Obama's Plan for the 75,000 at Invesco Field: Get to Work

By Jeralyn, Section Democratic National Convention 2008
Posted on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:49:18 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

When Sen. Barack Obama accepts the Democratic Party nomination for President at Invesco Field in Denver, 75,000 will be in attendance. Who are they and what can they do for Obama? He's got it all planned out and it's very clever. If it works, the Republicans may not know what hit them in November.

The campaign recognizes that people who live in battleground states will be more effective at persuading their neighbors than the traditional advertising campaigns, which is why it's important to send the masses who will be in Denver out with instructions and training to bring in votes.

....Enter the 75,000 people who will have to come hours early for Obama's acceptance speech to get through security, most carrying cell phones. As they settle in their seats, campaign aides will be on stage asking them to text message their friends and use call sheets to get people to register. "There will be a lot of idle time. We put idle people to work," Hildebrand said.

Now consider how one gets to be one of the 75,000 in attendance, considering only 5,000 are delegates and the press accounts for another 15,000, leaving 55,000 seats. [More...]

The Democrats plan to hand out 60,000 stadium tickets to state party leaders, with instructions to distribute them in a way that helps drive up Obama's support. That might mean rewarding local organizers who are volunteering their time for voter registration, or perhaps identifying independent or Republican voters who might be persuaded by hearing Obama accept the nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

Not all states will be treated equally. Battleground states where voters are being targeted and Western states within driving distance of Denver will be given more tickets, with host Colorado getting the most. The Obama campaign sees the convention as a chance to put him on top in a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1992.

Maybe that's why John McCain made his fourth trip to Colorado in a month yesterday and today. And why he might pick Mitt Romney as his running mate. Romney boosts McCain's chances in the west, not to mention, Romney trounced him in the state's caucuses by 42 points. El Paso County (Colorado Springs, home to the radical right) just loves Romney. Today McCain said, "I have to win here."

But, Obama is going to out-microtarget McCain.

President Bush used microtargeting techniques effectively in 2004, but his target was regular voters who were likely to vote for him. Obama's focus is more on finding people who are not registered to vote and figuring out how to persuade them to sign up and back him.

Hildebrand said the campaign has identified 55 million unregistered voters across the country, by comparing registration lists with lists of potential voters gleaned by mining consumer databases the same way credit card companies track people's spending. They say their research estimates more than two-thirds would vote for Obama if they were registered and motivated.

In Colorado alone,

The campaign has identified more than half a million unregistered potential voters in Colorado — one-fifth of the state's eligible population.

I think the Obama campaign's "put a ticketholder to work" plan is very clever. I also think it will be successful, and once those new voters are registered as Democrats, it will help the Congressional and other down-ticket candidates immensely.

< Rethinking Rats | More Signs Hillary Won't Be the VP Candidate >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Plan for the 75,000 at Invesco Field: Get to Work | 121 comments (121 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Microtargeting? (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:02:01 PM EST

Where have I heard something very like that before?

I heard about microtrends at a microbrewery (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MarkL on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:04:19 PM EST

the other day.


Rove used it in 2000 and 2004, Romney (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:19:35 PM EST

used in in MA in 2002, and Penn was all about it.


: And for Penn, it worked (none / 0) (#23)
by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:36:42 PM EST

kind of. He just didn't understand how Dem candidates get nominated. Also, failed to understand proper messaging and failed to take into account youth voters. Young voters aren't going to vote for you if you don't ask them for your vote.

It's too close to religious proselytizing (5.00 / 8) (#5)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM EST

for me. There's a Mormon church in my area, and my old bus stop used to be frequented by at least a couple every night, looking for folks to chat with (I think it was part of their mandatory mission work or something, I was never quite clear).

They were always very nice and very committed. Very polite. Yet I just couldn't connect with them on any level, and they still creeped me out.

Registering people to vote doesn't do much, usually. It's the efforts for GOTV on election day (and right before) that seem to be much more likely to have an effect.

I think that the campaign strategy is based largely on a social-networking strategy that may have maxed out most of the folks who are likely to vote based on their friends rather than ideas, principles or issues already. It's no different from all those jewelry parties or Pampered Chef parties, where someone invites all their friends over for a sales pitch that makes them money.

It's a very successful tactic in circles where group membership is highly dependent on social considerations as opposed to personal liking. Vote for Obama and you can be my friend! If you're a real friend, you'll vote for Obama!

It really seems to me that the voters who haven't gone for Obama yet are either entirely not susceptible to that kind of group pressure, or are fairly resistant.

But I could be way off, because my social circles don't work that way.

