Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio And Never Did

You know that saying "reading blogs is like getting the newspaper 3 days early." I thought of that when I read Nedra Pickler's latest headline:

Obama camp sees possible win without Ohio, Fla.

Umm, yeah, and? The context here is Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's recent pitch to supporters at a private event:

At a fundraiser held at a Washington brewery Friday, Plouffe told a largely young crowd that the electoral map would be fundamentally different from the one in 2004. Wins in Ohio and Florida would guarantee Obama the presidency if he holds onto the states won by Democrat John Kerry, Plouffe said, but those two battlegrounds aren't required for victory.

But really, while Pickler seems to consider this news, it should come as a surprise to no one who's been truly paying attention. Back on March 14, I laid out the extremely plausible paths that both Democratic candidates had to the nomination, neither of which went through Ohio or Florida.

The first two steps:

1. Win what John Kerry won.

I think we can all agree that Kerry's states are the minimum any Democrat would (should) win, which includes 2 of the "big 4": Michigan and Pennsylvania. That will give the Democratic nominee 252 of the necessary 270 EVs as follows:

California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New York (31), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3),Washington (11) and Wisconsin (10).

2. Win Iowa and New Mexico.

Again, I believe these states, which barely went for Bush in 2004, would shift to either Democrat in November, thanks to a highly mobilized Hispanic community in New Mexico (I believe Gov. Richardson would be able to deliver the state for the Democrat this year) and an extremely motivated and well-organized Democratic base in Iowa thanks to the Iowa caucuses this year. Rasmussen Reports concurs that these states "Lean Democratic" this year. Victories here would give the Democrat 264 of the requisite 270.

Iowa (7), New Mexico (5)

As of this writing, Barack Obama is in fact polling ahead of John McCain in all of these states, which puts Barack just 6 EVs shy of the nomination. In other words, even without Ohio or Florida, Obama would need only one of the following states (where, incidentally, he is also currently polling ahead) to clinch:

Colorado (9 EVs)
Missouri (11 EVs)
Virginia (13 EVs)

And that's not even counting a few other red states the Obama campaign intends to put in play. From Pickler's article:

Plouffe and his aides are weighing where to contest, and where chances are too slim to marshal a large effort. A win in Virginia (13 electoral votes) or Georgia (15 votes) could give Obama a shot if he, like Kerry, loses Ohio or [sic] Florida. [...]

Georgia has many unregistered black voters who could turn out in record numbers to support the first major-party nominee who is black, he argued. Plouffe said the campaign also will keep an eye on Mississippi and Louisiana as the race moves into the fall to see if new black voters could put them within reach.

As kos notes, there is a massive voter registration drive underway right now in predominantly black neighborhoods in Louisiana that is overwhelming the local registrar offices, all of which should pay major dividends in November. But kos is right, it's not all about winning in these formerly reddest of red states, it's about making McCain spend money there.

If Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi tighten, McCain, already lagging far behind in money and constrained in the general election by taking public financing, will have a tough choice between defending what should be easy holds and spending the HUGE bucks required to seriously contest expensive Blue states like Pennsylvania while desperately holding on to expensive Red ones like Florida.

McCain is already going to have to spend big to hold onto Florida and Ohio as it is. He's downright screwed if he has to defend Louisiana, Georgia and Mississippi and Plouffe's comments at the fundraiser the other day were clearly meant to put McCain on notice.

This year's map is going to be different than 2000 & 2004 and it's about time the media caught up to that.



Display:


Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

I don't think you can put Michigan in Obama's camp, frankly. That's not the way the polls are running and that's not the word on the street I'm hearing.  Michigan is only his if he's smart enough to put Hillary Clinton on his ticket, as the recent poll of Obama/Clinton vs. McCain/Romney showed.  And with the recent news of the hiring of Patti Solis Doyle, it looks like he may be dumb enough not to pick Hillary Clinton. In which case, how is he planning to make up for Michigan's 17 EVs?

And this article:

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion.ap x.-content-articles-RTD-2008-06-16-0008. html

seems to indicate that Virginia is not nearly as much in play as Obama's team thinks, let alone a slam dunk for him.

