| One theme, one message, which is constantly talked among progressive democrats is the 50 State Strategy. This is the one message that still resonates with us all. The 50 State Strategy is one to make the Democratic Party move beyond the gridlock of a national campaign that always end up being the 50+1 Strategy. We must move past this. We have good ideas, programs, policies, candidates that live in every corner, section of all 50 states. We must be confident enough, as a party, to go to Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Alabama, etc., and ask for the vote. This is not only realistic, but must be done. If not, we will continue to have a weaken party. If we don't address this, we will continue to be a party of utter and complete, failure.
Now on to the viability question. So, many have written about electability. I understand this. The constant polls with matchups against Republicans and how our Democratic Candidates standup. Overall our candidates can carry their own water. But is it relevant, now? No. Who cares. Really who. We are talking about a year from the general with these vacuum polls against the GOP. Everyone knows when the candidate is selected from each party, it changes and tightens up, the poll numbers. So, throw those out.
But viability? Yes, that is relevant and clear. Right here and now. Why? Do to the pile up of February 5, 2008 primaries and caucuses across this country. Half of the United States of America will vote or caucus. Yes, 22 states, add the 4 early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) and the two beauty contests (Florida and Michigan, delegates stripped), this is more than ½ the country voting. So, while many can argue electability, we need to examine the viability of these candidates.
When I was looking for a candidate, I looked at who can raise enough money to match or stay close to Hillary Clinton. Why? Because it costs money to run these campaigns, HRC has Bill Clinton, 100% name recognition and she is the establishment candidate. The framing of the message for a candidate is critical, but if you cannot expand your message to the masses, you become irrelevant and just get lost.
The Money. Let us take a look at this.
Three top contenders: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Hillary Clinton's total take through September 30, 2007 is: 90,935,788.00. This total is for primary and general dollars. Hillary Clinton's primary take is: 74,653,178.00. Now this is a huge amount of money. No doubt. But this makes her Queen of the Fundraising for general and primary receipts. And make everyone look at her in a different light. Meaning? She understood it would take money to go beyond the first four contests in January. Her eye has always been on February 5th and possibly beyond.
Barack Obama's total take through September 30, 2007 is: 80,256,427.00. This total is for primary and general dollars. Barack Obama's primary take is: 76,057,392.00. Not only is this staggering but for Barack Obama not having major name recognition, a junior senator from Illinois, is testament to his fundraising prowess. When this is all done, there will be many studies on the rise of Barack Obama, and I mean money rise. His campaign has broken records and has been ingenious on raising funds on line. Not to mention purchasing his own merchandise and selling it online and at every event. No one can match this, thus far.
John Edwards' total take through September 30, 2007 is: 30,329,152.00. This total is for primary and general dollars. John Edwards' primary take is: 27,897,423.00. This take compared to others is far off pace. But Edwards' has stated he only wanted to raise 40M for the initial four early contests. Great, but his acceptance of public financing as talked about by kos, will hamper him down the road. It will skew his capacity to spend in areas that he sees fit. If the nominee will tie his hands until after the convention to spend the monies as he see fit, forcing him to rely on free media and 527s. 527s we will discuss later.
Here is a breakdown of money spent, burn rate. Yes, though the amount of money raised is staggering, you must pay to play in this cycle. Meaning? You have to hire staff. Open offices. Pay salaries, insurance, taxes, pay for direct mail pieces, television and radio ads. Yes, in a while if you cannot keep up with fundraising, you end up with very little for COH. (cash on hand) It is not cheap to run for an elected office, folk, not cheap. In fact, spending money makes you look viable. It gives the illusion, impression that your fundraising is intact. You can hire staff, open offices beyond the early states. It is an indicator that you are a contender. When you cannot and must close offices, eliminate staff, etc. Questions of your campaign being viable start to arouse.
The accepting of public finance money was a survival necessity for the Edwards Campaign. For him to continue to be viable in Iowa, accepting the funds was the only way. Quarter 4 fundraising numbers and expenditures will tell the real story here. As many who support Edwards ignore the matching 50M cap, which he is well close to, will not acknowledge how the campaign will continue to function, after the first four primaries, when the money is gone for February 5th.
