The lessons for Labour from Obama's lacklustre campaign
The US president owes his victory to his political machine, not his campaign strategy.
By Anthony Painter... Published 07 November 2012 10:28
President Obama has a second term but it was much closer than it should have been. He is the victor today because of an impressive tactical and organisational campaign but not on account of his campaign strategy. This morning we saw hope and change in his victory speech - the Obama of ‘08. It is a pity he and his senior strategists didn’t have the courage to do that earlier. Against a better opponent, he could have been defeated. There are big lessons for Labour in this.
It started to go wrong the minute he won the 2008 election. Instead of his movement for change being transitioned into a new civic corps – 13 million community activists working to change their communities and campaigning on behalf of the President’s agenda – it was folded straight away. It became nothing more than an email list. Never had the gulf between the poetry of campaign and prose of governance been so wide; it was a shock. His personality – cerebral rather than emotional - seemed to morph with this shift. The normalisation of Barack Obama had begun.
One of the biggest myths that he, the Democrats and of course, their opponents managed to create is that he had no record to defend. His record in relative terms is better than any first term President since Franklin Roosevelt. In the battle to attack the Republicans for what they could get through Congress, the Democrats left the impression that they couldn’t get anything through Congress. It was only at the Democratic National Convention where this was addressed: President Bill Clinton came to the rescue.
There, President Obama himself gave a compelling, if slightly clunky, articulation of America with a long-term future under his plans or reverse to the failures of recent Republican presidents. It was the highlight of the campaign for the President. His post-Convention bounce almost put him out of sight of Romney. It was the last time that both a forceful articulation of his record in office and some substance about his forward-looking agenda was placed before the American electorate.
The campaign slogan was "forward". The American people were left asking "forward to what?" Instead, the campaign focused on its opponent far too readily. This was not the Obama they had voted for in 2008, who carefully sought to "take the High Road". This was down and dirty politics. It left the candidate’s voice muffled.
So what? He won, after all, what’s the problem? The problem is that the enthusiasm was gone. That meant that the election was far closer than it should have been. Not only that, but he lacks an enthusiastic propulsion of his second-term agenda against a divided, consequently obstructionist, Congress. The road ahead is now harder than it should have been.
The movement which was electrified in 2008 survives, but only here and there. The keeper of its "respect-empower-include" soul Steve Hildebrand didn’t have a central role this time – personnel matters. In the critical battleground state of Ohio, the living, breathing organism that was Obama ’08 became a professionalised machine in 2012. In every campaign, there is a moment when things tilt towards a military-style of organisation. This time round is was early. The movement is no more.
Luckily, the professional campaign deployed the latest techniques. It cross-tabulated electoral rolls, consumer databases, social media databases, and voting records. It ruthlessly combined these with information from the doorstep and from focus groups about what was playing well and all this information was combined. It built sophisticated models of voter behaviour which enabled very specific targeting of demographics with issues, fundraising asks and volunteering requests. Instead of direct mail, the preferred vehicle for all this was the doorstep campaigner. TV/web ads supplemented the whole operation in just as targeted a fashion. Yes, this was a machine but it was a very hi-tech and sleek one.
Data, modeling, targeting should, however, be the extra one per cent on the doorstep. What was lost was the four per cent that would have not only been motivated for this campaign but beyond it also. That is what hope and change gets you. Instead, we had attack, deflect, and micro-target.
The lessons Labour should take are mainly from Obama ’08 rather than ’12. Good data, organisation and targeting are necessary as the campaign draws to a close. Before that, it is necessary to build a movement. This means opening out the party as the Obama campaign did for the Democrats in 2008. Members will not be enough if the Conservative financial advantage is to be minimised. It needs neighbours to speak to neighbours, friends to friends, colleagues to colleagues.
A vague offer of change is insufficient as is relying on the negatives of your opponent. The story will be one of national renewal. People will need to know what this means in practical terms – including on their own standard of living. It’s not just about the pounds, shillings and pence though. People want to know that you have a practical vision for the nation. A lack of clarity and your leadership will be undermined.