Mormons are required (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:43:39 PM EST

to do proselytizing "missions" for a couple years at some point in their lives, but I never heard of missions to bus stops! Many -- not all -- evangelicals, too, are told and deeply believe that they themselves will go to hell if they don't do everything in their power to persuade us sinners of our the danger we're in. So they're not trying to convert you simply out of deeply annoying enthusiasm and tone-deafness, they really believe quite fervently that if they don't, you will roast in hell, and if they don't do their best, so will they.

I had a pretty good friend some years ago, a Catholic, who became an evangelical, and it became simply impossible to maintain the friendship because she was so insistent on bringing me into the fold and so genuinely anguished at my certain fate in the afterlife if she failed.


I think it wasn't the bus stop particularly (5.00 / 3) (#79)
by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:07:42 AM EST

more that the bus stop is in the middle of a very busy, well-populated central location. But as a bus-waiter for a very inconstant bus route, I/we were sitting ducks for long periods of time. They were so polite and earnest, I couldn't stand to be rude to them. (polite = something some Obama supporters I know could stand to learn about).

I understand the immortal soul/burn in hell thing. I had a friend in college who got converted to something-or-other fundie religion over one summer and returned to school raring to convert us. He quite clearly was doing it out of caring, not peskiness. I don't quite understand the mindset myself, but I get that it's a different mindset than I have. Like you, at some point I just had to cut him off, it becomes too much.


: You need one of these (none / 0) (#82)
by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:20:10 AM EST

No proselytizing stickers on your door.
I put one up several months ago and I am no longer bothered.
One day I was working in the yard when two bible-thumpers approached my house and saw the sticker on the door (but they didn't see me). They thought it was funny (!) but they didn't knock - they just went away chuckling.

Many??? (none / 0) (#128)
by weltec2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 04:24:10 AM EST

Yes, there are fringe crazies out there, but I sincerely do no believe that there is any mainstream evangelical church anywhere that preaches that believers

"will go to hell if they don't do everything in their power to persuade us sinners of our the danger we're in."

There is simply no biblical basis for it. Don't believe if you don't want to but this is just offensive.


Sounds Smart (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:12:40 PM EST

I hope it works. The idea of another term of BushCo in office is revolting.

I don't think this works (5.00 / 6) (#11)
by Exeter on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:21:14 PM EST

I absolutely hate it when some dipstick volunteer calls me up to try and persuade me about an issue or a candidate.

One of them called the other night (4.00 / 4) (#72)
by echinopsia on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:42:15 PM EST

I told her I was not interested in working for Obama, thanks anyway, goodbye. <click>

She called back and gave me a lecture on how she didn't appreciate being hung up on.

I told her I didn't have a phone so people could call me up and lecture me. <click>

It wasn't the first call I've gotten and I doubt if it will be the last.


: let someone who is too much chat with (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:45:12 PM EST

mr. dial tone.

2 calls this week (none / 0) (#96)
by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:08:05 AM EST

Obama for America (America for Obama?): Reply "I'm apathetic." She thanked me for my time and rang off.

Finger in the wind survey (if they don't ask for demographic information, it's not a serious survey/poll): Democrats versus Republican in state and national races. Reply: "Democrats over Republicans, Third Party for POTUS".

Both accepted whatever answer I gave them, even if the answer was not a given option.


Question: if Obama is such a great pick, (5.00 / 8) (#12)
by MarkL on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:24:10 PM EST

why does he need people who are not registered to vote already to win?

Oh, Mark - didn't you know? (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by Anne on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:36:30 PM EST

It's not that he needs them to win, it's that he wants to make sure the landslide is the biggest EVER.


yeah (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by progrocks on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:42:45 PM EST

if he was so great, a campaign wouldnt be necessary for him to win

if he was so great, McCain would have already endorsed him

if he was so great, god would just appoint him and be done with it


Because (5.00 / 5) (#62)
by echinopsia on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:34:43 PM EST

he's alienated huge swathes of the Democratic base and it'd be too much work to win them back by acting like, you know, an actual Democrat.

This has been today's edition of simple answers to simple questions.


So trying to register more (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by mbuchel on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:19:33 AM EST

people as democrats is a bad thing?


It wouldn't be (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM EST

if this were actually the Democratic party.

It's the Obamacratic party. That's what they're registering people for, and that does no long-term good for Democrats.


So perhaps (none / 0) (#107)
by rottenart on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST

you could help with the effort to register new voters by putting it in a local context. Registering new Dems can help out your local Dems just as much as Obama, especially if he energizes them to actually go vote.

I really, really, really, don't see why people are determined to see this as a bad thing.


I'm not willing to do anything (none / 0) (#117)
by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:02:55 PM EST

that helps Obama even tangentally. He's the main reason my formerly beloved party is now unrecognizable. Why would I want to reward the ruin of the party? Why would I want to help the people who want to purge people like me from that party?