When things are as close as they are (and they ARE close) I think insisting that you "don't need" two very populous states is a big mistake. I doubt the Florida and Ohio voters are going to appreciate the Obama campaign declaring them unimportant.

Also, does this mean the Obama camp has decided he won't win Ohio or Florida? Giving up on Florida I understand, but Ohio? That's not a good sign.


by Michigoose on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:50:31 PM EST

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (2.00 / 1)

I will bet you $1000.00 that Obama carries Michigan.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (2.00 / 1)

oh yeah... and saying that they do not need to win either state is not the same as conceding them... of course you will spin it however you want but...


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (2.00 / 2)

That article is an opinion piece, and really doesn't provide any factual information.

I think that Obama will win MI this Fall.  In a landslide.  His support will do nothing but rise there, and Hillary Clinton's involvement or lack thereof is immaterial to this.

McCain is only ahead by a few in NC, AZ, and NV.  He could easily lose any one of those states.  I don't think that Obama's camp is giving up OH or FL at all; just saying that they aren't necessary to win, and they truly are not.  


by Lawyerish on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (2.00 / 1)

Not only that, it's an opinion piece in a conservative paper. Citing it as evidence that Obama can't win Virginia is beyond ridiculous.


by Angry White Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

That is the way the polls are running.  Obama was up in Rasmussen, a post-primary poll.  The SUSA poll where he was down was pre-primary ending.


"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown
by auboy2006 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (2.00 / 3)

I think the new Rasmussen poll showing an OBAMA lead in VA (45%-44%) shows it is in play.

See here:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/virginia/election_2008_vir ginia_presidential_election


"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown
by auboy2006 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (2.00 / 2)

I wouldn't take these comments to mean he's "giving up" on Florida or Ohio.  He's just talking about expanding the map to include other states as well, as well as noting that he's not going to hinge his entire electoral strategy on two states.

Also, you cast doubt on Obama's ability to win Michigan and Virginia.  In Michigan, the 6/11 Rasmussen poll has Obama by 3.  It is the most recent poll I'm aware of in that state (SUSA has one with Obama down, but that was while the primary was still going on), so I'm unsure of the basis for your assertion that polling doesn't favor him there.    

As for Virginia, the most recent SUSA and Rasmussen polls both put Obama in the lead (although the RR one is narrow and much more recent, just 1 point).  So the fact that an editorial in a Richmond newspaper says to ignore polls that say Obama's winning because John McCain is Teh Awesome isn't something I find compelling.

I would, of course, note that neither state is by any means a sure thing.  But one point of expanding the map is so no single state becomes the be all and end all.  


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

Expanding the map = good

Arrogantly proclaiming "we don't need Ohio and Florida and never did" = bad


by ColoradoGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:40:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

It looks to me like, in addition to the media, it would be helpful if some people around here would start taking notice.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:54:20 PM EST

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

Sorry,this is the liberal blogosphere. All positive comments regarding the Democrats' chance must be greeted with large buckets of cold water.


by spirowasright on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (none / 0)

I've been aware of the "new map" for a quite awhile now. IMO, I don't think it would be wise for Obama to write of Florida and Ohio. The "new map" is untested.


by soyousay on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM EST

Re: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (2.00 / 1)

Where did they say they are "writing off" Ohio and Florida. They are simply pointing out that there is more than one path to victory for them; why is that a problem?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (none / 0)

Well, when you say "don't need them," it sounds like you're pretty much writing them off, IMO.


by soyousay on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (2.00 / 1)

If John McCain doesn't come out with a statement immediately saying that he needs SD to win, they'll all be forced to vote for Obama (yeah, right).

Sure,  every state wants to be important enough to effect the election.  But the fact is that some votes and states are more important than others.  Perhaps it would be good for FL and MI to find out that other states can make a difference too.


by Tenafly Viper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And that goes for OH and PA too! n/t (none / 0)


by Tenafly Viper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (none / 0)

actually, it's called "lowering expectations" for FL and OH and putting the mccain camp an alert that they better get ready to spend a lot of money all over in places that they thought were safe.

