Microtrends vs Macrotrends: Why Obama is Winning
CHICAGO -- Should Barack Obama end up winning his party's nomination, he will give his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 28 -- 45 years to the day Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
If this moment happens, it will be because of what Sir Martin Sorrell (CEO of the conglomerate WPP, which includes among its many companies Mark Penn's Burson-Marsteller) said. "Mark Penn," he told me the other night in Los Angeles, "literally wrote the book on microtrends, but this election is about a macrotrend."
Penn and the Clintons set about slicing up the electorate into the "small forces behind tomorrow's big changes" that Penn described in his 2007 book Microtrends. They then devised policies and personas to try to appeal to each one -- only to watch dumbfounded as their microtrend sandcastles were washed away by the macrotrend tidal wave of the Obama campaign.
"Hillary Clinton's campaign model," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist told me this morning in Chicago, "is a very tired Washington model: 'I'll do these things for you.' Barack's model is 'Let's do these things together.' This has been the premise of Barack's politics all his life, going back to his days as a community organizer. He has really lived and breathed it, which is why it comes across so authentically.
"Of course, the time also has to be right for the man and the moment to come together. And, after all the country has been through over the last seven years, the times are definitely right for the message that the only way to get real change is to activate the American people to demand it."
The microtrend vs macrotrend dynamic reminds me of Isaiah Berlin's division of mankind into hedgehogs and foxes. He took his imagery from a line in an ancient Greek poem by Archilochus: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
According to Berlin, the fox will "pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way." This stands in sharp contrast to the hedgehog's "all embracing...unitary inner vision."
Based on the way the '08 campaign has played out, Democratic voters are showing signs of deep fox fatigue -- sick and tired of foxy triangulating, foxy slicing-and-dicing of the message, and foxy shifts in presentation. Voters want real change -- not daily changes in approach and messaging.
It's too early to sign the death certificate, but should the Clinton campaign end up in need of an epitaph, it won't need to look further than Penn's book. "Small is the new big," he wrote. "Many of the biggest movements in America today are small."
Except when they are very big, and getting bigger by the day. And you've missed them.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
scientifically Ariana a visible contestant to US White House is a Jack of all trades and successfull because thier are very big engines supporting/assisting him. But thier is one Master of trade ,the man using head/brain.or according to Islamic Law and Allahs interpretation .. No god but one the god ,the god whose prophet is mohammad...Mohammad in his life contested Gods and Hi Priests until he was declared Prophet. The law categorically tells mankind One amongst all has brain while others are bodies...In todays world contradictions and detractions have reached a stage that bodies are reacting but the brains recognition is still weaker to Regimes and hi platforms of national governments... Thier is one Macro-Project that was announced as Ted Turner had a dream ' emd poverty and install democracy' today his dream is true except for societies that are civil war or war stricken and about that Ted said "is there a war somewhere there is definitely a 'lie' involved"
Macro's a Obama who will buy Globalisation ,Micro in economic terms is itself a Macro since it loans millions of students and housewifes regularly..or a little black boy on a pigeon loop fly ..im sure that hes not a pigeon but their isnt any white house except a media office ,whenever he likes..O yes! there are rumours Ariana that he will fight the ware only for another sixteen months with stealth technnology and global siege presented by the AMDS 'jay vandyke in the outerspace shooter..lol!
Plus he has to watch on guests like Kashaggi and Fayad Sayad Brothers ..................He has a pretty daughter after all.....
Now that Arianna has had her "macro-trend" myth about Obama, blown up in her face, let me deal here with a few issues.
Hillary does "not" want her vote back. What Hillary has said, repeatedly, is that, in the light of what we have come to know, in the aftermath of Bush's Iraq related lies, she regrets that she voted to authorize Bush's invasion into Iraq, but that, the vote, was a sincere one, based on what the administration was told, or said it was told, or told congress, at the time.
Hillary did not win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, with "negative," but with brilliantly crafted, campaign ads. There is nothing about the "3 a.m. phone call" ad that makes it "negative" in the usual sense. Such ads are common, and in this instance state that Hillary is comparing herself favorably to Obama on security issues. It simply invites the viewer to say who they would rather have, answer the phone.. Obama's over-the-top outrage over this ad, actually lends substance to the concerns about Obama's judgment and stability, in handling adversity. If Obama considers this ad "negative," he'll be blown apart by what a McCain would have in store for him.
