A Fun Counterfactual

[Isaac]

I'll try to write something on this subject soon, but a friend poses the following counterfactual which readers might enjoy discussing in the comments section:

If David Axelrod had run Hillary's campaign, and Mark Penn had run Obama's, a) would the outcome have been different and b) would we have had a very different understanding about the role gender and race play in this country? I think the answer to b) is definitely yes and to a) is perhaps yes.

See also Ta-Nehisi's post from earlier.

Comments

It's a stupid counterfactual. Obama *wouldn't* have someone like Penn running the show.

It makes ZERO sense to wonder about the differences between Obama and Clinton (the lord giveth) while at the same time assuming those differences don't result in substantially different choices of their TEAM (the lord taketh away).

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 27, 2008 3:52 PM

I think this counterfactual is a little too counterfactual. While I can easily imagine that Hillary could have run a better campaign with Axelrod in charge instead of Penn, I have a very difficult time imagining Obama putting up with Penn for more than an hour or two. I think you'd have to imagine not only that the campaigns swapped strategists, but also that there is a counter-Obama who wouldn't be filled with the urge to vomit every time he spoke with Mark Penn.

Posted by J.B. | May 27, 2008 3:55 PM

I see the reverse: (a) is definitely a "yes," while (b) is possibly a "yes." I don't think we have much of a changed understanding of the role race and gender play in this country as a function of this race. Certainly there's nothing like a consensus about it. Hell, Clinton's people can't even decide. Once upon a time, the claim was that sexism was so rampant that it was much tougher for a woman to be elected than a black guy. Now, the all-but-explicit reason d'etre for her continued campaigning is that this country will never elect a black guy.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 27, 2008 3:56 PM

If Mark Penn were running the Obama campaign, they would have gone after the black vote much earlier and much more aggressively. Penn would have seen this as a vulnerability. That would have been part of the evil Mark Penn plan written up in March of 2007.

Now...that being said, I'm sure Obama's folks always saw the black vote coming their way, but they used a more positive "Iowa as a proxy for white people" strategy, which acted as a slingshot to cause the media to repeat, "Black people can win white votes!" over and over after Iowa. And the Obama camp's use of victimhood during racial mishaps was always reactive and never proactive.

Penn would have proactively tried dirty race baiting in June of 2007.

Posted by Paul | May 27, 2008 4:05 PM

In current US politics, the role of the candidate seems to be rather like that of the general manager in baseball: hire the best talent you can within the budget constraints, and send them out to win the games while you sit back and worry about next year.
And we really have to evaluate the candidates on that basis: hiring good people to plan the fundraising, messaging, strategy, and communications is a vastly important skill.

And this goes for the substance as well: it wasn't an accident that Sen Clinton made the wrong decision about the Iraq war vote. She had surrounded herself with hawkish advisers, so they gave her hawkish advice. There's no passing the buck.

So really this counterfactual is as pointless as arguing whether Brian Cashman would be a better GM than Theo Epstein if he had the Red Sox roster. He doesn't have the Red Sox roster because he took the poor decisions that got the Yankees where they are. Team Clinton just isn't as good as Team Obama. And the reason is that HRC did a lousy job of hiring and managing.

Apart from the hiring and managing, the candidate also needs an iron constitution and the ability to give the same speech 500 times and master a brief quickly. But both Clinton and Obama have performed creditably in those areas.

Posted by Richard Cownie | May 27, 2008 4:26 PM

I think the first comment has it about right.

Hillary has worked with Axelrod before, and I do think he would've run a better campaign for her. But an Obama who hired Mark Penn to craft his message--especially at those rates--would be a totally different sort of candidate.

Posted by southpaw | May 27, 2008 4:26 PM

Good place to bring up something that's been bothering me.

I've heard the idea that Clinton made her career through her husband (no argument from me) and that it's fairly awful that the first (really) serious female candidate for president is a former first lady.

That's a lot how I feel about Obama. I really wish the first (really) serious "Black" candidate for president were actually ... Black? By that I mean someone who was born into and grew up in the US black community. Obama (whose black ancestory is very different from that of most Black Americans who have genetic ties to West Africa) wasn't born and wasn't raised in the US Black community and his joining it seems rather a lot like his mother's identification with Indonesia or an immigrant's child returning to the heavily romanticized 'old country' they heard so much about as a child.

I'm anxious to hear how my logic is all wrong.

