The 18 State Strategy?

Turkana provides a chuckle:

In an article about the Obama campaign's plans and expectations, Marc Ambinder had this amusing little nugget, from Obama election manager David Plouffe:

"All we care about is these 18 states," he said. He repeated, with emphasis, that the campaign does not care about national polling. Instead, the campaign's own identification, registration and canvassing efforts provide the data he uses to determine where to invest money and resources.

Had Clinton been nominated, and had her campaign manager made such a statement, the shrillosphere would once again be flooded with derision about her team considering 32 states to be irrelevant.

< Wednesday Night Convention Open Thread | Bill Clinton Rocks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    On one hand (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by BrianJ on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:52:59 PM EST
    At least Plouffe is realizing that dumping millions into Indiana, Georgia, Texas, et cetera is money wasted.  On the other hand, how much better a position would he be in if he'd known this in May?  Or even better, if the Democrats had nominated a candidate who knew it from the start?

    IN and GA are still in the 18 (none / 0) (#105)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:32:17 AM EST
    Texas not so much.  

    18 out of (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:54:48 PM EST
    52 states.  Obamas got it wrapped up.  Sounds easy.

    Actually, I think it was 57 (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BrianJ on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:00:08 PM EST
    So Obama could lose 39 states and still win.

    It says something about his camapign that I now think the former is as likely as the latter.


    All those independents and young (none / 0) (#30)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:12 PM EST
    first time voters live in only 18 states?

    Okay (none / 0) (#36)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:32:47 PM EST
    This reminds me of the fact that McCain is actually beating Obama right now among Independents and has been trending upwards.  And two other things, maybe it's because I'm biased but I haven't seen that many young people who are really into Obama.  Yes, he's certainly got the academic crowd but most young people aren't college students or grad students.  Also, during the primaries, the highest turnout primaries almost all went to Hillary including many with record turnout.  

    BTD (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by IzikLA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    I really respect you more than I could ever say and I don't even know you!

    Thanks as always.

    Second that motion! (none / 0) (#126)
    by prittfumes on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:45:49 AM EST
    Mondale Comment (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:57:24 PM EST
    They asked him what kind of advice would you give the nominee:

    "Know when you need help and where to get it".  Well, we have a clue on this...(VP choice)

    When Walter Mondale (none / 0) (#10)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    is giving you better advice than your own inner circle (and he assuredly knows what NOT to do), you're in trouble.

    Maybe Mondale's worried (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BrianJ on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    That Obama will lose Minnesota, the one state he managed to win.

    Quite possible. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    The GOP convention is in Minneapolis/St. Paul next week, and Obama only leads by a couple of points, I believe.

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:57:36 PM EST
    he's pulled out of GA. I haven't seen any ads lately. I've heard that he pulled out of NC too. He probably should go ahead and pull out of FL. Heck, come to think about it, what swing state is he actually going to win? OH looks to be gone.

    New poll (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:02:51 PM EST
    shows the Buckeye State: O 44 McC 43. Not enough, especially with OH's abysmal economy.

    CNN (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    Just reported that after spending 7 million in Florida on TV ads, he's actually lost ground there. And McCain hasn't spent any.

    I hope they're transferring some of this money to help the poor in states that now require photo ID's. It might make more sense than useless ads in red states.


    What I wonder (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:08:41 PM EST
    is how the GOP is going to use this? It seems that Obama falls right into that "tax and spend" liberal meme since the way his campaign burns through money for little effect or even negative effect.

    Bill and Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:54 PM EST
    will be sent to FL to rescue his butt.....

    They can't rescue (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:34:00 PM EST
    his butt. The problem for Obama in FL has to do with Jewish voters in South Fl and who are concerned about his commitment to Israel. Bill and Hill can't solve that problem.

    And recall (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by abfabdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:30:33 PM EST
    Obama's other little Florida issue of not wanting to count votes in the primary.  A lot of Florida voters will not forget that.  That's sure not the Clintons' problem either.  Actually none of this is now the Clintons' problem, and I am going to get awfully tired of hearing that somehow it is.

    They're correct to be concerned (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:42:52 PM EST
    and he's had several chances at do-overs and can't get it done.

    Excellent! (none / 0) (#18)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    If very sad.

    McCain is in Florida (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    I have been confused by the statement made several times here that McCain is spending no money in Florida. In South Florida, McCain television ads air just as often as Obama ads.

    Don't believe everything you here (none / 0) (#49)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:41:23 PM EST
    there is a desire here at least to spin things as "see I was right about Obama" being bad. I don't have a problem criticizing his actual failures, but for him to be tied according the same CNN being cited against Obama is to say the least for a Democrat surprising. Make no mistake FL is a GOP leaning state. McCain will have to now waste resources in the state that he can't really afford to waste. But, here,it will be read "but Obama isn't up." If the present polling is correct (which I am not sure it is, but if it is) then a continued tight race comes down the ground game. It's the only state where Obama and McCain are at parity so it will still be tight, but not totally a losing call. Here's the important point- McCain must win Fl. Obama wants to win FL but still has options to take the presidency. This is why the close numbers are critical. It places McCain rahter than Obama on the defensive strategically. But you will never read that here. For that kind of stuff go to other more poll analysis driven sites like pollster.com and 538.

