Obama, money, and ‘stretching’ the map

June 6, 2008

The last couple of presidential elections have followed certain patterns, not the least of which is the geographic/electoral-college driven nature of the contest. Dems and Republicans draw up their maps, Dems ignore safe “red” states, the GOP ignores safe “blue” states, and everybody spends a lot of money in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

There’s reason to believe this year’s going to be a little different. And Barack Obama’s ability to raise money has a whole lot to do with it.

Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told the Huffington Post, “I think that we are going to have a larger battlefield in 2008… I think we are going to stretch the Republicans I don’t think they can take for granted nearly as many states as they have in the past. And I think we are going to add several to the Democratic column this year and so our coalition is going to be broader.”

I think Axelrod’s completely right, but it’s worth taking a moment to consider why the “battlefield” will be larger and Dems are going to be able to “stretch” the Republicans. Part of it is Obama’s appeal and message, but as Ben Smith explained very well, a major part is because Obama can afford to do what Dem candidates never do.

[T]he widened battlefield may also force McCain to spend scarce resources defending turf he could otherwise take for granted. Obama can, for instance, run a real campaign in places like Texas and Arizona — states that an occasional poll suggests he could win but where few observers give him much of a shot. Then McCain has to decide whether to simply ignore it, and risk an upset; or to spend money on television and organization keeping up, money that then can’t be spent in Ohio.

A smart colleague pointed out to me yesterday that Obama will try to do to McCain what he did to Clinton in Pennsylvania: Even as he lost the state, he ruined her by forcing her to keep up with his massive spending.

Think of this as Star Wars and the Reagan defense buildup: As the story goes, the military applications turned out to be secondary to the sheer, crushing expense, with which the Soviet Union couldn’t keep up.

I don’t doubt that Republicans won’t care for the comparison between the McCain campaign and the USSR, but the analogy is apt.

Battleground states with lots of electoral votes will continue to draw enormous attention and resources from both sides. This much won’t change. But Obama will have the money to compete in key “purple” states and traditionally “red” states Dems would otherwise be inclined to ignore.

McCain may be looking at the map and think a state like North Carolina is an easy win. And maybe it will be. But when the polls show the state competitive, and Obama starts pumping quite a bit of money into the state, will McCain keep up? Will he gamble? If he decides he can’t take the risk, which state will suddenly get less money?

Ezra helped put this in perspective.

It’s hard to appreciate the sheer size of the financial advantage Obama will enjoy over McCain. For Democrats, who’re used to being effortlessly outspent, it doesn’t even sound plausible. But McCain, with his lax fundraising and decision to accept public financing, will have about $85 million for the election, with another $40 million coming from the RNC, some of which will go to the McCain campaign, some of which won’t. By contrast, a very conservative estimate for the Obama campaign’s fundraising is $300 million. A high estimate, in which 2/3rds of his donors max out at $2,300, is $2.3 billion. And neither of these totals include the new donors he’s likely to get, nor the pool of Clinton funders who he’s going to begin hoovering money from. I’m expecting him to raise $500 million easily.

In a national election, money isn’t everything. Free media matters too…. But money is how you fund organization. It’s how you fund field. It’s how you fund ads. It’s how you set the terms of the debate. It’s how you make the other campaign spend defensively. Obama will be able to fully fund his campaign in every state he thinks he can win and most states he doesn’t. And he’ll be able to do so while raising the money passively — unlike McCain, he won’t have to waste flying around to endless fundraisers.

McCain, by contrast, will have to make hard choices.

It’s a dynamic to keep an eye on as the process unfolds. The goal won’t just be to flip Bush states to Obama — though that’s part of it — it’s also to make new states competitive and drain McCain and the RNC.

If McCain loses Texas, it is over. He would have to defend it to his last breath.

  • Sam Stein’s article at Huffington Post is a brilliant read.
    With Dean + Obama… what we have here is the perfect wave.
    And for the Republicans… the perfect storm.

  • Widen the field and we win!

    Remember that much of the Republicans’ success has come from highly focused efforts where they end up in a few areas and fly in political operative from around the country to do the GOTV and field work.

    The wider the playing field, the less they can focus.

  • Another ingredient is Dean’s fifty-state strategy and also Obama’s mindset. He’s changed the mindset among Democrats by beating the avatar of the old mindset, the Clintons.

  • Something else that will have the GOP scrambling is the fact that the DNC and the Obama campaign won’t take lobbyist money. That ought to send a cold chill down the McCain’s spine.

  • This is going to be an interesting campaign. Who would have thought a Dem candidate for POTUS would be making serious runs in places like South Carolina, Virginia and Missouri? And I agree with ecthomson…if McCain loses Texas, then he is toast.

