Off The Grid # 6: Campaign Manager Of the Cycle

David Plouffe, hands down. I have a hard time thinking of major slips their campaign has made. Even the angry spat that occurred around Nevada in hindsight seems to have benefited Obama much more than Hillary. Maybe they should have contested California more, but really it's hard to think of the Obama campaign as anything less than a juggernaut - with Plouffe at the helm.

Posted by Jesse | February 15, 2008 3:28 PM

David Plouffe, hands down. I have a hard time thinking of major slips their campaign has made. Even the angry spat that occurred around Nevada in hindsight seems to have benefited Obama much more than Hillary. Maybe they should have contested California more, but really it's hard to think of the Obama campaign as anything less than a juggernaut - with Plouffe at the helm.

Posted by Jesse | February 15, 2008 3:29 PM

Plouffe, hands-down. In order for Senator Obama to have a chance to win, he had to execute a strategy JUST right. The Obama campaign did, so he gets the win.

Posted by eponymous coward | February 15, 2008 3:39 PM

I'd have to say Plouffe, and it's exactly because a black first-term senator with a funny name is in position to knock off what is essentially an incumbent candidate from a family that has been (up until now anyway) beloved in its party. Obama had every institutional advantage and endorsement of consequence against him and he has completely turned the tables. And his campaign message has never wavered.

I would be tempted to give credit to David or perhaps even Saltzman, but succeeding in that field of candidates isn't exactly a phenomenal accomplishment. It's more a matter of "last man standing" while waiting for the Republican establishment to turn on each new flavor of the week.

My personal bias toward Obama as a candidate aside, I think strategically and tactically they have run a very intelligent, strategic, disciplined, and tranquil campaign.

Posted by SDinIA | February 15, 2008 3:42 PM

Marc,

This can't really be a question you "don't know the answer to"?? How could it possible be anyone but David Plouffe? He raised more money, oversaw the largest operation, and has managed a campaign that has stayed on message from "Day One".

And compared to John McCain, who's victory is more a factor of being the last man standing, Obama has already beaten four other credible Democrats and is currently beating the biggest machine in Democratic politics.

Posted by Mike | February 15, 2008 3:48 PM

Patti Solis Doyle, of course! Blew threw a formidable war chest even before New Hampshire rolled around, lied to her boss about it, apparently hired only for her fierce loyalty..."heckuva job!"

Posted by south side | February 15, 2008 3:52 PM

Even though I support Obama and think Plouffe did a great job, what about Saltzman? Do we give all credit to Huckabee's campaign to the candidate himself? To my mind, a campaign run with no money making it to the Final Four is a hell of an achievement!

Posted by Dan | February 15, 2008 3:54 PM

I would have to say Rick Davis. McCain was dead 6 months ago and now he is the GOP nominee. Yes, other managers have also done a good job but Davis took over with no political support, no money and very little staff, and beat Mitt Romney, darling of the right with literally endless money, Fred Thompson who the right WANTED to love, and America's mayor with plenty of money and who was taking all the oxygen from the moderates and liberals in the party that were McCain's prime targets. THAT is excellent campaign management. Excellent work Rick.

Posted by eddie | February 15, 2008 4:01 PM

Rick Davis, by far. Coming back from the dead last summer has been a remarkable achievement, getting outspent in every primary/caucus, etc.

Looking back, Clinton's weaknesses are and they have never had a "machine" to speak of, nor a deep resevoir of party loyalists who are dedicated to them (remember how many Dem House/Senate/Gov./state legislatures were lost under Clinton's tenure). The SS Hillary looked all-powerful for the sole reason that it looked all-powerful; Clinton had huge differences with the base of the party (Iraq, cozy relationship with lobbyists, etc.) I'll give credit to Obama's camp, but any reasonably competent "non Hillary" Dem candidate such as Edwards would have done as well given a clear field. Obama was and is simply the best and most attractive not-Hillary candidate this time around. I like Obama a lot, and will definitely be voting for him in the upcoming primary (I live in Ohio) but I'm more than a little leery that he has yet to take a solid punch before the general.