    But Hillary could have (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by abfabdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:32:27 PM EST
    put Florida in play.  Wouldn't you say that demographics there would have favored her--more voters who are older?  That is why they may identify more with McCain than Obama.

    Dude, given Bush's aproval ratings and the issues, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:44:47 PM EST
    it shouldn't even be a tight race! McCain should be roughly where Mondale was at this point in '84. THAT's what has everyone worried.

    why because you say so? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:51:32 PM EST
    Look believe what you want. There was no way given the structure of our media, the nature of the electorate that this was going to be a simple race. If you believed that Clinton would be any better, then you didn't look at the numbers. She would have been strong in some places he wasn't and weakers in places where he's strong. That's the reality. And you can't be serious? 84 was an incumbent running against a challenger. Incidentally Bill Clinton at his height of power in 1996 running against Dole didn't approach reagan in 1984. Your post is as out of sync with the reality of the electorate as the expectations game McCain't team was trying to put out there with claims obama should expect a bounce of 15 or else it doesn't mean Obama has an edge.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:03:00 PM EST
    but you are wrong about Clinton. Gallup did poll her recently and she had three points on Obama nationally. She was outside the margin of error whereas Obama was losing to McCain. She has always polled better in swing states than Obama. The party decided to go with the weaker candidate and that is that. The odds of him winning in Nov. are starting to look slimmer and slimmer every day.

    How "recently" (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Claw on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:17:49 PM EST
    "Recently" is the important word here.  If it was after she ceased being a viable candidate the poll is pretty meaningless.  Obama's having to deal with the negative ads.  Not Clinton.

    Oh quit that. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:24:25 PM EST
    They polled her this week iirc. And I thought that we couldn't nominate her because of her negatives that weren't going to change.

    She's always polled better than Obama. It's nothing new.

    Yes, the negative ads I'm sure are having an effect on Obama. McCain is really hitting him where it hurts. I understand the Ayers ad has been running in OH and MI hence the declining numbers there.


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#87)
    by Claw on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:20:25 PM EST
    For bringing up the fact that a much loved candidate not having to bear the force of the repub attack machine will probably poll better when she/he is no longer running for POTUS.

    ha ha (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:49:02 PM EST
    You're right!  She's just had to bear the force of the "progressive" attack machine.  On top of 15 years of the GOP attack machine.  It's a wonder she's still standing at all.

    Have you been in a hole (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:22:53 AM EST
    the last month?  The media and some Republican pundits have done nothing but a non-stop smear campaign on Hillary.  Yes, the Republicans have stepped up their attacks on Obama but that does not mean the attacks on Hillary or Bill have ceased.

    The media has (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:16:55 PM EST
    been in the tank for Obama for months, so why is he barely tied (if that)? Similarly, the numbers show the electorate like the GOP as much as tertiary syphillis. The '96 comparison is misguided, as the Republican "brand" that year was nowhere near as tarnished as it is today. I return to my original question: why isn't Obama doing better?

    Oh, BTW: during the primary campaign, we repeatedly heard that any Democrat whose name did not rhyme with Gillary Minton would easily romp to a 350 EV+ super-mandate. I see you have adjusted your expectations.


    "the structure of our media"? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:47:12 PM EST
    You mean a media that is largely dominated by "journalists" that are in the tank for Obama?  Really?  

    If Al Gore had had this kind of media coverage, there would have been no need for the Courts to take his victory away.  The fact that Obama is doing as he is doing despite his media edge means that the Court might intervene again.  Too bad he was against a filibuster of SC nominees.


    Can they be the 527's? (none / 0) (#53)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:43:05 PM EST
    re parity (none / 0) (#54)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:43:50 PM EST
    I am referring to ground game. In most other battle ground states and in some not on the list Obama has a sizeable ground game advantage. He also may have an advantage in early voting drives (typically both are GOP advantages). I fyou want to know why this is important- Webb took VA in 2006 due in part to a strong early voting drive.

    His ground game advantage (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:07:22 PM EST
    certainly did him a lot of good against Clinton in all those big swing states....

    Like WI, VA, NC, OR? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:38:23 AM EST
    Some of the primaries he won.  Not to mention the caucus states where his campaign out-organized Clinton's campaign.

    "Out-organized"? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:35:05 AM EST
    That's one word for it.  But not the right one according to a lot of people who saw what happened during caucuses and who were in Denver this week.

    There (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:44:58 AM EST
    is no caucus in Nov. and Obama did extremely poorly in any primary that wasn't heavily AA. None of this translates well to the general election.

    WI, MN, OR, VT, CT (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:49:03 AM EST
    All primary states with 10% or less AA populations.

    Okay, he took Maryland and Delaware which ARE non southern primary states with larger AA populations.

    But I know that you know that Obama's strength and  support comes from other demographics besides AA.


    I should (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    have added latte liberals to the mix. MN was a caucus so you should take that off your list.

    Oops, You're Right About MN (none / 0) (#157)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    However, you're wrong about the latte liberals.

    Never had a latte in my life. Proudly call myself a liberal, though.


