More

Joe Trippi

Joe Trippi

Posted: March 11, 2008 03:53 PM

Rebooting Democracy


As Kos noted yesterday, despite last week's wave of media enthusiasm for Clinton, Obama's delegate lead didn't shrink at all. The delegate math doesn't look good for Clinton: she'll need a big win in Pennsylvania, an upset in North Carolina, and solid victories in Florida and Michigan revotes, all still up in the air.

So, barring the unlikely, Barack Obama will preserve his delegate lead and become the Democratic nominee. At the risk of starting the Monday morning quarterbacking a bit too early, how did Obama put the Clinton machine on the brink of defeat?

Other than the obvious -- charisma, fundraising, Iraq, to name a few -- consider this:

Obama's overall delegate lead: 117

Obama's delegate advantage in caucuses: 129 delegates

The Clinton campaign's decision to "skip" the caucuses by not matching Obama's investment in local organizing, may be the biggest political strategy blunder since the ignore-the-swiftboat call.

Idaho. Maine. Texas. Nebraska. These are not obvious "Obama states" yet he grabbed big delegate leads in each of these caucuses.

Why? Because Obama's campaign embraced bottom-up campaigning. Because it pumped money into local organizers. Because it gave tools to precinct captains and volunteers.

While Obama also ran television advertising and leveraged endorsers, Clinton's campaign is marked by its top-down messaging and its use of local political machines. Obama perfected bottom-up organizing - and the caucus system rewarded him.

I'm torn when it comes to caucuses. On one hand I respect their political intimacy, the retail politicking, and the face-to-face discourse they require. And I've admired the Obama movement in its execution: armies of Obama'ites rolling up their sleeves, packing events, knocking on doors, calling neighbors. It's the image of democracy thriving.

On the other hand, caucuses are overtly undemocratic. I'm on the Advisory Board of Why Tuesday? and we've reported why caucuses can be extremely difficult for voters to participate in. Single moms, service employees, hospital workers, hell, just an average working citizen having to spend two hours locked in a room--many times on a Tuesday evening--is a lot to ask for democratic participation.

Fortunately, I think we can have it both ways. My estimation is that, whether Clinton pulls off a surprise victory or not, top-down campaigning is toast in our party. The benefits of bottom-up inclusion, financial and organizational, are too great to sacrifice in favor of top-down control. And whether it is a caucus or primary, the bottom-up, caucus-style, army-driven political strategy is here to stay.

While our democracy is refreshed through bottom-up campaigning and all-star candidates with inspiring messages, we must find ways to sustain this increased participation, starting with a dialogue about the state of our voting system. When it comes to our primary calendar, we must make voting more accessible, whether its eliminating caucuses, moving them to to Saturdays (as Nevada and Wyoming did), or just adding absentee caucus ballots. And, in the general, we should consider instituting a national Election Day holiday, expanding mail-in ballots, and experimenting with Internet voting.

Our grassroots has been liberated through bottom-up campaigning. Now we need to upgrade our voting system to sustain this renewed enthusiasm in democracy.

Don't you think it's time for an upgrade?

Joe Trippi is a CBS Political Analyst and Principal of Trippi & Associates. He is an advisor to Why Tuesday?, a non-partisan, non-profit organization exploring ways to improve America's voting system.

Follow Joe Trippi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/joetrippi

 
 
  • Comments
  • 100
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
01:10 PM on 03/13/2008
Now that Hillary has lost 30 out of 44 contests, caucuses are suddenly undemocratic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janvoght
11:10 PM on 03/12/2008
i'm with you joe...let's make this happen! a voting revamp at this time of moving away from business as usual would make great sense. it would probably take the full 4 years to work the system and get everyone on board, no?

obama '08
02:42 AM on 03/13/2008
While I agree with the majority of the article, I have to dispute in the strongest way possible, Internet voting. Having been involved in research for a few years, I know a little bit about computer voting in general. The simple fact is that with computer voting there is no audit trail. Let's not put ourselves in the position we found ourself in back in 2000 again. Keep the paper trail. Make it so there are no loopholes in it. But NO COMPUTER VOTING PLEASE......
05:28 PM on 03/12/2008
DEAREST JOE:

What's wonderful is that Obama is getting registered democrats (and republicans and independents) to vote for him who didn't even bother to vote for Hillary but Bill didn't even capture the votes of these people.

JOE, BTW you owe Gil Scott Heron

P.S.
The revolution is being televised - the Clinton v. Obama battle is just heating up and Ron Paul stirred things up on the republican side and Ralph is back!
03:57 PM on 03/12/2008
Interesting isn't it that the "people's party" has not shown much trust in people in the last few elections. I was a big Dean fan and thought he (and Joe) ran a great campaign. I applaud what Edwards stood for and would have voted for him, but he never caught on here in New York. Obama has so much to offer that I'm really going to be crushed if he isn't the nominee. It's our chance to right our course, and we don't get many such chances.