Posted by michael farris | May 27, 2008 4:29 PM

Like other posters, I can't wrap my mind around the needed preconditions: that Axelrod would want to work with Clinton, that she would want to work with Axelrod, that Obama would want Penn as chief strategist and pollster. The difference between their campaigns in part comes down to who they put in power, so the counterfactual becomes "suppose Obama and Clinton were completely different from the managers they've proven to be...."

Penn is deeply into his microtrends and targeted groups, and so we would have heard endlessly about them whatever campaign he was running, but in terms of shaping the narrative I don't see it. It's more people like Bill, who proclaim it's sexism when the other candidates treat her like a frontrunner, then complains about a media conspiracy against her, then goes off on his dogwhistles....Send Bill to Africa last Thanksgiving, and leave him there doing statesmany stuff, and we might have seen a different narrative about gender and race. Or promote the people who wanted to focus on Hillary's softer side, as a person, rather than Penn's idea of pushing how ready she was to be commander in chief, show her an upstart and she'd invade tomorrow....

Posted by Deborah | May 27, 2008 4:34 PM

You only need the less-problematical part of the counterfactual for it to be interesting and worthwhile--as several people above have noted, Obama would never have tolerated Penn. But if Clinton had gone with Axelrod, or anyone with more talent for the job than Penn (who may well be a keen analyst of trends and microtrends, but is obviously unskilled at turning analysis into strategy), she would have won decisively and Obama would be a cool novelty to bank for the party's future. He's run an exemplary campaign and he is a very attractive candidate, but Clinton has run an awful campaign and is close enough to Obama that it's clear than a better campaign would have give her the edge.

Posted by Rich | May 27, 2008 4:35 PM

The standard analysis of subjunctive conditionals (of which counterfactuals are a species) is that they're true if the consequent is true at the relevant nearby possible worlds at which the antecedent is true.

Now, since the antecedent is actually false (i.e. false at the actual world), any world at which the antecedent is true involves a break somewhere with actuality. So the standard procedure is find the worlds with the best fitting "forks from actuality" to the truth of the antecedent, and then investigate whether the consequent follows. But here's the catch: the fork doesn't have to occur at the same time as the antecedent; in fact, subjunctive conditionals with forks located long before their antecedents are pervasive in ordinary discussion of counterfactuals.

That's what's wrong with Isaac's counterfactuals: to make sense of them, you have to go back at least ten or 15 years for a fork from the Clintons' relationship with Penn, and particularly the way he steered Bill through impeachment. Conversely, it's hard to imagine the fork that would make Obama disposed to hire Penn.

OTOH, you could ask what would have happened if Penn and Axelrod had stayed put, but exchanged strategic dispositions and organizational skills. In that case, I think (a) and (b) come out true (if I'm reading that right); Clinton would have gotten a substantial share of the black vote and won everything early.

Posted by Daniel Koffler | May 27, 2008 4:56 PM

michael farris, being black in this country is a social construct. It doesn't matter where you are from or what your parents look like. If you look like Obama and live in this country, you are black.

Posted by bperk | May 27, 2008 4:59 PM

"I'm anxious to hear how my logic is all wrong."

Your logic is wrong because it uses the wrong definition of "black community." You seem to think that American society views the "black community" as "a community made up of descendants of Western African slaves." This is flawed. American society views the "black community" as, quite simply, the community made up of "black people." Black people in turn are seen as any person with a visually noticeable degree of sub-Saharan African lineage. This is how black people were defined by post-Reconstruction Jim Crow laws, it's how they were viewed under segregation, it's how racist voters in West Virginia and Kentucky view them today. If you have any question as to whether Barack Obama is "black," ask yourself one simple question -- would he have been allowed to eat at a "Whites only" diner in 1960s Mississippi? If the answer is "no," then he's black -- and thus by definition a member of the "black community."

Posted by Joe | May 27, 2008 5:01 PM

Hillary Clinton is the moral equivalent to George W. Bush.

What was the question?

Posted by doug | May 27, 2008 5:01 PM

I can't imagine Obama touching Penn with a shitty stick either, but we can sort of extend the counterfactual into projection: is there any reason for Obama to recruit any of Clinton's top-level campaign team for the general election?

If so, who? Peter Daou?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 27, 2008 5:07 PM

michael farris: you should read Obama's book, Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

Posted by Korha | May 27, 2008 5:42 PM

Daniel,

"The standard analysis of subjunctive conditionals (of which counterfactuals are a species) is that they're true if the consequent is true at the relevant nearby possible worlds at which the antecedent is true."

Oy. Do people still think there's something beyond formal gee-whiz-that's-cool-ness about that way of talking?