    This sucks (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:22:44 PM EST
    Obama sucked up so much of the money and told his supporters not to donate to independent groups.  And the DNC is a joke right now money wise (not the DSCC or DCCC though, thank goodness).  A lot the non-federal down ticket races were counting on Obama organizing to help them since they couldn't turn elsewhere.

    And now it looks like a lot of them are going to be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

    This is what happens when the party turns into a one-man show.


    Gonna be another clusterfrak (none / 0) (#118)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:36:31 AM EST
    that ten to one the media will pile onto the Clintons to fix come 2009.

    Not Quite (none / 0) (#145)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:55:32 AM EST
    July Numbers Pretty Good, Actually

    "The DNC's fundraising figures are even better news for the Democrats than Obama's fundraising figures.  Up until now, the DNC has sort of been the black sheep of the Democratic fundraising committees this cycle.  While the Obama campaign, the DSCC, and the DCCC have all significantly outraised their Republican counterparts this election, the DNC has been getting badly beaten by the RNC this cycle.  This looks like it is about to change as the DNC outraised the RNC last month for the first time since October 2004.  Obama's big donors came through for the party as the DNC raised $27.7 million compared with the RNC's $26 million."


    See link below (none / 0) (#156)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    the DNC only had about $7 million cash on hand before these latest numbers.  the RNC had more like $70 million.  So if the party is just ramping up efforts now to do GOTV in many states, it is still far behind the RNC and far behind the Obama campaign.  Ergo, if Obama pulls out of Indiana, GA or whatever, it's still bad for down ticket candidates - you can replicate months of lists and door-to-door contacts in a few weeks.

    Pulling out of NC and GA is a smart move (none / 0) (#40)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:35:10 PM EST
    But it was incredibly stupid for them to spend so much money to begin with.  Obama has a penchant for spending a lot of money and getting little results.  McCain will win both.  Also, he's going to win Missouri.  They have the money to keep fighting Florida but after outspending McCain 7 million to zero and getting nothing, you have to wonder if that state will go to him.  

    Only temporary (none / 0) (#96)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:12:50 AM EST
    pullout of ads.  The ad strategy is being re-tooled and will begin again after the convention.  NC and GA are part of the 18 states.  Plouffe talked about both states and their strategy and turn-out needed to win them.  Florida is one of the 18 also.

    As for Ohio, it isn't "gone."  The election isn't today and some polls show it tied; some Obama lead and some McCain lead.


    He's going to need to find 410,000 more votes (none / 0) (#107)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:40:45 AM EST
    than Kerry did to win NC. Not an easy task.

    I agree with you that it seems (none / 0) (#108)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:46:08 AM EST
    an uphill battle in NC.  But with added Dem registration and added AA turnout, it could be interesting. And even if Obama doesn't pull a win in NC, the added Dem turnout could knock Liddy Dole out of her Senate seat.  Hagan's polling numbers are looking good.  

    Obama's not going to get (none / 0) (#120)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:40:17 AM EST
    the same numbers among whites in the South that Kerry got, for a few different reasons, among them lingering resentment among Hillary supporters.

    Probably more than that now (none / 0) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:41:33 AM EST
    that Edwards has embarrassed the elite, and fashionable city of Chapel Hill.

    DIng! DIng! DIng! (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:48:31 AM EST
    McClatchy had a poll where Obama is losing GA by 25 points. He is not going to win here. They are lying when they say they are going to come back in. They aren't meeting their fundraising goals so I doubt they'll be able to do anything about NC and GA.

    Oh, for Chirssakes! (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    How often did we hear during the primary about how that EEEVIILL Clinton was "writing off" such vital swing states as Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming and how that made her dead meat in the fall (or, at the very least, imperiled Dems downticket). Now, it looks as though Obama is caught in the same trap as  the Gore-Kerry campaigns. I thought in the wake of '04, there was a netroots consensus that Dems could no longer wage 18-state GE bids--hence the appeal of Dean's "50 state strategy."

    But even here, something happened. I think the DP lurched from one extreme to the other. Why not a 30-35 state strategy with (and this is the critical part) ALL COUNTY campaigns in those states that are contested. (If Kerry had won ~20,000 extra votes in rural OH, he would be POTUS today.) First, however, you need candidates and policies who can run and win such campaigns. Simply looking at the county-by-county maps from the primaries tells us this: Hillary Clinton could easily have run such a campaign, and Barack Obama (it sure looks like) cannot.

    Yeah, in the California Primary (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:36:28 PM EST
    the Clinton campaign had a 58 county strategy.  It wound up working well despite having very little money to work with from the national campaign.  ALL County campaigns are vital.  

    The 18 state number is a much bigger (none / 0) (#97)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:14:38 AM EST
    battleground than Kerry's targeted states.  The 18 don't include NY or CA or OR, etc.

    Right. 18 is much bigger than 17. (none / 0) (#140)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:19:02 AM EST
    Nobody thinks Idaho, Utah, or Wyoming are "swing states", or that ignoring such states hurt Clinton's chances in the general election. (Except, of course, insofar as losing the nomination hurts one's chances in the general election.)

    The point is that even though a state might seem unwinnable, in the nominating contests a candidate's margin of victory or loss affects their delegate total. The Clinton campaign eventually did figure this out, and with a modicum of attention, held Obama to a 2-delgate margin in Wyoming.

