Today i received an email from Jim Messina at barackobama.com. After such a deliciously clever communication strategy in 2008, has the Obama strategy team been smoking, drinking, or just mainlining stoopid or what? Here's what the message said:
Dear Roadette,
This weekend, The New York Times Magazine ran a long analysis of the 2012 election headlined, "Is Obama toast?"
It uses a mathematical formula to conclude who will win this race.
In other words, it says neither you nor Barack Obama has a role to play in this election, because the outcome is essentially predetermined.
We disagree.
Read over the croissant to explore this latest dumbness demo...
Let us list all the shortcomings of this message:
1. It depends on a recipient who hasn't read the underlying article by Nate Silver;
2. It mischaracterizes the argument in the article;
3. It has no upside whatsoever.
If you haven't read the article, it's worth a look. Silver looks at possible outcomes given various parameters, then analyzing that evidence in light of the previous seventeen presidential elections where similar data exists. He specifically notes that looking a year ahead is fraught with uncertainty, that many things could change, and that the outcome is far from reliably predictable.
Messina, progressives read. Being a fact-based community, we consider how facts are gathered, analyzed, compared, and discussed. That you would send out a communication that so badly mis-characterizes the meaning and intent of Silver's writing is not only intellectually dishonest -- it is sad that the campaign resorts to such pathetic messaging.
Messina says: "The entire premise of the Times article is that you won't -- and can't -- do it in 2012." No, Jim, it isn't. In fact, I'd guess you (and the campaign) are the people who are saying that to themselves. The article reports a hypothesis-testing experiment, given particular sets of starting parameters -- none of which, the author acknowledges from the git-go, may end up being the actual case that reality serves up over the next year.
Beyond its blatant lameness, there is no strategic upside. Do you really want the question to be: Is Nate Silver right or wrong that Obama might be toast? That's the watercooler discussion you think we should have? I'm supposed to answer that question, "hell, no! I'm going to go right out and make sure he isn't!" Get real, Jim.
But I guess what your email blast actually says about you and the campaign team is that you know you better not try to run on "change you can believe in" again.
Well, how about accentuating the positive? "In 2012, we can take back the presidency and Congress -- yes we can!" And then give us a roadmap. Take a leaf from the 2008 playbook and give people something to work towards, not a fear- based, rage- fueled campaign based on rejecting a statistician's analysis. What possible gain can come from such a no-nothing attack on a sophisticated treatment of model-testing that is reasonably objective and relatively kind to the Obama campaign. Assume you demolish his reasoning -- you have gained exactly zero. You have picked a fight with a thoughtful voice of reason. Congratulations.
These ill-conceived strategies use up the bandwidth and political air. There are only so many issues that can or should be selected in a broad strategic frame -- and this one simply isn't one of them. Even if it does no harm, it certainly does no good.
Back to the drawing boards, barackobama.com.
Have you been attending Republican University? If so, better enroll in public school. It's where the rest of us are.