Plouffe Memo: We're The Giants, Baby

(not in so many words...despite or because of polls showing that Obama is now leading or tied with Hillary Clinton nationally.).

February 4, 2008 To: Interested Parties

From: David Plouffe

RE: Putting Tomorrow into Perspective

Two weeks ago, a Clinton campaign adviser told CBS News that they believed they could “wrap up” the nomination on February 5th. As the “inevitable” national frontrunner, tomorrow should be the day when she sews up the nomination or builds a formidable delegate lead. But because of Obama’s growing momentum across the country, the Clinton campaign is now unlikely to reach their stated goals of wrapping up the nomination tomorrow.

Senator Clinton is certainly the favorite on February 5, given the huge leads she has held in many of these contests throughout the course of the campaign and the political, historical and geographic advantages she enjoys in many of these states.

For example, California, which Clinton led by 25 points in October and 12 points two weeks ago, was once seen as the Clinton campaign’s firewall and where they planned to run up an insurmountable lead in delegates. Former Governor Gray Davis, a Clinton supporter, said on MSNBC last week, “I am pleased to be for Hillary Clinton and I expect her to do very well in Super Tuesday. I expect her to win California by a sizable amount, at least double digits, do well in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut.”

Based on her huge head start, Hillary Clinton should still win California, but is unlikely to achieve her goal of getting a sizeable share of the delegates.

Our path to the nomination never factored in a big day for us on February 5. Rather, we always planned to stay close enough in the delegate count so that we could proceed to individually focus on the states in the next set of contests.

I'm sorry. Hold up, time out. What?? Unless every Obama adviser I've spoken to over the past year has out and out lied to me, a big day on Feb. 5 has always been a big part of Obama's nomination strategy. That doesn't mean they always expected to win it...just that, for months, the campaign devoted unusual amounts of resources to building robust organizations in the states...and claims 75,000 active volunteers.

Seems like the Obama campaign is setting expectations way low so they can beat them as easily as the Giants front four beat through the line to Tom Brady.

There's no question that Hillary Clinton's campaign has had to dial back their projections before every contest, a testament to Obama's stunning rise and topsy-turvy nature of the season. (Mark Penn this week said that the campaign is now preparing to go all the way to the convention.)

But at some point, Obama has to accept the fact that he has already vanquished the leading lord, that he has surmounted the insurmountable, and that just because he hasn't won this thing doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton is still the inevitable frontrunner with unspecified political and geopgraphic advantages.

Obama has outrasied Clinton... has won more delegates than her... is, as I said, tied or leading in major polls... has name ID almost as high as she does... has favorable ratings that exceed hers.... and still claims to be the underdog. That's one stretch of a definition.

We fully expect Senator Clinton to earn more delegates on February 5th and also to win more states. If we were to be within 100 delegates on that day and win a number of states, we will have met our threshold for success and will be best positioned to win the nomination in the coming months.

So there's the number: 100 delegates. If Clinton exceeds Obama by more than 100 delegates tomorrow, then Plouffe will OK with the press's declaring Obama "lost."

A performance that exceeds those benchmarks, while unlikely, would put is in a surprisingly strong position heading into the rest of the February contests.

"While unlikely."

While the Clinton campaign is furiously trying to spin the expectations game, it is important to look at where they were in some of the key states just a few weeks ago.

(You can read the rest after the jump.

ALABAMA

Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Alabama By 15 Points. According to polling done by Rasmussen released on January 25, Clinton led Obama by 15 points, 43% to 28%. [Rasmussen, 1/25/08]

ARIZONA

Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Arizona Obama By 21 Points. According to a poll done for the Arizona Republic that was released on January 23, Clinton led Obama 45% to 24%. [Arizona Republic, 1/23/08]

CONNECTICUT

Hartford Courant: Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Connecticut By 14 Points. According to polling done for the Hartford Courant released on January 20, Clinton led Obama by 14 points, 41% to 27%. [Hartford Courant, 1/20/08]

DELAWARE

October 2007 Poll Found Clinton Leading Obama By 24 Points. According to polling done by Farleigh Dickinson that was released on October 10, Clinton led Obama by 24 points, 41% to 17%. [Fairleigh Dickinson, 10/10/07]

GEORGIA

In December 2007, Clinton Led Georgia By 7 Points. According to polling done by Strategic Vision released on December 12, Clinton led Obama by 7 points, 34% to 27%. [Strategic Vision, 1/22/07]

MASSACHUSETTS

Survey USA: Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Massachusetts By 37 Points. According to polling done by Survey USA released on January 24, Clinton led Obama by 37 points, 59% to 22%. [Survey USA, 1/24/08]