    If the news stories are true, Mark Penn was under the impression that California's primary was winner-take-all. No wonder he expected the nomination to be sewn up on Super Tuesday.

    Oddly, Obama made the same kind of mistake, late in the campaign. By essentially conceding Kentucky and West Virginia, he allowed Clinton to run up much larger delegate margins than he could have held her to. Granted that these states would have been demographically very tough for him to win, he still should have made more of an effort there, imo. He could have taken the tack "It may seem like Kentucky Democrats are not on my side, but I will always be on their side. I know I am unlikely to win next week in West Virginia, but I will always fight for West Virginia." It would have recast Obama as a fighter, an image he foolishly handed over to Clinton.

    Of course you're dead right about your all-county idea. In a close race, it is essential to register and turn out ALL your likely supporters. However, some of your supporting arguments are wrong. Kerry lost Ohio by ~150,000 votes, not ~20,000. And Obama is in fact paying an unprecedented amount of attention to the ground game: organization, registration, identifying and turning out voters. You can't possibly judge this by "simply looking at the county-by-county maps from the primaries." I think you've gotta be there to really judge what's going on on the ground. Anyway, you can't use primary results, at any level, to predict general election results with any confidence,


    What a large bus that must be (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by theprosecutrix on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:03:04 PM EST
    to fit 32 states under it.

    Or is that 39?

    Unfair. CA, IL, NY etc (none / 0) (#98)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:17:49 AM EST
    aren't part of the 18.  The 18 are their targeted "battleground states."   But they are assuming wins in states like IL, CA, NY, etc.  So while some states are "under the bus" as you put it -- it isn't 32 states.  

    You don't understand (none / 0) (#104)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:31:09 AM EST
    I don't think anyone here thinks it would be a great use of resources to have 20 field offices in California.  What they ARE saying is that it is perfectly obvious that some states should get more resources than others.  However, if this sentiment had been voiced by Clinton, she would have been vilified.

    Is that clear?


    I do understand (none / 0) (#113)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:06:49 AM EST
    But the comment I was replying to talked about 32 states being "thrown under the bus."  Inaccurate.  That comment wasn't about Clinton.  The comments to the orginal post have been both about Clinton and a discussion of the 18 states and the Obama campaign's strategy.  I was responding to the latter.  

    In fact, she *was* vilified (none / 0) (#122)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:43:48 AM EST
    I seem to remember talk among the Obama faithful implying Hillary was some sort of dragon lady for not seeming to believe caucus states like Kansas have traditionally been as important to Dem fortunes as, say, California.

    yet another meme that's going to come home to roost, I suspect.


    Well I have to hand it to him (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:08:49 PM EST
    He's at least doing something right.

    The 50-state strategy in presidential elections is STOOPID.  

    Except that's not what he said (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:17:11 PM EST
    The resources are being organized in most states, but these states are given priority.  The difference being that the 32 other states aren't totally being ignored as the readers here are wanting to believe. All of this has been discussed by Nate Silver, Chris bowers, and others-- about where the resources are being allocated and where not. ie, organization offices out number mccain's 3 to 1, and in several states no listed he has resources there.

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:36:35 PM EST

    Many are resourced, but few are targeted (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    Almost all states are resourced, as part of a 50 State Strategy variant - increases the chance of a big sweep with "mandate" potential (at increased risk of losing the whole shebang), and invests in building the Obama machine (to displace the traditional Democratic Party).

    Not only do most of the states not matter ... most of the people in most of the targeted states don't matter.

    As progenitor of the 50 State Strategy, I have mixed feelings about this -- but it's a more faithful implementation than the original Dean/netroots 50SS craze.


    Uhm do you want me to provide the link (none / 0) (#62)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    I swear Plouffe said an 11-state strategy (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:49:14 PM EST
    a month or so ago.  That would be telling, if it means -- as it does -- so many more states where they thought they had it locked but now have to battle.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:49:58 PM EST
    it's all over now.  I am worried that there's some kind of fix and that's why Obama and his people are so arrogant.  Whatever, either of these candidates will not help this country.  Our last best hope was Hillary.  I'll never vote Democratic again.

    Are any of those 18 states ones which... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:31:39 PM EST
    Hillary won, perhaps?

    Gee, now that you mention it... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:45:33 AM EST
    Here's the map: LINK
    Clinton Wins(primary results):

    Not AK (none / 0) (#135)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    Maybe Meant AR, Not AK (none / 0) (#146)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    Not AR (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:15:00 AM EST
    BO08 is specifically writing off Arkansas.

    Thought This Was a List of Clinton Wins (none / 0) (#154)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:45:21 AM EST
    in the primaries. Missed the earlier post.

    Yes, but both AR and AK are in this list (none / 0) (#155)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    ummm (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by pennypacker on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:59:44 PM EST
    obviously the other states are locks either way...but anything to poke fun or mock Obama

    Boy (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:26:09 PM EST
    this constant "you guys just hate Obama" whine sure gets frickin' old.

    It is a little weird (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Claw on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:28:41 PM EST
    To see this level of animosity directed at the first AA nominee of a major party.  On the night of his nomination no less...so maybe there's something to the people just hate Obama (here).