Posted by Adam | February 15, 2008 4:02 PM

Dan

I would give Saltzman more credit except for a few things. First, he had a substantial base built in from day one. All Huckabee had to do was show he would gladly carry their water and they would be in the bag for him. Second, Huckabee isn't so much winning anything as he is "not losing" it. Looking at voter totals and the general mood of the GOP, they aren't exactly enthused about their candidates. Where Obama has to actively take down a giant to secure his nomination, McCain or Huckabee really just had to be the least worst candidate.

That said, it is impressive what Huckabee has done with little resources.

Posted by SDinIA | February 15, 2008 4:02 PM

1. Plouffe
1a. Saltzman
3. Davis
4. Myers

Plouffe hasn't made any big mistakes, few small ones and has an incredible record of very good decisions. The reason Obama is going to win is that he is the best candidate and Plouffe has run the best campaign.

Saltzman is close to Plouffe because Huckabee turned had a great Super Tuesday with no money. My biggest problem with Saltzman is that there were a lot of people that thought Huckabee would be a darkhorse in the campaign. Saltzman didn't do a good enough job of converting support into money. If Huckabee had set up a better small donor network, I would have given the edge to Saltzman.

Posted by Kineslaw | February 15, 2008 4:13 PM

Honestly, I'd pick Rick Davis. Coming back from "left on the floor for dead" is an amazing achievement.

Posted by eponymous coward | February 15, 2008 4:20 PM

David Plouffe. Not even close. Neither McCain nor Huckabee needed a good strategy to be the last men standing - look at who they were up against. Meanwhile, Obama, Plouffe, and Axelrod came out of nowhere to take down the Clinton machine. They seemed to be playing a sort of rope-a-dope game with Clinton in 07, while quietly building grassroots organizational dominance (credit Dean and Trippi for the prototype).

Posted by robespierre | February 15, 2008 4:22 PM

Plouffe for most of the reasons mentioned above.

Saltzman second, but the problem his he never was able to broaden Huckabee's appeal.

Davis third, only because he managed to keep his candidate awake. Let's face it, if Huckabee hadn't been running, Romney would have waltzed to the nomination.

Myers last because she never figured out a way to humanize Romney and blunt Huckabee's base support.

Posted by John | February 15, 2008 4:23 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

Along w/ the first question (the one on the primary calendar), this is an outstanding topic. My two cents as to why:

ALL four of the individuals you named have run great campaigns in this cycle. Marc properly emphasizes that it shouldn't be "the winningest", but the best-managed.

Having studied the McCain campaign very closely, and having a McCain-focused site, obviously I have to conclude that Davis receives my vote on the question.

(Nothing against any of the others, of course, but since I didn't follow their campaigns anywhere as closely, I can't really offer a well-thought-out rationale for them).

So I hope that my detailed case for Davis here (even if my vote is wrong) might at least help shed some light on how the McCain campaign rose from the dead in the last six months...

The main challenge facing Davis was twofold. One was the fact that the campaign didn't have any money; the other was the fact that the conventional wisdom, the media, etc., had simply written off McCain, as a result of the summer implosion.

He adopted the correct strategy - namely, New Hampshire or bust.

McCain had a great chance of winning New Hampshire. The reasons being: it's small, he had deep connections and goodwill there, as a result of his 2000 campaign, he was willing to do the 100 town meetings necessary - and all of those factors meant that money wasn't as important to victory.

Perhaps more importantly - if there was no win in NH, there was no future for the campaign. Obviously, McCain's path to the nomination opened up in NH - even if he had come in second, it would probably have doomed him.

Accordingly, McCain went "all in" in NH - and it paid off handsomely.

In the finance sector, he did a fantastic job - they were able to raise enough $$$ to keep the doors open, the staff in the field and in Crystal City, and get enough in the bank to permit the candidate to have a fighting chance in NH.

It's hard to imagine that as late as November/December, there was still chatter that McCain might take the matching funds, as Edwards ultimately did. In retrospect, the decision NOT to take the matching funds saved the campaign. Had he done so, it would have destroyed his ability to compete, not just in the nomination process but in the general election.

The reason: McCain would have been bound by comically low spending caps that the FEC stipulated, which were based entirely on population (w/o any factoring of the importance of the state). I believe that the limit for NH was about $890,000, to illustrate.

It also would have meant that the campaign would have been defined out of existence, during the entire summer - since the Democratic nominee (unbound by matching funds) would be able to air ads all summer and the McCain campaign - bound by the caps - couldn't begin spending freely until after the RNC in September (!) (The RNC would have been able to respond, but not the McCain campaign per se).

