem visible and powerful in a way that I don't perceive the AFL-CIO, for instance. They're tough, agressive, they take politics seriously, they organize, and they win. Just my impression.
  • Will Obama back out on a very explicit pledge to do a publicly-financed campaign? Here's Obama early last year:

    Asked if he would participate in the public-financing system if he was nominated for president and his major opponents agreed to do the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. Then he added, also in writing, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

    Obama would have a gigantic money advantage over McCain — and relatively speaking, it would be coming from the right places (small donors), rather than pre-McCain/Feingold soft money. On the other hand, if they both take public financing, the relative power of their own campaign spending decreases with regard to the “independent” groups, whose expenditures are less regulated. In other words, you'd see fewer McCain TV ads, and more Swift-Boat style anti-Obama ads.

    Furthermore, it might also tip the balance to ground-level, grass-roots organizing and GOTV. Obama has proven a relative advantage over Clinton; would he have an advantage over McCain? Does it matter in a big-media general election campaign, or is grassroots/social-capital/GOTV stuff only worth that last percentage point or two in a close race?

    Should Obama take that challenge?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Wasn’t accepting public financing the mistake Kerry made in ’04 that virutally shut down his campaign for the month of August because they had to conserve money?  Why make that mistake again?

  2. he’s only going to do it if his opponent does it as well. Clinton hasn’t. Has or will McCain? (Honest question, I have no idea.) If McCain does, I imagine Obama will have to as well to keep up appearances of “ethics” and all that.

    • The article you link to says McCain would accept public financing if the Democratic nominee did the same.

      • On Tuesday, one of Mr. McCain’s advisers told The New York Times that the campaign had decided to forgo public financing in the general election, an awkward admission for a senator who has made campaign finance reform a central part of his political persona.

        <

        p>then it goes on to say that he’ll change his mind depending on what obama does.  straight talk express for ya.  straight as a pretzel.

  4. If it’s Obama in the general, and he can keep raising the kind of money he’s raising now, hell with the public financing.  No sane person who would otherwise vote for Obama would reconsider because he’s not taking public financing.

    • I agree that the substance doesn’t really resonate with the public. But it will be used as a political issue — one of Obama’s character. Obama could not have been explicit about his intention to use public financing, and now he seems likely to completely go back on that. Why? Because he can.

      <

      p>As a matter of principle, do you approve of that? I don’t want to live in a fantasy-land of ethical purity, but doesn’t your position seem pretty Machiavellian?

      • It may be raised as an issue about Obama’s character but it really won’t resonate in an election that will focus on the economy.

        <

        p>And besides, Obama will have 200 mill to respond to any character attacks.  

        <

        p>Too often Democrats have been outraised and suffered because of it.  Now is not the time to take the advantage we have (whether its Obama or Hillary) and toss it away.  Too much at stake.  And Obama has a grass roots funding based – still people powered and small donor based so its not as dependent on special interests.  He should bag out of it and fire back on McCain’s own hypocrisy on the issue.

  5. I’m not sure what you mean by this:

    <

    p>

    Furthermore, it might also tip the balance to ground-level, grass-roots organizing and GOTV.

    <

    p>After all, you correctly note that public financing would just mean more 527 spending. So whatever benefit better organization would provide would be overtaken by that independent spending anyway. It seems politically crazy for Obama to consider giving up a clear advantage in the general election, since he’s shown to be a fundraising machine (as has Clinton).

    <

    p>Campaign finance reform is just one of those things that I think its great in theory and I support, but is unfortunately unworkable in practice. There’s just no way to control the 527 groups (or whatever groups would emerge if you shut them down). Expenditure limits also sound great until the legal nightmare of determining what is an expenditure “on a candidate’s behalf” and what is just someone’s political opinion.

    <

    p>So we’re left with what makes the most political sense. And that would be Obama refusing public financing.

  6. On almost every level, Democrats are out-raising Republicans.  Without that money advantage, a major weapon of the GOP repertoire is gone.  Why take away such an important lever just to please campaign-finance hawks who vote Democratic anyway?  I don’t want the Celtics (time to switch sports analogies) to stop running the fast break if the opponent promises to win it.  And don’t tell me that it’s okay, because it’s based on a Republican keeping his word…

    <

    p>Dovetails interestingly with the most important outstanding endorsement of the year, and concerns that Obama can’t handle a general campaign.  Take a look at this:

    <

    p>

    As he weighs a possible endorsement in the Democratic race, former Sen. John Edwards is as split as the party he once hoped to lead – and is seriously considering supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite the sharp criticism he leveled at her on the campaign trail, according to former aides and advisers…
    Though he sometimes aligned himself with Obama – and against Clinton – as a candidate, several Edwards campaign insiders say the former senator began to sour on Obama toward the end of his own campaign, and ultimately left the race questioning whether Obama had the toughness needed to prevail in a presidential race.

    <

    p>I don’t expect him to back Hillary, but if he does, one can imagine the spin already…

    • which I very strongly agree with by the way.  We should not sacrifice the money advantage which in Obama’s case is built off small donors in any event.  

      <

      p>

Archives