527s is an entity that many cannot control. Not singular candidates. We have witnessed these organizations come in with television ads either, "yay" or "nay" for a candidate, party or cause. Many politicians would like these to be capped or put a lid on as soon as possible, and no one more so than John Edwards after the vile swiftboating of John Kerry's 2004 bid for president. This ad was so flawed and erroneous that before Kerry could respond it had resonated with the American public. This is something no one will ever want to happen to another Democratic nominee.
I bring up 527s due to the latest flap about the dumping of 527s in Iowa. More importantly that a specific 527 is being advised by Edwards former campaign manager. Too close for comfort you say? Well, yes it is but not because of the 527 being advised by his former manager, but because Edwards chastised these organizations during his 2004 run for the presidency and currently for his 2008 bid. Yes, he did make a statement that he does not condone these organizations, but only after the news organizations hounded him about this practice on his behalf and that his former campaign manager is advising the SEIU Local 284 out of Minnesota.
Now to the why of 527s on Edwards part? And why at this late stage of the game? It is called viability.
The one thing that has kept Obama a major player in the nominee game is his tenacity to raise money and compete and beat Clinton, head on for primary money. Edwards has not been able to do this. As we witnessed the withdrawal of the SEIU National Endorsement which would have flooded him with money, boots on the ground, etc., to compete past the early states, has hampered him. So, the next best thing is 527s.
But is this making a dent in Iowa? Overall, I don't think so. Why? Because you cannot get support back that is lost. Most individuals when they make their mind up to leave a candidate and move on, don't come back. The 527 phenomenon in Iowa right now is a last ditch attempt to reintroduce Edwards policies, remind voters that he has been there since 2004 and that they know him.
It is a decent strategy. But this cycle is about change. Is Edwards that?
Edwards can win Iowa. It will be a testament to many variables. But for it to matter he does need to beat both Clinton and Obama significantly. That won't happen. But a squeaker, yes it can happen.
The question though is what Edwards would do with an Iowa victory. Where can he go after that, given how weak he looks in New Hampshire and South Carolina? Obama and Clinton are both solid candidates with lots of money and committed supporters, so they won't sink like Dean and Gephardt in 2004. An Edwards loss pretty much a sure thing in New Hampshire whatever happens in Iowa, so does the North Carolinian have what it takes for a prolonged dual with candidates who are much better organized in later states? It seems very unlikely, and I have trouble seeing an obvious road to the nomination for Edwards even with an Iowa win -- which is what makes me rank him third even though he is just as likely than the two others of winning the caucuses.
Which brings us to what about after Iowa? Clinton and Obama marches on. And if Iowa is a point or two difference, what big boost is that to anyone? For Obama and Clinton a boost, but how significant is the question. It also depends on how the MSM will report Iowa. If Clinton and Obama come out very close to each other, the fight is in New Hampshire. For Edwards, if he does not blow them out of the water, he will be lost in New Hampshire. Why this? Because of the polling numbers of Edwards in New Hampshire. He has yet to break 20 percent. This cycle is short and less free media. The Iowa Caucus is Thursday, Friday is free media, the weekend is dark, and Monday is talking about New Hampshire primary which is Tuesday.
For any significance of any Iowa bounce, you need to have the polls on your side, now. Not after January 3rd, but now. Or at least show some movement upward in the polls. Can Edwards make a 25+ bounce in the polls in five days? Probably not, but miracles happen.
Let's look past the early four states and focus on February 5th. All these candidates can easily pick up a win in an early state. It can happen. Then what? Well, all eyes will be on the 22 states with primaries and caucuses on February 5, 2008.
These are the states for February 5th: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
That is a lot of states. Really, this is a national primary election. So, where do the candidates stand?