Note that everything you said in that cute formalism (albeit informally) is true, except for the "analysis" part. You analyzed nothing. You restated what most here already said. Changing it to Spanish similarly doesn't "analyze" or explain anything. It just restates contents that have already been otherwise expressed.

Besides, everybody knows knows that the assertion of a counterfactual is the expression of the propriety of a material inference. :P

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 27, 2008 5:57 PM

is there any reason for Obama to recruit any of Clinton's top-level campaign team for the general election?

I'm not sure how much they could actually interact with reporters on the Obama team, given their old roles, but I was really impressed with Howard Wolfson's and Jay Carney's ability to drive the day's news cycle. I'd like to see those guys going after McCain one way or another.

And from what I understand, Geoff Garin and David Axelrod are actually fairly close friends. Garin would be valuable as well . . .

Posted by southpaw | May 27, 2008 5:58 PM

Michael Farris:

What Joe and bperk said. Frankly, the term "black community" is an overused euphemism that belies the diversity of experience of blacks (or, analogously, any racial/ethnic group) in this country. There are communities in this nation that are peopled overwhelmingly by members of a particular racial/ethnic group, but to describe the aggregate members of any such group as a community is meaningless (though we carelessly do this all the time).

Moreover, Obama grew up and lived in the United States for every year of his life except for a five year period from when he was 6 to 10 years old. There are plenty American kids in military and diplomatic households living similar experiences. I don't suppose anyone would doubt the authenticity of their nationality.

The fact of the matter is he has spent the vast bulk of his life being a black male in this country, and negotiating the precarious terrain that attends this identity. If that doesn't qualify you for "community" membership, I don't know what does.

Posted by TKS | May 27, 2008 6:06 PM

Maybe Sid Blumenthal to dig up dirt on McCain.

Posted by Persia | May 27, 2008 6:07 PM

The outcome would have been different if the economy had visibly slowed down sooner. Clinton was obviously going to do better and better as the economy got worse and worse - because she bears the name Clinton. "Clinton" is associated, in the limbic brain area of the American wallet, with good times, rising wages, budget surpluses. Unfortunately for her, the economy is only just now starting to look to even the most purblind observer like it sux. And it will be looking worse and worse.

Which is why Obama ought to be planning his campaign with that single fact in mind. The money D.C. is spending on the great fraud known as the global war on terror is going to bug people even more as they start calculating whether they can afford to drive to the grocery store.

Posted by roger | May 27, 2008 6:14 PM

I was really impressed with Howard Wolfson's and Jay Carney's ability to drive the day's news cycle

Agree 100%, especially Wolfson he's been extremely impressive. Of course hard to say how talented he really is, because when your teammates are chumps like Penn, Ickes, and McAuliffe any semblance of competence makes you look like Michael Jordan playing for a D-League team.

Posted by dwightkschrute | May 27, 2008 6:37 PM

It's like asking what if Rove had run Clinton's campaign.

oh wait...

Seriously, this is what if Superman were Russian type dickery. Not for grownups.

Posted by James | May 27, 2008 6:57 PM

I was really impressed with Howard Wolfson's and Jay Carney's ability to drive the day's news cycle.

I was really impressed with Karl Rove's political acumen for quite some time. It doesn't mean that I think he's anything less than odious or that I'd want him anywhere near my "team".

Posted by ben | May 27, 2008 6:58 PM

If David Axelrod had run Hillary's campaign, and Mark Penn had run Obama's

Just a nit to pick, but David Axelrod and Mark Penn were strategists for Obama and Clinton's campaign. The people who ran the operations and implemented the strategies were David Plouffe and Patti Solis Doyle/Maggie Williams, respectively.

Posted by Another Chris | May 27, 2008 7:02 PM

I was really impressed with Karl Rove's political acumen for quite some time. It doesn't mean that I think he's anything less than odious or that I'd want him anywhere near my "team".

I understand this sentiment, and it mirrors a lot of what I feel about Lanny Davis and Harold Ickes and Kiki McClean, all of whom give me the chills. I just don't get that from Wolfson or Carney or even Maggie Williams, despite what comes out of their mouths sometimes. That latter group doesn't strike me as fundamentally malign, but maybe I'm a squish.

Posted by southpaw | May 27, 2008 7:07 PM

"Once upon a time, the claim was that sexism was so rampant that it was much tougher for a woman to be elected than a black guy. Now, the all-but-explicit reason d'etre for her continued campaigning is that this country will never elect a black guy.

Nice!!

Does anyone besides the Clintons like Mark Penn?