Undoubtedly, the matching funds offer was tempting. It would have meant an immediate cash influx, since the campaign could borrow against the guaranteed money. Just as importantly, their acceptance would have freed McCain from some fundraising duties and thus leave him more time to retail-campaign in the early states. But it would have doomed the campaign to an early demise, had it been accepted.

So the campaign steered away from that fate - and to make up for it-

Equally importantly, they husbanded their resources well enough to permit just enough spending in Iowa, SC, Michigan, Florida, and Super Tuesday. How do we determine what is just enough spending?

Just enough to get the candidate as far as he can go in that state - to illustrate:

McCain couldn't possibly do better than a weak third/fourth in Iowa (so the campaign only spent that much.)

He spent enough to come in a clear second in Michigan, where Mitt had huge advantages in money, organization, and ties to the state.

McCain spent enough to win in NH and SC and FL and Super Tuesday, without breaking the bank. And so here he is, presumptive nominee.

But the money was only one half of the equation. McCain's campaign became relevant again, entirely on the skills of the candidate and campaign staff, with just shoestring resources. By pounding down the doors in NH, McCain was able to displace the narrative of "McCain Is Finished" with "McCain's Still In It". The twofold accomplishment - doing it w/ no money, and also getting the media, the donors, and the voters to see that his comeback was genuine - that was really something to behold.

To be fair, McCain also benefitted from windfalls from the political gods. All of the above COULD have been true - and he still would have struggled, if ANY of the following events hadn't taken place:

1) Huck toppling Mitt in Iowa.

2) Rudy spending heavily and visiting frequently in NH - all to no avail. Conceding the moderate/independent vote to McCain, he retreated to Florida in mid-December...

3) Fred draining just enough votes from Huck in the upstate of SC, to permit McCain to win the race narrowly.

Could McCain control any of those factors? No. The only one he could even influence was Rudy - McCain's groundwork in NH made it difficult for Rudy to gain traction. But if Rudy had continued to battle for the moderate/independent vote there, the most likely scenario was a Mitt victory due to the split of that vote - and the end of McCain's comeback.

But even though he could not control the luck - he put himself into a position to benefit from it, due to a masterful campaign. The maxim stated by baseball executive Branch Rickey is apropos here: "Luck is the residue of design."

And that's why I'd cast my ballot for Davis.

Thoughts, reactions? I'd enjoy reading the cases for the other three nominees...

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 15, 2008 4:26 PM

America is at a cross roads and the stakes are high, maybe even our lives.

The Democrats don't seem to even acknowledge that we are at war with a brutal thoat slashing, burn people alive enemy that wants to destroy us. They'd pull our troops away from fighting in foreign countries with the inevitable result of the fight moving to our own homeland.

Like it or not John McCain is the person the GOP has to work with this season. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are only delaying the inevitable and demonstrating their lack of party loyalty, and complete lack of statesmanship. If they'd do the right thing and pull out immediately the GOP could gear up early for the political fight of our lives.

Maybe McCain really is the best choice for our times after all.

At least he has proven his mettle during times of war...

http://mittromney.townhall.com

Posted by Justamere10 | February 15, 2008 4:36 PM

1) Chip Saltzman -- simply because his candidate faced the longest original odds, he personally has had the least help in managing his organization, and has been the least well funded (by several orders of magnitude) of the last four standing. Sort of a most extraordinary individual effort kinda deal.

2) Rick Davis -- putting aside his stewardship of the McCain resurrection in New Hampshire, Davis is the only one who had to organize a coup d'etat of the previous campaign management in order to get his job and save the campaign.

3) Beth Myers -- From spring 2006 through November 2007, Myers led the most tactically proficient, ruthlessly efficient, most sharply executing campaign of either party, which is proven by the fact that Romney had shot to the top of the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire by May of 2007 despite his weak record on social issues and his Mass Governor background. If not for Saltzman's extraordinary job with Huckabee, Romney is the GOP nominee.

4)David Plouffe -- I refuse to rank him higher because everyone knows that Team Obama was in full blown panic in September/October 2007, and the management of the Obama campaign has really been by comittee anyway (moreso than any of its competitors). Plus, deputy manager Steve Hildebrand is the real genius and difference maker of the Obama operation.