Hillary Clinton has 5 offices open in California, New Jersey, New York and Arkansas. Her campaign indicates other office openings, but so far that has not happened. I have written about chit driven campaigns before. These are machine driven campaigns with limited staff, offices and dependence on calling the chits in. The endorsements of public officials for Clinton in various states bring staff, ground troops, and organization. Meaning the Clinton Campaign depends on these local organizations to get the vote out on her behalf. This strategy is not good for Iowa, which is totally a retail state, but February 5th, this strategy can work.
Barack Obama has opened offices, hired staff and is currently working these states NOW. What he has done is unprecedented in primary politics. He will have offices manned with staffing and volunteers ready to GOTV or GOTCV for February 5th. Look at this map. The dark patches of states are where there is office/s, staff, working, and training for February 5th. The caucus states, which are almost half have been registering folk to vote and holding training sessions for February 5th caucus.
This is unprecedented. Why? The Obama Campaign is practically driving these states by precinct up. Meaning he is running a bottom up campaign, not top down as Clinton. Another factor is the strength of his donors who have turned to activists. Many are in these communities now organizing, canvassing, training, phone banking. Presence in these early states is critical. You must reach out and touch now, not later. This schedule does not have the days for any later. The campaigns need to be ready to hit the ground running.
Edwards's presence in these early states is non-existent. Unless he has those doing organizing on their own, it pales to the outfit being run by Clinton and Obama. Clinton does not need all these offices, her name alone carries her to the top. Obama's commitment for grassroots organization is paying off in all these states currently working.
Another viability issue is Edwards One Corps volunteer group. Obama expects to have 500,000 small donors by end of 4th quarter with many of those being boots on the ground. Edwards has nothing as near as many unless he imports outsourced help and if that's the case Obama can add his numbers together to thereby extending his national reach. The other point of viability goes right to unions and the fact that Edwards received local endorsements for the most part because of a question of his viability in October - thinking SEIU, again. And if you are counting Iowa Newspaper Endorsements, Obama leads. Some put clout in endorsements, I am skeptical, but none the less, impressive for Obama and for Clinton to snatch the Des Moines Register. Those that supported Edwards in 2004 have left him behind in 2008 for these endorsments.
Lastly, the free media. Many have been upset, if Edwards Supporters, of the non-media following Edwards. It is true, the media has not been equally fair, but I think the cord was totally cut when Edwards announced accepting public financing. Why? At this point the MSM did not believe he would be a major factor and they still do not. Though Edwards can win Iowa, the media frame will be he lived there for 4 years, he was expected too.
Is that analogy fair? No. But the media goes where the story is at. The media is the one who loves to follow the money and perform number crunching. Yes, Edwards is a nice man, and he may win in their eyes but they know the bank balance and know that Edwards is not a factor for a February 5th assault. The media has more avenues than many posting opinions on this board. They know if Edwards is viable in these states or not, their conclusion is not.
The media also loves "star attention." When Bill Clinton first came out with his wife campaigning in Iowa, the media was eating it up. Did many like it, if not for Hillary? No. But the average voter, the ones not inflicted by political blogs, loved it. That was sheer marketing genius for Team Clinton. And talk about free media? That was on the lips and tongues of people for days.
Case and point, Oprah Winfrey. No one knew if Oprah would help Barack Obama. No one did. But the consensus was look at her following and her show. She can sell anything. Why do folk who are peddling their goods hope to God to be on Oprah? Oprah can catapult the individual and their product. So, what about Obama? Well, when you have live television interrupt their regularly scheduled programming so you can hear what Oprah has to say? That alones speaks volumes. And the free media? They were talking about this event for days, even a week later. That my friend is the free media any campaign salivates for.
Viability. The only candidates poised, structured, ready for February 5, 2008 is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Everyone else, even if they win a primary have to play catch up, and I mean with everything. After Iowa and New Hampshire this becomes the TV Ad War. Who has the money, ability to raise money (and can use it without federal restraints) on a dime? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In the end, this will be about who is the viable candidate to march on and through February 5, 2008, to claim the Democratic Nomination. |