I'll glady respond to any request for a list of the endless examples of what Obama claims are negative ads, that have been directed at Hillary, by Obama. In truth, though, don't we all know, that Obama doesn't really think this ad is unusually negative? Don't we all really know that Obama is furious that it took so little to lose his vaunted "momentum," And, in spite of his lame effort to appear nonchalant about Tuesday's losses, pretending that the small diminution in his delegate lead, leaves him unfazed, when we all know it's not about delegates, it's about "confidence" lost in him, which can never be fully regained. Obama seemed to me, after Tuesday's stunning losses, not so much saddened, as "caught," "exposed."
Is the current delegate count, the only way we can look at the race, as it stands?
Let's look at this "unstoppable" lead of Obama's; this "11 victories in a row," and the balance of his wins. First of all, forget including "any" State with a population exceeding 10,000,000. Hillary won "all" 7 of them, which, together, comprise around 132,000,000 people (Illinois is Obama's State, and, additionally, 94% of it's Blacks voted for him; by contrast: 63% of the Blacks in NY voted for him).
She even won over 1/3 of States with populations over 5 milion, but less than 10 million, bringing the total population in States she won, to nearly 160, 000, 000, or over 50% of the U. S. population. Of those States with over 2 million, but less than 5 million (Ok., Ark., Nev.) she only won about 20%, giving her an additonal 9 million; and she won about 12% (another 3 States: NM, NH, RI) of the remaining States and other areas, in the U.S: 4.3 million, for a grand total of nearly 174,000,000 people, in States that voted for her, or about 56.9% of the nation's total population. Obama brags that he won more States, "or" he won more raw votes, but, if you simply count the number of people in "those States that Hillary won," she's hugely in the lead. The math is right in front of you; check it out. Math is what you make it.
If you look at 21 of those States that Obama has already won, or will likely win in the future, "all' of them have less than 1% of the U.S. pop. In 17 of those, the pop. of each, is less than 1/2 of 1% of the total U. S. population; In 9 of them, the pop. of each, is less than 1/4 of 1%. Vermont, I want to point out, is one of them. It troubles me, that John Dean is the Governor of that State, which in terms of population, is so infinitesimally small, and that this Governor, apparently has so much power over the outcome of this nomination.
That leaves those States that Obama won, that have more than 1% of the population, but less than 2%. Obama won 13 ot these States, Clinton won 1.
Finally, of those States with more than 2%, but less than 3% of the population of the U.S.,, Hillary won 3, Obama won 5. Aside from Illinois, Obama was only able to win "1" State with slightly more than 3% of the U.S. pop.: Georgia.
Looks like Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island are still fox territory.
It should be of particular concern that Obama's "macro" doesn't play well in Ohio, which will be a key battleground state in November. It's hard to imagine the Democrats winning without it, and it's hard to imagine Obama beating McCain there. Hillary apparently has a better chance of doing so.
If PA shows the same trend, we Democrats are in trouble in November if we run Obama.
as of last night he isn't!! haha
go hillary. now nail PA and wyoming and get ready to make that presidential nomination speech!! haha
Forget the fancy words "micro" and "macro" Ariana! Dish the punditry and analysis ... Americans have woken up to the fluff and empty rhetoric that constitute Obama's entire candidacy ...
If it's hard for you to imagine Obama beating McCain there it only shows up your lack of vision. Let's remember that "the vision thing" still has the ability to move the American electorate.
THANK YOU...THANK YOU...THANK YOU.
IF the media was biased against Hillary, it sure has been wringing it's hands and has
bent over backwards to make up for it this week.
Barack Obama has been consistent in tone, timbre, integrity and calm.
Hillary has been the first and the only one to initiate olde divisive, smear politics
and it is business as sadly usual.
Bravo to the HUFFINGTON POST being its authentic self, by not abandoning the transformational candidacy of Barack Obama when it's the IN media thing to do right now.
