The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory

by David Plouffe

  After we filed our stunning first-quarter finance report in April, we began to see huge growth in our online list. People now thought that this could be a real, sustained race, and many people who had been intrigued but hesitant to get involved finally jumped in with both feet. The unsolicited sign-ups were still exploding, and we began to do some Internet advertising around the Web to drive people to our site. In the beginning we had an optimistic goal of getting 3 million names on our list by the end of 2007. That number was based on what we thought was realistic, as well as what we thought we needed to support our original budget and provide us enough volunteers to execute the campaign.

  We figured we wouldn’t get to a million names until the fall and would then have to grow quickly in those last months before Iowa. Instead, we got to a million names in June, and remarkably, more than 250,000 of them had become contributors. This was an insane conversion rate, but it told us our base was larger than we realized and that these were not, on the whole, people dropping in casually to check out our website—they were trying to discover how to get involved, and, once they did, many became frequent volunteers and contributors.

  We also learned a lot about the regular e-mail messages we were sending out. People wanted information, and a lot of it. We could send more e-mail than we originally thought advisable, which spoke to the heightened interest in the race and the commitment of our supporters. To keep things fresh, we varied the length and tone of the messages-some were long and informative, others quite short and informal. Perhaps most important, we learned that people responded very well to e-mails from Michelle Obama and that we needed to use Barack somewhat sparingly—when he signed an e-mail it always produced by far the biggest response, but we did not want this to become a stale event. So many of the e-mails came from me, though when we needed a big response to an ask—for money, volunteer time, or to watch an event—we made sure the e-mails came from the Obamas.

  We ended the second quarter on June 20 having raised $32.5 million, $31 million of it for the primary. Hillary raised only $21 million for the primary-which would have been seen as astronomical but for our report—and the news created an uproar in the campaign world. No one, us included, would have predicted that we could match her in money this early, much less outraise her by $10 million in one quarter.

  The Clinton money machine, over twenty years in the making, was the best our party had ever seen, and we had demolished it in our fifth month. We still raised most of our money the old-fashioned way, through traditional fund-raising events, direct mail, and people writing large checks for us. But the online money had spiked to more than $10 million. This was by far a record for online primary money in a quarter and spoke to the fact that our income from this channel could really explode down the line, as we had hoped. By comparison, Howard Dean’s monster quarter in 2003 that propelled him to front-runner status raised only $7.4 million online.

  Many of the online contributions were in small amounts, twenty-five and fifty dollars. And almost all of our contributors indicated to us that they also wanted to volunteer. We believed that making a financial contribution would lead people to feel more invested in the campaign and could result in higher degrees of activism. From the beginning, the two categories of people who made up the largest percentage of our donor pool were retirees and students, showing a very healthy generational span. We were even more encouraged that many young people seemed to be moving beyond showing interest to actually contributing and volunteering. This new turn would be absolutely essential to us down the road.

  But our grassroots donors were of every age, race, and income group. Many had never participated in politics before, like Monique from Colorado Springs, whose husband had been sent to Iraq twice already and would likely return. She was motivated by Obama’s commitment to end the war in Iraq as well as his refusal to accept money from lobbyists. Or Gene, a retired teacher from Dakota Dunes, South Dakota, who felt that Obama’s time as a community organizer gave him the empathy and ability to help struggling families. The touch points and rationales for involvement ran the gamut, but what was being spun was a potentially powerful web of people who had not been involved much, or at all, in politics. These supporters were beginning to take ownership of the campaign, small piece by small piece.

  More important, our overall donor base swelled to more than 255,000, with over 95 percent of them not yet giving the maximum amount of $2,300, meaning they could give again and again if they were so inclined. The Clinton campaign had a much higher percentage of their donors giving the maximum, but we had built a larger donor base. We had more total donors and more donors who could still give us money without reaching the cap.

  It was a surprising position to find ourselves in.

  I quickly added money to all the state budgets, and we upped the timing and intensity of our media plans in the early states; we would begin advertising earlier and more frequently, which would be very important to us because voters in these states knew very little about Obama at this point. Most of what they knew was surface information-he was a senator, gave a good speech in Boston in 2004, served in the Illinois legislature. We needed to fill in his life story, his values, accomplishments, and agenda. Now we had the resources to do a more thorough job.

  Perhaps most important-and shocking, to us-we could afford to start planning for the states beyond the first four. I put $5 million aside to cover foundational expenses for the twenty-two states on Super Tuesday, and within weeks we began placing staff on the ground in all these states.

  We had assumed we would be playing catch-up with the Clinton campaign after the first four contests. If we won Iowa, we thought, we’d immediately be scrambling to place staff, build organization, and mount competitive campaigns.

