David Axelrod’s “grassroots” strategy for Sen. Obama has generally consisted placing favorable stories in the press and gathering huge amounts of money, then buying airtime to polish his candidates image.
However, the Pennsylvania Primary has shown the law of diminishing returns has long since kicked in to Axelrod’s investment plan, with the Obama campaign coughing up over $10 Million to get very mediocre results.
Sen. Obama pulled in approximately 1 Million votes, while Sen. Clinton received approximately 1,250,000 votes. The big difference is on spending per vote, where Sen. Obama comes in at $10/vote delivered vs. Sen. Clinton at $2.64/vote delivered. At a ratio, Sen. Obama is paying 400% more per vote than Sen. Clinton, and still losing by a 10% margin.
The Axelrod crafted story has Sen. Obama running a masterfully crafted campaign, brining new voters into the electoral process and a bipartisan tidal wave for the Junion Illinois Senator.
Arithmetic has it differently, with the Axelrod team spending like Blair Hull only to get trounced in a contested primary, with the vast majority of crossover votes going for anyone but Obama.
Democratic superdelegates must decide how much spending the “grassroots” campaign can afford to buy Senator Obama’s way into the general election. Either way, the process looks expensive.
John Powers says:
Actually, I didn't have to estimate. I used the power of long division to calculate how much Sen. Obama paid per vote.
JBP
Cousin Ralph says:
fascinating insights, thanks for sharing it with us. Not suprised that the Obama supporters are lashing out. They do not contest the accuracy of your insights. They are paniced that a candidacy that once seemed inevitable and historic, now looks like a case of love at first site or love on the first date with a suitor who is not looking as attractive with the passage of time and the awareness of things other than just the superficial.
Pat Hickey says:
John,
You have articulated the very nature of Obama' trainwreck of a campaign.
This is the very sum and substance of the problem:
'David Axelrod’s “grassroots” strategy for Sen. Obama has generally consisted placing favorable stories in the press and gathering huge amounts of money, then buying airtime to polish his candidates image.'
Like,The Mark Pera disaster this train has non-union drivers.
David Axelrod - someone - anyone - associated with the Obama Campaign should have one person with his head screwed on straight. Axelrod used to report on politics.
Grassroots is not a Congress of Lefties meeting at Jimmy's Woodlawn Tap to discuss Bob Creamer's books - grassroots is Ward Level delivery of services at the very least and forging friendships at the highest level.
Thank God that Progressives can neither deliver nor forge.
720 East Irving Park Rd says:
Uhhh. I think they knew that the cost/vote would be a lot higher on HRC's home turf. They had the excess dough to spend. More importantly, the media buys made her spend her much more scarce resources. Remember, her Hillraisers are tapped out. Done. Her internet savvy is low. She is now nearly broke because of this investment.
This was political genius that netted HRC a mediocre win 9+% and a handful of delegates who will be replaced in NC.
Barry Hussein says:
According to published reports on the strength of "a mediocre win," Clinton has raised $3.5 million dollars in the past day. As for the brain trust behind Obama spending big bucks in a state viewed as friendly to Clinton, Obama had narrowed the gap in the polls significantly until he inserted his foot in his mouth by insulting the rural residents of Pennsylvania. Clinton's margin increased as a result of this gaffe.
Most polls put Obama behind in Indiana which may offset any perceived advantage that he may have in North Carolina. He cannot win if Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention.
Barry Hussein says:
According to published reports on the strength of "a mediocre win," Clinton has raised $3.5 million dollars in the past day. As for the brain trust behind Obama spending big bucks in a state viewed as friendly to Clinton, Obama had narrowed the gap in the polls significantly until he inserted his foot in his mouth by insulting the rural residents of Pennsylvania. Clinton's margin increased as a result of this gaffe.
Most polls put Obama behind in Indiana which may offset any perceived advantage that he may have in North Carolina. He cannot win if Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention.
John Powers says:
I think I could have written that 3 is the square root of 9 and Obama supporters would have told us that under the "new math" proposed by Sen. Obama, square roots will be determined by a committee of experts in a more fair and just arithmetic than the outdated system devised by the ancients.
Chicago JD says:
Another interesting factoid regarding the economics of it all is what BHO has been spending on super delegates. Many don't realize that these folks are up for sale, too. The highest award I've seen to date was $19,000 to any one super delegate. BHO has outspent HRC three to one in this regard. http://www.capitaleye.org/superdelega...
John Powers says:
The Senator confirms his new numeracy:
Mr Obama had attracted legions of new voters in Pennsylvania, he added. "We've changed the maths of Pennsylvania in a way that's going to help us in November."
siam says:
You are under estimating the achievement of David Axelrod and his team. Pensylvania was, is and will be a Clinton territory. She has her roots in the state, it is also taylor made for her core voters; old, not very educated and females. She was endorsed by 100 of the state's mayors and at the same time has the support of the governor. To me she lost by not capitalizing on all these advantages to cause a blow-out. She obtained about 1.25 million to about Obama's 1.020 million and you think this is a huge win? Watch North Carolina, an Obama's territory and see the gap. The truth is when its Obama's territory he just blows her away. However, when its Hillary's territory, he contests fiercely and narrows the gap. That is a master strategy by David Axelrod and Barack that has been able to put them well ahead of Hillary. Man, just sit down and do a deep analysis of where Hillary and Obama came from a year ago and you will marvel at what Obama has done. Hillary an institutional figure and Barack a senator noboby knew. Yet he is ahead of her.