MINNESOTA

October Poll Found Clinton Leading Obama By 25 Points In Minnesota. According to polling done by Mason Dixon released on October 2, Clinton led Obama 47%-33%. [Star Tribune, 10/2/07]

MISSOURI

Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Missouri By 19 Points. According to polling done by Rasmussen released on January 25, Clinton led Obama by 19 points, 43% to 24%. [Rasmussen, 1/25/08]

NEW YORK

Before February 5th, Clinton Led New York By 28 Points. According to polling done by USA Today and Gallup released on January 28, Clinton led Obama by 28 points, 56% to 28%. [Gallup, 1/28/08]

NEW JERSEY

Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led New Jersey By 17 Points. According to polling done by Quinnipiac released on January 22, Clinton led Obama by 17 points, 49% to 32%. [Quinnipiac, 1/23/08]

OKLAHOMA

Three Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Oklahoma By 20 Points. According to polling done by Survey USA released on January 14, Clinton led Obama by 20 points, 45% to 25%. [Survey USA, 1/14/08]

TENNESSEE

Less Than One Week Before February 5th, Clinton Led Tennessee By 33 Points. According to polling done by Insider Advantage in Tennessee on January 30th, Clinton led Obama by 33 points, 59% to 26%. [Insider Advantage, 1/30/08]

Comments

A lot of people had said that the early polls were mostly driven by name recognition. Now they reflect an honest ambivalence among democratic voters about their candidates. I hear it everywhere. People trying to decide between them. Obama's surge doesn't mean they've made up their minds, only that they recognize they have a real choice to make. Shriver's almost anguished endorsement yesterday is reflective of what a lot of people are thinking and feeling. The irony is that if it doesn't come out as a tie tomorrow, many people will be disappointed.

Posted by JC | February 4, 2008 1:30 PM

Actually, I think the Obama campaign's strategy was to win big in Iowa, and then NH, NV, SC and to hopefully dominate from thereon...

But, with the loss of NH, they had to contend with the real possibility that they did not have enough time to catch up on Feb 5th, therefore focusing on the long haul.

But, now, with polls showing very notable gains for Obama, I assume they're trying to avoid a repeat of their loss at the NH expecatations game.

Posted by Vermonter | February 4, 2008 1:31 PM

Well, Marc...isn't there another factor to consider in the expectations game. Now that hillary has cried again and your buddies like Halperin are pushing the story, we should expect the same 15 point swing not picked up by the polls last time, don't you think?

You should factor in the expectations game that today the media is trying to whip up a gender backlash for Hillary.

Posted by RKA | February 4, 2008 1:38 PM

Marc, the central point is that tommorow Obama is playing on Clinton's field. Feb. 5th is set up as a dream day for her and Obama has to not only contend with that shortened calendar and 22 states but the media waiting and wanting to declare a winner in this race.

He's got a great calendar in front of him if he can stay in the race Feb. 5th. But right now she's leading him in all the averages at RCP and Pollster and while he's trending well, the absentee voting issue clearly favors Clinton.

So in a lot of ways tommorow is do or die for OBAMA and he is going in not only having been as recently as four weeks ago down 30 in some polls but also fighting against the early ballots that have been cast.

He has an uphill fight, still. Despite recent endorsements happening this week.

Posted by Rhoda | February 4, 2008 1:41 PM

Wow someone didn't have his morning coffee today !

It is one thing to treat spin cynically but it is another to be downright hostile.

Sorry but up to two weeks ago even you were saying Feb 5th was favorable to Hillary per the fundamentals. Obama has momentum but fundamentals havent changed

Posted by Benjamin | February 4, 2008 1:42 PM

Marc looks like even more of a Hillary shill than usual. It's interesting how he usually just posts the spin from the Hillary campaign with no comment, but angrilly denounces and seeks to rebut the spin from the Obama campaign.

And he still hasn't explain why he belongs to the Harvard for Hillary group.

Posted by Mike | February 4, 2008 1:48 PM

I'm with Benjamin.

Screw "two weeks ago."

If we called Obama the underdog *Friday morning*, it would have been an absolutely correct statement.

He doesn't become the favorite until 2/5 confirms it.

Posted by Chris R | February 4, 2008 1:48 PM

I'm with Benjamin.

Screw "two weeks ago."

If we called Obama the underdog *Friday morning*, it would have been an absolutely correct statement.

He doesn't become the favorite until 2/5 confirms it.

Posted by Chris R | February 4, 2008 1:49 PM

I'm with Benjamin.

Screw "two weeks ago."

If we called Obama the underdog *Friday morning*, it would have been an absolutely correct statement.

