TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
23.04.2008
Some Backstory on Obama and Street Money

Two of the guests on "Hardball" just now--Philadelphia-based commentators Michael Smerconish and E. Steven Collins--were pretty critical of the Obama campaign for not paying local ward heelers the "street money" they wanted to help turn out the black vote. (See this L.A. Times piece for more.) Smerconish and Collins agreed that Obama's Philadelphia turnout was good but not great, and Collins said Obama could have added tens of thousands--possibly more than 100,000--votes to his Pennsylvania total had he held his nose and doled out the cash.

I have no idea whether or not this is true, but it's worth pointing out that the Obama official who most likely made the call here was campaign manager David Plouffe, whom I profiled in our latest issue. I didn't get into this in my piece, but the "street money" situation in Philly was reminiscent of one that arose in the first state-wide race Plouffe ever managed--Bob Torricelli's 1996 Senate race in New Jersey.

That summer, the DNC worried about whether enough black voters would turn out and support Torricelli and Bill Clinton, who was running for re-election of course. (The state's then-governor, Republican Christie Todd Whitman, had done pretty well among black voters en route to winning in 1993, so there were some grounds for concern.) The response was to dispatch an operative named Regena Thomas to New Jersey to help with that part of the campaign. 

When Thomas showed up, she pleaded with Plouffe to fund an extensive turnout operation, which would have included paying an army of canvassers to knock on doors and drag voters to the polls--basically the same thing the local bosses wanted money for in Philly. Plouffe refused to give Thomas the money she petitioned for, saying he had to stick with his original game plan, which was to devote most of the campaign's resources to paid media. (This wasn't an unreasonable approach--the state doesn't really have its own television programming, so the only way to get on TV is to buy super-expensive ads on New York and Philadelphia stations.)

Judging from Torricelli's ten-point margin of victory, you'd have to say Plouffe made the right call back then. But it's tough to conclude that definitively, since Thomas ended up getting her money through a campaign back-channel. Whatever the case, I suspect the experience partially informed Plouffe's thinking on this stuff. As, I'm sure, did the experience of South Carolina, where Obama also basically refused to dole out street money.

(As a sidenote, it's worth noting that Plouffe's historically been pretty adamant about sticking to his original game plan even under intense pressure to change it. He did that back in 1996, and he's obviously done it over and over in this cycle. You can't really argue with the results, Pennsylvania notwithstanding.) 

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:18 PM with 15 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

AlanSP said:

There's always a balance to strike in terms of allocating resources between paid media and voter turnout efforts.  There are diminishing returns on both, and Obama had essentially already saturated the paid media in PA , so it probably would have made sense to invest more in turning out his base in Philly .  Like any Democratic candidate, he'll have to do that in the general against McCain.  Fortunately, he'll have Rendell and Nutter on his side in November.

April 23, 2008 9:03 PM

ejbenjamin said:

Maybe it was less a matter of resource allocation and more a concern about being associated with a practice that has a bit of a scummy vibe to it.

April 23, 2008 10:34 PM

flynnb_az said:

My sense of the whole situation was that it  had to do with the Obama holier-than-thou attitude of "this is a movement, we're going to do things differently than everyone else before us."

Obama is awash in so much money that perhaps throwing more of it into a GOTV account would have been a good investment (this is Monday morning quarterbacking now -- but I swear I was saying this before the primary as well).  

I think the LA Times article goes into the whole negative image of Obama giving money to rich (white) media companies to run ads, but not giving the money to the poor (black) poll workers who would be getting the street money -- this image problem was probably the worst part of not giving the money out.  

But what's worse, I think, was that Obama was actually *charging* for lawn signs.  According to the Daily News (www.philly.com/.../20080415_Word_on_the_street__No_election__.html) seven dollars plus S&H.  

In the same story, the ward leaders generally played down the lack of street money (to their credit).  

Besides, street money isn't this intensely corrupt, Tammany Hall type of thing.  It's money for poll workers who have to take the day off of their regular job (often without pay) or for people who don't have jobs and are counting on the money for a day's work.  

April 23, 2008 11:45 PM

matthawk said:

As a practical matter you've got to be willing to pay the street money in big city politics. I remember being threatened one time, when I was a teenager and I worked as a poll watcher in a low-income neighborhood for free because I believed in a candidate and wanted to see him get elected.

