Create Not Just Compete

Now that you reminded me my posting was from July, I dug it up and reviewed it again: http://tanky18.blogspot.com/2008/07/polls-and-predictions.html and I am glad not to find any embarassing bloopers in hindsight.

The list of battleground states I listed went almost wholly to Obama - except MO which he missed by a few thousand votes - and in almost the same order that I had speculated from the July polls. Although in hindsight OH weakened somewhat in Aug/Sep and then took some time before moving back; VA moved decisively in September and stayed there; likewise for FL although the less decisively but I was well-surprised by NC which eventually joined IN in the touch-and-go-for-Obama category.

Observing the campaign over the final 2 months, it seemed eerie that whenever Obama decide to spend sometime in Sep-Oct, he end up moving the state into his category. My preferred explanation is that they have a better feel for the ground by virtue of having a bigger field presence on the ground. So they have an direct sense of what is possible from talking to thousands of real people rather than relying on polls. I would add that theory as a further tactical advantage to the Obama campaign from investing in the biggest and the best ground operation in US history.

I wonder if you read this link I sent to you earlier of a first hand account of an Obama field operation. http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/546# I was truly inspired by how many people the Obama campaign have inspired on the personal level simply by working on the campaign and experiencing the sheer power of their organizational culture: Respect, Empower, Include. From that posting I got a glimpse of the sense of awe people felt when they uncover their own hidden abilities and talents. The gift of a well-run organization with such as strongly positive organizational culture is they helped to lift-up "ordinary" people by giving them enough faith/self-belief to discover just how extraordinarily gifted they really are. For many people, it is a big break to be told, "you are good, now see if you can upgrade and do this..." These simple acts of faith in others are gifts that will last a lifetime and be passed on to their family and children. It is not enough just to say, "yes we can". I believe the Obama campaign walk-the-talk that every day by believing in and empowering people.

The pundits will be dissecting the Obama campaign for years to come, but here is what I believe are the real reasons they won: (i) they invested in the campaign infrastructure, (ii) build-up their people not just with skills but with real leadership training, and (iii) find and create opportunity not just competing in a zero-sum game. This has been consistent since Obama's first meeting with his team in 2007, he laid down his principles: respect everyone, include and empower as much as possible and "no drama". As managers, we have to take our hats off to what he created.

This is what I wrote to Linda on Oct 16, 2008 (hey, thats your birthday!):

"We have a ring side seat as the US goes through an interesting time. Often it is described as a 'difficult' time - which i am sure is true for many, one of great dislocation, suffering and challenges. But looking back in history such times (1930s, 1960s, 1970s, early 1990s) are also periods when a lot of creativity is unleashed, new paths explored, society are reminded to renew its purpose.

May be its good people make do with less, use more public transport, buy a smaller car or live in a smaller house, spend time on activities that don't cost money, that not every bright young thing goes to work for Wall Street or a hedge fund..etc etc. May be the next few years will be a time when people explore perviously ignored forms of abundance.

At least in the US, I believe 2008 will be remembered and not just passed by, not just for the financial crisis but also the presidential election which is reengaging a lot of people to think about the kind of society they want to see. The Obama run is inspiring a lot of pent up idealism and passion and he has built a vast volunteer network of young people built on empowerment, leadership training and harnessing the internet...as a management system I am learning a lot."

The idea of "create not compete" is a poweful one.

If you recall Obama's race with HRC. He won because only he paid attention to the smaller states which caucus during the 4 weeks after Super Tuesday. It is not mutually exclusive. Yes, he also competed in every state but he created his own opportunity by expanding the map to find delegates in new places.

Again, when he started to invest attention in IN, VA, CO, NV, NC, GA, SD, MT many people thought he was throwing money away, but in the end he won 5 of those worth 53 electoral votes or more than FL+OH. Why? because he believes in creating new opportunity in places where the barriers to entry are low(er) and people are more likely to appreciate his attention; instead of just competing for votes in FL, PA and OH. Besides, he successfully forced his opponent to expend resources fighting a 7 headed dragon. By October, Obama had created 7 different pathways to winning [Kerry states + IA + NM + any one of (CO/VA/OH/FL/IN/NC/MO)] and it was next to impossible to pour resources into closing the gap in any one of them without letting others slip away.

Another example is creating new voting base. In addition to registering new voters late 2007, they explored the opportunities in early voting. The Obama campaign took advantage of new rules on early voting to run up votes among groups that historically are less-likely to vote, the sporadic voters. These are usually racial minorities or people in shift/low-skill work where they normally could not affort to take time off to vote. As far as the Obama campaign's concerned, for at least two whole weeks "every day is voting day" and every day they keep getting people to vote even if it takes more than one try. I believe that is how they pushed NC and FL over the top; and drove up the margins in NV, CO and OH. In fact, back in early October the Obama campaign moved their top people to FL (and shifted their attention slightly away from OH) because as they explained it, they already had enough voters in FL and all they had to do was turn them out.

Finally, Pollster.com had this chart:




















This chart shows the final polls estimate by Pollster.com (using their algoritam base on public polling results) and compared with the actual results (as of today, 6 Nov because some ballot counting are still going on).

See the places where Obama over-performed compared to the polls: NM, NV, IN, OH, FL, PA (but not NC and VA - but well within polling margin for error), they tend to be in places where the Obama campaign invested heavily in field operations and early voting.

And especially with NV, NM, PA (but not CO although that too is within margin of error), the effect is that he built up a "cushion of winning margin" such that even if the national polls come to a tie, i.e. assuming instead of winning the popular vote by 6.1% it was a tie and assuming that means we take 6% off the winning margin for every state, he would still end up winning the presidency with 278 electoral votes.

Now that is the power of a "create not just compete" strategy.