Bottom up is the only way to go if you're progressive, and I must say that seeing hundreds of people stand for hours in the rain to vote in 2004 convinced me that early voting is a great option. It also is a way to stop that old Republican ploy of moving the polling place or hiding the entrance. Republicans have gotten a leg up too many times by supressing the black vote, and it's not going to work this year.
03:50 PM on 03/12/2008
What a trip! I have voted in every presidential election since Harry Truman in 1948 when I was 22, but I have never felt so involved or concerned for the outcome as in this election. For years and years, I've watched the machine politics, the "back-room boys" do their evil thing(s) and election after election seen the politics overwhelm the voter. As a life-long Democrat, I know what I'm speaking of when I say I blame the DLC for most of the problems we Democrats have had to endure. They are the "top-down boys," the anti-Howard Dean crowd and it really gladdened my heart when he became the head of the DNC with his fifty-state program. Because it's thanks to him that Obama (God, I can't get over the irony of the DLC fronting Obama to the Senate!), smart enough in his own right to pick up from Howard Dean and come back to the people, us poor proles, the unwashed, the dregs (if you will) of our "Democratic" society, and show us how to finally get organized and let our will, our voices, be heard.
Then here comes Hillary, the anointed, the would-be empress, the DLC front who, along with her husband, will now assume her rightful place in charge of the nation, and gets her ass whipped. Inelegant, I will allow, but true just the same. And she knows she's whipped, or else why is she crying and whining about life being unfair? The late Molly Ivins (God rest her beautiful soul) called it all right in her article, "Anybody But Hillary." Reading that opened my eyes and everything Molly wrote about Hillary has proven to be true.
So God rest you all and keep on truckin' 'cause better days are coming soon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tulka2
Solidarity. Courage. Humor.
03:37 PM on 03/12/2008
All my people are from Iowa. My 84-year-old mother and mother-in-law (same age) went to the Iowa caucuses. Yes, some shift people can not go. There ought to be a way for such people to register their vote, for sure. But do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Caucuses are as American as apple pie. As American a Norman Rockwell.

We now live in a state where every primary and vote is by mail. It is really creepy on a deep level. We do not ever need to talk to a neighbor again. Just tune in to the t.v. and it will tell you what to do. Just listen to the mydrid campaign phone calls and they will tell you what to do. Don't talk to your neighbor. Oh no.

Fortunatly, this is Washington state and every four years we are allowed to caucus for a presidential candidate. Relationships made on that caucus floor last for the next four years. It's the way to get to know your neighbors. Do something that really counts.
02:00 PM on 03/12/2008
A blunder it may have been, and perhaps a big one too. But the biggest? No way. It pales in magnitude to that of Giuliani's.

And it also points out just how "different" caucuses are from primaries. If we really want to "let the people decide", we should get away from the entire delegate system, and count votes, pure and simple. Though personally, I like the idea of a majority selection, and so would prefer a ranked voting system.
01:54 PM on 03/12/2008
This worked out well for the American people. The strategy put Hillary behind, and bared for all to see how dirty she can become. Better to know the inner Hillary now, than as President.
07:46 AM on 03/12/2008
I happen to think Joe Trippi was a sound strategist for Edwards, and also had the best interests
of the democratic party at heart. I could have easily supported his candidate, but I find that the
slash and burn politics of the Clinton's would probably make me write in Mickey Mouse, for the
presidential candidate, as I could not vote for McCain.
03:11 PM on 03/12/2008
Minnie as first lady too?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:11 AM on 03/12/2008
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19106551/a_new_hope

You gotta read this. I'm all misty.

OBAMA08
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zull2
http://www.zullnero.com/blah/
01:03 AM on 03/12/2008
The way it really worked is that if someone in an area really liked Barack Obama, and went to the website, the tools to collaborate, contact representatives, and organize people were right there and were easy to use and freely available. It wasn't a matter of "joining a cult" or other such nonsense, you had plenty of power to do what you felt was right (as long as it wasn't harmful to the campaign).