Obama has given Labour both a guide to how it should be done and a warning of how it can go 'wrong' (a win is a win!). The best political machine in the world can make up for a lot, but it’s a hell of a risk to leave it to a clever political operation: it is more likely to be a necessary but insufficient contributor to victory.
Obama had residual support, his high likeability rating, and demographic changes in his favour. The voting electorate was 85 per cent white in 1988 but only 76 per cent or so by the last election according to Pew Research. Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress forecast that it could be as low as 72 per cent this time round. The Detroit bailout gave him some necessary electoral protection in the mid-west- with its cluster of battleground states. And even though Romney got back in the race, the Republicans as a whole still feel on the edge of mainstream America- when a majority of it votes.
Hope and change seems a long way off though – despite today’s speech, which hopefully is not a one-off replay of greatest hits. Labour should be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from Obama’s two victories. By all means learn some practical lessons from Obama ’12 but no more than that. It is Obama ’08 that still provides the way forward. Hope, change and practical vision provide the path to victory – even if Obama lost his way this time round.
Anthony Painter is author of Barack Obama: the movement for change
Marcus Roberts is deputy general secretary of the Fabian Society and worked on both Obama '08 and '12
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















3 comments
After a (t00) copious evening-meal and a restorative early-evening nap the thought occurred to me that if pressed, with a gun to my head, to come up with the most gratuitous statement about an election campaign, I very likely might come up with something along the lines of "...but it was much closer than it should have been"--with which I bemoan the lacklustre reality in a parallel universe.
I might then be like the political opinioneers of this article, who, moreover, take it upon themselves to hand-deliver some advise to the English Labour party.
Fine by me. Conditions change. Advise might be relevant, with luck if not necessarily through insight.
The lesson I take away from the U.S. election is that clarity, honesty and empathy, as opposed to callous and repeated disregard for the truth are the things that count.
.
Assertions about how Obama and the Democrats will fare in the next Congress should be viewed with considerable skepticism. Will Republicans in the Senate, who have just lost several seats, continue their toal obstruction of Obama's policies, now that this strategy failed so egregiously to defeat him? They have paid a big price for that failed strategy. I doubt that they will be willing to use their ability to filibuster every piece of legislation that Obama and the Democrats put forward. If so, that means that they will have to compromise, because absent a filibuster, the Democrats have 55 votes to pass bills.
The Republicans continue to control the House, but with a slightly diminished majority. More significant is the defeat of prominent Tea Partiers by the Democrats, even in districts that were gerrymandered to protect them. What may escape the attention of commenters in the UK is that in two short years the entire House must stand for election. If the House Republicans continue to oppose everything that Obama and the Democrats propose, it's a safe prediction that many of them will be defeated. All it takes to change the control of the House of Representatives is the loss of a handful of seats by the Republicans. A record of obstruction over the next two years is a good way to lose their majority.
Don't rush to conclude that the next four years will repeat the past two, when the congressional Republicans were able to block most Democratic legislation. We might see something we rarely see in US politics -- a mid-term election in which the President wins both the House and the Senate. And that may lead to a re-play of Obama's first two years of his first term and his quite dramatic string of legislative victories.
In terms of policies and values, Obama is much closer to the Tories than to Labour. Labour should take head of this and shift its stance away from the unions and move more to the centre left e.g. no more leveling down and 'i dont have so you cant have even if you try'.
Obama is might next try implementing the sucessful US left wing policies of Clinton: austerity, cuts to the state and higher taxes just like the UK coalition have done. Labour needs to leave dreamland with the State fairy and focus on what cuts it would make to reduce the deficit. If it cant get over this hurdle then the party is not fit to govern.
The majority of UK voters still see Labour as too incompetent and run by narrow hard left vested interests to be trusted with the country's credit card and trust the coalition more with the economy.