We are "determined to see it as a bad thing" because it is a bad thing.


Beloved Party? (none / 0) (#119)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:12:56 PM EST

Didn't anyone tell you that mixing love and politics is a bad idea. No wonder you are so inconsolable.


Ha! (none / 0) (#121)
by rottenart on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:56:12 PM EST

Yes, because the triangulating policies of the Clinton administration (and Hillary as Senator) have done NOTHING in the way of dragging the Democratic party to the corporatist center.

For all the attacks leveled at Obama supporters for projecting a progressive liberal persona where there is none, I sure do think a lot of the Hillary supporters are just as guilty of seeing her with some AWFULLY rose-tinted glasses.

And, please show me where anyone has called for your purging from the party. I'll wait.


: Standard Obamite response... (none / 0) (#130)
by echinopsia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST

B-b-b-but Clinton!
Yawn.

Sorry (none / 0) (#131)
by mbuchel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:55:25 PM EST

But most Democrats disagree with you. The vast majority of the Dems support him now and will in the Fall, and I'm pretty sure think it's a good idea to register more Dems going forward.


Geez (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by rottenart on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST

this is insane. This is about growing the Democratic party! Why are you so determined to make it into some hero-worship thing? Obama has said since the beginning of his campaign that it would be based on growing into new areas heretofore unheard of in Dem circles.

I just don't get it.

I've been motivated by Obama to get involved more than ever before. But you know what? I'm not working on Obama's campaign. I'm working on getting Andrew Rice elected to the US Senate from OK. I'm working on unseating Randy Terrill and Sally Kern. I guess that doesn't count for anything because I'm just part of a cult, right?


The only thing clever about this is that (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST

obama continues to bamboozle and is not discussing issues. I guess he is going to win over everyone with "magic"...and 1, and 2....JAZZ HANDS! :)

The stadium venue (5.00 / 10) (#19)
by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:34:33 PM EST

plays into the "celebrity" meme that the Rethugs are already planting in their cunning way.

Personally, I would prefer that Obama present himself not as a "rock star," but as a serious candidate who is going to save our bacon from the bloody mess created by Bushco.

But I've never been one to be swayed by atmospherics. Show me the beef. Show me the plan. Show me the roadmap.

But beef, plans, and maps (5.00 / 5) (#25)
by Coldblue on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:40:34 PM EST

are so 'old politics'.

Gawd, what will campaigns be like in 30-40 years...


: The more evil of the two parties (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:45:39 PM EST

will just send pulses with directions for whom to vote to the computer chips in our heads. Much easier and more cost-effective.

you know (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:45:45 PM EST

you're supposed to go read his web site for the beef....


I went there... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:15:46 AM EST

Where's the beef?!!


It's tough to see things (none / 0) (#109)
by rottenart on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM EST

when you've tied the blindfold on yourself.


You're speaking from experience, no doubt. (none / 0) (#118)
by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM EST

Look (none / 0) (#122)
by rottenart on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:47:04 PM EST

this is silly. There's plenty of "beef" on his website. He has both broad policy plans and detailed wonky stuff, not to mention a strategy for implementation, plus a whole slew of legislative accomplishments. If you can't see any of it, then you're simply choosing not to.

What's silly (none / 0) (#123)
by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:57:55 PM EST

is acting as though having it on his website means he won't turn around and say something entirely different tomorrow.

I'm sorry, he can have all the beef in the world on his website, but it doesn't mean a thing when tomorrow he's going to be talking pork or chicken or tofu.

If you can't see that, well...see above.


This is (none / 0) (#124)
by rottenart on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:05:15 PM EST

a circular argument. You want to see him as a shameless "flip-flopper" on his proposals... well, I can't convince you otherwise, evidently.

I'm pretty sure there's a candidate in this race who has reversed himself on almost every single one of his stated policies, sometimes in the same day. Take a guess who it is. (hint: it's not Obama).


There's no "want" about it (none / 0) (#125)
by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM EST

Are you seriously saying you think he's been consistent? After FISA? Campaign finance? NAFTA? Etc.?

Your koolaid is spiked, pal.


Marginalize much? ;) (none / 0) (#126)
by nihilville on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:57:38 AM EST

Seriously, I thought personal attacks were generally frowned upon on this site.

The fact that Obama has positions posted up on his website that he may not back after winning the election just means he's a politician. Seriously, what politician doesn't pull that kind of thing?

The point rottenart was making (I believe) was that Obama clearly does have a plethora of clearly stated policy positions on pretty much every issue imaginable that are readily available for anyone who cares to read up on them.