Usually, in the suburbs where I had done this before, there was no problem, but when I tried it in this low-income city neighborhood the local committee man tried to "school" me about the need to be paid and not work the polls for free or I would break the precedent and make it harder for everyone else to get paid. He was not so much interested in stopping me from plugging my candidate as he was in sending me downtown to get paid before I agreed to work his polling place. He made it sound like it was a law or something, so I told him that I would ask the constable in polling place whether or not I was breaking the law. I was genuinely confused.

Then he lightened up and said, "Oh no -- you can work here. I just don't want to see a young man get taken advantage of like that." He left me alone after that, but since that time I learned that many committeemen (and women) don't feel comfortable with people who will work the polls without being paid. It's kind of like "scab" labor.

I guess the real question is whether or not, if you pay the street money, it will make a significant difference in the results or if its just a form of extortion with no real political benefit. Were the committeemen and women in Philadelphia exaggerating their ability to deliver the votes? I really can't answer that. I bet the Clinton operation could tell you how well it works.

April 23, 2008 11:47 PM

sleepyavl said:

Very interesting post, matthawk. Thank you.

April 24, 2008 12:45 AM

Annabella2 said:

Thanks matthawk... You are right that as in all things what might look "corrupt" to the person with a steady professional income, is  needed income for the one who takes a day off to do the work or doesn't have a job.

I was a Republican Election Judge years ago when old man Daley was alive in a precinct in his ward on behalf of Project LEAP  (Legal Elections in All Precincts)... there was nothing shady going on there at all... the captain was racking up 99% of the vote and getting it legitimately too...But he was fit to be tied that as an "outsider" I had any authority on his turf... he got me kicked off on the grounds that I had voted Democratic in the preceding primary.  The other ladies who were judges and quite under the precinct captain's thumb, got really angry at him, saying that I had been doing no harm and had actually been helping them and BESIDES he was depriving me of the $30 I would have gotten paid for the 18 hour day... That was their real concern.  It sure taught me a lesson about perspective and what is important to one may not be to someone else.

But I also think that giving street money could have been played to offend that portion of Obama's demographic that doesn't understand that.  "Obama pays Afro-Americans to assure their vote in Philadelphia!"  Never mind that Rendell was doing it too... that's Rendell, not Hillary and when did inconsistency ever stop them?

April 24, 2008 2:38 AM

aeromonas said:

100,000 votes?  I doubt it.  Plouffe knows what he's doing, and this wasn't a screw-up.  100K votes wouldn't have altered the W/L result anyway.  All these attempts to parse the meaning of a few percentage point shifts in Hill's margin of victory--"if Obama gets within five, Clinton's FINISHED"--have been way overblown.  The only thing that could possibly have knocked Clinton out would have been an actual defeat in PA, and no amount of street money in Philly was going to deliver that.  

And like Anabella says, I can almost hear the Clinton surrogates carping: "If Obama's so goddamn inspiring, how come he has to PAY black people--supposedly his bedrock constituency--to come out and vote for him?  Tsk tsk.  Doesn't bode well for the general election AT ALL."

April 24, 2008 8:00 AM

knishycous said:

Street money is another word for bribe.  It's stupid to pay a few k$ to someone when that money buys you four times as many young people who work as field organizers.  I'm sure most of the field organizers had been to multiple states by now and know what they are doing.

April 24, 2008 8:31 AM

scire said:

I have another suggestion about why the African-American turn out was suppressed in Philadelphia: the Reverand Wright scandal. I work in an urban African American community and I can tell you -- until Iowa, most of my African-American students and co-workers were skeptical about Obama's chances of winning the nomination. After Iowa and his string of victories, they were energized and hopeful, and followed every primary race and election results closely, but since the Reverand Wright scandal came out, enthusiasm has been dampened. It's not because they no longer believe in him or remain loyal to him. It's that they don't have faith in the American system and in our ability to be color-blind and vote for an African-American president. For a couple of months, they were hopeful. I think that the Reveran Wright scandal reminded them of their fears.

Now, I'm willing to be proven wrong (in fact I HOPE I'm wrong) about my analysis above. But I have a sneaking suspicion that it's a factor. And I'm surprised none of the pundits (or Obama's campaign) following this election have looked into that as a possible fallout from the scandal.

