Warning - The polls aren't necessarily the whole story
No matter what the polls say, I think it's important to remember that the Obama campaign functions on their own "math."
Think back to the primaries where Obama was losing states, but picking up delegates, executing a very deliberate path to get to the numbers they needed. They built coalitions and managed local message around the Clinton core to hit their numbers.
(I'll never forget that in the primaries the most accurate delegate predictions always came out of the Obama camp.)
This campaign, especially with the money it has had behind it, has been amazingly effective at microtargeting, turning out specific voters, and "doing what they need to do" to get across the line.
So, as you begin to dwell on the polls, national, or even at the state level, remember that they are very useful guideposts, but there are levels well beyond that, regions, counties, sub demographics, turnout rates, etc, where these guys are working.
Although the polls are narrative, the reality is a much more complex game which can shape a couple points either way.
Think back to the primaries where Obama was losing states, but picking up delegates, executing a very deliberate path to get to the numbers they needed. They built coalitions and managed local message around the Clinton core to hit their numbers.
(I'll never forget that in the primaries the most accurate delegate predictions always came out of the Obama camp.)
This campaign, especially with the money it has had behind it, has been amazingly effective at microtargeting, turning out specific voters, and "doing what they need to do" to get across the line.
So, as you begin to dwell on the polls, national, or even at the state level, remember that they are very useful guideposts, but there are levels well beyond that, regions, counties, sub demographics, turnout rates, etc, where these guys are working.
Although the polls are narrative, the reality is a much more complex game which can shape a couple points either way.
posted by mikevotes at
7:08 AM
2 Comments:
The Obama campaign has been excellent. It's worked so well because it is reality-based.
HRC's was an assumption-based campaign. McCain's campaign is simply faith-based.
In both cases, facts were shaped to back the desired outcome. Mark Penn, for example, spun out worthless poll after worthless poll to bolster the chosen narrative. McCain's campaign has been full-bore delusional since after the Democratic primaries. They repeatedly picked a narrative and told themselves it would be successful because they decreed it to be. Then they attacked the motives of anyone presenting contrary facts.
Look at the Obama campaign decision to go after Florida. They looked at the numbers of registered Democrats and calculated that they had enough votes to win if they were turned out. They knew that a blue FL would kill McCain's chances definitively. So they proceeded do dump $39M into the state.
McCain's campaign has been stuck in 2004, assuming that any state that voted for Bush will do so again. Any polling to the contrary was attacked as partisan. They went after blue states based not on potential for victory, but on how it would look if they won there.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 8:33 AM
I would argue that the Clinton campaign was based on the media, the belief that winning big states would lead to a media presentation of inevitability. Not a horrible bet considering that's how Bush did it.
The Obama folks went grass roots. (They went where they saw room.)
And there's not only the question of whether they should run a 2004 model, but they're also (in my opinion) running a far less effective version of the 2004 mechanics.
That 2004 campaign wouldn't have worked without flawless on the ground operation, and the McCain folks just aren't doing that.
By
mikevotes, at 8:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home