He doesn't become the favorite until 2/5 confirms it.

Posted by Chris R | February 4, 2008 1:49 PM

I am going to steal from Oprah.

Mark, don't play me small.

Posted by Hopemonger | February 4, 2008 1:58 PM

Agreed with Benjamin and others. The reason why Obama still enjoys underdog status is because any catching up done recently happened in the last week or two, among other things. As impressive as it is that the gap has been closed or reversed in many states, the headlines all weekend that I saw were "Obama closing gap, does he have enough time?" I think I may have seen that said here too. The fact that you're so grouchy about the notion that he's the underdog is a testament to 1) How strong of a showing the campaign's had in recent weeks, and 2) How much (too much) you're relying on polls. This thing won't be called until late tomorrow if not midday Wednesday.

Posted by Graham | February 4, 2008 2:03 PM

Marc and the Hillary-Media industrial complex are desperately trying to swing the election to Hillary tomorrow. This stratgey has several components:

1) Raise Obama's expections

2) Tout polls that Obama is ahead to make people not bother to turn out for him

3) Give lots of coverage to the Cry v2.0 to get it to female voters everywhere.

4) Send out male pundits to criticize Hillary so that she will look like a victim of men.

5) Sit back, allow the NH-like female backlash to unfurl and then express amazement that Hillary does so well

The fix is in, my friends.

It makes me sick.

Posted by RKA | February 4, 2008 2:03 PM

Marc -- I've generally loved your posts, and agree with some of what you've written here (esp your challenge to Plouffe's comment about planning for Feb 5). But I honestly think you are way off the mark when, citing polls from the last 48 hrs, you suggest that "expectations" for tomorrow should assume both candidates are tied. To me, "expectations" is shorthand for an analytical framework, or context, in which to understand the meaning of the results. I can best describe my problem with your statement by using results from NH as an example. I've seen several press reports (inc. a widely published one from AP in the last week) referring to HRC's "upset" win in NH. To me, that is dead wrong. IMHO, HRC's win in NH could fairly be described as "strong" or "convincing." She held off - and perhaps even pushed back against -- a powerful post Iowa surge by Obama that some late polls indicated could carry him to a NH win. There are a variety of ways to characterize what actually happened, many of which are very favorable for HRC and none of which I would quarrel with. But in light of the 12 months of aggressive campaigning, candidate statements and polling data that preceded the NH primary, I simply don't understand how anyone could call HRC's victory an "upset." And for similar reasons, if the net result of Super Tuesday has Obama and HRC rather close in terms of delegates with neither close to locking anything up, I think you have to compare this to what the numbers suggested would happen for 90% of the period since Iowa. That would cause me to view such a day as a positive development for Obama and a disappointing one for HRC.

Posted by JeffLord | February 4, 2008 2:05 PM

But in light of the 12 months of aggressive campaigning, candidate statements and polling data that preceded the NH primary, I simply don't understand how anyone could call HRC's victory an "upset."

Wow. What short memories people have. After Iowa, Hillary was being written off as dead. Intrade had Obama heavily favored to win the nomination. There was widespread talk of a Clinton "collapse" and media reports of internal turmoil in her campaign. There was much mockery of all the old fossils she had lined up behind her the night of the caucuses defeat (and remember, she came in third). Obama lead in fundraising. His crowds were much larger than hers. He picked up the endorsements of the Boston Globe and the Manchester Union Leader. He had Oprah campaigning for him. And he was showing large leads in some of the polls, and at least modest leads in just about all the rest. Hillary's tears were widely pilloried as a pathetic and cynical stunt. In short, he had all the momentum, and she looked like a dead woman walking.

It was definitely an upset.

Posted by Jasper | February 4, 2008 2:14 PM

I agree with Chris R... All three times...

(This site hangs sometimes on me, too...)

Posted by Vermonter | February 4, 2008 2:16 PM

The fundamentals have not changed in - frankly - several weeks. Iowa upset them and New Hamphsire restored them. Nevada didn't really change them and neither did South Carolina. The fundamentals still favor Clinton. But if Obama comes out strong tomorrow, then the fundamentals will change -- and radically so.

Posted by Callimaco | February 4, 2008 2:16 PM

So because Team Obama planned to compete in the Feb 5 states -- and actually organized them 6-8 months ahead -- that means he's not the underdog? Nice logic.

The fact is, as an Obama supporter, I believe we're still behind. While it looks like we may be able to come out ahead in a few states, it's still much more probable that Clinton will win 80% of the states. To not consider Obama the underdog in this race, while I wish it were true, is completely nuts.