CNN alone ran 5 positive stories about Hillary Clinton and with 4 negative stories about Barackin one airing of 360.
BUT NO mention anywhere of the following:
~Mr. Shu...brought out in shackles last week...a huge fundraiser for Hillary Clinton being brought to prison.... NO STORY was written about it.
~ No light shed on the fact that HILLARY CLINTON HAS NEVER BEEN IN A FOREIGN CRISIS, NEVER, NADA, NOT ONCE ...BUT THAT THE ONE MOMENT SHE DID HAVE TO PICK UP THE PROVERBIAL RED PHONE....SHE VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THIS WAR. Should not the press report her lack of preparedness...NO STORY was written about her having no such experience?
~Hillary's disgraceful 60 MINUTES interview wherein she let a sense of smear against Obama in a racist and prejudiced way..stand. She said, as far as she knew, Barack was not a Muslim. THIS from the woman who nitpicked Obama to REJECT and DENOUNCE Farakhan.
NO story was written about her choosing to let this misunderstanding of Obama being an American Christian remain alive and well.
~No talk of her polarizing scolding and demeaning behavior, shouting SHAME ON YOU Barack Obama...as if she was the moral highgrounder. THIS IS THE REASON Hillary is so polarizing..that sniping, judgemental, holier than though, entitled tone that makes her a terrible candidate to face the Republicans who having been planning their run against her for years.
~I can report that there are thousands of voters who will sit out the election after what Clinton has done. This is what Democrats should fear the most..the alienation away from the Party. It's happening already.
There ARE people who will sit out the election because of the way, if she does win, that she got there.
Please stay on the truth of who these candidates are, not just in their experience but in the way they handle themselves.
ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT HAVING A STRONG BUT HUMBLE, UNIFYING, FOCUSED AND CALM
PRESIDENT AS OPPOSED TO A POLARIZING, ENTITLED, DIVISIVE, GOTCHA ONE, IS UNIMPORTANT.....THEN THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW VITAL THE STATURE OF THE PRESIDENT WILL BE IN A WORLD WHERE BUSH HAS EVIDENCED SO MANY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS WE SEE IN HILLARY.
This is NOT silly stuff. This is the stuff of what makes a President powerful. We can have all the 10 point plans in the world. IF the President is an off putting, polarizing figure, nothing will get done.
IF THE TONE OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN IS INDICATIVE OF HIS PRESIDENCY, THEN WE HAVE
THE KIND OF INCLUSIVE LEADER, SOMEONE WHO WILL, BY THE FORCE OF HIS PERSONALITY, BRING PEOPLE TO THE TABLE....ON THE ECONOMY, THE WAR, TRADE, IMMIGRATION AND INTERNATIONALLY.
AND ALSO...
HILLARY WANTS HER IRAQ VOTE BACK.????!!!!
She can have it back BUT
We cannot get almost 5000 lives back.
We cannot get lost limbs back.
We cannot get mental health vis a vis PTSD back.
We cannot get back the parents of motherless and fatherless children
We cannot get back trillions of dollars that could have funded universal healthcare.
We cannot easily get our world stature back
We cannot get back the terrorists that were born by our invasion...
PEOPLE BETTER THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT SOMEONE WHO BLEW THE BIGGEST DECISION OF HER LIFETIME OF SERVICE.
I think what we need to give back to New York, where she carpetbagged her way into power.
SENATOR CLINTON, its not so easy as taking a vote back.
&& It is TIME the media begins to examine the ramifications of this politically motivated and sorrowful vote of Hillary Clinton.
Let's cook up an Obama continuum out of the kitchen sink that the Clintonian machine has thrown at Obama. Let's make a gumbo of goodness out of this toxic tonic that Billery have concocted.
Onward and thanks for your honest coverage. Keep going. PS We miss Ariana on the tube. Her voice is so necessary.
Microtrends vs. macrotrends is a very useful opposition. So here's another dichotomy: it's Harvard (Obama) vs. Yale (Hillary). Maybe US electorate has had enough neocons from Yale for a while. Also, there's probably more Harvard people on Wall Street in a position to bend contributions Obama's way. Just a macro thought.
The last time Americans did something together, I think it was watch TV.