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:06:15 AM EST
    I think a lot of these same people felt it was a little weird to see so much animosity directed at the first serious female candidate, you understand.  The only thing is, in that case society basically saw the hatred as healthy and acceptable.

    I imagine I am not the only liberal who has felt, at various times throughout this campaign, that I really WISHED I could be more enthusiastic about Barack Obama's candidacy.  Something about the dynamic, where a good Democrat like Hillary Clinton had to be portrayed as an evil race-baiting witch in order to make it happen, sucks a little bit of the life out of the party.


    Not Weird, Very Sad (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    Well, maybe a bit weird to see the supposedly 'liberal' party torn up with the animus at both the first viable woman and AA candidates.

    I'm not surprised at it in the larger GE arena as much because all these tensions are obviously prevalent. But in the Democrats' corner...sheesh.

    But, as I said, to me this whole season...just incredibly sad.


    Exhibit A for why (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:48:20 AM EST
    so many Hillary supporters are still so pissed off:  Being called racists EVERY time we say anything remotely negative about Obama's strategy or qualifications.

    As I've been saying here all week - I'm a person who lives in the South, and for the last ten years or so I've been fighting any number of uphill battles against real, live racists, who'd like to try things like putting one voting machine in a district with 20,000 blacks, or putting a non-miscegenation Constitutional amendment on the ballot every year.  These folks don't give a damn what you good liberals think about their even-handedness when it comes to race relations.

    You don't have any idea what's about to hit you out of the Republicans.  You might want to Google "Harold at the Playboy Party" for a little preview.  And now you've cried WOLF so loudly and so often that nobody's going to listen to you.

    Great, great job.  At the rate you're going, you're going to lose the election for your guy AND set race relations back 20 years.  Nicely played.


    So true, Eleanor (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by suki on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 04:20:19 AM EST
    Southern girl here, too.
    I remember watching CNN the day Ms. Brazile took offense as 'an African American' over the ginned up 'fairy tale' comment President Clinton made.
    I immediately called my sister and when she answered the phone, she skipped the hello and said, "We are f##ked".
    Truer words were never spoken and it's been downhill from there.
    I can't count the people I know who are heartbroken over this - people who have fought for civil rights for decades. They are so hurt and angry.
    Between that and the sexism, I don't know how we begin to fix it - particularly since it continues to this day.
    The damage is deep and lasting, I'm afraid.
    It's been an awful thing to see unfold.

    I cannot speak for everyone, but (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:34:13 AM EST
    most do not "hate" the "first AA nominee of a major party." Because he's AA does not automatically qualify him to POTUS. It only makes him AA and running to be POTUS. It is his elitist, better than the rest of us attitude that makes him unattractive, not to mention his views, his voting record (see FISA)and his disengenuous attitude toward anyone who says they are not with him because he's "HIM." There are other reasons, these have just been some!!!

    Sure. (2.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:49:03 AM EST
    Your comment and those surrounding it speak for themselves.  No one is calling anyone a racist.  I think that's become a convenient excuse: any time someone says you're being overly negative re: Obama, just sigh about how you're tired of always being called a racist.  But--with the understanding that no one is calling anyone a racist--do you not find it odd that the response to the entire nomination process of the first AA (which is a rather historic event) has here been so overwhelmingly negative?

    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:53:52 AM EST
    race isn't the problem. And why should we be excited simply because of his race? That's what you are implying and it turns me off. I've voted for lots of AA candidates here in GA. The thing is, I recognize what a good AA candidate is and what a bad AA candidate is simply by having seen so many of them. Obama is a bad AA candidate and that's not something I can get excited about because I think it hurts other AA candidates.

    No, (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:20:43 AM EST
    I'm implying that you are an even more diehard Clinton supporter than Clinton.  I'm also finding the lack of any, even passing, acknowledgment (among some commenters) of the momentousness of the occasion strange.  You also realize that you just used the electoral "but I have plenty of black friends" defense?  Good for you for voting AA occasionally in GA.  In some races the other option would be staying home.
    Finally, I don't think an AA being nominated hurts AA's.  I don't know what kind of tortured logic got you there...

    Oh (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:16:51 AM EST
    geez, this is why Obama is going to lose in Nov. It's all about the color of his skin not the content of his character. Nominating an AA candidate as bad as Obama does hurt AA's. Let me put it this way: How much has Al Sharpton running for President in the past helped AA's?

    The fact of the matter is, Obama foolishly race baited over and over again during the primary. It's why he's not a good AA candidate imho.


    So (2.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    Al Sharpton running=AA candidate being nominated by the Dem party.  Riiiiiiiiight.

    I simply (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM EST
    can't understand what is wrong with Obama and his supporters. I think it boils down to the fact that they know they have a bad candidate and simply can't face up to it.

    Do you really think that Obama is a good candidate? IMO, he plays into all the stereotypes and resentment there is about affirmative action i.e. it does nothing but gives jobs to unqualified minorities. And you can't say that he's qualified. He isn't even trying to say that he's qualified only that you should vote for him because of "who he is". Is that not hurting AA candidates who are qualified and strong in the future. Voters are going to see Obama in any future AA candidate and run the other way. The next AA candidate will have a much harder time than if Obama had never showed up on the scene.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:39:19 PM EST
    I do think he's a good candidate.  I'm certainly willing to have a sensible conversation about it.  I'm not at all thrilled with all of his behavior during the campaign.  It simply seems that your position boils down to "I hate Obama."  Not to mention the idea that nominating an AA for POTUS HURTS AA's is a pretty hard sell.