Posted by evie | February 4, 2008 2:17 PM

Jasper -- intrade has NEVER had Obama heavily favored to win the nomination. Before NH he was heavily favored to win New Hampshire, but not the nomination. It's only now gotten even close on intrade (which, as we've said many times, is a following, not a leading, indicator).

Posted by evie | February 4, 2008 2:20 PM

I'm not one who likes to throw around the "bias" word when commenting on journalists/bloggers, but damn it Marc you're making a complete and utter fool of yourself. The ease to which you suck up the Clinton spin and spurn the Obama spin is pathetic. Instead of coming across as a biased hack, how about doing some real journalism? Your obsession with the "expectations game" is just as bad as the spin coming from the campaigns.

Posted by Timmy | February 4, 2008 2:33 PM

Don't know why team Obama is so exercised by this post. It struck me as right on target. Obama is surging in the polls, raising more money, has won more delegates as a result of contests to date, has much more favorable media coverage, has taken most of the recent high-profile endorsements-- from the LA Times to Move On, has team Camelot and Queen Oprah holding mega rallies and ran Superbowl ads promising to "Save the Planet" and "Change the World". Hillary meanwhile is talking quietly about health care mandates and structural problems with the economy--more responsible than promising to change the world, but not exactly catching on fire. Maybe America likes presidents who bite off more than they can chew. We elected Bush twice (sort of).Practical solutions and competence may not be as exciting as saving the planet or changing the world but I'm voting for them (and Hillary) anyway. At this point, it definitely feels like I'm in the minority. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by NJH | February 4, 2008 2:56 PM

Marc-Early mail in voting will be a killer to the Obama wave. His campaign is right to try to rein in the media driven nonsense that he will win in a widespread fashion.

Polling has been so cock eyed this year, how can they not be cautious.

If Obama can beat the very real 20+ lead all over the country the Clintons have held for over a year, they will have done a lot.

Posted by G Davis | February 4, 2008 3:06 PM

I agree that Plouffe is likely overstating Obama's current underdog status a bit (though it is hard to know for sure in such a dynamic environment). I also think, however, that the posters are right about the bigger picture. Until very, very recently (with the exception of the Iowa-NH interregnum), Clinton was a massive favorite and it is mightily impressive that Obama has closed the gap to the extent that he appears he has. I'm not sure if Marc disagrees with this, or is simply gut reacting to specific language in the memo.

Posted by Chunche | February 4, 2008 3:56 PM

Marc and the Hillary-Media industrial complex are desperately trying to swing the election to Hillary tomorrow. This stratgey has several components: 1) Raise Obama's expections...

C'mon. You don't seriously believe this is a media conspiracy, do you? Exhaustive research has shown that most print and broadcast journalists are liberal Democrats. They're upper income, well-educated liberals. In short, they're natural Obama voters. The simplest explanation is that the favorable coverage of Obama is just that: coverage by people who favor him. Do you seriously think there's some kind of secret memo being passed out exhorting journalists to fake their reportage?

You're right about one thing, however, they are unreasonably setting expectations for Obama, which makes Hillary's likely delegate win tomorrow all the more damaging to Obama, and likely fatal to his chances if it gets much beyond five points or so. But this is the law of unintended consequences, not some kind of conspiracy.

Posted by Jasper | February 4, 2008 4:35 PM

Jasper -- Hope we can disagree without being disagreeable, but I don't believe that a short memory or any other revisionist malady explains why I have consistently disagreed with those who view HRC's impressive NH win as an upset. I acknowledge that one's views about this may depend on how you define "favorite" or "upset." Virtually everyone agrees that polls for most of 2007 showed HRC to be a prohibitive favorite, with a consistent lead over Obama that had steadily grown to 15+% in September. I went back to Pollster.com to look over the graphs, and it looks like the gap started to slowly shrink beginning in October. But even as of December 23, the RCP average for NH polls showed HRC with a 5% lead.

It produces the opposite outcome of what I contend here, but I think the logic supports my view. The Giants win in the Super Bowl yesterday seems a lot less like an "upset" if your judgment about it is based on where the game stood at the beginning of the fourth quarter.

Posted by JeffLord | February 4, 2008 4:36 PM

No , Jasper...this is not a conspiracy...it's the media acting in its financial interests. Journalists need money. Money comes from ratings. Ratings come from the circus style politics of the clintons. Keeping the clintons around requires the media to parrot gender narratives favorable to Hillary.

I suppose, jasper, that you thought the media was fair to Al Gore in 2000, right?

Give me a break. These people know how to shape the story to low information voters to get their lobbyist-favored people in power.

