The inside track on the Obama victory
Landing in Washington, DC the day after the history-charting Barack Obama victory was like being sucked into a howling cyclone of euphoria. Twenty months of election tension reached catharsis as celebrations spread like wildfire from the bars to the churches to the streets. Each one who toasted their success truly deserved the credit because in all likelihood, he was involved in Obama’s massive field operation. This was run with such seamless efficiency it will be the gold standard for the future. Described as an incredibly complex and nuanced election, I found myself as elated and captivated as America and the 82 percent of the world who were rooting for Obama. Indeed the president-elect inspires hope reminiscent of Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. The world has been so starved for visionary leaders for so long.
On the invitation of our former boss Javier “JJ” Calero, who sits as secretary for Asia in the International Association of Political Consultants (IAPC), we attended the 41st World Conference to study the tactics of the campaign trail, if there were any that we didn’t know of yet. After all, this was one of the most covered and analyzed races of the century.
A keen political watcher can unearth fresh insights from a mother lode of minutiae. At the IAPC conference, the pollsters, IT and media experts took center stage. They discerned deeper than simplistic pronouncements like Sarah Palin got laughed out of the elections, or Obama won because he outspent John McCain three to one. As one part of the 3Ms of election, “Money” is important, but the impact of “Message” and “Mobilization” cannot be underestimated. Hindsight provides the most cogent post-mortem of what went wrong and what was done right. The data that was presented was probably more accurate since some of the speakers were on the ground, running the day-to-day operations.
Although there was a general feeling that the messaging in the recent elections veered toward the negative, especially on the McCain side, the discussion of issues was at a level that we don’t experience in the Philippines. The nominees from both parties ran on solid platforms and were clearly differentiated on the major issues.
Obama is conceded to have implemented a disciplined, surefooted and obviously effective campaign. His team disclosed that they rated the nomination phase as more challenging than the campaign proper. In many ways, Hillary Clinton was the tougher opponent than McCain. This contest was the litmus test of how thorough and agile their preparations were. Mark Penn, a Clinton adviser, admitted to two fatal weaknesses: her messaging and the miscalculation of the influence of the caucus. As has been pointed out earlier, although experience was not meant to be her battle cry, that was the message heard. It was the wrong stimulus in the context of change that America wanted. All this is academic, but nonetheless are good lessons to heed.
Here are other fascinating highlights that might be applicable to our own coming 2010 race:
• Change in priority issues: At the beginning of the 20-month run, there were three major concerns: security (primarily the Iraq war at 45 percent), values (issues of gay marriage and legalized abortion) and the economy (7 percent). National security was the most critical issue for Americans. McCain was credible on the issue because of his war record. But when the tide shifted to economy (50 percent), McCain was not ready, so his campaign floundered.
• Change of demographics: Comparing the exit polls of 1996, when Bill Clinton won, to 2008, major segment shifts were noted. White voters went down from 83 percent in 1996 to 74 percent in 2008; African-Americans grew from 10 percent to 13 percent; same with Hispanics (5 to 8 percent), Asians and others (1 to 2 percent). The youth segment was essentially unchanged from 17 percent to 18 percent of the voter pie. Obama won 66 percent of this slice. Remarkably, he also had the lion’s share among the older age groups: 40-50 years (46 percent out of a total 56 percent), and 50-60 years (26 percent of 27 percent). The analysts wrongly predicted that these would be McCain’s bailiwicks.
• Voting behavior of income groups: For the first time the SEC included the over- $250K/year as a separate category, from what used to be simply annual income over $150K. But what came as a big surprise was that all those with yearly incomes over $100K voted exactly the same way as those with $15K-and-under annual income!
• Change of influentials: It was noted that the groups that lost the most influence in the Nov. 4 contest were the evangelical, rightist religious groups. Despite Joe the Plumber stereotypes, Sarah Palin was identified as a factor for the “dis-appeal” to voters.
• The oracles of victory: Bill McInturf, McCain’s longtime pollster, noted that party dominance has long been related to how the current administration was rated as steering the country toward the right direction, or the wrong track. The Bush administration had a wrong track rating of 75 percent. Another indicator is the Michigan Consumer Confidence Index, where a confidence level lower than 73 points by the consumer will not augur well for the incumbent. Last October, the rating fell by 17 points in just one month. True enough, the Democrats have taken over.
• A different campaign paradigm: Howard Dean was the first to envision a 50-state campaign, a strategy that most advisers oppose. The conventional wisdom was to pour energy and resources to the states that count, using a top-down campaign mainly through television. Anita Dunn, Obama’s media and research consultant, was still awed at having won by doing the opposite: from bottom up. She said that without a candidate as gifted and transcendent as Obama, the attempt to engage grassroots would have been disastrous. But as it turned out, Americans were turned off by corrosive politics and ached for change. Obama took a big risk by using public financing but he raised a staggering $250 million versus McCain’s allowed spend of $84 million. Around 3.2 million small donors gave under $100 10 millionsigned up as Obama volunteers. The weekend before the elections, they were 130 percent over the target number of volunteers, who knocked on over 9 million doors and made 800,000 calls. The innovative use of new media not just for messaging but also for donations was quite effective.
• E-lections: Technology was pivotal. The 3Ms of elections were explored to the fullest. Funds raised online reached $45 million. In 2004, online contribution was a paltry 8 percent of total election funds. In 2008, it accounted for one-fourth. More than 14 hours of video were uploaded to YouTube, including the critical speech on race. Over 50 million hits were monitored. My Obama, a social networking page created by Facebook, was up from the onset. Camp Obama used teaching videos to train online volunteers. Internet research was used to push back attacks and answer damaging allegations. Twenty thousand new voters were recruited through this medium; over 20,000 e-groups were formed; 200,000 offline events were mounted; 100,000 blogs used. Proof of the Internet’s newfound importance is that Big Media sources news from cyberspace for the evening news. Cell phones were used to mobilize voters and direct them to events and precinct locations.
• Damaged brand equity: Democrats and Republicans always had different stands in key areas like the environment, morality, big business, etc. As a result they owned different brand images. Republicans owned competence while Democrats were noted for compassion. However, the Bush administration tarnished the competence equity significantly. Charles Cook, author of the Cook Report, avers that the environment was toxic for Republicans and no party candidate could have won the race.
So now, America must wean itself from campaign addiction. Saturday Night Live will have to find another way to boost its ratings. Sarah Palin could become the next W. After reaching seventh heaven, it’s time for the Obama-ians to go back to earth. And they did, with a throbbing hangover, withdrawal syndrome and what-next jitters. The world is watching whether President-elect Obama will fulfill his promise of change. The easy part is over; now the work begins.
As we move closer to our own presidential elections, how I wish that this time we would witness upgraded politics. The Comelec should make participation in presidential debates a prerequisite for candidacy. Anyone who cannot elucidate on why he is running should not have the gall to aspire for the highest office. It’s about time that Filipinos choose the aspirant who will do a better job at leading the country. No more winning by the 4Gs (Guns, Goons, Gold and Garci); enough of the self-styled political operators. Let us demand intelligent discourse on issues and a transparent funding report. Above all let us back the leader who can regain the trust of a besieged nation.
* * *
Share your views with the author. E-mail ms.comfeedback@gmail or mscom@campaignsandgrey.net.