5)Amanda Cooper -- should be paired with strategist Steve Murphy, but she did everything necessary to put Bill Richardson to be the dark horse candidate on the Democratic side. His surge to 10% in Iowa & New Hampshire by June 2007 was evidence of this. Pulled together a surprisingly strong fundraising effort and a strong Iowa operation, too. Her problem: a totally undisciplined candidate who squandered the opportunities his campaign gave him.

Posted by dry_fish | February 15, 2008 5:07 PM

I don't think Barack Obama was as much a surprise as is commonly thought. He was probably the 4th most well-known senator after Hillary Clinton and John McCain and John Kerry. He was raising a lot of money from the beginning. It was commonly known that he "does inspiration" well. He was against an increasingly unpopular war from the beginning as he never lets us forget.

I bet the only thing his campaign manager ever had to tell him was "give the people more of that inspiration stuff. They are lapping it up."

Posted by Thomas | February 15, 2008 6:16 PM

Thomas, re-read your last statement and reconsider, I beg you. It makes you sound naive and petulant.

Posted by JWF | February 15, 2008 6:26 PM

Clearly the Obama team were the most innovative and did the most with their situation. It's difficult though to attribute it to Plouffe alone. Clearly the Obama team has proven itself extraordinary.

The only question we can probably all agree on is who was the worst political strategist of the campaign.

Hahahahaha. Isn't it curious that the last person to realize Mark Penn is incompetent is Hillary herself? I mean, not merely bad at his job, but fundamentally incompetent. The book is a giant pack of statistical proof that Penn knows absolutely nothing about the fundamentals of survey research and everything about how to try to trick people into thinking his misunderstanding of the science is only a product of his unique genius.

Posted by V. | February 15, 2008 6:44 PM

JWF, how can I be petulant when I caucused for Obama in Washington state? What I was saying is that Barack Obama hasn't really been challenged that much. Who amongst us thinks Hillary Clinton is a earth-shaking candidate? I bet her supporters don't think she is. A likely analogy is that Hillary Clinton is just a slightly more productive version of Rudy Giuliani.

It is not disparaging Obama to expect a little more from him from this point on. He needs to be ready to face the Republican attack machine starting now.

Posted by Thomas | February 15, 2008 7:18 PM

One important (and hitherto unmentioned, I think) factor is how tight a ship the campaign is: are there leaks? off-message statements? Etc.

On this score, Plouffe has done an excellent job, with a couple of slip-ups: the D-Punjab memo and the "here's when the Clintons brought up race" memo.

The Edwards ship also seemed pretty leak-proof, IIRC, albeit with less press-scrutiny. I thought the Edwards campaign was run pretty well, in general, actually-- am I wrong about that?

It's hard to compare the Republicans and Democrats because, honestly, the Dems have been on a different playing field entirely in the primaries-- record turnout, mind-blowing fundraising totals, enormous interest from the press and the public. The GOP has looked like the minor leagues thus far. McCain was the most credible candidate coming in, and his competitors fell away one by one mainly because voters didn't like them. And some of them had dreadful strategies to boot: the Romney panderfest, the Giuliani Florida plan. I can't give much credit to anyone on that side.

Posted by PJ | February 15, 2008 7:30 PM

Ok, I’ll take the bait: Beth Myers.

First, I concur with dry_fish that she ran a marvelously proficient campaign in vaulting a Mormon from Massachusetts to frontrunner status in Iowa. Clearly no one saw Huckabee coming and, had he not arrived, Romney would most likely be the overwhelming frontrunner right now.

In addition to saving himself $30 Million+ of personal treasure, I join the throng in wondering if Romney’s well timed bow-out post Super Tuesday, along with the McCain endorsement this week, are all part of the master plan or agreement for Veep? A handshake deal even?

If so, then Beth Myers is the manager who gave her candidate, first, the very best path to the nomination barring unforeseen events. She then regrouped in the face of said events and positioned her man for #2 and/or presumptive status for 2012, with a place at the GOP head table marked “Party Unitarian of the Year”. (Ok, perhaps “Unitarian” is not the appropriate moniker....)