Posted by RKA | February 4, 2008 4:50 PM

Virtually everyone agrees that polls for most of 2007 showed HRC to be a prohibitive favorite, with a consistent lead over Obama that had steadily grown to 15+% in September.

We're talking about an event that transpired in 2008. Moreover, there was a steady rise for Obama, and drop for Clinton, after her Philadelphia debate performance (with much attendant media cheerleading for Obama), in late October of 2007. Hillary has been the favorite all along, but not the prohibitive favorite for some three months (since Philadelphia), and she was most certainly the underdog in terms of expectations as to who was going to win New Hampshire. Her victory in New Hampshire was a surprise. An other way to describe a surprise, or "unexpected" victory -- similar to what happened in the Superbowl -- is to call it an "upset." It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Posted by Jasper | February 4, 2008 4:51 PM

Tomorrow is big.

My 10 year old daughter cannot wait to go girl power to the polls to vote with my wife early am tomorrow. Later in the day she will go with her grandmother (63) and her grandmother's mother (85).
Until now she has always gone with me and pulled the lever with me and until this weekend that was the plan; now the women in my wife's family are really stoked to go vote for a female president.

I get that obama's followers are psyched up to but don't underplay how amazing it would be to have a female be our candidate. 50 % of the population might be feeling what the women in my family are feeling and the obama campaign is practically double dog daring them to vote their gender with the ultimately frivolous image of maria and caroline and oprah pretending that that is the girl power vote.
Don't play women small, oprah.

Posted by Michael C. | February 4, 2008 6:31 PM

As a woman Michael, I take exception with your don't play women small comment.

Did you or the women in your life listen to Oprah? Did you hear her words or only see resentment for NOT voting for a woman?

I watched all those women on that stage and was very impressed with their message. It wasn't that you HAD to vote for Obama or AGAINST the Clintons...it was that 1) you have to vote 2) vote with your heart.

There was no iota of anti Clinton in that room. There was only the message that it was good to vote with your heart even if it was not for your own sex or race.

Again, as a woman, I hear the sentiment from some of my female friends about their urgency of now. That they HAVE to vote for the Clintons simply because she is a woman.

Personally, I find that the antithesis of feminism and everything I've worked for over the years. Feminism is about being equal...about being considered or disconsidered not BECAUSE of your sex but because of your merits.

I hope that your female family members are not doing what you say, but that you've just interpreted it that way. I hope they have weighed the pros and cons of all the candidates based on merit, on policy. If they have, good for them for voting with conviction AND their hearts.

Many are not following them, though, simply because they resent being told they should vote for the female.

Posted by G Davis | February 5, 2008 12:29 AM

Ms. Davis,

Hillary is obviously a better candidate irrespective of whether she is a woman or not. the fact is that she is a woman turns some women like you to not vote for her so you are not morally accused of falling in the gender trap. but do you think the poor black souls think like that? No siree, they sure do not. and hence in this race the black candidate will not win vs. the female candidate. and lets admit it they are both playing the race gender and all other cards. Its all about personal ambition for both and for all their hangers on its means political survival and other benefits. Its essentially the new mode of modern discussion with the victor taking the spoils for hte next 4 years. Frankly the press is really giving BHO a real hail mary pass and these rallies where he has to answer tough questions only play to his oratorial strength. We dont need a talker as president. Also have you ever started a new job in a big firm? its a maze and there is a very steep learning curve. by the time BHO finds his feet his legacy or vision will be toast as public mood is fickle.

Posted by Vudeshie | February 5, 2008 5:58 AM

It's ridiculas to tell women to ignore their brains and rely on just their hearts: The obama brains put three very privileged rich women on stage to tell you to ignore your intellect and vote your heart: that's very brainy and calculated of them and silly for any of us male or female to believe it.

Feminism is definitely about creating choices for women and yet hillary's choices aren't as valid as you say they must be so go vote one's heart.
you can ignore your brain if you want but my heart and my brain and my passion and my sense of hope says hillary to me.

I don't understand his reasoning for running against her when he himself is not ready.
Vote your heart: what a con job by oprah and caroline and maria.
Don't sell thought short.

Posted by Michael C. | February 5, 2008 7:55 AM

Well yeah, the Obama camp is being understandably cautious though optimistic. Although there's reason to believe he'll do well today, it's dangerous to expect landslide victories all across the country. So, you set medium expectations; if everyone goes really well, then great. If things end up more or less divided, then you've more than met expectations. No mystery, here. You have to proceed that way when your opponent began the race with the kind of massively widespread name recognition and automatic support that Hillary enjoyed.

Posted by Michael | February 5, 2008 2:16 PM