You can attack him for not discussing issues (which is pretty untenable as stated above), or you can attack him for "flip-flopping" on his position on said issues, but you can't have it both ways! :)


: Actually, yes, I can. (none / 0) (#129)
by echinopsia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST

Having stated positions on a website and contradicting those positions is a negative.
Not discussing issues sufficiently is another.
I can and will complain about both. Along with all the other myriad negatives about Obama.

Creative stuff (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:50:18 PM EST

Lots of innovative ideas getting tried out this year. I like it...

Excuse me if this has already been discussed (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:52:13 PM EST

but why did the Dems put their convention the week before Labor Day weekend? Isn't that a huge vacation week for most people?

Well, at least YOUR birthday is not (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Anne on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:58:11 PM EST

the night Obama accepts the nomination...I had thought seeing Hillary accept that night would be a great birthday present, but alas...


Hillary gets Night 2 (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by BarnBabe on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:02:53 PM EST

She will get her speech on Night 2 and all the Women Senators and Congresswomen will come up on stage. That night is the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave women the right to vote. Of course, according to sources and reported on CNN.com.


: too bad that the women (5.00 / 5) (#44)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:13:21 PM EST

senators and congresswomen who turned on her will now get the benefit of being on stage with her.
And Donna Brazile hadn't better be anywhere NEAR the place on that night.

: Oh, how lovely! (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:13:24 PM EST

The girls get a moment in the spotlight!
Big deal.

: Is that before or after they (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:35:01 PM EST

slide her fake nomination vote through in the AM so there isn't any waves on the Obama side?

: They did that in 2004 (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:39:10 PM EST

with all the women senators coming on stage and it was just ho-hum. Hillary spoke later that night and I thought she was great.

: IOW (5.00 / 3) (#76)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:50:19 PM EST

she's being ghettoized, seems to me. Ladies night.

This tactic may work well for the caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by DarielK on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:16:19 PM EST

but it does not work well for the general election. I remember well registering new voters in 1964 to vote for Barry Goldwater - I'm sure you all remember President Goldwater!!!

Hmmm. ATT sponsors DNC. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by oculus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:34:11 PM EST

Everyone bring your cell phone.

I can't decide (5.00 / 5) (#75)
by ohmercy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:49:41 PM EST

if this is absolutely brilliant or lind of creepy and more than a little scary.

How come every time a new one of thse plans hits I get a little creeped out?

And it has nothing to do with being a Hillary supporter.
It started when I was an Obama supporter... back in February sometime.

I started getting queasy.

well...
Good Luck.

Unfortunately I'm not registered. (moved recently) and for the first time in my life I'm just not feeling the need to get that done.
Actually maybe I should contact a local HQ and ask someone to drive me to get it done!
LOL

you know, being in that old woman Hillary supporter demographic.

: Don't know if it would work (none / 0) (#78)
by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:05:04 AM EST

but if I were you I'd get registered fast, perhaps as an independent. Maybe that will immunize you from the massive recruitment campaign of unregistered voters.
OTOH, since you moved from your registered address, maybe they won't be able to find you.

Kinda Offtopic (5.00 / 3) (#90)
by cawaltz on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:28:14 AM EST

I want to thank you Jeralyn for your wonderful site. If it is true and Hillary isn't on the ticket and Kaine is I'm going to find myself on the opposite side of the fence and I wanted to make sure that I took the opportunity to thank you and let you know that I respect and admire the way you run the site.

Obama is going to need to microtarget here because I will be nailing him on FISA, health care, the primary and a myriad of other issue areas. I've held my tongue a bit as it is waiting for him to prove me wrong and show me he is big enough to put his ego second and country first.

: You won't be the only one. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:05:58 AM EST

There is also "teaching the Democratic Party a lesson" as a reason for straying to vote.

lol i don't believe they've (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by english teacher on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 04:19:42 AM EST

"located" 55 million potential unregistered voters, unless they are including all the graveyards. you mean to tell me that there are 55 million people who didn't care enough to bother voting in '04, but who are now likely to be interested in politics simply because of the person of obama. pffft. .5 million, maybe.

This is a very good question (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST

and it makes me wonder something else - maybe all this Obama-centric foofaraw is designed specifically to make it unthinkable for that to happen. I mean, he's moved the party to Chicago. He's taken over the DNC offices here in Denver. He's moved the coronation to Invesco. And he's only the presumptive nominee.

How funny would it be if Hillary did get the nod after all? I wonder if she'd cancel the Invesco spectacle?

New Campaign Pin (5.00 / 0) (#112)
by OxyCon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:45:24 AM EST

"I let Obama use me so he could feel special"

: HaHaHA! (none / 0) (#127)
by nihilville on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:06:41 AM EST

Oh wait...
That's not funny really.
Just kind of hateful and immature.

