So we've reached "the half point" in the longest pre-season of US presidential politics. There have been fascinating lessons for us and readers of the Communities Dominate Brands book and blog.
The battle for the two candidates for the primary US presidential parties started 16 months ago, and two of the strongest national brands from both sides of the aisle were there till the finish. A couple of very important general points should be mentioned. This is the first time in a very long time, when there was no incumbent representative running. The US president is limited to two terms, so almost every time the incumbent president runs for a second term (Lyndon B Johnson elected in 1964 was the last sitting president to not stand for re-election, in 1968). And when the President cannot stand for a third term (Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were so popular when they left office that they would most likely have won a third term), their vice president almost always does (and for example George Bush Sr ran and won after Reagan; Al Gore ran and lost after Clinton). But this year George W Bush cannot run for a third term, and vice president Dick Cheney announced early that he was not going to run for President). So we have a very rare fully open contest, where both sides have no incumbent. It makes for an interesting study in politics.
REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES
Senator John McCain had been a challenger in the presidential contests before on the Republican side, and faced other strong national presidential hopeful brands such as former New York mayor Rudolf Giuliani and TV actor Fred Thompson, as well as newer Republican presidential hopefuls, businessman millionaire-governor Mitt Romney and former preacher-governor Mike Huckabee. McCain benefitted from the Republican party rules that award most primary delegate votes on a winner-take-all (or with winner-get-beneifit delegate bonus) basis whereas the Democrat party rules award every state with proportional delegates. The Republican battle was over months ago and McCain the winner.
It should be noted that last summer McCain's campaign was in serious trouble - almost bankrupt - and struggling with short-term political decisions where McCain had supported the ill-faited reform of the immigration system etc, but McCain prevailed. Where the Republican base is usually seen as having three pilars, the religious wing, the business friendly side, and the strong military wing; McCain was appealing only to the military wing. When the party still had three rivals to the nomination, Romney was favoured by the business side and Huckabee by the religious side.
One could very easily argue, that the whole Republican field was weak, that as Giuliani failed in his Florida gambit, Thompson fizzled early, Romney decided not to pour more of his own money into a losing campaign, it was left to the very poorly funded Huckabee to contest a not-strongly funded McCain. Certainly there was no Ronald Reagan-esque figure, and McCain's support on the Republican side was nothing like the fanatical support that Obama and Clinton gained on the Democratic side. Revealingly, still months after his nomination, four out of ten registered Republicans would prefer "someone else" to McCain as their candidate.
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES
Meanwhile on the Democratic party side we had the prolonged battle between established brand Hillary Clinton and newcomer Barack Obama, both US Senators (although there were many others early on and Senator John Edwards put up a strong fight early on before pulling out). Both Clinton and Obama initially appealed to a very similar centrist part of the Democratic party, proposing to end the war in Iraq, very similar plans for national health-care, better education, etc. Clinton was very appealing to blacks in the USA and Obama to women. As the campaign continued, their "natural" constituencies emerged, with Clinton getting ever stronger support from women, while Obama getting ever stronger support from blacks. But most revealingly, the big divide that emerged between Clinton and Obama was an age divide. Clinton was appealing to older voters, and Obama clearly to younger voters.
THE CLINTON BRAND
So Clinton had the strongest brand in the Democratic party. Her husband Bill Clinton was the beloved former US President, whose stature in the party had only grown during the eight years of George W Bush since Clinton's term. Hillary Clinton also had the "Clinton machine" of very powerful Democratic party organization. The same machine that had given Bill Clinton two wins; and much of the machine had delivered Al Gore a national majority in votes cast in 2000, when the Florida re-count gave the Presidential election total outcome to George W Bush. So Clinton's political machine was superb.
She also had the money. For the first time ever in US Presidential politics, whether in the presidential primary season, or the actual election, a Democratic party candidate got more donations than the Republican candidate. Hillary Clinton had worked on a very long-term focused plan to get her into the White House as the first woman President, which caused her to work so hard in US national causes while First Lady (such as her failed attempt to get national healthcare). So for example her decision to move to New York after Bill Clinton's Presidency was over, was so that she would be eligible to run for Senator out of New York. Why is that relevant? Because of Wall Street. New York City is the center for US money, and after Washington DC, it is the second most important political base. With their eight years in the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton were already as established as she needed, to be Washington insiders, now she "invaded" New York, and with the help of her husband, she did become the junior Senator from the State of New York. A Senator is a good base to run for President; and New York gave her access to the big donors of New York City.