  Now, it was not implausible that we could actually be better funded and organized than the Clinton campaign as we moved deeper into the race. In my mind, that made our Iowa strategy even more sound-and important. If we could pull off a win in Iowa now, we would not be doing so as the plucky, underfunded underdog who poured everything into one or two states but did not have the staying power to go toe-to-toe with the muscular front-runner. We were growing into a powerful force, capable of leveraging a win in Iowa in all the states where we were more active and organized, and better funded than the Clinton campaign. This was a strategic tipping point. And it made winning Iowa all the more important—our path was coming into clearer focus.

  I somewhat excitedly laid out this revelation for Obama, who was pleased by our competitive advantages but remained cautious. “I still don’t quite see how we erase thirty-point leads in all these states,” he told me, “but I have faith in what you and Ax preach, that the race will reset after we win Iowa. I understand we find ourselves in a better position than we could have hoped. You’ve asked me for some time to own Iowa. Trust me, that’s going to happen. Every week I feel like I’m getting more in the groove out there.”

  The Iowa staff agreed; they reported that he was much better on the stump and in locking down supporters in June than he had been in April and May. But we still had a long way to go.

  Even though we were raising a healthy majority of our money from the grassroots-and not taking any from federal lobbyists or PACs, a huge and important distinction from Hillary-we were wary of being defined by money and worked to spotlight other strengths of the campaign. Our opponents all held conference calls at the end of fund-raising quarters to tout and spin their performance. We shared the news first with our supporters through a post on our website, and the only spin we put on our performance was to emphasize the growth of our grassroots donor base, not the overall dollars raised.

  This is very unusual. Almost every modern campaign proclaims their financial success from the rooftops, but we took the opposite tack. We decided to let pundits and insiders chew on it all they wanted; we would not strut or pontificate.

  To try to get the press to see beyond our fund-raising (“Yes, he can raise money, but what else is there?�
�), the day our numbers became public I released this memo, laying out how we saw the race at that moment. Looking back now, you have to remember that this was the actual window through which we saw the race at this point. True, it was our interpretation, but I thought we put very little spin on the ball.

  We targeted this memo to the press, the political elite, and our larger donors, and sent it to them directly, but I thought it would also be useful reading for our staff and grassroots supporters, so it was also posted on the website.

  TO: Interested Parties

  FR: David Plouffe, campaign manager, Obama for America

  DA: July 1, 2007

  RE: The State of the Race

  Less than six months ago, we began this campaign with a mission.

  Barack and all of us were determined to defeat the politics of cynicism and division that is so pervasive in Washington today and replace it with a politics of unity, hope, and common purpose.

  The pundits and political insiders questioned whether a new leader and fledgling campaign could compete with the big money and massive organization of other candidates who have been preparing to run for years, and even decades.

  Well, for the second consecutive quarter, you’ve helped send a resounding answer.

  I’m thrilled to report that in the last three months, the Obama campaign has set a new record for fund-raising. Thanks to you, we raised at least $32.5 million including at least $31 million that we can spend on the battle for the Democratic nomination.

  But as astonishing as that feat is, much more important is how we raised it.

  To date, more than 258,000 Americans have contributed to this effort, much of it coming in small donations. This, too, shatters all records and sends an unmistakable message to the political establishment that the same old politics just won’t do in 2008.

  The American people are demanding real change, a politics of principle and not just expediency. They want to turn the page, and they’re turning out and supporting this effort in unprecedented numbers. It has become more than a campaign. It is a movement.

  Our financial success will provide the campaign important momentum. But there is practical application as well, which gives us a decided advantage in the nomination fight.

  First, we are on a financial course that will allow us to both fully fund efforts in the early primary and caucus states, and also participate vigorously in all the February 5 contests, including large states like California, New Jersey, New York, Georgia, and Missouri.

  Frankly, when we entered this race, we did not think that was possible. We estimated at this point of the campaign we’d be at least $20-25 million behind one of our fellow candidates. But due to the amazing outpouring of support from people all across the country, remarkably, we should be on at least even financial footing for the duration of the campaign.

  Second, because so many states are holding early contests that may have significant impact on deciding the ultimate Democratic nominee, a winning campaign will need deep organizations in dozens of states to prevail. Our more than 258,000 donors provide us the foundation of an unprecedented volunteer army in all 50 states. We also have thousands more who are not able to contribute but are already volunteering or who plan to. For example, early in June, more than 10,000 Americans took part in our “Walk for Change”—canvassing neighborhoods in all 50 states, visiting more than 350,000 households.

  We will have the largest and most committed grassroots organization in the race, allowing us to build our support, chase absentee ballots, conduct early vote programs, and turn out Obama supporters in any state we need to.