  • Before you go too far with this (it is an excellent idea, but it needs a dose of additional information), consider that while it is true that McCain has raised $90 million to Obama’s $270 million, if you add in the RNC fund-raising to mcCain, and the DNC fundraising to Obama,. they’re actually fairly close to equal right now.

    Of course, with Obama in charge of the DNC now, and the party coming together, fundraising there should become much better. Couple that with the fact the Republicans are like the French Army in 1940, fully ready to re-fight World War I in the Maginot Line with donors who “max out” (as did HRC), while Obama is bringing “blitzkrieg” through the Ardennes with lots of donors who can be tapped and tapped and tapped throughout the campaign, and there is every reason to believe we can create a situtation where the day after the Republican Convention they suddenly realize there’s no place in America safe for Republicans.

    But we need to do this from the perspective of acting as if we’re 10 down with a minute left, the whole way through.

  • This ability will also be a boon for down ticket Dems. 22 Rep Senate seats are up this year. Win half and we’ll have a fillibuster proof Senate. And then good effing riddance Joe Lieberman!

  • Can someone quickly explain the contribution rules? It’s $2300 for the primary PLUS $2300 for the general election, right? Can one be used for the other? Is there some sort of date around the conventions at which we officially switch from primary to general? From the websites, it appears the first $2300 goes to the primary, and the next $2300 goes the general … does that mean if one contributes less than $2300, it can only be used during the ‘primary’ period?

    Thanks for any info.

  • And this is exactly why his supporters should donate to local pols, the DNC, and if they aren’t maxed out, to him, rather than bailing out ‘Don’t Pay the Bills Hills.’

  • Even the huge difference between Obama and McCain fund raising is a piddling advantage when compared to the media bias. For example yesterday Phase II of the Senate pre-war intelligence report was released. This only mention I saw (other than Olbermann) was about 3 minutes on Situation Room. They made it sound like nothing, by showing a clip of Jay Rockefeller talking about the dangers of Iraq in the runup to the war. In other words, everybody was fooled, so let’s move on. It’s a safe bet that they will never report connections between McCain and Chalabi, or his rhetoric that mirrored the rest of the Bush propaganda. Obama is going to have to use his money to educate, but even then Wolf Blitzer will get some hack to “fact check” it.

  • This will also be an enormous boon to down ticket Dems, at ALL levels. One of the big reasons Dems lost so much ground in the House, the Senate and in state legislatures during the Clinton years was because the party apparatus (run by the Clintons) ignored over half the country.

    Obama may not win Texas but attention there could help Dems pick up one or two more house seats in purple districts. The same in the Virginia’s and elsewhere.

  • Throwing out the DLC ‘playbook’ that has brought us so much success! ‘Everyone’ knows that you need to be a Republican Lite and fight for 49.5% of the vote and 271 electoral college votes!

    John Dean deserves enormous credit for widening the democratic party to include all states. Obama deserves our support in all ways – vocally and financially.

    In the best of all worlds, after November there will be no more than 10 red states and maybe 5 pink states. In the best of all worlds, after November the DLC can take their triangulating, rethug lite rears off to join the dinosaurs. In the best of all worlds, in 2010 the democrats can start replacing ‘blue dogs’ with progressives.

    Tell me again why it was that the DLC wanted to replace Dean with Harold Ford?

  • Franklin – the switch date is the convention. If you give the first 2300 now, it can be used for the primary. At the convention whatever is left can all be switched to the GE even if you also gave 2300 there. You can also give 2300 to as many candidates as you want.

  • This entire article misses the point. First, as Tom Cleaver points out “while it is true that McCain has raised $90 million to Obama’s $270 million, if you add in the RNC fund-raising to mcCain, and the DNC fundraising to Obama,. they’re actually fairly close to equal right now.”

    There’s also a law of diminishing return. Unless the money is spent effectively on organizing and get out the vote efforts, rather than just more TV advertising, it might have little impact.

    If Obama has 20-30% more TV ads will that really matter?

    Probably the biggest impact of having superior fund-raising capabilities will be that for once the Democrats won’t be outspent. That in itself is a huge plus.

    But, I don’t think there will be any significant Republican spending deficit. At worst, they can always borrow money and pay it back later.

  • It will be a wonderful election night to see Obama beat McCain in Texas…I plan to help him do it too!

  • Cugel, 20%-30% more TV ads might make a difference in key swing states. However, apply 20%-20% to more canvassers, more voter registration, more GOTV efforts… and it could be pretty significant. Plus, by the time the general rolls around it’s likely to be a more than 100% difference.

    Of course, McCain will try to spin this as a noble, publicly-funded underdog up against insurmountable odds and big money. I’m hopeful but not certain that Obama’s rejection of lobbyist and PAC money will negate that line of attack.

  • Re: 18:

    “If Obama has 20-30% more TV ads will that really matter? ”

    It’s not just about TV ads.

    Travelling from place to place (both inside a constituency, as well as outside), hotels, speaking engagements, town-hall meetings, paying staff, voter registration, bills, website development, online system support, social networking, etc. …

    … effectively – reaching people is the goal.

    All of this Obama and the Dems can have the capacity to do on a much larger scale – provided the money is spent effectively as you pointed out.

  • Cugel @ 18…

    Reread the article!

    “But money is how you fund organization. It’s how you fund field. It’s how you fund ads. It’s how you set the terms of the debate. It’s how you make the other campaign spend defensively.”

    Obama beat the Clinton machine because of organization, field, and ads! Most of all he beat them because of message.

    I pray that the American public will pay attention to issues and ideas instead of the normal media driven ‘personality contest’. If they do, Obama will have the money, the organization, the field staffing, and the ads to show the American public that McCrap truly is Bush III.

  • SadOldVet, it is Howard Dean. John Dean was in the Nixon Administration.

    Several people have mentioned how Obama’s spending will help down-ballot races, but keep in mind that it works both ways: the DNC/DSCC/DCCCs’ success in fielding good candidates and the R’s inability to find people willing to drown fighting the tide means at a local level our down-ballot ticket will be more energizing than theirs will be.

    Still, while all of this is good news, there is a key part of the equation being forgotten: 527s. By all accounts, the unrestrained-by-integrity wingnuts are planning to solve McCain’s problems by funding slash-and-burn 527s.

  • One thing for all of us to consider: Getting the funding early will help to set the tone, and even sideline the people who would otherwise send the RNC money.

    And if our team targets Republicans who have power (and therefore have access to the RNC cash) we can dry up the funding to a lot of other races where we’re competitive. The big Republicans will throw their brethren to the wolves if they think there’s even a chance that they might suffer a defeat (or even a close race).

    So pony up, people! And get everyone you know to do the same. NOW.

  • Huh? Sorry about the brainfart on the Deans…

    I am seeking information about 527s that will run slash-and-burn on a toe-to-toe basis with the rethug 527s. I will contribute!

    Anti-repugnican 527s need to be funded to the level of their opposition 527s. For every rethug 527 $ spent, a counter $ needs to be spent. For every attack on Obama, an attack on McLame needs to occur.

    I am really interested in contributing to a 527 that will be as nasty as any repug 527. I want to see the ad touting Cindy McCain as the self confessed ‘junkie thief’. I want to see the ad about the preachers that McBush puckered his lips for. There is ample material available to be as nasty as any repub 527 & I want to see the ads.

    Let McLiar and Obama denounce and reject them, but let there be an equal response to every repug 527.

  • 23. On June 6th, 2008 at 1:56 pm, Huh? said:
    “…there is a key part of the equation being forgotten: 527s. By all accounts, the unrestrained-by-integrity wingnuts are planning to solve McCain’s problems by funding slash-and-burn 527s.”

    Didn’t McSame promise his campaign wouldn’t use 527s? I know: promises, promises.

  • SadOldVet,
    Obama has asked the Dem 527s to not get involved. Because Obama wants control of his campaign, and he reserves the right to respond to GOP attacks. Media Matters David Brock was all ready to start attacking McSame too.

  • Something else that will have the GOP scrambling is the fact that the DNC and the Obama campaign won’t take lobbyist money. That ought to send a cold chill down the McCain’s spine.

    Attack their strengths – Rovian politics turned to good instead of evil.

    One aspect of the funding that I didn’t see in the quotes was the effect on down-ticket races : if the DNC doesn’t have to keep the Dem candidate on the payroll, it frees up significant resources to concentrate on DSCC/DCCC efforts. A double-whammy on the RNC! While fighting to stave off state-by-state battles up top, the down-ticket (R) crowd is left to fend for themselves, yet another example of why the 50-state strategy can yields such fortunes.

    Storming the Legislature while taking back the Executive … and not a g@damned lobbyist anywhere. I get goose-bimply just thinking about it.

  • Leslie, I appreciate where Obama is coming from but I still want to see, and will contribute to, 527s to go after the rethug 527s.

  • Funny to see all the DLC bashing. In 1992 the Repubs had held the White House for 12 years by substantial margins and looked to have a permanent fixed address in the White House. After two Dem administrations, Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and Kerry came within 60,000 votes in Ohio of unseating Bush. If Gore or Kerry had more money, they probably would have spread it around more, but they budgeted the best they knew how with what they had. When Rove sent Bush into California late in 2000 to contest there, the pundits roundly criticized him for not focussing on closer races and almost blowing the election by trying to take Bush into a blue state.

    I’m very happy with Dean’s 60 state strategy and think it makes eminent sense. But I cut some slack to past Dem candidates who focussed their efforts while attempting to win. Those were all close races and they had to make hard decisions.