The reason I say this is because when I was unemployed in 2007, I went out there and tried it all out for myself. It was easy, and it felt comfortable, as if I mattered to the campaign. It's not so much that I know that I'm only a really small cog in a huge machine, but rather that it encourages me to do something instead of sitting around and complaining about the Bush administration all the time and worrying that administration's policies would continue. If I wanted to, or not, I could go out and talk to people and have all the information I would need on hand to do the job. Or I could promote the campaign in other ways. THAT is why Obama's campaign has done so well, because it's incredibly easy to get involved. You didn't feel at any point that you HAD to donate or that you HAD to do anything, it was all up to you. Clinton skipping out on those states hurt, but the truth was, she didn't beat him to the punch by making it easy for her supporters to do the same thing, not nearly as effectively or open. For Clinton, it always came down to how much money you've bundled for her early on, and her organization came way too late.
photo
MysticMichael
Hip No Ties
01:00 AM on 03/12/2008
Joe's got it right: It's time to bury the old-school machine politics, once and for all. And while it's true that the Obama campaign took the framework of the 2004 Dean campaign and hot-rodded it for super performance, and that the effectiveness of the Obama campaign has made an indelible impression upon politicians across the country - maybe even around the world - I'm not yet convinced that grassroots, bottom-up, distributed and decentralized campaigning will become the new standard just yet. Mainly because there is a certain, older generation of pol (*cough* Hillary *cough*) who still doesn't "get" it, isn't comfortable with it, and will probably never entirely embrace it. Only when this generation is finally put out to pasture will the new model become universal...

As far as Joe's other ideas are concerned, i.e. Saturday caucuses, a national election day holiday, Internet-based voting, etc? Sure, bring it on...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DragonMama
03:40 PM on 03/12/2008
Seriously, Obama basically took Dean's basic structure and did a total "Pimp My Campaign" on it (to use the metaphor of "Pimp My Ride" and using the word as it's used in everyday language now, not as an aspersion on Obama, Dean, or any of the Clintons). Dean started a good framework, and what he had for 2004 was really good - by 2004 standards. Obama totally tricked it out with new tools that weren't available back then to something that young voters would instantly recognize and engage with, but that didn't REQUIRE of the viewer that level of participation that the college age crowd ran with to be successful, open, and constantly up-to-date. As a techie, there are a few areas that have major room for improvement (search functions and notifications of new messages/comments particularly), but it's lightyears ahead of anything anyone else has ever attempted on a national scale and makes me downright eager to have this man as president. I'll be subscribing to the "fireside podcasts" I'm betting we can expect from him. If there's no other factor to consider, seriously, which of the remaining candidates would people rather took over broadcast television once a year for the State of the Union address?

Can't wait to see how much more revolutionary our presidential elections will be in the future!

And yeah, we need National Election Day Holiday and all those other things like fish need water at this point. Polls should also be open for 24 hours, opening and closing at the same time across the country, so that work schedules don't interfere. I like to physically go to my polling place (with my children) and encourage people to continue to do so even if we do get more options to meet our diverse needs as an electorate (and I'm going to go check out that whytuesday site).
11:44 PM on 03/11/2008
I'm all for an election holiday, or at least moving it to a weekend day. I can't remember the whole story, but know that voting on Tuesday is a hold-over from when we were a nation of farmers, riding horses and walking miles to town (picture Little House on the Prairie) and it had something to do with avoiding conflicts with church on Sunday. Where I live it is all mail in voting, they eliminated polling places due to cost. Personally I think something vital is lost when you take away the polling place, going in, punching your ballot, and putting it in the box. Although I realize that allowing absentee voting is needed, I am against mail in only. I don't trust that we can make online voting safe, don't trust the machines that have no paper trail either. And I'm all for easier registration, moter-voter, same day whatever. And anything we can do to standardize voting practices across jurisdictions would be an asset. So bottom line, thumbs up on upgrading.
photo
rich3324
Likes: Chasing villagers. Dislikes: Fire
10:58 PM on 03/11/2008
Obama wins Mississippi, but since Clinton did not win it, its not important.
10:38 PM on 03/11/2008
Yes and now Obama is on to lose the general election big. He won a bunch of caucuses and mostly primaries based on black voters. He won none of the big states a democrat must win to win the Presidency. He is going to be torn apart in the general election. When are democrats going to stop shooting themselves in the foot? I hate to break it to you "progressives" and students but he just is not gonna cut it in the general election. This is the most liberal man in the senate-left of Ted Kennedy. You Obama supporters are fooling yourselves. If Clinton loses the nomination we might as well pack it up and go home cause McCain is walking right into the WH. 1972 all over again. But I guess most of you are too young to remember 1972. Well the same thing happened then. Alot of leftists and anti war types forced McGovern on us all and he lost spectacularly. But prior to the election he was unstoppable and the older people did not know what they were talking about. Oh well.
11:42 PM on 03/11/2008
Right, cause Humphrey did so much better in 1968.
02:29 AM on 03/12/2008
On electability, if the SurveyUSA and other polls are not enough, you might consider Professor Lessig's analysis:

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/10_minutes_on_whether_hillary.html