Posted by CSB | February 15, 2008 8:02 PM

davis and plouffe tied. which should make the general interesting

Posted by JC | February 15, 2008 10:14 PM

Davis and Plouffe tied for first. Davis for coming back for the Dead and Plouffe for not panicking durning the pre Philly debate where it looks like it was not clicking.

Beth Myers run a well oiled Machine and to be fair they got nail or excedded their turnout numbers in Iowa, NH, and FL but they was not counting Iowa to break 100,000 more least 115,000 voters on the republican side or 1.8 Million in FL. And she was likely not the ones pushing him so far to the right.

Chris did a good job on a limited budget but alot of that succuss is Huckabee national ability.

Posted by Paul8148 | February 15, 2008 10:28 PM

The Worst?
1. Chief of Campaign Inevitable
2. Rudy's Chief

The best?
The Davids at Camp Obama

Posted by rikyrah | February 15, 2008 11:56 PM

The timing and circumstances -a Fundie Pastor coming up and tapping into the 30-year strong Religious Right organization, the obsession with "values", and Romneys own 1st national campaign missteps should not detract from the magnificent job Beth Myers did building a national organization that performed at the highest level.

She did the best job, IMO. With Rick Davis's Lazurus act 2nd. And all props to dry_fish for reminding others that in the also-rans, Amanda Cooper ran a gem of a campaign derailed only by the foundering, flummoxed ineptitude of her candidate Bill Richardson. Kudos to her for having the will to live after Richardson's debate and Meet the Press performances.

*Plouffe seems to be another politico lucky enough that he hooked up with a phenomenon and can ride his luck for a while. He isn't really as dominant as Myer or Rick Davis, he is one on a committee and Hildebrand and the fundraising team outshines him.

*Saltzman just got people to call the local evangelical churches, the Right-to-Life groups told them they had to support the true Man of Jesus and the one that had theocratic goals....and Huckabees 20% of the Republican vote was as guaranteed as Pat Robertson's were. No real effort necessary. He got a huge boost with the media falling in love with the Huckster's cornpone charms, giving Huck a pass from scrutiny while savaging Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and Clinton.
McCain, left for dead, also got a pass as did "he's black and full of audacity of hope and long winded - so we can't challenge him, or we will be gone like Imus," Obama dilemma the media faced.

Obama, filling the media device of "magic Negro redeemer and moral advisor" fits the media Democratic narrative nearly perfectly. And McCain became the tough and gruff Skeffington - and Mccain the comeback kid and new Spencer Tracy with a better ending to the "Last Hurrah" was easily plugged into a prewritten triumphal media narrative with little effort.

Posted by chris ford | February 16, 2008 1:42 AM

I have to go with Huck's guy, Saltzman. While the Davids at camp Obama have succeeded in crafting the best storyline of the campaign (with the help of Clinton's many missteps), Huckabee has had a way of taking very negative information they knew they were going to get hit with and just bypassing it. It's the best spin possible, it doesn't require outright denial, flip-flops, or lengthy justifications.
Huck's use of humor, one-line zingers, and folksy-ness has allowed him to stay on message and be charming in the face of a very negative reality. Given the extremely negative nature of the GOP race, he's managed that race much better than the competitors.

Posted by taricha | February 16, 2008 2:17 AM

Plenty an be said for Plouffe, but Rick Davis takes the prize hands down. Managing the comeback that McCain had will put him in campaign lore.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 16, 2008 9:29 AM

I see that a lot of people want to dismiss the accomplishments of Plouffe because Obama is such a fantastic candidate. I think this cheats Plouffe of the credit he deserves.
The task in front of the Obama campaign was massive. Clinton had every advantage, from name recognition with voters to political infrastructure in nearly every state. Plouffe had a black candidate running a race in two lily-white states.
They had to win Iowa - and did it through organization. And then they had to survive Super Tuesday - and did it through organization and smart decisions. Obama touched the ground in nearly every state in flyover country - Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico. And won nearly all of them (most by huge margins) as a result. And we've all seen the quality of the organization after Super Tuesday.
McCain more stumbled into his success thanks to a state that remembered him fondly (NH) and a field of candidates that could not have been weaker and had no institutional advantages. Huckabee is a great candidate but his campaign wasn't able to build his grass-roots support into a national campaign. And putting Romney on the list is just funny...