Maybe I'm missing something here, (4.92 / 14) (#18)
by Anne on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:34:23 PM EST

but how will the state party leaders be able to guarantee that the people to whom they give the tickets will actually be able to get to Denver to use them?

And why does the whole thing have to be so micromanaged? I mean, I get that Obama wants to be elected, but at what point do they back off and allow people to just have the experience of being in Denver on an important night, to really be in the moment of it all and not feel obligated to be working, working, working to bring more people into the fold? Are they going to get a signal that "now" they can enjoy the show? At what point does a ticket to Invesco begin to feel less like an actual reward and more like one more carrot on the end of one more stick?

I'm starting to think someone in this campaign has been studying cult-recruitment, and it's creeping me out.

Marketing and cult recruitment (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:44:27 PM EST

use similar means. They are on a continuum. Obama's campaign seems determined to edge its way down to the cult end.

Quite independent of my nonsupport of Obama, I really, really hope it doesn't work. I may not have faith that it won't, but I am hoping. Because I really, really don't like what it says about the potential for mass manipulation of public opinion and worse, mass action.

(ok, so I know we already had evil mass manipulation with GWB, but my small hope is that we learned something about why it's bad in the last 8 years).


mass manipulation? (5.00 / 0) (#60)
by A DC Wonk on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:31:12 PM EST

It seems to me that he's creating incentives to help grow some grass roots. Quite a difference.

The other day I saw an invitation to an Obama evet that's a month or two down the road, event, and the "price" was that you had to register 100 new voters.

Registering voters is a good thing, remember?


Registering voters is a good thing (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:38:30 PM EST

if it's not just to vote for Obama. Imo, of course ;)


Grassroots is (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:00:31 AM EST

from the ground up. That's the essence of grassroots. It's not top down. That's the opposite of grassroots.

Cults create incentives for people to worship without pesky responsibilities to family or friends and without having to, you know, think.

Marketing creates incentives for people to free up their time from all that pesky comsumption over information.

Social networking -- vote for whom your friends vote for -- is not an encouraging model for democracy. Cults and many of the more radical right religious groups use the peer and community pressure models to create conformity based not on reason but on fear of exclusion and loss. (oops, and netrootz).

Reason, debate, education, discussion of issues, facts -- these are the encouraging (and I would argue, essential) elements of true democracy.


: Grassroots Is (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by daring grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:16:11 AM EST

recruiting people to organize in their own communities, first among people they know and then the people they know organize among a wider circle of acquaintances etc. etc.
Top down is sending people into unfamiliar communities to sell the candidate.
First one can be very effective and can, when done right, create ongoing groups of small, but energetic political activism on the local scene.
I've seen it happen. It's good beyond getting a national candidate elected.

Ludacris's great new song today (2.00 / 0) (#39)
by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:58:32 PM EST

Really strikes me as something that they should play at every Obama rally. It would help lather up the worshippers.


: I hope that was snark. n/t (5.00 / 0) (#97)
by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:18:55 AM EST

: Except Obama Repudiated It n/t (none / 0) (#102)
by daring grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:17:07 AM EST

Kodak Theatre Debate (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:57:42 PM EST

So I was at the debate at the Kodak Theatre, the first one on one between Obama and Hillary which Hillary absolutely dominated. These Obama supporters showed up en masse and overwhelmed a Hillary rally. They struck me as cultlike, doing all these weird dances for Obama and chanting his name and it was just bizarre. And some people were having this near religious experience. Later, a congresswoman I was chatting with (I won't mention her name) told me that she didn't think they were locals and had been bussed in. I tended to agree because after 6 pm (after Hollywood locals got home from work), Hillary supporters began streaming in and slowly outnumbered the cultlike Obama supporters.


What I'm wondering (5.00 / 4) (#55)
by echinopsia on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:27:57 PM EST

is where all these 60,000 out-of-state people think they're going to stay. All the hotels are booked; some TV news crews are staying as far away as Colorado Springs (70 miles south). There are delegates staying in the Tech Center and possibly Castle Rock (30 miles south). I'll bet there are people staying in Fort Collins (65 miles north).

Hotel rooms are going for $200-$300 a night if you could get one. A two-bedroom loft is renting for $1250 per night or a house for $5400 per week.

(I am soooo tempted to go camping that week and rent my own house out)

Meanwhile, I live two miles from the stadium. I have utterly no interest in going if the price is working for Obama. I might think about going just for fun, but not if I have to work for it, and I have a place to stay nearby that costs me nothing extra, plus easy access via public transportation.

I can't imagine someone on the fence would be willing to make that kind of commitment just to be there - especially if it means going "hours early" just to clear security.

Drive all that way with gas at $4/gal, or fly and rent a car if you can get one, plus find a place to stay, then you have to work for admission? Who do they think will go to all that trouble and expense in this economy?


: Maybe free beer, bratwurst, pizza and a free (none / 0) (#99)
by suzieg on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:48:17 AM EST

concert would work here too....

: I was wondering the same thing (none / 0) (#111)
by sj on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:22:07 AM EST

It's weird. When I first found out that the convention would be in Denver, I signed up as a volunteer the very first day they took names. I'm still on the list.
But now I am temporarily living in the East. I haven't registered locally to vote. And I haven't requested a ballot for August's state primary, although I still may get the gumption for that prior to the Aug 6 deadline. I don't know.
I DO know, however, that it now doesn't bother me a bit that although the convention is in my home town -- I no longer am. I thought I would be sorry about that. Instead, I'm only sorry I feel this way.
In any case, I won't be spending time trying to find host homes for X number of people. Which I would likely be doing if I were still an officer in my House District.

yeah well i don't see forming a cult with (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:38:52 PM EST

millions and millions of potential voters ie enough to win the primary by november. how about barrack getting out there and meet americans. you know ask for their vote and tell them in an humble way just how he plans to help them. this rock star bull and promises of a seat kinda like a loyalty oath smells of desperation and gross stupidity to me.


He's Doing Both (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by daring grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:23:47 AM EST

The theme of his campaign from the beginning has been to establish local GOTV efforts. So now he is expanding them for the GE.

Since the end of the primary season, his campaign emphasis (in the U.S.) has been on smaller venues, town meetings and going one on one with voters, particularly in the battleground states.

I think you'll be happy to know there's nothing especially 'cultish' about his strategies: it's straightforward Getting Elected 101.


: yeah well there we disagree! you have a nice (none / 0) (#113)
by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:28:54 PM EST

day.

Ultimately I think that Microtargeting, (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:59:00 PM EST

registering new voters, etc. only works if you've got a really close election. Street money kinda, sorta works, but I doubt in a Presidential election like this one, and probably not in a state like Colorado. Otherwise, the traditional air war is what matters.

The Obama Campaign (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:01:43 PM EST

thinks differently, especially with respect to younger voters.

"What has won elections for 200 years is a neighbor talking to a neighbor, some peer talking to a peer," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. "People need other people to do their validating, especially young voters who are more resistant to ads and mainstream media reports."

But young people is not Obama's deficit (5.00 / 6) (#7)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:17:52 PM EST

demographic. Doesn't he have all of them by now? Seems like he'd be hitting the marginal returns stage at this point.

On the numbers, he needs to be making inroads into Independents and moderate leaning Republicans.

Not as marginal as say, doing a big AA push, where he has 90% of the vote already, but young people ahve to be pretty high in numbers already.

And I don't agree with Plouffe. Younger people are exactly the people who are swayed by media campaigns. The most sought after demo is 18-35 years olds, preferably males. Because if you make something cool enough, they'll all rush out to buy it. And when you change the package color 2 months later, they'll all run out and buy it again. They're the most susceptible to fads and trends. Obama's already saturated the internet and television.

Although, it would be funny if all that texting at the same time crashed the cell networks in Denver, esp. AT&T's.


Jamming Cell Phones (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:27:56 PM EST

Another use of the Aug. 28 speech meant to leverage public support is to use a technique popular with the campaign to hand out names and phone numbers during its events and ask participants to use their cellphones to make get-out-the-vote calls.
Though it is often said that the U.S. Secret Service jams calls during nominee speeches, Hildebrand said he didn't expect any problems, as the agency hasn't prevented the use of the mass-phone-bank approach in prior settings.

That will put a wrench in the works. Unlikely, unless BushCo decides National Security is at stake.


Leverage public support (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:30:00 PM EST

on Aug 28th?

That's crap.

Why isn't Obama getting support right now?


Looks Like He Is (3.66 / 3) (#20)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:35:53 PM EST

CNN poll: Obama up 7, McCain criticisms aren't sticking

Sorry to break it to you, your candidate is not doing so well.


Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:38:31 PM EST

We'll see.


right, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:44:52 PM EST

because that CNN poll of registered voters showing a 7 point lead is so much more relevant than the other recent polls showing a 2 point or 4 point Obama lead and the one showing a 4 point lead for McCain. Especially since everyone was most recently touting the Gallup poll from Sunday showing Obama with a 9 point lead, which has now disappeared without the same wall to wall coverage that the 9 point lead got.


Also of interest from Rasmussen today (5.00 / 4) (#48)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:20:40 PM EST

In the race for the White House, there are nearly twice as many uncommitted voters as there were four years ago in late July (see other recent demographic highlights). While much has been made of John McCain's struggles with his party's conservative base, 33% of the uncommitted voters are Democrats while only 19% are Republicans.

33% -- I guess they just don't know him yet. Heh.


Uhhh (3.66 / 3) (#32)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:49:00 PM EST

The question was:

Why isn't Obama getting support right now?

Obviously he is.


didn't you just (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:52:32 PM EST

spend an entire thread accusing me of lying by taking a statement out of context and "spinning" it? In fact you accused me of using words that NEVER appeared in any post I made.

Don't you supposed context and a lack of spinning requires you to report and discuss ALL of the current poll numbers instead of just cherry picking one out of context that you like the best?


Huh? (4.00 / 2) (#40)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:00:50 PM EST

Maybe you need to adjust your browser. The question was

It seems to me that Obama is getting support right now. Do you think that Obama is not getting support right now?


don't HUH (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:10:02 PM EST

me and pretend you don't understand what I said. Did you read my first post? You picked one poll result out of context because it has today's best result. But, two other polls also dated today show Obama up 2 and 4, quite a bit less than the 7 you selected to make your point. And, the two I am talking about are daily "tracking" polls that if you look at the trends, show that Obama's support has been going DOWN since Sunday, not UP.

So, no, I don't think Obama is showing much in the way of support at this point in the campaign. He should be doing much better than he is if you look at how far ahead the generic dem is in front of the generic repug in the polls.


please take your (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:30:15 PM EST

bickering with another commenter to email and don't blog clog with it.


: please admonish Squeaky (3.83 / 6) (#67)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:37:24 PM EST

for violating site policy by calling other posters liars

Read The Question (2.75 / 4) (#47)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST

Again, and perhaps you will see that I answered it. Maybe if you take a deep breath and undo the twist that your knickers seem to be in you will realize that Obama does have support.

Not sure this simple fact seems so difficult for you to understand. Is it the hate?


yeah well we'll see ya in november! (none / 0) (#71)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:39:56 PM EST

hope you are still smiling.


Young people and Black people (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by indy in sc on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:30:10 PM EST

may not be his deficit, but it's all about turnout. Having someone's support who is sitting at home in November because s/he is not registered is not going to help Obama. Registering people to vote who are just as likely to vote for the other candidate as they are you is not where a campaign should put its registration efforts.


Young People (none / 0) (#100)
by CST on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:32:25 AM EST

Are not nearly as swayed by ads as you think. In fact, we are one of the LEAST brand conscious generations because we have such a wide variety of media to view. Most of the very succesful products sell by word-of-mouth, and the internet. Apple was so succesfull by marketing themselves as the ANTI-brand (Microsoft). That being said, I think this "word-of-mouth" campaign is a great way to recruit younger voters, as long as you can actually get them out of the house on election day. Which is a big if.


Having a wide variety of media to (none / 0) (#110)
by tree on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:20:11 AM EST

view does not make one LESS brand conscious. And there is no factual basis for the claim that young people are part of a less brand conscious generation. Advertisers still target the 18-49 year old demographic for most of their advertising, because that is the age group most likely to purchase. And Apple, which is over 30 years old BTW, not a new company, specifically BRANDS itself as the anti-BRAND. Believe me, its a conscious branding strategy, not a rebellion against branding.

I'd say its much more likely that the younger generation is simply less aware of exactly how branded they really are, as it has been the advertisers' goal for decades to make brand oonsciousness and loyalty automatic and unthinking, and they are very good at it.


Factual Basis (none / 0) (#114)
by CST on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:36:03 PM EST

Sort of exists in studies done and articles written, etc... However, it's not that we aren't aware of brands, it's that we are much less brand-loyal and more likely to take up new brands that we discovered through friends than "traditional" brands discovered on TV.

I know Apple has been around for a while, and obviously the anti-brand was a conscious and effective choice, but it worked because it was anti-brand. It's not that TV ads can't work, just that they are less effective without the word-of mouth and internet aspects as well.


Neither of the two items you (none / 0) (#115)
by tree on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:07:01 PM EST

listed, including the honors thesis(?), support your opinion that the young generation has less brand consciousness. Both simply make the point that the younger generation does not necessarily frequent the same brands as their parents (it was ever so, BTW), and also that there is less long-term brand loyalty than before. This does not equate to less brand-consciousness, but rather to more fickleness about which brand is the current "hot" one, and which one is jejune. It could indicate a possible negative for the Obama campaign among younger voters, though, since brand loyalty is not a given over time.

