Talk Elections

Obama's 50-state strategy: It's official, his campaign will be everywhere

Democrat Barack Obama's deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, just announced in an e-mail to supporters that the campaign will compete all over the country this fall.

"Today, I am proud to announce that our presidential campaign will be the first in a generation to deploy and maintain staff in every single state," Hildebrand said in the letter.

He said the campaign is seeking 30,000 new donors to make $25 contributions which will be matched today by a previous donor.

Hildebrand acknowledged that "some states will be more competitive than others, and we will scale our resources accordingly."

But he said "unprecedented grassroots energy during the primary means that the list of competitive states will be longer than ever before -- and it will include states like Virginia and Montana that aren't traditionally within reach for a Democratic presidential candidate." He also said that "in every single state, our staff will build volunteer capacity that will provide help where we need it and impact races up and down the ballot this November."

Link (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/06/obamas-50-state.html)

Spending money in all 50 states is the definition of absurd. It is a waste of money and it will continue to be a waste of money. I admire the attempts of Obama's campaign to do better in traditionally Republican states, but it is pie in the sky wishful thinking that putting staffers in all 50 states will do anything more than putting staffers in 10 select swing states couldn't do.

If Obama thinks he will capture states like Wyoming, Kansas, Montana etc., he is truly absurd.  If he had any brains at all, he would focus his money on the swing states.

Wishful, idealistic thinking is usually absurd. But so was Einstein.

Man, Wyoming4Obama Team Lead must be a lonely, lonely, overpaid job.

Well, this is why I'm not donating to Obama. I don't want him wasting my money on opening an office in Oklahoma.

It's far easier to change small states instead of large swing states. Less spending required, but the small states still matter. And they tend to be more open minded.

Cool.

They have the money, so they might as well. Plus it'll energize the local parties and get the locals to like you.

And if lightening strikes and an unexpected state becomes competitive, they're ready to go.

Please give me a compelling reason why Obama will capture Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma's electoral votes using this strategy - then I'll listen.

Bush's campaign did the same thing in 2000. They spent unneeded money in blue states like California and New Jersey early in the campaign. It was money well wasted. The Bush 2000 campaign came to their senses fairly quickly. Let's hope the Obama 2008 campaign comes to their senses soon.

Obviously he doesn't think he can or will win them, but considering the huge money advantage he has, it makes sense to spend money in them to try to steadily build Democratic support in them for future races, to help Democratic candidates downballot, and finally in the odd chance that he could flip them especially if a landslide starts materializing (not likely, but at least possible).

It's worth noting that most of these smaller states haven't been given any attention by any Presidential candidate in decades, so we really don't know what would happen if one of the candidates actually did spend some money in them. It hasn't been tested as a strategy because no one has ever had the resources, but it's worth trying as an experiment anyway.

Eh maintaining staff and actually campaigning and spending money are two different things. They can afford to create offices in all 50 states but he better not buy ads in Kansas or something like that.

On to Kansas! Obama has obviously been reading these forums.

He's showing that every state matters. He's not a cynic.

The point is not so that Obama can win 50 states... it is obviously an intent to sink money into states with competitive governor, senate, and house elections to build the future of the party for the next few cycles.

This is part of the deal with the superdelegates and Republican caucus states that went heavily for Obama.... There are many closet Democrats in Republican leaning places that, although they might not stomach Obama, will vote Democrat for Governor, Senator, and Representative.

Obama has such a significant money advantage over McCain that this is money well invested....

yes: they're used to being ignored. Maybe some of them will listen. Either way, I think it's worth it to (re)build party infrastructure in many of these states.

I think Obama's money advantage is being blown out of proportion around here. Yes, he does have an advantage, but in May, I believe McCain and the RNC were even or slightly ahead of Obama and the DNC. McCain will have good money come the general. I think its very unwise for him to be staffing states like Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming etc .. but if he wants to sink money there, go right ahead...

The RNC needs a lot of that money to help out the struggling RSCC and RCCC, lest they want a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate and another 20-30 seat Dem pickup in the House. Plus, Obama + Clinton + DNC is still much more than McCain + RNC.

Obviously I support this. While we won't win states like Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma or Alabama, it's good to compete. Getting a President elected is great, but even better is a Democratic President, a Democratic congress and Democratic governorships and state legislatures. That's what running a 50-state campaign does.

I think some of this has to do with perception as well, that Obama is not going to play the usual washington game. Although he will really compete in only 10 states or so, he wants the perception created that he is moving past the red vs blue map.

Sure, but if you spend a few dollars and also pick up a representative seat in Wyoming, why not invest 150K to boost turnout and slightly increase your down-ballot margins?

If Dean could do it, why not Obama?

Hey, a good organization could really help the down-ballot races. Also, if nothing else, it will at least cause McCain to spend a bit defensively.

Maybe they can join those Mississippi nose-pickers.

This is actually a good thing, and I'm jealous that he's doing it.  It's ridiculous, and an ominous sign of our times, for campaigns to battle it out in a few "swing" states and leave voters in the rest of the country stranded. 

To be fair, offices in Oklahoma are probably only going to be used to:
a) Get more donations for use in swing states
b) Be part of a positive-image that is the national 50-state campaign
c) Volunteer for phonebanks and whatnot in meaningful state
d) Influence national poll numbers to get more positive news coverage whenever they give a national poll.
e) There is a positive effect that I doubt few here acknowledge that goes like this.  The better that people in Texas think of Obama, the better they'll defend (or attack less agressively) him at the dinner table/whatever with their relatives in meaningful states.  This family contact probably should not be underestimated too much since these sorts of discussions are infinitely more persuasive and meaningful, especially when coming from a non-hackish family member, than a 30 second commercial during the news.  These are people who share a good part of spreading the 'Obama is a Manchurian candidate in the pay of Bin Laden' rumor.

Good points, all. Obama doesn't want to allow a negative image of him to thrive or go unchallenged anywhere. Even though the Electoral College attempts to treat it as such, the election is not just 50 separate state election totally autonomous of each other.

The opposite is equally important as well, especially in this race-challenged atmosphere.  If someone in the family mentions feeling uncomfortable with this inexperienced black man, Barack wants someone to say "but he's got all these great ideas" or "what about the Iraq war, can McCain be trusted?," especially influential among those who have a tradition of voting independent or Republican. 

I'm kind of uncertain how national poll numbers impact the race and am debating it within myself.  It's good to be seen as the frontrunner since many apolitical people vote for who they think is going to win (democracy has its flaws here).  But McCain probably thrives best when he's the underdog in public perception and is most likely to pull hail mary political strategies in this type of situation that makes him harder to beat than a conventional Republican. I think it's overall best to be up for Obama since it might be comforting to people anxious about this foreign man with a funny name, knowing that the majority of the country is ok with him (in addition to the whole positive-news-cycle thingy).

With the kind of money he has, it's probably not the worst idea.

I forgot, it is a strategy that will most directly pay off in downballot races.  For Obama, this payout will affect him most clearly when he needs to get Congress to do stuff after he is elected.  Of course, he doesn't care about this any more than he cares about what John Edwards had for breakfast last Thursday at this moment.

This could have a positive effect towards 'unifying the party' if Hillary's backers find their GOTV efforts significantly boosted etc.  I'm not really sure the extent to this idea is tangible in terms of votes, but having congressional Hillary supporters (and others) being balls-to-the-Congressional-halls'-walls throwing their support behind Obama should do something somewhere.

John McCain is happy man upon hearing this news.

Who cares if Obama out-fundraises him when half of that money goes to states like Utah or Massachusetts?


That being said, I think this is just another awesome move in what appears to be an awesome election (combined with McCain's joint town hall idea and the fact that 30% of voters are defining themselves as swing by Rasmussen).

People forget that having a presence even in a state that's deep red has a regenerative effect, I assure you that Joe Sixpack seeing Obama volunteers on the streets of say, Salt Lake City, increases his propensity to donate to the campaign, as compared to if he got the impression that Obama was going to pretend that Utah doesn't exist.

In addition, especially in this day and age, states aren't self-contained environs - if Utahn Joe gets enthusiastic about the Democratic campaign, that enthusiasm has the ability to transcend barriers and reach a much larger audience. You don't put money in Utah and see the effects of that investment limited to Utah and Utah only.

I'm also surprised that people still hold the impression of the Obama effort as inorganic, we've seen time and again that his centrally directed energies are a lot lower than other campaigns. One need only look at his fellowship program, if he gets a posse of volunteers (i.e. are not paid) in Oklahoma who basically create something from scratch in the state, I fail to see how this will minimize his expenditures in any meaningful way in Ohio. I'm not arguing that there still exist marginal constraints, but if McCain has to keep pace in terms of boots on the ground in a place like Georgia, I don't see where he has wide enough a volunteer base to power his efforts there, being forced instead to employ paid workers.

I doubt it.  First of all, only a fraction of a fraction of his money will go to such states.  The campaign only said that it would have staffers in all 50 states.  The vast majority of campaign spending is on ad buys is critical media markets and his campaign has given no indications that they will buy ads in 50 states.  In fact, in their recent inquiries of 25 states' media markets that include such far-reachers as Mississippi, they limit themselves to that 25 number.  They won't run ads in all 25 for sure, but the fact is that they weren't even looking into prices for ads in half of the United States.

Secondly, we have to assume that the Obama campaign, which is filled with very intelligent, politically savvy people (whatever faults they may have) would not decide just to blow their money away.

Third, everyone should be familiar with the idea of diminishing returns.  Spending the ten million and first dollar in Pennsylvania will yield far less of an impact than a single dollar in Alaska.  He's hunting for more than just converting his money directly into electoral votes here.

He's got enough money to do it, and he wants to show that it's not just about the swing states but about the whole of US...I admire what he is doing.

People are going overboard.  Obviously he's not going to spend very much money in the solid red states, compared to the swing states.  But the Democrats living in those red states really appreciate the gesture.  He's telling us that he remembers us, that he considers us valuable to the party and to his campaign, and that if any red state just happens to tighten up and become competitive for any possible reason, he'll have a staff ready to capitalize on the situation.

I haven't read most of this thread, but here are a few thoughts on why it's not insane.

1.  you never know if you have a shot until you try.
2.  coattails
3.  with all their money, spending it all in a few states will be overkill so it's better to spread it around and not seem like you're constantly advertising which can backfire at times.
4.  he's actually trying to alter the playing field.  He knows there are some democratic base voters he's going to lose, but by broadening the field, he may pick up a state or 2 he didn't think he could.
5.  A lot of those states where he can't win supposedly won't cost a ton of money to have a small campaign in - he doesn't have to give each state equal attention to compete in each state.

It's an effort to help the Democratic Party downballot.  Obviously, he won't win Wyoming, but he might think that the Democratic candidate for Cubin's open seat could win, and improving the Democratic brand out in cowboy country can't hurt.  He won't win Idaho, but showing that Democrats are actual living, breathing, human beings might help the party brand in an area where Democrats seem all-but-extinct.  Same with the rest of these states.

One thing: running in all fifty states does not mean he's going to make a 10 million dollar ad buy in Tulsa and Cheyenne.  Barack Obama is idealistic, but he is not stupid.

Note that nothing there said that working Team Obama in Cheyenne would be a paid position.

Honestly, I just read this as a throw away press release for the base.  It's not like Obama will seriously be keeping Vermont volunteers in state rather than shipping them 20 miles east where it really matters.

Shut up with Kansas already, we get the point.

Well, MSNBC just said Obama is on track to raise 100 million this month. Perhaps he could afford to spend a bit of coin in North Dakota.

Wow.

This was Nixon's strategy in 1960.  It was abandoned by 1968.

Eeee gads! 100 Million? Are you sure you heard right? $100 million in one month?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/obama-could-raise-100-mil_n_106169.html

Yeah, but Nixon didn't have anywhere near the kind of money Obama has, and JFK was much better financed than McCain will be.

Spend 10 million in Texas for all I care.  He spent close to that in the Texas Primary and his numbers dropped the last 4 to 5 days before the election.

yawn.

Howard Dean will be proud...   :P

Seriously though, this is a smart move on Obama's part.  He is neither stupid nor delusional, so I conclude that (since he obviously can afford to) he wants to complement Dean's efforts in building the Democratic Party in every state throughout the country the same way Republicans did in the 1970s.  He is clearly looking beyond this coming election with the object of building an enduring Democratic majority, seeking to succeed where Karl Rove has failed. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^