Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CAMPAIGNING TO GOVERN.
I'd argue this is the most important factoid of the day:
In an unusual move, Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places like Texas and Wyoming.“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”
Over at the Megablog, Sam Boyd says, "This should be reassuring news for Democrats, not just because it has the potential to help them across the country, but because it shows that Obama cares about a lot more than being elected. If he's already looking at the size of his congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 (and after, given that he's also targeting state legislatures which will control the next round of redistricting) that reflects a deep desire to push for big changes that require a big majority in Congress."
In November, the two most important questions for those interested in progressive change will be, in order, was a Democrat elected to the presidency? And if so, how big is his congressional majority? Generally, presidential candidates are so intensely focused on the first question, that they have neither the energy nor the resources to affect the answer to the second. Obama, however, is constructing a campaign strategy meant not only to win him the presidency, but build him a legislative majority and party infrastructure that will prove able to support his presidency. Could he fail? Of course. But if he succeeds, he'll have run a campaign that allows him to actually govern, rather than simply get elected.
For now, the only piece of the puzzle missing is an effort to build a public constituency for discrete policy reforms. Boyd says Obama's actions reflect "a deep desire to push for big changes," but the question is, which ones? He should really pick one or two policies he wants to accomplish in the first 100 days, and run a campaign such that if he wins, legislators will understand that his election represents a mandate from the voters to do X. That requires a serious rhetorical focus on a couple of policies, but if he can pull it off, it will allow him to hit the ground running in November.
COMMENTS (6)
Michael Turk, a GOP stratefgist, has a very, very interesting post on exactly this. Money quote:
What this all means for Republicans is scary.
Whether John McCain wins or not is almost irrelevant. If Obama does what I think he's doing, even if the Republicans are successful at challenging Democrats in 2010 and win back some seats (I'm working under the assumption that 2008 is a wash at best for us), the legislatures the Democrats control after November can erase those gains in redistricting. We could be looking at a minority for a long time to come.
Posted by: SDM | June 25, 2008 11:57 AM
Remember how Bush didn't say boo about Social Security, and then right after the 2004 election he couldn't shut up about it all through 2005? I doubt the public ever would have bought it, but it sure didn't help that hadn't campaigned on it.
Obama could signal his commitment and push for legislation in Congress now, have Bush veto it, and then campaign on signing it. Back in 1992 Clinton was lucky to have Congress pass family leave (I guess Ted Kennedy made that happen), Bush vetoed it, and WJC could bludgeon him with it. Clinton signed it right after inauguration.
The downside of that is that we're going to have a lot more Democrats in six months, and with any luck they'll be better Democrats, and would pass a better bill. Obama has already committed to health care, and that's huge all by itself, so I don't know what else he could do. We haven't heard much about health care in the last few weeks, but I'm sure it'll come back in the fall.
Posted by: Chris | June 25, 2008 12:04 PM
Good point about policy changes. Obvious question -- which ones?
My sense is the Democratic Congress didn't get much out of their "first 100 days" moves coming out of the 2006 elections because they were so highly choreographed and predictable, the results were discounted before they were already in. I wonder if Obama is keeping his cards close to his chest for now for that reason.
I saw him speak last summer: even then, when he was a distant second in the polls for the nomination, he was talking about building a constituency for change.
Change: it's not just a slogan.
Posted by: Kit Stolz | June 25, 2008 12:17 PM
This is change I can appreciate, if not necessarily believe in. Reconfiguring the process has helped the Republicans a lot -- not just in winning elections, but in creating a confident mindset among their candidates and office-holders. Getting that back for us means creating more state-level Dems that are used to winning consistently. Whether this actually happens or not is an open question, I think.
Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra | June 25, 2008 1:56 PM
Infrastructure bank and healthcare cost containment.
And, for purposes of representation, and power politics, he should immediately push for DC statehood, at least as soon as he's elected. 2 senators baby.
He should govern like the first 100 days are all that counts, as if a terrorist attack or overseas humiliation could change all the calculations in 2009 and 2010.
Posted by: spockamok | June 25, 2008 10:53 PM
Hah - I hadn't even thought about how he'd be President when the Census results come through and redistricting rolls around.
Posted by: Wareq | June 26, 2008 12:36 AM