Posted by buchel | February 16, 2008 11:51 AM

Plouffe and Davis both deserve a lot of credit here.

I'd go with Plouffe overall for several reasons:

1) The Dem side was much higher profile than the Rep side this time around. What the Obama campaign has done, it has done while under greater scrutiny than any of the Republic ones

2) While the campaign's success as a whole is certainly a team effort, Plouffe deserves a huge amount of credit for doing a great job of *managing*. The Obama organization has been aligned from top to bottom - message with broad based appeal, strategy to contest every state, effective organization on the ground of every state, minimum of cross talk and internal drama. Coming from the corporate side of things, keeping all of these things coordinated is not at all easy. Plouffe may not have designed the strategy, but he kept everything together and got the campaign and its supporters to execute it like a well oiled machine.

3) Innovation. While using the internet to organize isn't net, the Obama campaign used distributed internet organization to an extent unprecedented on this scale. They got the grassroots up first - encouraging supporters to hold house parties, build connections - and then when the time came, effectively brought the formal campaign structure in on top of this (but in a way that didn't displace the grassroots efforts)

I don't know what Davis did in nearly so much detail - he obviously did a great job in taking a candidate who was at one point left for dead all the way to the finish line. The reason I have to choose Plouffe over him is because what the Obama campaign has done is going to completely change the way that every candidate runs a campaign in four years, taking the internet advocacy that launched Howard Dean and managing to build a synthesis between it, social networking, and traditional campaigning that was able to stand up to a long race in the way that Dean's campaign could not.

Posted by Dan | February 16, 2008 12:28 PM

I don't know nearly enough about the campaign's internal workings to know whether Plouffe individually deserves credit -- but the Obama campaign's decision to organize heavily in the caucus states was pure genius. It allowed him to rack up oversized margins in those States and gain the extra delegate advantage he will need to make the case to the superdelegates and the DNC that denying him the nomination would disenfranchise the Democratic primary electorate. Hillary never saw that coming until she started losing States like Kansas and Nebraska by 30 point margins.

Posted by pontificator | February 16, 2008 12:34 PM

Plouffe, by a longshot. The thing that is remarkable about the Obama teams is that they haven't been in the news much. They just go about their business, and we're not hearing any tales of internal strife, people being fired, money problems, strategic disagreements. Their candidate is the only visible part of their operation, which is how it should be.

Posted by vinnie's cousin | February 16, 2008 12:46 PM

Another reason Plouffe is the man-- the Democratic field was packed with talent this year. They had 5 or 6 people who could be considered major league. Plouffe had to get past that hurdle. On the GOP side they had a bunch of losers, and it was just a matter of who would be the last one standing.

Posted by guido sarducci | February 16, 2008 12:51 PM

Huckabee's campaign manager, Chip Saltzman, for running a shoe-string campaign that rocked the GOP to its core, pushing heavyweights like Romney and Thompson out of the race.

While Obama's campaign did well, Plouffe had enough money to work with that it would be more of a surprise if he weren't able to work magic. Huckabee's campaign manager is, to use a Huckabeeite term, a miracle.

Posted by ted baker | February 16, 2008 1:03 PM

It's easy for a "team" to look good when the "league" has its thumb on the scale. Try evaluating the Obama and McCain campaigns *after* taking away the sales job that the MSM did for them.

Posted by TLB | February 16, 2008 2:41 PM

"Plouffe had enough money to work with that it would be more of a surprise if he weren't able to work magic."

But he gets some credit for helping to bring in all that money, doesn't he?

And the Obama campaign's caucus success should be mentioned again: that's a format that should help an establishment candidate like Clinton. (Not that Obama is anti-establishment, but, well, his spouse was never president.) Instead, Obama has dominated in caucuses so much that Clinton can only harp on the "undemocratic" aspect of the caucus format (a fair point, but clearly sour grapes).

And the small state thing is huge, too: Obama's delegate margin in Idaho apparently equalled Hillary's in New Jersey-- which, given the relative size of those two states, is remarkable, and testament to the strategic mastery of the Obama camp.

Posted by PJ | February 16, 2008 7:38 PM

And as for the emerging meme that the media decided this race: all the candidates had a year to make their cases to the people of Iowa, doorstep to doorstep, debate to debate. That's how Huckabee got this far, and how Jimmy Carter became president over thirty years ago. It's also how Barack Obama launched his frontunning effort: by reaching out to individual voters and persuading them, practically one at a time, that he was the man for the job. The media didn't do that.