    OK, so many liberals/progressives don’t like centrist Democrats. I get that. In fact I think that’s the point of the primary election season we just had, the left wing of the party beat the centrist wing of the party in a close race. But driving them out of the party does not make sense either. It’s basically the opposite of what a 50 state strategy is trying to do.

  • Typo in # 31, meant 50 state strategy. A 60 state strategy would include Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. I suppose.

  • Dems with money to spend. Wow! What a concept. Think of money as a 2×4–just what’s needed to get the mule’s attention. Or, in this case, the media.

  • Obama has to make a genuine effort in Texas. One: Texas has a large number of media markets which would drain McCain’s funds prodigiously if he tries to keep up. Two: A strong effort in Texas will help in some important congressional races and should certainly put the fear of God in Cornyn. Three: Harris County (that’s Houston) is on the verge of a serious political shift back toward the Democrats and that movement is an important step in reclaiming Texas from the Repugnants. Four: Demographic changes in the state make a strong campaign by Obama in Texas a necessary investment for the future. In the past, the Repugnants made their inroads in Texas by claiming all sorts of things about the Democratic Party (“they’re going to take your guns away,” etc.) and the Democrats never even tried to answer them. We can’t repeat that mistake. We have an opportunity here, let’s now drop it.

  • A 60 state strategy would include Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. I suppose. -pfgr

    Don’t forget confusion, denial, and shock. Those are the three states I spend the most time in! 🙂

  • Please help me with the numbers.

    According to the Sam Stein piece,

    the DNC is currently strapped for money compared to its Republican counterpart, with $4.4 million in the bank going into the general election (the RNC has $40 million). As such, the party may be indirectly forcing Obama’s hand — persuading the Illinois Senator to forgo public funding despite the hits he may take from good government reform groups.

    Yet, Tom Cleaver says,

    Before you go too far with this (it is an excellent idea, but it needs a dose of additional information), consider that while it is true that McCain has raised $90 million to Obama’s $270 million, if you add in the RNC fund-raising to mcCain, and the DNC fundraising to Obama,. they’re actually fairly close to equal right now.

    There must be some missing information. The DNC is being outraised by the RNC by about $36 million, but Obama has rasied about $180 million more than McCain. So how are they on the same level? Unless there are some numbers that I am not aware of, there’s nothing even remotely close to parity.

  • The DNC needs our contributions right now to support Democratic candidates running for Congress. If we want to increase our majorities in both houses, we need to send them money now.

  • speaking of down-ballot races, Dems can’t let the excitement of storming DC make us forget the state legislatures. the 2008 state legislative elections will, in many cases, determine who controls the legislature going into the post-2010 census Congressional redistricting. revenge for DeLay’s Texas-sized theft of Congressional seats will be mighty, mighty sweet. and important to Dems staying in power long enough to get things cleaned up and turned around.

  • Another thing for the GOP campaign to keep in mind. When all is said and done, there will be a REAL dept of justice under Pres Obama to investigate shenanigans.

  • Go over to Actblue.com and look at the vast number of Dem state and federal elections.

    Pick some to donate to.

    I’ve given most of my donation money to Actblue candidates.

  • all this talk of 527s makes me think up a mega-conspiracy theory:

    Conservative-run 527s created to produce the nastiest hit jobs ever devised…but on McCain, NOT Obama. Then, Limbaugh, Hannity & their demon spawn intentionally-but-“incorrectly” blame Obama for crossing the line, as if Obama made HIS minions do that dirty work. They whip sympathy for poor old Mavericky John (as well as his wife – in order for these ads to be really reprehensible, they’ll probably attack Cindy. A lot). Plus, while the right-wing media is blaming Obama’s non-existent shadow 527s for these negative McCain ads, it allows OTHER Republican-led 527s to produce severely nasty sh*t about both Barack AND Michelle, knowingly, falsely claiming “Barack’s people started it; if they can’t stand the heat…”

    By the time it was proven a single negative McCain ad was produce by a neo-con-fueled 527, a dozen even-more ruthlessly negative Obama ads will be produced & released by other neo-con fueled 527s, plus you’ll have Malkin screaming about “Obama’s cheap shots,” Coulter saying he fights dirty, like a faggot who knows he can’t win in a “fair fight,” Liberman on Fox News saying he tried to warn his old friend Barack but that he, like the rest of the “Democrat party” is too far gone to do the right thing (“but I’m still a Democrat – honest!”), and only people who read blogs will ever know the truth because the MSM will bury the story.

    Here endeth the conspiracy theory du jour.

  • Ya sure you betcha; and Obama will so outclass a stumbling, bumbling McCain that he (McCain) will be left in the dust. McCain’s lime green speech was so bad it defies reason. Even Faux News panned it; does it get worse than that?

    • Comments are closed.