    Do they (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:59:43 PM EST
    sound really defensive about this? National polls do tell us something just not everything. Mostly trends. Did Obama's numbers go down again today?

    Obama got a convention bounce!!! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    he's now tied with McCain.

    WEll get on your knees (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:49:50 PM EST
    and thank HIllary.

    National polls or tracking polls. (none / 0) (#99)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:20:15 AM EST
    MOST, not all, but most national polls show Obama with a lead of 4 - 6 points.  The rolling tracking polls show Obama going up today.

    no they don't (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:46:53 AM EST
    Gallup O+1 (none / 0) (#112)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:02:01 AM EST
    Ras M+1.  I stand corrected.  I must admit that I find the tracking polls pretty useless myself.  One "off" night for a candidate can throw off the numbers for 3 days.  

    And today, Thusday, (none / 0) (#141)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    Rasmussen also shows Obama up 1

    Can't we be done with the Clinton stuff now? (none / 0) (#11)
    by dogooder on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:02:20 PM EST
    Did you want him spending lots of money in Utah? In any event, I think the voter registration drive will be for all 50 states, not just the 18 swing states.

    Is there possibly a money problem? Are the (none / 0) (#16)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:04:04 PM EST
    donations not going to meet the $300-400 million mark?

    Yes, (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:11:00 PM EST
    they are way behind on donations and not meeting goals. I'm wondering if the money isn't going to dry up soon. The NYT reported that Hillary's supporters weren't raising money for him. Of course, a lot of this is Obama's fault. They didn't want to give her fundraisers any status within the campaign.

    Basically... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM EST
    ... by breaking his promise on public financing, he dug an $85 million hole at the very beginning. This is money that Democratic donors have to make up for before Obama even begins to have an advantage over McCain and the RNC, and it comes at the expense of the rest of the Democratic Party.

    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:29:16 PM EST
    Huge mistake by the Obama campaign. They figured that if they made 50 million back in Feb it would be soooo easy to come up with 100 million once the primary was over. He neglected to think that there might be consequences to his actions in the primary. Apparently he's paying for them now. Also, many Jewish donors have gone over to McCain and some others.

    Don't forget about the law of diminishing returns (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:41:33 PM EST
    Many of Obama's fabled "small donors" may be maxed out after the lengthy primary. The economy can't help, either.

    You people are makings tuff up (none / 0) (#56)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    Firs toff people can give both 2300 in the primary and up to same amount in the General. The general is not maxed out. Obama hasn't focused on fundraiing and still outraised mccain. Indeed, they big donors are also not maxed out. All of which is to say the bonaza is expected in August and September. Jul and Aug his organization focused on organization. do you read any place other than this site?

    By "maxed out," I meant (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:50:39 PM EST
    that they simply may not have any more money to give! That's a real consideration.

    Unlikely (none / 0) (#66)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:57:30 PM EST
    The race is perceived of as tight. If anything that means more people will donate. There always the case that the sky could fall, but there is no way to deny the Obama's funding raising prowess thus far. If you don't believe me- compare it to the summer of 2004 and Kerry.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    ... he is spending time raising money. He went to the San Francisco area last week or the week before and raised something like $8 million. Apparently this is the parallel public financing system we've been hearing about.

    Let's say Obama does raise $200 million for the general election. That gives him a $115 million dollar advantage over McCain, who got $85 million for free from the real public financing system. Even this is much diminished once you count the RNC. Still, this $115 million advantage cost $200 million; i.e. for every dollar donated, Obama gets only 57 cents extra against McCain. And the remaining 43 cents goes down the toilet, instead of to other Democratic candidates.


    The RNC advantage is now being (none / 0) (#67)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:59:55 PM EST
    hedged by the DNC fundraising efforts with big money donors. I don't like it, but that's the reality of politics. More than this, in 2004, people thought like Mccain does now that they could use 527s and DNC with Kerry. There are all sorts of problems Kerry faced with this. I imagine given the organization efforts of McCain versus Obama- that McCain maybe facing similar issues in the near future. Nate Silver had an article on the subject of state by state organization a few weeks ago.

    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    but the NYT just had an article today about how abysmal Obama's fundraising has been. The campaign has failed to reach out to Hillary's donors and is paying dearly for it. They are now trying to lie about what they previously said about goals.

    It's true... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:06:15 PM EST
    ... that the RNC only outraised the DNC by $6 million in July, though the RNC currently has $75 million cash on hand, compared with $7.7 million for the DNC. That $67 million gap, when added to the $85 million from public financing, means that Obama starts out $152 million behind.

    It's true that the GOP effort will be less organized, given that the McCain campaign and the RNC aren't allowed to coordinate. I'm not sure how effective a restriction that is in practice. Still, the money advantage may not be all that great for Obama.


    Thjere is NO money advantage (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    The RNC is free to rake it in and they are doing a great job of that.  They are free to give the money to any republican candidates who need it.  