Hillary was even more lucky this cycle with New York money. Had Rudolf Giuliani succeeded in his bid on the Republican side, he would have siphoned off funds and having been New York mayor, Giuliani was even more personally known to the big money of Manhattan than Hillary was. And the long-rumoured run of billionaire and current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, ended up not happening. He would also have siphoned off some of the New York money that ended up in Hillary's campaign chest.
Finally, Hillary had worked very meticulously in the Senate, to build bridges to the Republicans, to help fellow Democratic Senators, and to align with many useful causes and votes, to get herself prepared for the Presidential run in 2008. Most tellingly, she voted to authorize the war in Iraq - because Democratic party members were often accused of being soft in matters of war, and as she wanted to become the first woman President, the voters would be ever more doubting her ability to be strong - would she be an iron lady like Britain's first woman Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher had been. So Hillary not only voted for the war in Iraq, she also made very strong speeches against Saddam Hussein, and in support of George W Bush's Iraq policy at the time. This was all part of the grand plan to get her into the White House.
Now, out of all Democratic party candidates, we have the strongest brand, Clinton, and out of all women in America, the best-known female politician; who runs with the most powerful political machine, out of a strong Democratic state of New York, with all the backing and funding needed - so rich in donations that for the first time ever she has more money than the Republicans. And she seems to have covered all bases, is supportive of Democrat leaders and their causes, is non-controversial on most traditional Democrat issues and values such as family, healthcare, education, etc; and is strong on defense. What more can you want. She was called the inevitable candidate.
OBAMA-WHO?
And then there was Barack Obama. He was a total un-known, a first-term Senator with only two years in the Senate so far. A young guy, 46 years of age (Clinton is in her 60s, McCain in his 70s). And he looks young. With a name, Barack (what kind of name is that?) Hussein (really, the second name is that of America's recent enemy number one) Obama (which rhymes with Osama, the current US enemy number one). With rumours about him being a muslim (not true) and with associations with some former US home-grown terrorists, and Chicago corrupted politics, and some pastors with anti-US sermons, this guy should have been so dead as a candidate its not even funny.
On the other hand, he is a magnificent orator, a mesmerizing inspirational speaker. He stepped into the national spotlight in the 2004 Democratic national convention where he gave the best speech of the week, on national TV. He is the rock star of the season, he draws tens of thousands to his rallies, with often as many people outside stadiums than are crammed inside them. But oratory alone won't get you the party nomination.
IN THE END, ALWAYS IT IS THAT COMMUNITIES DOMINATE
So, lets get to the meat of this blog. By all counts, Clinton was the inevitable machine, brand, money, organization and public record; that should have gotten her the nomination by Super Tuesday in February 2008. But Obama spoiled that. How did he do it. Communities Dominate Brands. Obama's success is Elections 2.0 which trumps Elections 1.0. Clinton had the best political machine in the USA (and most probably the best in the world) - for classic 20th century elections. But Obama had the best political machine for a 2.0 world. The political machine for the Connected Age. He used the internet and mobile phones and social networking to build his support. They used digital community methods wherever possible. A great example is that early on when the Obama campaign was organizing, they would ask all who had joined a meeting, to take out their mobile phones, and send five SMS text messages, to recruit more people to join. The immediacy. A classic "Clintonian" (or McCain-ian) campaign would have the same meeting, take notes, assign tasks, and when the members went home, they would place calls, and try to get people to join. That wastes time from hours to days. But the Obama machine uses Generation C for Community, and gain immediate access to more support thus saving critical time and building support.