Apple's branding was originally one of rebellion. This is an old time branding strategy. The fact that some people react positively to that branding does not mean that those people are not brand conscious. In fact, thinking that you are rebelling by buying a major named product is the essence of brand consciousness. Of course, Apple also brands itself as hip and young and smart and less pretentious. "Buy our product and you are branding YOURSELF as hip and young and smart." People "buying" into that kind of sell are being manipulated by advertising. Young people today are not any more immune to that than any other generation.


Perhaps (none / 0) (#116)
by CST on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:33:37 PM EST

Using "brand-conscious" was poor wording on my part, "brand-loyal" is better, since we are obviously conscious of brands, although highly sceptical of obvious advertisements. However, the main point of my post still stands that traditional ads and branding are much less effective at reaching our generation, and a much more effective way is through word-of-mouth advertising and use of the internet, which is in some ways word-of-mouth.


: Word of mouth and peer pressure (none / 0) (#120)
by tree on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:42:56 PM EST

are one of the oldest forms of advertising. Young people are no more skeptical of advertisements than any other generation. It is simply effective branding to insinuate that they are, all the while selling them things, whether consumer items or political candidates.

I know they think differently. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:18:14 PM EST

But they really only have one proof of concept: Iowa, and that wasn't an election.

The same strategy failed to work in any of the seriously contested primary states.


We need to get rid of caucuses (5.00 / 4) (#42)
by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:03:34 PM EST

It doesn't surprise me that caucuses seem to be in exclusively heavily Republican states.


Which 'they' do you mean? (none / 0) (#31)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:47:50 PM EST

the thread expansion has made me confused which thing you are addressing.


: The Obama camp (none / 0) (#36)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:54:37 PM EST

Gee, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:19:24 PM EST

how well did it work in 2004? I went door-to-door and phoned for John Kerry. He did end up winning MI, but not by much.

Barack Obama is not John Kerry.


Well duh, you weren't (5.00 / 7) (#17)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:34:01 PM EST

TEXTING them! I'm sure that will make all the difference.


: I'm (none / 0) (#21)
by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST

underwhelmed, to say the least.
They're looking for a miracle.
What was needed was a credible candidate.
sigh.

Obama Not Kerry (none / 0) (#104)
by daring grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST

With all due respect to Senator Kerry, THANK GOD!

Maybe we will win this time.

Because he is a stronger contender than Kerry ever was with a more effectively run campaign and the advantage of the powerful currents of Repub/Bush-Cheney exhaustion at his back.


Young people are resistant to ads?! (5.00 / 6) (#59)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:31:12 PM EST

David P actually said that with a straight face?! What the hell did he think caught the young people and continues to fuel the peer pressure?! Dude's a straight up liar, imo. Without ads (and I include marketing in there) Obama would be NOTHING.


: Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:27:15 AM EST

My seven year old watches almost zero commercial television - yet he can tell you which companies sponsor specific PBS shows.

: I think David P. was obviously (none / 0) (#66)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:37:03 PM EST

talking in historical terms, not in the case of Obama it seems.

I don't get this. (none / 0) (#49)
by catfish on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:22:44 PM EST

Jeralyn seems like a reasonable person. But she's voting Obama. I have seen enough to know he has the judgement to run the country (and I am no racist.)

Feels like I'm from another planet all of a sudden.

I'm voting for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#54)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:26:59 PM EST

and supporting him because he is the Democratic candidate and it is in our country's best interest to have a Democratic adminstration in charge of the country. There's no question in my mind about that.

The only thing that could derail my support is if he picks a vice presidential candidate I can't in good conscience vote for...in which case I wouldn't vote. I certainly wouldn't vote for a Republican. I never have and never will.


: Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by catfish on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:36:23 PM EST

for your explanation. I actually can't in good conscience vote for Obama. And I started out so excited to vote for either an African American or a woman.
This is a great blog, I will not bring this up again. Thanks.

: When you said you were 'out' the other day (none / 0) (#56)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:28:36 PM EST

if it's Biden, did you mean out of voting/not voting?

Seen enough to know (1.00 / 0) (#50)
by catfish on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST

he DOESN'T have the judgement.


Expect to see a few tickets on Ebay (none / 0) (#52)
by Manuel on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:24:55 PM EST

That will be interesting (none / 0) (#53)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:26:45 PM EST

because I'm guessing they're not transferable.


: What, do they come with your name on them? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by Emma on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:29:48 AM EST

They're free. I don't see how you can give away 60,000 tickets hand to hand and keep track of who's got them. It doesn't seem feasible to me.

Who IS the media darling? (none / 0) (#89)
by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:30:23 AM EST

Seelye NYT

Maybe the Dem Party will end (none / 0) (#91)
by Grace on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 03:02:24 AM EST

up paying people to occupy the seats? That's what the Jimmy Kimmel show does.

Nothing wrong with that. You get guaranteed hoot and hollarers.