Arianna, I agree with your analysis, but the Clinton campaign hasn't failed yet.
I would dearly love to believe there is some kind of grand political and perhaps cultural or social trend going on in America, but the reality is that things are just about the same as they have been since at least the 1980s. Obama is saying exactly what everyone wants to hear; let's hope he can deliver at least slightly more than our current administration's leader.
I disagree. This is very different from the me me me tone of the early eighties, when Reagan came into office saying the ten scariest words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." That was a time when the image of the welfare queen was all over the media, when greed was good, when it was every man for himself. When being concerned for others was oh so passe and oh so naive. This is different.
Obama isn't saying what everyone wants to hear, he's saying what everyone needs to hear. We're not getting anything done. We're at each other's throats all the time. We're sitting back and letting our government get stolen right from under us. And we can do better.
I hope the movement he has started is involvement in politics. I remember an ad from the nineties "I'm so over politics," says this young model, very cool, as if it's so beneath her. I hope that's coming to and end. Because we know where it leads us.
Literally taken, 'Let's do these things together' is unconstitutional.
America is a representative Republic, not a Athenian Democracy. The country was founded on the principle of electing, in all levels, representatives to do things for us, to vote for us, and to take action on behalf of us. There is a big difference between a community organizer and an elected official.
Unless Mr. Obama has proposals to amend the constitution.
Geez, how pedantic can you get? "Let's do things together" is contrary to our constitutional form of government?! Can we "together" elect representatives who represent our values, and "together" hold them accountable to act in our interests? Would that be constitutional, professor, or is collective action in all it's forms prohibited? Can you cite me chapter and verse on that?
By the way, "Mr. Obama" is a duly elected Senator, pursuant to our constitutionally mandated republican form of government, meaning that's "Senator Obama" to you.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." Who do you think is supposed to be vigilant? Our representatives? No. It's the people. We're the government. Our representatives aren't our bosses. They're our representatives. It's up to us to let them know what the country needs. And when they fail, we vote them out.
Please help prevent the negative stump speeches and negative fear mongering ads and the defection of snl political satire... succeed in handing the white house to john mc cain...
hilary, you might as well have had John McCain answer the phone at the end of her anti-obama ad.... since there is no one who can unite the GOP enough to get to the polls in November than Hilary Clinton's name on the ticket
Could the Democratic primary voters be so easily duped into playing right into a Karl Rove royal flush..... when a landslide for the democrats is almost within reach.... when hilary could run and win and do such great things in the senate by replacing Harry Reid.... Hilary.... please... think before you do anything else to destroy the party and the future of our country and our very planet.... hilary... it is not your turn... it is time to turn the page... the times they are a changing... and it's about time
don't destroy the hopes and dreams of so many like the democratic establishment tried to do in 1968....... when they bashed our heads in... and violently demonstrated ... as the world was watching... how the will of the people was hijacked by the power of the few... along with the storm troopers of mayor daley..... on the streets of chicago.... just like bobby died in the ambassador hotel kitchen in june.... the heart and soul of the democratic party who had harnessed the power of the people and forced a sitting president to step down.... in the face of the undeniable force of the anti - war movement....
I never thought it could happen again....
the thrill of victory... seeing my own 4 children of voting age .... excited and participating in the political process for the first time.. excited and charged up that they were going to take charge and try to undo some of the damage done during the dark ages of america since the travesty and shame of november 2000
I could not even imagine it happening again.. for a movement so thrilling and powerful and uplifting and determined... experiencing the thrill of possibility....
to even think that their hopes and dreams could deteriorate into the agony of defeat .... I hope we will not relive such a horrible chapter of our democratic party's history and of America's and again... disappoint so many.... as the world stands watching....
we have a duty and responsibility to try to undo as much of the damage done .... since the presidency of Al Gore was ripped from our grasp... and we stood powerless watching the steady destruction of democracy and the vision of america.... and in the past year... getting an opportunity to relish with gratitude the success and admiration and celebration of Gore's unselfish mission to make the planet a better place....he should be a role model for all of us....
but hilary... instead of trying... unselfishly to do what's best for the future .... and allowing the torch to be passed to a new generation who deserve a chance to
to be heard.... you had 8 years in the white house.. and six years in the senate... you have been heard... and most of us aren't listening or do not want to listen to the same old story....
all we are saying is... give peace a chance.... all we are saying is give hope a chance... all we are saying ... is....the times they are a changing.... and please get out of the way ... if you won't lend a hand ... because the times they are a changing....