The same with the fund-raising. Clinton tapped into New York money, and with the Clinton name, had access to all the big donors on the Democratic party faithfuls, from Washington DC to California. But these donors are limited in how much thay are legally allowed to contribute to a campaign. When they donated - big - early on, they were then "maxed out". During the Spring, as the surprising Obama campaign ran the season long past Super Tuesday, Clinton found that the supporters would want to contribute more, but could not. Contrast that with Obama. His campaign raised funds from ordinary rank-and-file members online, using the internet. These donations were in very small denominations. So these people could contribute again, and again, and again, and again. By the end of the primary season, Obama had collected far more money than Clinton - almost every month since the first caucuses in Iowa, Obama had raised more money than Clinton, whose own fund-raising was shattering all previous records. In the end, Clinton's campaign was something like 31 million dollars in debt. Yes, the Clinton machine was able to raise more money than any primary campaign before 2008 - and far more than McCain (or in fact more than all Republican campaigns combined in 2008) but Obama was able to do far better. FAR better than Clinton's national brand and gold-plated rolodex.
The Clinton-Obama race is a truly epic example of Communities Dominate Brands. Obama's campaign was built on digital community power, on the internet, on mobile phones, using social networking. Yes, Clinton also adopted ever more of those means but Obama's campaign was the ruler in this. And considering the age gap, if Clinton's core supporter is a retired woman, that is not the ideal target to reach using Facebook or SMS text messaging. But Obama's core supporter is a college student, perfect target for Facebook and SMS.
HEADING TO THE MAIN EVENT
So we go into the main campaign. And how does it bode for McCain and Obama. First, Obama is no longer the total unknown. The silver lining to the gruelling campaign through all 50 states for Obama, has been that each state has gotten to know him far better than normally in the primary campaigns. As he is the relative unknown against a long-term known brand, a hero of the Vietnam war, and long-standing US senator in John McCain, certainly all pre-publicity for Obama is good for him.
Where Clinton started with the platinum-level brand (within the Democratic party faitful) against the total unknown Obama; now McCain starts with a less-beloved national brand (even his Repblican party support is only luke-warm for McCain) against a rising Obama brand. Where Obama started far back, with a massive lead for Clinton in the Democratic Primary race; now in the actual Election, Obama is far stronger (then before) and McCain is a much less formidable opponent. It is quite possible that Obama's toughest battle was for the nomination, not for the election.
Where Clinton appealed for the older voters and Obama won with the younger voters; now McCain is an even older rival. The contrasts and comparisons will be even more pronounced Obama for young, McCain for old.
But with those older national voters, not Repulican or Democratic party voters - McCain will find his positions on healthcare far less appealing than Clinton's was. Obama's natural democratic party message will resonate better when the older rival is a Republican than another Democrat. But McCain's appeal to the youth, and he does have both cross-over appeal, and youth appeal inspite of his age - will fare far worse in a national campaign than in a Republican party nomination campaign, where Obama's position on the war and education are far closer to youth positions in general, than the position of McCain. So again, compared to the age gap issue, Obama finds it "easier" to fight for older voters when the rival is McCain, than when the rival was Hillary Clinton; and also - even more so - McCain will find it harder to appeal to youth against Obama, than he did when the Republican field was a bunch of other older white guys like himself.
ORGANIZATION
So then organization. Usually, the democrats have had better organization than the Republicans, which the Republicans have balanced by having more money. Recently (since Reagan) the Republicans have attracted more support from especially the "values voters" and in particular the religious right. But this year the religious voters have not been drawn to McCain. George W Bush was able to tap very strongly into this area, but clearly the religious voters are not warm to McCain. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates for many decades have not made overt appeals to religious voters; this year Obama, Clinton (and Edwards) all discussed their religious positions very openly and courted the religous voters. What was once a Republican stronghold for their already-weaker organization, is now both crumbling within and shifting to Democrats.
Worse yet, is the "secret weapon" of Republican organization. For the last few Presidential cycles, the Republicans were trying to "win smart" by focusing their organization very precisely. To win by a few percentage points only, rather than by landslides, and to optimize their efforts. This kind of micro-targeting was a key to the George W Bush elections of 2000 and 2004 where both times he won by razor-thin margins in the Electoral College votes, but by 2006 the Democratic party had well adjusted to the same tools and methods. That "trick" no longer works. It is now an even playing field in terms of targeting.