    On top of that, their Voter Vault thingie is VERY organized and very high tech.  It makes it so they no exactly who to target. They won't waste their money on mass mailings.


    Yes we do but we do not annoy other sites (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:28:09 PM EST
    BTW, where is that link you were going to provide for us? Although, as a new user on your first day you have hit the 10 allowed comments. Sorry you are not happy with us here.

    Wow, a lot of typos! (none / 0) (#86)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:12:14 PM EST
    You must be really mad!

    I hear the GOP (none / 0) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:30:36 PM EST
    is doing their darnedest to get HER donors.

    very true (none / 0) (#42)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:36:14 PM EST
    Hillaries are a hot commodity - and, unlike Obama, McCain has never called us racists!

    Well the Republicans and McCain (none / 0) (#100)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:22:40 AM EST
    pretty much encourage racism don't they?  

    What about small donors? I haven't gotten a call (none / 0) (#47)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:39:26 PM EST
    I don't even know what I'd say to them if they solicited me for money.  

    They had a (none / 0) (#142)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    Celebrate Clinton cocktail hour. It's almost surreal.

    Not Surreal (none / 0) (#152)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    Cynical and strategic.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:09:29 PM EST

    A bit OT, if that's okay... (none / 0) (#24)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:13:57 PM EST
    What's the latest on McCain's VP announcement? I don't see anywhere near as much speculation here as there was for Obama's choice. Is it because the media doesn't care as much, or have I been unobservant?

    I feel like Romney would be a bad choice (for McCain), and I don't know anything about Pawlenty. Palin of Alaska or Hutchinson of Texas could be real game-changers, however. Would choosing one of those two be seen as patronizing or brilliant by disaffected Clinton supporters?

    I think the most important reason is that (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by BrianJ on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:38:02 PM EST
    McCain came forward last week and said he'd make his announcement on August 29, full stop.  None of the weeks-long melodrama that came from the Obama camp.  It's the same MO he's been using since (presumptively) winning the nomination-  be decisive and stay under the radar while Obama soaks up the limelight and abuse.

    As for who it is, I personally think it'll be Governor Palin-  a woman (which will help attract some of the Hillary supporters), someone who's actually run something (instead of a fourth Senator on the two tickets), young to counter McCain's age, relatively moderate but not setting off the extremists in the party, and of course good looking.


    A report is out now... (none / 0) (#73)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:11:42 PM EST
    ... that Romney won't be the VP nominee. A lot of conservative folks are upset about that, for reasons I can't fathom. I remember the Romney of 1994 against Ted Kennedy and he was anything but conservative.

    That leaves Pawlenty as the front-runner, with talk of Hutchison, Palin, Meg Whitman (EBay) and Fiorina (formerly of HP). Four women, though this may be just talk and not serious.


    Sorry, but I don't see any of those women helping (none / 0) (#82)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:11:30 PM EST
    McCain.  If it's not Romney (who I think will be the choice) it will be Pawlenty or Rob Portman of Ohio.  I've heard lots of buzz about him.  Another choice that is buzzing in Virginia is Eric Cantor.  But I don't think anyone outside of VA knows who he is.  

    Just Like the 2000 McCain Not 2008 McCain (none / 0) (#153)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    The 1994 Romney is not the 2008 Romney.

    He morphed rightward for this campaign and it was duly noted by some of his opponents, but many on the right anointed him the 'true' conservative in the primary race.


    Not Palin (none / 0) (#94)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:56:35 PM EST
    She's having some ethical problems of her own.  
    And, McCain's camp has provided its own VP melodrama by leaking that it would could pick the VP during Obama's Europe trip.

    Oh- re polling (none / 0) (#29)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:11 PM EST
    As you may or may not know- the reference was to the polling in the Gallup Daily Polls. He was discussing how they don't focus on daily polls and for that matter on polls as others do. They are more concerned with going into the cross tabs to figure out where they can pick up additional voters. Again- not just in the battle ground states, but in states no on people's radar. Hence the organization. It differs significantly strategically from either Kerry or Clinton's strategy as it may have formed under Penn.

    Puhleeze (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:35:31 PM EST
    keep up the loser strategy. If this is the kind of thing that the Obama campaign is using to win the election, then it's already lost.

    McCain is doing better among GOP (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:41:15 PM EST
    than Obama is with the Dems.  In fact a lot of Republicans are solidifying behind McCain.  On the other hand, Obama has a lot of defections on  his hands.  Curiously though, McCain is now beating him among Independents.  There's a problem here.

    in which poll is this the case? (none / 0) (#64)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:55:47 PM EST
    i find all of this analysis here interesting given I ve been reading pollster.com and other such polling sites daily for like 3 months. Obama isn't taking this away, but its also not as many of you describe so I am going to request sites for the claim just to see what you are referencing.

    IOKIYAShrillspherian (none / 0) (#32)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:25:24 PM EST
    the "shrillosphere" (and we all know who they are) proved itself to be made of the same rotted, stinkin' cloth as the wingnutosphere.

    you've got that right! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:34:24 PM EST
    The Ginuises (none / 0) (#33)
    by koshembos on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:28:04 PM EST
    The Obamacan are geniuses; the know how to do it. The bring a landslide, John McCain will be the winner.