Arianna,
Even you may be underestimating just how large of a movement in underfoot, but I believe you are overestimating its potential effect.
McCain will be the Republican nominee for the very same reason that Obama might. In the 2004 election, many people actually thought that changing the balance of power in congress would change how Bush does business. An already deep dislike of "everyone else's congresspeople" turned into utter contempt. Obama has just as much chance of changing how Washington does business as a Democratic congress had of changing Bush's policies--about zero.
This movement has shifted everything to the left. McCain is likely the most centrist of all of the Republican contenders and he certainly has a penchant for saying and doing things that enrage the far right. This will bode VERY well for him in the general election.
Obama also appears to be the farthest left in the Democratic field. This will hurt him in the general election where I can absolutely, positively guarantee you that independent voters will determine the winner.
Clinton knew going into this race that independents held the key. Given her negative view by nearly half of the general population, she knew that her only chance of success was to change the minds of many independents. She could not appeal too heavily to the leftmost Democrats--she had to appeal to the moderates and independents. Clinton was forced to essentially run concurrent primary and general campaigns.
As a Republic leaning independent from MO who has long supported Senator Clinton, I will have a very hard time voting for Obama over McCain. While I cannot claim to be 100% race neutral, my problems with Obama are that he is quite liberal, rather inexperienced and comes from Illinois where political corruption (regardless of your party) has long seemed to be a prerequisite for election.
Obama for President? No thanks. I already have a Saviour...I need a President.
I couldn't agree more.
Tomorrow, in Chicago, the Tony Rezko trial begins and all the sleazy transactions between Obama and Rezko will be out in the light of day.
Those of us who have been around for a while remember the name Willie Horton that was used to bludgeon Michael Dukakis. Get ready for Tony Rezko.
Tomorrow..Rezko.
Tuesday, Hillary wins Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island.
After that, the country finally wakes up and notices that we are not voting for American Idol here, and the media realizes how they have allowed themselves to be duped by Obama. Hell hath no fury greater than the media when they fall out of love. Even the misogynists at MSNBC will turn on Obama.
Clinton fans rejoice. Our day has finally come.
In other words justrikke, you want someone who will promise to fix your problems for you, instead of someone who will inspire you to work to fix your own problems. Did you read the article?
I want to belive it is a wave for Obama but I head of a Karl Rove plan for Republicans to vote for Obama in the Primary Elections and then vote Republican in November.
Karl Roves plan was to get Republicans to vote against Hillary Clinton TWICE.
This is how they want to defeat national healthcare.
That is likely true but only explaining maybe 1 point of separation.
He has won 11 straight with and average 0f something like 25 points!
The reality is Obama has ignited the masses of disaffected
You're giving Turdblossom credit for being a lot smarter than he is.
While I think you give Rove too much credit, I do know of two people who did just that. They really wanted Huckabee, but thinking they'd just be throwing away their vote instead voted against Hillary by voting for Obama. Of course they'll no more vote for Obama in a general election than they would for Hillary.
This republican and moany I know are in it all the way to the White House!
OBAMA '08
myspace.com/republicans4obama
Oh, really? Well I heard that Karl Rove started a rumor that he has a plan for Republicans to vote for Obama so that Democrats will think he wants Obama to win and vote for Hillary when, in fact, he really does want Democrats to nominate Hillary because he knows Obama is the stronger candidate.
Sheez!
he can't see the forest for the trees...
Um, Doctor, don't you think we should wait until the patient is dead, before performing the autopsy?
(And yes, I'm an Obama fan.)
Watching the last gasps of the dying corpse of the Clinton campaign is painful for all of us. We need to euthanize Clinton's candidacy as soon as possible, so we can move forward and heal the party.
not as painful as an inexperienced regurgitator for 4 years. We should know
by now how that goes.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
