|
I just got home from nine days in Cedar Falls, Iowa. It was an exhausting, encouraging, informative trip. Long cold days campaigning, listening, and worrying, but we are a resilient nation and my wife and I returned to Chicago convinced that our best days are still in the future.
One of the things I've done for a living is to analyze performance data in order to predict the future. By analyzing past performance, I've been able to predict how well will a healthcare provider perform in the coming year? It's a life and death question. If you select healthcare Provider A rather than Provider B to perform your surgery you may be four times more likely to die before you are discharged from the hospital. So how do I decide which surgeon will be ready to perform surgery on day one? Or to rephrase this question in political terms, which Democratic candidate for President will be best able to lead our country on day one in the White House?
One method of answering the first question is to look at credentials. Surgeon A graduated from a prestigious Ivy League medical school while Surgeon B graduated from a little known state-supported medical school. Obviously, Surgeon A is the best man or woman for the job. But in the past year, the death rate for patients treated by Surgeon A was 12 percent and the death rate for patients treated by Surgeon B was 3 percent. Furthermore, the operations performed and patients treated by both surgeons were similar. So which surgeon would you choose to operate on you tomorrow?
By analogy, on January 20, 2010, which Democratic candidate for President would have performed best after a year in office?
Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to look at some relevant comparative data on past performance. The best comparative data we have may be data for the year ending January 4, 2008. I think it is fair to say there now are three leading contenders for the job. So how ready were these three leading contenders to run for President of the United States on January 4, 2007? On whom would you now put your money to be ready to lead our country on January 20, 2009?
On January 4, 2007:
Candidate A is married to a former President who is widely regarded as the best Democratic political strategist in the country. She was intimately involved in two successful campaigns for the Presidency and can raise prodigious amounts of money, which is the lifeblood of a national campaign. She has ready access to vast organizational resources and political expertise. She was twice elected to the United States Senate by huge majorities in one of the most populous states in the country. She is regarded as a prohibitive favorite by most authorities in American politics.
Candidate B has actually run for President of the United States. He bested all candidates for the Democratic nomination except the eventually nominee and was selected to run for Vice-President. He has spent the last three years preparing to run for President and has created a formidable organization in the state that will begin the nominating process. He is a wealthy former trial lawyer who was once elected to the United States Senate from a southern state. Every Democratic President in the past half-century has been a white male southerner.
Candidate C is a freshman United States Senator from a large Midwestern state who was elected to his first federal office two years ago after being twice elected to the State Senate. He is a black lawyer who has worked as a community organizer and taught constitutional law at a leading university. He has no experience running a national campaign, no proven ability to raise the money required to run a national campaign, no national campaign organization, and no team of national political consultants. He has demonstrated an outstanding intellect, superb oratorical skills and the ability to draw large crowds, but he is a relative unknown on the national political scene. However, he has impressed people who know him so much that they urge him to run for President before most seasoned political observers feel he is ready to compete successfully. He says he will not run unless he believes he can win and govern effectively; then he decides to run. A senior black Congressman says Candidate C made the right decision even though he does not have a chance of winning and endorses Candidate A.
In the first three months after January 4, 2007, all three candidates officially announce their candidacies. Candidates A and C raise similar record amounts of money for their primary campaigns; Candidate B raises far less money.
In the second three months, Candidate A has a substantial and growing lead in every national poll. She dominates debates, erodes Candidate B's lead in polls in the first state scheduled to hold a Democratic primary, and focuses attention on Candidate C's lack of experience in international affairs, calling one of his foreign policy statements "naïve and irresponsible." Candidate C creates a national campaign organization, develops a strategic plan, and articulates a policy of respect, empowerment, and inclusion that is to govern the entire operation. He also claims that he now has the best ground organization in each of the first four early primary states. His wife backs this claim by pointing out that Candidate C is a community organizer who knows how to do this.
In the third three months, Candidate A is declared unstoppable. Candidate B becomes more strident. Candidate C develops impressive policy teams and articulates policies on a large number of pressing national issues. Candidate C is pressed by some desperate supporters to "go negative" in order to give some life to a candidacy that falls more than 20 points behind in national polls. Candidate C makes some tactical adjustments but sticks to his strategy.
In the final three months, Candidate A stumbles during a debate and struggles to regain a position of perceived inevitability. Candidate B sharpens his confrontational populist positions. Candidate C continues refining tactics as he gains momentum and his winning strategy unfolds.
On January 4, 2008, all three candidates hit the ground running in New Hampshire after Candidate C convincing wins the Iowa caucuses and Candidate B narrowly edges out Candidate A for second place.
So, in answer to Candidate A's rhetorical question about who will be ready to assume the job of President of the United States on day one, I believe current data indicates that it will be the candidate who was best able to plan, organize, and execute a campaign for this office. To paraphrase an observation Pat Buchanan made several months ago: Hillary Clinton must keep Barack Obama from winning an early primary because Obama is a political thoroughbred and if he gets out of the barn, there will be no catching him. So, I'll put my money on Secretariat in the Belmont and take Barack Obama at his word. He is ready and able to win. He is ready and able to lead. He is ready and able to govern. On day one and beyond.
|