Meanwhile the Democratic party has always had stronger organization than the Republicans. Now Clinton had the most powerful primary organization, better than ever seen before by either side of the aisle. Fiercely passionate and loyal dedicated followers, working night and day to get her the nomination. And she got more general votes in the primaries than any candidate in any of the primaries in bygone years. But inspite of all this tremenodus superlative success, she managed to lose to Barack Obama. So the Democratic loser in 2008, has a better machine than the Republican winner in the primaries of this year.
And then Obama? He has a far superior organization to even Clinton's. Obama clearly stopped campaigning against Hillary Clinton several weeks ago, and had he not done so, he would have run these last contests far more close, and Clinton's last claim (I won more votes than Obama) by some convoluted vote-counts, would have been wiped out most probably as well. But nonetheless, its not the ultimate votes that win - remember Al Gore in 2000 - it is the electors, in this case the delegate count. And Barack Obama won by more than 10% over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic party delegate count, the only count that matters. Obama won both the elected delegates AND he won the "superdelegates" - which are party loyalists; most revealingly, Clinton the best brand in Democratic party politics today, lost the superdelegate battle of the Democratic party insiders. That is how strong Obama is.
So now, the two rival factions in the Democratic party are coming together. Clinton's forces are joining Obama's forces. The organizational ability, which was already superior to any previous Democrats by Clinton and far superior to any recent Republican organizations and especially that of the very weak McCain, will have Obama's winning organization merge with Clinton's. Their ability will be to take the battle to McCain in very surprising states and contests. If it was just up to the organizational ability, this should be a landslide election.. But it gets worse for McCain.
MONEY
The classic answer to a superior organization is superior money. If we can't afford the mass of supporters to go knock on every door, then flood the airwaves with TV advertisements. Again, McCain is an exceptoinally weak Republican candidate - his campaign was almost broke once already, and even after he secured his nomination, has had trouble raising funds. And this is a particularly bad year for Republicans to raise money for any race, Senator, Congressman, Governor or President. But Obama has the biggest purse ever in a primary, and now gains the full support of Clinton's supporters (who are once again allowed to donate to the actual election). Where before the Republicans could right the Democratic organizational superiority with greater fund-raising, this season both of these are Democratic strengths. These are truly enormous bad signs for the Repblicans for 2008. It also means that Obama can well extend his organizational support and fund-raising support (especially now with Clinton-supporter money as well) to all heavily-contested races for Congress, and build "coat-tails" to draw a big delegation of Obama-friendly Democratic freshman congressmen to first-term seats; as well as secure the good will of senators and congress members who may face tough challenges and need his support.
The signs are very bad for McCain. It is a change election, and Obama has had all spring to sell his message to the youth of America well before the general election. He has had them signing up by their millions to his site and newsletters and SMS alerts. To show how dramatically different the two campaigns are - when McCain's campaign suggested the ten town hall meeting "debates" to the Obama campaign, they delivered the proposal in a sealed letter "ie snailmail" to which the Obama representative asked, why didn't you send it via email.
These two campaigns are diametrically opposed. Not just on the big issues of the day, the war, the economy, healthcare, etc; but also in how the campaigns are run. Obama's is the Communities Dominate campaign. We have to see how it goes this Autumn. Certainly most US elections tend to get close towards the end; but at least for now, the Obama campaign must be smiling. It seems all the preliminary signs are to their success. Lets see how this drama evolves until November.
Hei Tomi/Alan An excellent blog on the dynamics of the US election process and coupled with Alan's following piece on the National Health Service in the UK throws up the key word: "glue". CDB seems to me in essence to function out of the concept of glue! How can that be defined and be made conscious, practical and active for society? It needs clarification because on the one extreme you have "superglue" which once used won't let you go whilst on the other hand you have the glue of a "post-it" a loose bonding! Such a rich metaphor in the context of CDB sounds like a chance to research and publish a book!!!
Posted by: Tim | June 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Hi Tim
Great concept, yes superglue to post-it note glue. My affinity with Facebook (glue) is certainly far stronger than YouTube (post-it note), but I'm even more committed to the professional community of mobile experts at Forum Oxford (superglue).. Great insight, and certainly worth a blog and discussion in an upcoming book :-)
Thanks for writing !
Tomi :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | June 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM