Voting for the more effective campaign

I like McCain. I think the McCain Campaign has been ineffective.

McCain-the-man seems to be very different from McCain-the-campaign. The man is thoughtful, knowledgeable, and surprisingly fair. In town hall meetings the man has attempted to correct his own supporters’ misconceptions of who Barack Obama is. When they’ve said they’re afraid of Obama and that Obama is a terrorist, he’s told them they shouldn’t be afraid of Obama, and that Obama is a well-meaning family man with whom McCain happens to disagree on many issues. When one woman tried to articulate her fears and did so by saying of Obama “He’s an Arab”, McCain corrected her as well. McCain, I believe, is a good man.

I think he has been poorly advised.

The McCain campaign has been very negative and very inconsistent. I’ll go ahead and use this week’s buzz-word for the McCain campaign: Erratic. The campaign was suspended to fix the economic crisis and get a rescue plan passed, but then unsuspended itself – declaring an assured victory on the rescue plan – in time for the candidate to take part in the first debate. However the rescue plan did not then pass on the following business day. In fact it was defeated by the people who support McCain.

It was passed nearly two weeks later as a much, much bigger package that is, no doubt, better for the people than the first version. But better is still not necessarily good. There remain doubts about the rescue plan’s ability to stave off disaster.

This whole Suspending / Unsuspending-With-Assurances-Of-Victory / Defeat thing was almost certainly the turning point for the McCain campaign. No doubt events and decisions both before and after that particular incident have played into the larger narrative, but that particular attempt and failure by the McCain campaign was massive.

I think I like Obama. I know I love the Obama campaign.

There’s a lot that’s impressed me about the Obama campaign. The campaign is innovative (advertising within video games, creating its own Dish Network channel) and traditional at the same time (offices and feet on the ground, bumper stickers, yard signs). The campaign has been consistent and on-message. The campaign and the candidate both have been trying to keep to the issues, which is especially cool.

But most importantly, the campaign has demonstrated its ability to get positive results in the face of adversity.

Specifically, when the common wisdom was that Hillary Clinton had the democratic nomination sewn up, the Obama campaign persevered to win the nomination. Even more importantly, the Obama campaign very thoroughly examined the rules and the battleground and was able – through careful use of resources – to get more convention delegates than the Clinton campaign, even though Clinton often won the popular vote in a given state. She may have received more of the popular primary votes nationwide - if you count Michigan, anyway - but Obama got the delegates.

The Obama campaign did this in New Hampshire. He lost the popular vote, but he got more delegates.

Go here for an explanation of how the Obama campaign was planning to do (and did) the same thing in Texas.

Admittedly, the rules for choosing delegates to the democratic convention are complicated, convoluted, and possibly insane, but the Obama campaign was able not only to navigate its way through those complicated and convoluted rules, but was, in fact, able to work within and exploit those complicated and convoluted rules to achieve the results it wanted.

Currently our economic system doesn’t look too good, and it’s largely because our investment systems have become extremely complicated and convoluted (and possibly insane).

I’m voting for the campaign – for the team – that has demonstrated its ability to navigate and exploit a complicated and convoluted system and achieve a positive outcome.

There are many, many reasons I’m voting for Obama. I agree with him on most issues. I like the fact that he actually wants to talk about issues. But most importantly I believe that an Obama administration will be an effective administration that uses its resources (our resources) carefully, works within the law, and produces good results.

UPDATE 1 - in response to idmike's comment:

It is interesting to the point of unfathomable that the democratic party nomination process is one that can give the nomination to someone OTHER than the person that received the popular vote. The republican party in most states gives the delegates in a winner-take-all fashion that is, at the end of the day, a lot simpler. It certainly allowed the republican candidate to be determined much earlier in the election year.

That being said it appears that the democratic party process - while quite possibly flawed - has resulted in a better candidate than Hillary would have been. (In My Humble Opinion. Your Mileage May Vary.)

The democratic party process is one that theoretically gives more voice to dissenting opinions. It allowed, in this case, people dissatisfied with Hillary to put forth and eventually choose an alternative to the "predetermined" candidate.

UPDATE 2: I find myself really bothered over this question of whether or not Obama actually won the overall popular vote. I know he got more delegates from individual states in which he didn't win the popular vote, but how did he do overall?

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Look at this page from the realclearpolitics.com site.

Basically if you include Michigan - which did not have Barack Obama on the ballot - and include estimates from Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington then Clinton won by 176,465 votes (0.5% of the total vote).

"Uncommitted" received 238,168 votes in Michigan. That being said, Biden and Edwards and Richardson also took themselves off the ballot in Michigan, so some of those votes might belong to them. Hillary, Kucinich and Gravel remained on the Michigan ballot.

Man, I forgot how bizarre the primary was this year.

Did Obama win the popular vote? Without Michigan's votes for Hillary, yes. Without them? There's no way to know.

Real Clear Politics? I don't think so. Thanks for trying, though!

UPDATE 3: In response to YrObtSvt's comment - I agree with you regarding McCain2000. I liked McCain2000. McCain2008 is another story. I don't think McCain2000 would vote for McCain2008.

And yes Obama is glib sometimes. Still, I'm voting for the Obama campaign, and for the reasons I outlined originally. I hope his administration does its homework as well as his campaign does. If it does I think we'll be okay.