Posted by PJ | February 16, 2008 7:42 PM

PJ: I'm sure the MSM thanks you for sticking up for them. However, neither McCain nor Obama could have gotten to their present positions without the MSM's help. If the MSM had done its job, neither would be in the race. They could canvass 24/7 and it still wouldn't help.

Here's one of the many examples of the MSM promoting McCain, and here's an example of the MSM helping him lie:

youtube.com/watch?v=wm0uWz2BS9M

And, as I've pointed out a few times, Ambinder was there when someone asked this question:

youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg

In his post about that, Ambinder didn't mention that the person in question is a former cabinet-level official in the Mexican government. Now, just six years after leaving his post and after promoting open borders on cable TV numerous times, he's doing outreach to U.S. voters for John McCain.

If Ambinder had asked a follow-up he could have had a serious impact on McCain's chances. Not only that, he didn't even mention the cabinet part or the fact that's he's a dual citizen.

So, you have to be a complete apologist to think that a large part of where we're at isn't due to the MSM promoting those it wants to promote.

Posted by TLB | February 16, 2008 7:54 PM

For all those ranking Plouffe as #1, here's a bit of reporting from Sept. 2007 from our friend Marc Ambinder:

When I interviewed her in June, Valerie Jarrett, who will join Barack Obama's campaign as an part-time senior adviser, told me that, by the late fall, she would be, more or less, working on her best friend's behalf on a day-to-day basis.
Jarrett, a former deputy chief of staff to Chicago mayor Richard Daley, has known the Obama family for more than a decade. She runs Habitat LLC, a Chicago real estate company, and may one day run for mayor. A lifelong Chicagoan, she will be the campaign's outsider-in-chief, complementing the bevy of seasoned political insiders who now run Obama's campaign.

Obama advisers insisted that Jarrett's expanded role should not be read as a sign that Obama has lost confidence in campaign director David Plouffe.

But it's also true that Obama and his wife Michelle decided to bring Jarrett inside the campaign a little earlier than some in Obama's world had anticipated. The Obamas were responding to suggestions from friends outside the campaign who thought the campaign could use a firmer managerial hand.

One Democrat close to Obama said that the candidate agreed that the "nuts and bolts" of the campaign needed to be "tightened." But the Democrat said that Obama had "complete confidence" in Plouffe as a planner and a strategist and was worried that press accounts of any change would falsely incorporate the assumption that Plouffe was somehow being demoted.

Also, if you're one of those who thinks Plouffe is the best because Obama's ground campaign was so brilliant, then more from Ambinder:

Another change: strategist Steve Hildebrand will take a more aggressive role in running the campaign's political and field departments. Hildebrand put together those departments, wrote most of the campaign's field plan, and divides his time between the campaign's Chicago headquarters and its field offices in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

As I said before, the Obama management structure is too complex to give all the credit to Plouffe. If you're looking for a behind-the-scenes genius of the Obama effort, then Hildebrand is your guy.

Posted by dry_fish | February 16, 2008 8:03 PM

Myers isn't getting much love here. While the Romney campaign wasn't perfect with their message (it took them way too long to take some "change" and anti-Washington cues from the Obama campaign), strategically, they were excellent. They focused like a laser on Iowa and New Hampshire way back when everyone else was still bamboozled by the national polls, and for a long time, Romney held commanding leads in the polls for both of those states. Had they held, he would have easily coasted to the nomination. Unfortunately for them, Huckabee and McCain came from out of nowhere to steal both those wins from under their noses; I'm not sure how much of a predictable circumstance that was. But even after their primary strategy failed, they /still/ came damn close to winning the whole thing -- had either Huckabee beaten McCain in South Carolina, or Romney beaten him in Florida, the chances for either of which were very good, odds are that the presumptive Republican nominee now would be called Romney.

Posted by illissius | February 16, 2008 8:54 PM

David Plouffe for sure. He executed the perfect strategy and has been able to upset the strongest political machine in party politics. That's not easy and David Plouffe did it.

