Post by aggieman007 on Jun 5, 2008 9:05:06 GMT -5
Posted 6/5/2008 7:50 AM CDT
With Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination for president, one question has been answered and now there is another one to ask. What is going to happen is no longer an issue, that has been settled, the question in the aftermath of Obama’s victory is how did it happen.
How did an unknown Senator from Illinois pull off what may be one of the biggest upsets in American political history? How did the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, the candidate with the name recognition, the big Party donors, and the vast majority of the Party movers and shakers in her corner manage to lose a nomination that was considered a lock before the primaries began.
An article in the Washington Post breaks down the reasons Obama won to two major points–strategy and organization.
What the Obama campaign did was to emphasize their strengths, the caucus states, which were virtually ceded to them by the Clinton campaign, and minimize their weaknesses, by targeting specific districts in the big states where Hillary had the advantage due mostly to name recognition and party loyalty. In doing so they kept their losses manageable.
From the article:
"It's the story that hasn't been written yet, how Obama did everything right, targeting caucuses, targeting small states, avoiding the showdowns in the big states where he could," said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, who watched the strategy play out in microcosm in his own state, "and how in the end Clinton did so much so wrong."
It was by focusing on the smaller states and the caucus states following Super Tuesday that Obama was able to win 11 contests in a row and amass a lead of 125 delegates that Hillary was never able to overcome. From then on it was not a matter of if but when. In sports terminology, getting a big lead and running out the clock.
One thing not covered in the article, but which was equally a large part of Obama’s victory, was their fund-raising strategy. While Hillary counted on big donors who quickly maxed-out their contribution limit of $2,300, Obama’s team built a network of about 1.5 million donors who gave smaller amounts, but who the campaign could go back to time and time again for more money. This meant a constant flow of cash for Obama while Hillary had to dip into her own personal bank account to keep her campaign afloat.
This strategy not only served Obama well in the primaries, but gives him a decided edge over John McCain going into the general election in November.
What the Obama team pulled off was both brilliantly conceived and well-executed, and a model for future candidates who may be faced with an opponent considered "inevitable." What the Clintons learned was that there is no such thing as a sure thing, no matter what your last name is.
With Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination for president, one question has been answered and now there is another one to ask. What is going to happen is no longer an issue, that has been settled, the question in the aftermath of Obama’s victory is how did it happen.
How did an unknown Senator from Illinois pull off what may be one of the biggest upsets in American political history? How did the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, the candidate with the name recognition, the big Party donors, and the vast majority of the Party movers and shakers in her corner manage to lose a nomination that was considered a lock before the primaries began.
An article in the Washington Post breaks down the reasons Obama won to two major points–strategy and organization.
What the Obama campaign did was to emphasize their strengths, the caucus states, which were virtually ceded to them by the Clinton campaign, and minimize their weaknesses, by targeting specific districts in the big states where Hillary had the advantage due mostly to name recognition and party loyalty. In doing so they kept their losses manageable.
From the article:
"It's the story that hasn't been written yet, how Obama did everything right, targeting caucuses, targeting small states, avoiding the showdowns in the big states where he could," said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, who watched the strategy play out in microcosm in his own state, "and how in the end Clinton did so much so wrong."
It was by focusing on the smaller states and the caucus states following Super Tuesday that Obama was able to win 11 contests in a row and amass a lead of 125 delegates that Hillary was never able to overcome. From then on it was not a matter of if but when. In sports terminology, getting a big lead and running out the clock.
One thing not covered in the article, but which was equally a large part of Obama’s victory, was their fund-raising strategy. While Hillary counted on big donors who quickly maxed-out their contribution limit of $2,300, Obama’s team built a network of about 1.5 million donors who gave smaller amounts, but who the campaign could go back to time and time again for more money. This meant a constant flow of cash for Obama while Hillary had to dip into her own personal bank account to keep her campaign afloat.
This strategy not only served Obama well in the primaries, but gives him a decided edge over John McCain going into the general election in November.
What the Obama team pulled off was both brilliantly conceived and well-executed, and a model for future candidates who may be faced with an opponent considered "inevitable." What the Clintons learned was that there is no such thing as a sure thing, no matter what your last name is.