  This is a tremendous asset and is one more manifestation of the “enthusiasm gap” we have over our rivals.

  Six months into the race, we simply could not be in a better position. We have built a powerful, well-funded grassroots movement and strong organizations in each of the critical early states. Barack’s call to change our politics and put government back on the side of the American people and our best ideals is resonating more strongly every day.

  If you don’t believe it, take a look at how so many of our opponents have in recent months embraced Barack’s critique, positions—and even his language.

  Some of our opponents have tried to deflect attention from the obvious power and momentum of the movement we’re building by pointing to national polls that are all but meaningless. Indeed, at this juncture four years ago, Joe Lieberman had a solid lead in national polls. In the fall of 2003, the leaders were Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. You’ll recall, none of these men were the nominee.

  We’re pleased to be running as strongly as we are in the national polls, but they are beside the point in a process that will be shaped by a series of early contests that will begin in Iowa.

  One of our opponents is also the quasi-incumbent in the race, who in our belief will and should lead just about every national poll from now until the Iowa caucuses. Expect nothing different and attach no significance to it. It is clear you did not in this past quarter and we would encourage everyone to keep our sights focused on doing well in the early primaries and caucuses, and then using our organizational advantage nationally to clinch the nomination in February.

  Just as a refresher, below are some Democratic primary national polls going back to 1980. You’ll see how effective they have been as crystal balls.

  • 2003: In August 2003, Joe Lieberman led the national polls, in September, Howard Dean led, in October, Wesley Clark led, and in December—one month before the Iowa Caucuses—a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed John Kerry, the eventual nominee, in fifth place trailing among others Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt. Yet after winning Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry vaulted to 49% in national polls before the end of January. This has been true in nearly every previous Democratic nomination contest:

  • 1992: According to a November 1991 Los Angeles Times poll, Bill Clinton was in 3rd place with less than half the support of the then-frontrunner, Jerry Brown.

  • 1988: A January 1988 New York Times/CBS Poll showed Michael Dukakis in fourth place with 6 percent.

  • 1980: An August 1979 poll showed President Carter trailing Senator Ted Kennedy by 36 points

  Time is a friend to our campaign.

  While voters have a distinctly positive feeling about Barack, they don’t have a great depth of knowledge about his life and history of leadership in Illinois and Washington. That history, which we have begun sharing in the early states, distinguishes Barack as someone who not only speaks about change, but who has spent a lifetime working to bring it about.

  As we educate voters about Barack, we have strong reason to believe that our already impressive support in the early states will solidify and slowly build later in the year.

  It is clear we have the most room to grow in the race, given that the majority of voters do not know much about Barack beyond what they have gleaned from news reports over the last few months.

  We also remain the candidate most clearly synched up with the electorate, an electorate clamoring for change and ready for our relationships around the world to be repaired. The election is after all about the voters, and we are very confident that Barack Obama is the type of leader Democrats are looking for in the standard bearer.

  If we prevail in the nomination fight, there is mounting evidence that Barack Obama would be the strongest general-election candidate. Barack is consistently the strongest Democrat with independents in general-election polling, who are the voters that are the pathway to the presidency. Barack also has a 2-1 fav/unfav with general-election voters, which is also the best score in the Democratic field. That strength with independents, plus what would likely be very strong Democratic turnout across the country as a result of an Obama candidacy, also likely puts more states in play. We cannot afford another election where we have to run the table to win the Electoral College. So, the point is this. We are off to a great start because of your help. We are going to keep our head down and focus on continuing to build a powerfu
l grassroots movement, focus on the early states but plan for the states to come in early February and continue to both introduce Barack Obama and the kind of President he would be to the American people.

  In a little over six months, the contest begins in earnest. We are ahead of schedule in every phase of the campaign. Let’s keep it going and elect a leader who will transform our country.

  Thank you again for all you have done in the last five months.

  Later in the campaign we sent these state-of-the-race memos—often in video form—directly to our supporters via e-mail. At this point, though, we did not circulate them. My sense was that for many of our grassroots supporters, inside baseball like this would be of little interest, and might even turn them off.

  I was dead wrong. It could not have been more important for our supporters to understand how we saw the race and to know why their money and time were so important, especially as the press narrative was still quite negative about our prospects. It would have been very useful for our supporters to have our version of reality show up in their in-boxes, so they would not grow distracted, dejected, or confused when they repeatedly heard elsewhere that our prospects were poor.

  When we started sending these types of updates out to our supporters months later, we received a hugely positive response. There is a big difference between simply posting an important message on your site and pushing it out directly to your audience. We learned that lesson the hard way.