    Re$ources Obama counted on (none / 0) (#46)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:38:52 PM EST
    is not coming in.

    Resources ARE not coming in (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    According to (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:00:46 PM EST
    that article only 16% of her donors have donated to Obama. One even said that he had gotten better contact from the McCain campaign.

    Obama: Coalition Man (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:39:33 AM EST
    Let's see how this New Coalition, New Politics and The Nouveau Democratique Party work out for the DNC and Obama.

    I should probably record my predictions somewhere so I can check them in November.  


    "Shrillosphere?" (none / 0) (#63)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:55:21 PM EST
    You've got a lovely way with words!

    I understand (none / 0) (#70)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:05:39 PM EST
    that Montana is closer to Colorado than Ohio...but I still don't quite get why he is watching the convention from there.  

    Anyone know which (none / 0) (#77)
    by BernieO on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:20:05 PM EST
    18 states?

    Here they are (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:26:09 AM EST
    NH, VA, NC, GA, FL, PA, OH, IN, MI, WI, MN, IA, MO, CO, NM, NV, MT, then the congressional district of ND or Alaska as the 18th.

    I may be wrong about 1 or 2, but based on the campaign office set ups, the paid staff sent out, the ad buys, and the states that Plouffe mentioned when talking about the 18 -- these should be the list.


    If that's the list (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:30:26 AM EST
    I see five blatant wastes of money-  North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, and Missouri.  Six if the 18th state is North Dakota or the Omaha, NE congressional district.

    I'm also not real pleased by seeing Minnesota or Pennsylvania here-  both should be in his pocket, and Pennsylvania is hugely expensive to run ads in.  (Not to mention that he ALREADY blew $10MM+ there for its primary only to get stomped.)

    Mind you, I speak from a state where both candidates spent millions and, if McCain stumbles badly, he'll win by just 15 points.

    Also, after a certain point (probably around the $67 million of federal money), there's really nothing much you can do with more cash.  There are only so many campaign workers you can hire and so much ad spots for sale.


    Alaska!?! (none / 0) (#110)
    by Landulph on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:48:46 AM EST
    That's insane!

    Maybe not. (none / 0) (#111)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:53:54 AM EST
    The polls show him amazingly close and he is helped by the Republican corruption which is rampant in the state.  TChris blogged about  Stevens earlier today.  

    Errata - see comment below (none / 0) (#137)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:00:56 AM EST
     AK is on the list,and ND. MN is not.

    Montana? (none / 0) (#80)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:05:04 PM EST
    Is that one of his targetted states?  Or is there some other reason that he wasted the this week there?  

    He wasn't in Montana (none / 0) (#103)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:30:22 AM EST
    all this week.  I believe he was in a different targeted state the night before.  But, yes, Montana is targeted. And Gov Schweitzer believes the Dems may have a chance there.  And him being on Obama's side in Montana and providing the campaign with his knowledge might be worth several points in itself.  

    FYI, the states that 'matter' are: (none / 0) (#134)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:53:18 AM EST
    AK, CO, FL, GA, IA, IN, MI, MO, MT, ND, NC, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI

    Even if these ARE the only states that matter, the idea that national polls don't matter is rubbish UNLESS we believe voter sentiments across state lines are statistically independent -- and nobody believes that.

    Voters in the several states may not share the same ad environment, but they share substantially the same news environment, debate environment, pundit environment, blog environment ... and they trade impressions with friends and family across state lines.

    Sentiment "ticks" nationwide are much closer to collinear than orthogonal; national polls are fresher than state polls; collective sample sizes (and methodologies) are superior.

    If one of Obama's soundbites doesn't play in Peoria, it matters -- even though Illinois is not on Plouffe's electoral strategy map.

    Now that Obama has made it this far! (none / 0) (#136)
    by melk tx on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    I dont think this is going to work because its like Obama is throwing the other states under the bus, but Obama has made history by being the first AA to get this far. My concern is that
        This would be a great reason to get rid of affirmative action for AA's but would be a good reason to work on helping women to become a more equal quanity in the work force or these United States. That is where I think this nomination has
    been highlighted and that is where the country needs help.
        Melk tx

    Yes, I was one of the harshest critics of Mark Penn's "strategy" of ignoring small states, red states, and caucus states in he nomination campaign. And yes, once you win the nomination, it does make sense to figure out which states are likely to be close in the general election, and target your resources there.

    That may seem like a contradiction, but it's really not. Why not? Because the rules are different in the general election. In the primaries and caucuses, the allocation of delegates is roughly proportional to a candidate's vote total. So in the nominating contests, it's not just a matter of whether you win or lose a state -- how much you win by (or lose by) can make an enormous difference in your delegate margin.

    In the general election, as I say, the rules are quite different. There, the candidate who gets the most votes in each state (except Nebraska) wins all of the state's electoral votes. So in the general election, it makes much less sense to spend your resources on states that are safely "in the bank" for one candidate or the other. (To the extent this makes sense at all, it has to be for secondary reasons, such as increasing your base's turnout in the hope that doing so will swing some more "swingable" down-ticket races.

    This is pretty elementary stuff. I really shouldn't need to explain it here.