April 24, 2008 8:31 AM

marcellusw101 said:

I don't know about Collins, but Smerconish regularly subs in for Bill O'Reilly and has modeled himself after O'Reilly's "I'm-just-a-middle-of-the-road-guy-with-no-dog-in-this-fight-but-here's-why-the-Democrats-are-evil" shtick. Just worth noting that at least one of these guys isn't exactly impartial.

April 24, 2008 8:53 AM

virginiacentrist said:

I've looked at the numbers in Philly a bit...I"m pretty sure they hit their vote goals in most of these precincts. Once you reach a saturation point, you really see diminishing returns from extra field expenditures. In other words - there isn't a difference between knocking a door 4 times two days before the election and knocking a door 8 times. They lost this state because they failed to keep their numbers respectable in the rural areas (that's a messenging issue, not a field issue), they performed poorly in Allegheny County (I'm not sure I understand this one), and they underperformed a bit in the exurbs (compared to nearby states like Virginia).

And I agree with the above commenters that street money isn't really corrupt. It's really just paying your GOTV workers (using established social networks in big cities). It's a bit obnoxious that these local machines expect the money and throw a fit when they don't get it, but it's hard to call something that boosts turnout a bad thing...

April 24, 2008 9:38 AM

virginiacentrist said:

There also may be more to this story. Hotline says Obama was outbid in one case:

hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/.../an_endorsement.html

April 24, 2008 9:40 AM

bcbaird said:

I'm really torn on the matter of street money: On one hand, it's sleazy politics for cronies.  On the other hand, it's a way to help offset the costs of taking a day off work for volunteers.

The operative word is "volunteer" and what it means.  Certainly in my GOTV recruitment activities I ran into a lot of the "I won't do it unless I'm paid for this" mentality, but we also had a lot of volunteers from more affluent areas and out of state to make up for those apathetic losers who refused to help without a payout.

It's an entrenched way of thinking in some circles, and I really have to question the value of a few bucks when you're giving up an entire shift to volunteer... as well as the quality of volunteers you'd get by paying such a measly sum.  It runs up against a brick wall in my mind... it shouldn't be a part of politics in this country.

April 24, 2008 6:25 PM

Historian1956 said:

Wait a minute, I (a disabled, unemployed white woman) could have gotten paid to drive the blind, black man who needed me to read the ballot out to him and push the buttons on our new computerized voting machines?  Or for providing the phone number to the voter's information line, to the black couple new to the area who didn't even know where to vote and weren't even certain they were registered in Delaware County after driving them around their neighborhood looking for their possible polling place?  Or for driving the mentally challenged, white woman to 3 possible polling places before finding the correct one so she could vote?  Or driving to the home of one black man who didn’t answer his phone, but was informed after I arrived at his home that he had already voted, and who’s polling place was half a block up the street and a quarter of the way around the corner from his house.  And finally after calling my last ride of the day, a black woman also new to her neighborhood, who told me she didn’t need a ride, but wasn’t exactly certain where her polling place was after asking two of her neighbors and just by chance she lived 2 blocks away from where my family home was for my first 35 years and where I voted the first few times and having her call me back to learn where it was that I had voted and again I provided her with the voter information phone number, just in case.

Man I was robbed!  I also paid for my own gas and donated $60.00 worth of cold drinks to the official Obama headquarters in a staunch republican county that he took in the PA suburbs.  Now you tell me I could have been paid for my 13 hour day of volunteering if only his campaign manager  would have given up something called “street money”?  I am pissed.  I thought I was doing the right thing, working for the candidate I believed in and making sure people got to the polls to vote, (something I almost didn’t get to do myself, but did at the last minute).  I shoulda worked for Hillary, the experienced candidate, who I’m sure spread the cash around like a good democrat.

April 24, 2008 6:34 PM

Historian1956 said:

Oh, by the way, I got my lawn signs for Obama for free from his headquarters, as well as pins too.  Had I gone earlier, I probably could have picked up more campaign booty before they ran out and all of it was free.  My son also got plenty of campaign booty before Super Tuesday in Arizona where he goes to school to pass around, also for free.  So, I ask who is kidding who?  Yes you could buy these items from the web site, but his headquarters in the states gave this stuff away for free or for volunteering or just for the asking.

April 24, 2008 6:44 PM