Comments on Progressive Historians: History For Our Future: Obama vs. Clinton: Report from Indiana

Signs of life from the Clinton campaign "ground ga...

2008-04-27T16:50:00.000-05:00

Signs of life from the Clinton campaign "ground game", at least according to WaPo.

Mark Penn's "big states" strategy, which deemphasi...

2008-04-26T14:08:00.000-05:00

Mark Penn's "big states" strategy, which deemphasized field organizing in favor of more standard urban GOTV. Obama's won largely on the strength of his showing in caucus states, where Clinton essentially didn't organize at all.

I'd have to agree - comparing what I saw in Iowa and comparing to the subsequent months this spring in the other states. Clinton's strength has depended on self-motivating individual party mainliners & moderates and her active recruitment of them, her Leading Candidate status, women whom desperately want to see a woman in the White House, and a smattering other groups drawn to the campaign. Obama's campaign has actively recruited and organized everyone they contact, which is much different than drawing volunteers and organizing and focuing as a leadership down campaign.

Indiana is the Midwest - just barely. There are 3 bands - Chicagoland, the pseudoplains of Central Indiana, and then Little Kantucky south of the line along Terre Haute-Bloomington-Cincinatti.

Ari, no problem! Thanks for reading.

2008-04-26T01:06:00.000-05:00

Ari, no problem! Thanks for reading.

Fascinating. Thanks for taking the time to put th...

2008-04-26T00:26:00.000-05:00

Fascinating. Thanks for taking the time to put this up. I really appreciate the front-line perspective.

Absolutely -- the only reason Clinton has lost thi...

2008-04-25T18:46:00.000-05:00

Absolutely -- the only reason Clinton has lost this thing, despite a picture-perfect campaign from Obama, is because of Mark Penn's "big states" strategy, which deemphasized field organizing in favor of more standard urban GOTV. Obama's won largely on the strength of his showing in caucus states, where Clinton essentially didn't organize at all. When people look back on this campaign, they'll look at that choice as Clinton's biggest mistake, akin to Wesley Clark pulling out of Iowa in 2004.

Interesting. Confirms some of what we already knew...

2008-04-25T18:15:00.000-05:00

Interesting. Confirms some of what we already knew, for sure.

I'm sure there's more to it than this, but it really seems like the Clinton campaign decided to run a "national" campaign that really ignored a lot of the regionality and demographic diversity of the Democratic constituency.