Posted by Karl | February 16, 2008 9:05 PM

I'm an Obama guy, but I'd vote for Rick Davis, McCain's manager. It's not that Plouffe hasn't done a great job - he has, but what Davis has done with an old, broke campaign was all-time impressive.

On a related note, isn't the clear "winner" of the WORST campaign manager the guy who ran Giuliani's campaign? I mean, didn't Rudy raise the most early money, have the most free media coverage (granted, not all of it good), and lead in all sorts of early polls, only to kiss it all goodbye with the worst strategy ever ("wait 'til Florida")?

I mean, seriously, this might have been the worst run campaign in modern American political history. Universal name recognition, good favorables, and they end up with ZERO delegates? Wow.

Posted by Jesse | February 16, 2008 9:07 PM

We finally got ALL the delegates accounted for, and here's the breakdown with no more outstanding: 1137-1008, with Obama having a narrow lead in Feb. 5th delegates.

Posted by Daniel | February 16, 2008 9:44 PM

Apologies for belaboring the point, but the British papers appear to caught on to the Steve Hildebrand angle.

Posted by dry_fish | February 17, 2008 12:09 AM

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/10_minutes_on_whether_hillary.html

The link puts it all in perspective as to who would actually win against McCain and why.

Oh, Plouffe because the wins couldn't have been that big if it weren't for the organization on the ground with staff and volunteers.

Posted by Clemo | February 17, 2008 1:05 AM

Davis -- he did the most with the least help. Plouffe had a massive amount of high-level professional help surrounding and even overseeing him, and if not for Edwards' decision to take on Clinton rather than Obama last fall, Obama may never have been in a position to win.

Posted by Gus | February 17, 2008 1:57 AM

Plouffe. Why are we even having this discussion? I didn't know there was a debate.
Obama's community organizing days have helped in a major way as well. Their ground game is RIDICULOUS.

Posted by John | February 17, 2008 2:33 PM

Plouffe, if only by elimination. Davis' success more or less amounted to helping McCain hang on long enough for Huckabee to kill Romney (no mean feat for Davis, perhaps, but hardly brilliance either). Myers got all of the tactics and none of the strategy right, running a hyper-sophisticated campaign in the technical sense and an idiotic one from a bird's-eye-view. And Saltzman, while clearly capable of managing some stunning upsets, has allowed his candidate to play into the stereotype of an unsophisticated rube demagogue, which is why he was ultimately unacceptable as nominee.

Posted by gabriel | February 17, 2008 4:56 PM

What a surprise. Marc Ambinder's questions are as insipid as his answers. I get smarter political analysis and conversation from my friends, and they're not even trying.

Posted by Henri | February 17, 2008 7:13 PM

http://obama4infanticide.blogspot.com/

Posted by gail grimmel | February 17, 2008 10:17 PM

I'd have to say the WORST campaign manager this season has got to be Mike DuHaime of Rudy GIuliani fame. He took the republican frontrunner of almost a year and turned him into toast within the space of a month, before the primaries even got off the ground. sad sad sad.

Posted by martina | February 17, 2008 10:45 PM

Plouffe. I just like the coalition that was built based in part on Euro-americans from the Plains states and African americans from the south.

I'm not sure that was the plan, but they learned how to win big in those districts, to create a serious candidate.

That the Republicans are not going to have a divided convention is impressive, I'm not sure who to credit.

Posted by Kim | February 18, 2008 8:27 AM

Hillary is in big trouble, as this report highlights in part, she has lost the internet battle and now the female vote appears to be dwindling as well:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47
Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect

Posted by David | February 18, 2008 10:45 AM

Chip Saltzman: what he did with basically no resources is amazing.

Posted by Paul S | February 18, 2008 1:45 PM

his name is Chip Saltsman

Posted by Bob | February 18, 2008 2:53 PM

Plouffe. It's easy (now) that Obama is in the lead and gaining, but remember several short months ago when "what's her name" was the "inevitable" choice. None of that happened by accident, and although Plouffe has to share the credit, he still wins this particular contest.

Winning the triple-A minor league award, however, has to be Chip Saltzman. Sow's ear - silk purse, no money - only contender left on the Republican side. What he did was clever beyond belief; he's be on a big-money team the next time around.

Posted by Len | February 19, 2008 12:35 AM

Off The Grid # 6: Campaign Manager Of the Cycle

Comments (57)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives