Back in June, I urged Barack Obama to fire the scheduler who put him at a west-coast fundraiser instead of at the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame dinner in Cedar Rapids. It seemed crazy to me for Obama to pass up a chance to address 1,000 Democratic activists in Iowa, especially since he wasn't hurting in the fundraising department.
I've long questioned the wisdom of David Axelrod's strategy to make the Obama campaign about Obama's inspiring personal story and his quest for consensus and post-partisanship.
Now I read in the Des Moines Register on Friday that Barack Obama will skip the September 20 American Association for Retired Persons forum in Davenport.
John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson will be there. But Obama will miss the chance to address more than 2,000 Iowa seniors, as well as the national public television audience who will watch the event.
Last week the Obama campaign announced plans to skip many of the remaining forums held by interest groups, and his national campaign manager explained the decision to the Register:
The number of events threatened to take Obama off his own game plan, his national campaign manager David Plouffe said.
“Otherwise, our schedule would be dictated by dozens and dozens of forums and debates, and we think the most important part of this process is individual interaction with voters,” Plouffe said. “We benefit greatly when we're out there meeting with voters at our own events.”
A lot of pundits and bloggers applauded Obama's decision, saying there are too many debates and forums. I see their point, but on the other hand, interest group forums raise questions that might not come up often on the campaign trail. I like the idea of the candidates being forced to address these issues.
Plus, I think it's risky to turn down an invitation when your rivals will all be there.
But even if I agreed with Obama's general strategy to attend fewer of these forums, the last one I'd skip is the AARP forum in Iowa.
Think about it: Obama does well with the under-30 crowd, but many (most?) Iowa precincts have a very small proportion of voters under 30. The majority of caucus-goers are likely to be over 50. The Register notes:
That group also has carried disproportionate clout in recent caucuses, according to Iowa Democratic Party statistics.
In 2004, 64 percent of the people who participated in the Democratic presidential caucuses were 50 or older. In 2000, the figure was 63 percent.
If Obama is going to do well in Iowa, he'll have to improve his numbers with the over-50 set.
Iowa State University political science professor Dianne Bystrom said she would have thought Obama would have made an exception for the AARP forum.
“He may not think that's his political base,” said Bystrom, whose expertise includes debate strategy. “But it's the older voters that go to the caucuses, and I think he's really passing up an opportunity to speak to those voters.”
Obama has a great Iowa staff led by John Norris, who managed John Kerry's campaign here in 2003 and 2004 Paul Tewes. But his national campaign handlers need to have their heads examined.
You may wonder why I care, since I am supporting Edwards for president. But I don't want Obama to do poorly in Iowa. I want him to finish ahead of Clinton.
To do that, he'll need to do better with older voters. I hope he'll turn up in Davenport on September 20 after all.
13 Comments
He is trusting his consultants too much
Same mistake Edwards and Kerry made in 04. Obama will learn, Edwards did.
chaoslillith Fri 24 Aug 10:08 PM
I don't think Obama
expects to win the nomination this time. I think this is all for 2012 or 2016. Thus, his focus on college kids. A new book out (a bio) states that Axelrod and Obama mapped out a plan to run for the presidency when they hit Washington in January 2005. The Kenya trip and book publication were part of it, but they were aiming for 2012 or 2016. They went early, but I think they still look for the future.
The college kids will be adults when his real run happens. Just a theory, but it explains the inexplicable, like his decision to miss this forum.
tom-wells Fri 24 Aug 10:19 PM
interesting theory
I’ve often felt that Obama is like Al Gore in 1988–he’s going to be a great candidate someday, but he pushed things too soon.
I think they have been playing to win, I just think the game plan was a bit flawed.
I bet they were counting on there being more evidence that Hillary is unelectable. I know I was–if we were still seeing McCain way ahead of Hillary in head to head matchups, and the GOP field weren’t totally pathetic, I think more Democrats would be leaning against Hillary.
desmoinesdem Sat 25 Aug 12:25 AM
Don't count Obama out
As an Obama supporter, I’ve been worried about him stalling in Iowa. But some of my recent observations make me believe he could end up doing very well in IA after all.
His Iowa team appears to be working diligently and successfully to build a solid basis for a strong ground game leading up to the caucuses. For example, he had a very impressive crowd of ag and energy folks at his Tama rural summit a week ago. Lots of heavy hitters in the crowd. People who are opinion leaders in their circles. People who may effectively counter the lightweight or no experience arguments. This kind of effective outreach could pay real dividends come caucus time.
It seems that, in the end, Obama has won most of the recent issue spats. His rivals may have been too eager to view all his comments through the no experience prism.
Eventually, the caucus results will be largely determined by how the undecideds go at the very end of the campaign. I think there are some strong indications that Edwards will seriously falter in Iowa. I know many former pro-Edwards folks who are no longer with him (I’m one of those). Also, it seems like Richardson may not be catching fire like seemed possible just a month ago. Thus, there is a good chance Obama will end up getting a large number of undecideds and those who are wavering.
As an ABH, I’m concerned about the strong campaign Hillary is running. From what I’ve heard, many, especially women, have been very impressed with her debate performances. At this time, I predict that even Iowa will end up being a battle between Hillary and Obama. But I think Obama has a real chance of upsetting her here.
rf Sat 25 Aug 12:41 PM
I also sense that Richardson is not catching fire
but there is still time for him, since many people are barely tuning into the race.
Your experience is different from mine, in that most people I know who caucused for Edwards in 2004 are still enthusiastically for him.
Remember that Edwards has been dark while everyone else has been running tv ads in Iowa this summer. Nevertheless, he’s held steady in the mid-20s and sometimes higher, depending on the pollster.
I feel that there are a lot of “anybody but Hillarys” who are looking at all of the other options and have not ruled out Edwards, Obama or Richardson. So it’s anybody’s game.
Hillary is running a strong campaign, and she is helped by the implosion of McCain and the general weakness of the Republican field, which has made her electability problems less salient for voters than they might have been.
desmoinesdem Sat 25 Aug 6:43 PM
exactly
The over confidence among Democrats is stagering and stupid.
philgoblue Sat 25 Aug 8:53 PM
Agreed
The ’08 playing field is obviously tilted in D’s favor. But all of our leading candidates (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson) are so obviously flawed that I think there is a good chance we’ll lose. We really should not be overconfident. Because of this, I think Gore could make a huge splash and could actually get the nomination if he got into the game – even if he does it real late.
Re: Edwards. Considering he’s campaigned in Iowa more or less nonstop since 2003, I suspect he has peaked by now. I can’t see him gaining much ground even when he goes on the air. If my memory serves me right about past polls, I really don’t think he has held steady.
rf Sat 25 Aug 9:43 PM
Obama / Hillary have room to grow
I agree with RF. I think Edwards doesn’t have room to grow. He’s got all that he’s going to get. And now, he’s trying to retain.
I think Obama and Hillary have room to grow. I think, generically, a lot of undecided men are going to caucus for Obama and Richardson, and a lot of undecided women will caucus for Hillary and Obama. This all depends on the ground game by each campaign. I also think Obama has the best opportunity to pick off existing Edwards supporters, since they have very similar views on poverty and Washington reform.
snipehunter Sun 26 Aug 9:31 AM
I have heard differently
I know of a lot of undecided between Edwards and Obama, and undecided between Edwards and Richardson.
I think there are plenty of anybody-but-Hillary people who are looking carefully at the other options. Obama, Edwards, Richardson and even Biden or Dodd have a shot with these people.
desmoinesdem Sun 26 Aug 11:32 AM
Second choice
the most recent Fox News poll seems to suggest that many voters has Obama as their second-choice option if their first-choice candidate falters.
You can check the new Fox New Poll here:http://www.foxnews.c…
Among second choice:
Obama 28%
Hillary 20%
Edwards 13%
If those numbers are the same in Iowa , it could be good news for Obama since many voters could be forced to go with their second choice.
maria25rodriguez Sun 26 Aug 6:01 PM
given that Iowa polls
are very different from national polls, I wouldn’t want to assume that Iowans’ second choices would be the same as nationwide voters’ second choices. The national audience is basically not getting much media coverage of anyone but Hillary and Obama.
desmoinesdem Sun 26 Aug 6:11 PM
One Size Fits All
I am just generally against one-size-fits-all rules like this one from the campaign. While it is true that there are too many forums in Iowa and nationally, skipping all of them is a good way to alienate all of the groups that care about the caucus. There just seems to be a lot of amateurishness at every level of the Obama campaign, from field organizers on up.
simon-stevenson Tue 28 Aug 11:37 PM
I think the Obama field organizers are good
One recently called my house to speak to my husband. He mentioned that he knew I was supporting Edwards (I had not spoken to him before–I had spoken to other field organizers for Obama), and asked if my husband was still undecided.
My husband and I have different last names, so I was surprised the field organizers had kept straight that we live in the same household.
desmoinesdem Wed 29 Aug 7:44 PM