Posted by tomtom | May 27, 2008 7:13 PM

It sure would have been interesting to see how Axelrod would have run his race-baiting scam in reverse to deny Obama the African-American vote.

Posted by Swift Loris | May 27, 2008 7:44 PM

Has that harpie slag dropped out yet? What a Monster.

Posted by SomeCallTimKAnAsshole | May 27, 2008 7:49 PM

"Once upon a time, the claim was that sexism was so rampant that it was much tougher for a woman to be elected than a black guy. Now, the all-but-explicit reason d'etre for her continued campaigning is that this country will never elect a black guy."

Dontcha see?

It is a disadvantage to be a woman in the Dem primary, but a black cannot win the general.

If a justification allows HRC to continue her campaign it is true.

Posted by tomtom | May 27, 2008 7:52 PM

Who does Lanny Davis work for under the twin-counterfactual. I sure am gonna miss him!

Posted by mofo | May 27, 2008 8:37 PM

Who does Lanny Davis work for under the twin-counterfactual? I sure am gonna miss him!

Posted by mofo | May 27, 2008 8:39 PM

In response to this posting

michael farris, being black in this country is a social construct. It doesn't matter where you are from or what your parents look like. If you look like Obama and live in this country, you are black.

Posted by bperk | May 27, 2008 4:59 PM

As an African immigrant, I have to agree with you that being "black" it just about skin color but that doesn't make it right. (Although as an West African immigrant from Nigeria, I have seen some Indians that are darker in skin complexion than I am but no one sees them as black, why is that btw?) Why is it that Blacks are not differentiated rightly?

By this I mean, when someone says Asian, most people know that it could mean Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Mongolian, Vietnamese, Indian, Srilankan(sic),etc. However, once you look black you are black unless if you are from India, Sri lanka or Bangeldesh.

I have to say that I and many of my friends who are either first generation or second generation African immigrants find this very frustrating.

There is a difference and it's time Americans get educated about it. The difference can be seen in the 40% of black students in US ivy league schools who are "black" but are actually either African immigrant (1 or 2nd generation) or Caribbean immigrants. Yet we are all bundled up as "blacks when we have vastly different history, culture, morals, values, life expriences (except for the collective racism which well, I think is just sad).

Most people don't even know that African immigirants have the highest rates of college and graduate school graduation of any other immigrant pool not just in the US but in Canada, U.K and Europe because we are all bundled up into one group.

Well, I know this had nothing to do with this post but I really wish someone can write something about this topic.

I know Debra Dickerson wrote an article stating that Obama wasn't really "black" and got a lot of flack for it. The truth is that she was and is right. "BLACK" NEEDS TO BE RE-DEFINED...SERIOUSLY!

I guess I should write an article on that after a more detailed research if someone doesn't.

Posted by Onyi | May 27, 2008 9:04 PM

Per TKS:

Moreover, Obama grew up and lived in the United States for every year of his life except for a five year period from when he was 6 to 10 years old. There are plenty American kids in military and diplomatic households living similar experiences. I don't suppose anyone would doubt the authenticity of their nationality.

Since WWII, about 4 million military brats have spent at least a full school year growing up overseas. Due to the military culture and time spent in places where "American" wasn't a default, I think that many of us internalized (for a while) a stronger identification with the nation-state than our ethnic subgroup.

Posted by cmholm | May 27, 2008 9:07 PM

Axelrod's specialty is working with newcomers, particulary African-American candidates in overwhelmingly white electorates, and introducing them to to the voters. Sometimes it works and sometimes (Edwards "Politics of Hope" 2003) it doesn't. He might have been a good choice for Clinton's first Senate run but not her presidential quest. Now the Axelrod that was describe as "Hatchet Man" in the late 80's probably would fit right in with Team Clinton.

Penn and his microtargeting might be useful if you need 100K votes in some state but he should never be in charge of a campaign.

Posted by cannon | May 28, 2008 2:31 AM

If Penn was in charge of Obama's campaign, Obama sure would have tied up the Archery Moms' support!

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2008 3:29 AM

Also, even if you have to hire Penn, don't copy Hillary's example by putting him on television. The Bushies were at least smart enough to keep Rove off of TV while he worked with them because it would have been political suicide having your campaign's spokesman be Jabba the Hut.

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2008 3:35 AM

"The standard analysis of subjunctive conditionals (of which counterfactuals are a species) is that they're true if the consequent is true at the relevant nearby possible worlds at which the antecedent is true."

This, fellas, is why people hate liberals. Good day.

Posted by qjkqjk | May 28, 2008 9:36 AM