The only other thing i'd say is, each time someone wins, they create new rules of what it means to win. This one will be no different.


by Metrobot on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:40:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (2.00 / 1)

I agree.  And yes, I know they didn't state they were writing off FL & OH - but already the perception is out there, as another poster in another diary reported that the local coverage reported it that way today.


by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (2.00 / 1)

That's intellectually dishonest.  That's like saying that all previous campaigns didn't care about winning any other states because they only needed to win OH,PA,FL,MI.  No one said that in the past and no one is saying the reverse now.  There are simply new paths to victory.


by Tenafly Viper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (2.00 / 1)

And the old map has failed.

I'm game for something new.


"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown
by auboy2006 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (none / 0)

I thinks its very wise for him to concentrate on a different electoral path to victory.  Considering we've only had 2 Democratic POTUSs in the last 30+ years, I think it's safe to say the old way isn't getting the job done!


by tlhwraith on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Shhhhh (2.00 / 3)

So, if reading the blogs is like reading the newspapers three days early -- reading comments by Obama supporters on blogs must be like reading blogs 3 months early.

Seriously. For EVER it felt the "Obama can't win Ohio and Florida" argument was trotted out daily, with many of us arguing "so there are ways to win without them, not that he'll lose them anyway" and lots of thoughtful numbers and graphs and maps were shown.

Then a tracking poll would pop up showing Obama losing three points from his lead in Uzbekistan, or wherever the latest THIS WILL DECIDE IT ALL primary was being held that week, and no one noticed.

Sigh. I miean, it's great to see these points being made, but it's not like this is new ground.

To wrap up: Yes Obama can win both Florida and Ohio. Yes, he'll have ground game in each. No, this is not 2004, and no, Obama doesn't have to replay the 2004 map. So, sorry Florida and Ohio, after a decade of feeling like the center of the political advertising world, it's now Virgina's turn to get innundated. And yes, Nedra Pickler has, and always will be, a joke when it comes to political analysis. You could train one of those robot Plio dinosaurs to make deadline and you'd likely get more trenchant views into the campaign.

But I digress.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST

Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (2.00 / 2)

I don't know how anyone could be less than enthusiastic this election cycle.  Even if you don't have a horse in this race, it's bound to be a map changing event.  There is a good chance we won't see another political shift of this magnitude more than once or twice in a lifetime.

Poblano's numbers show that it is a statistical impossibility that our map will look the same (or similar) as it has the last few election cycles.

The stats that it will look identical to the map in 2004(Bush/Kerry):
0% chance (0 out of 10000 runs)

The stats that it will look identical to the map in 2000(Bush/Gore):
0.03% chance (3 out of 10000 runs)  


by Tenafly Viper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:58:25 PM EST

Blarg (2.00 / 2)

But you're dealing with the media, the pundits, the reporters who all share one single claim to fame: They were paying attention (for the most part) during the last election. Therefore, EVERYTHING WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME or it will totally blow their minds and be very helpful to John McCain somehow, who was nice to them once.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

Some of us don't believe in the magnitude of the political shift seen within the Obama echosphere.  

And Poblano's approach to modeling election results is pretty good but it's not perfect, he's not qualified for sainthood, and his results should not be regarded as Holy Writ.

This is going to be a screwy election in one respect and I'll make book on it right now:  Obama-McCain will be very tight while the Democrats roll up impressive gains in House and Senate.  

If the polls are 47-47 in mid-October, I won't be surprised.  Lots of states are going to slosh back and forth.  My current best guess is McCain 275, Obama 263...predicated on Obama taking neither Florida nor Ohio.  Obviously, one state in one direction or another can make the difference in such a scenario.

The sense of Obama invincibility scares the crap out of me as much as the thought of a McCain presidency...the one can lead to the other.


by InigoMontoya on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

Okay, but you don't have to like or agree with Obama to appreciate the political shift itself(I think we can all agree that one is occuring) and what it will mean to Democrats for years to come.  Unless your dwelling in the opposite echosphere of noquarter and the like,  I think most Democrats have a respect for the way things are shifting in our favor this election cycle.

I know for me, I've always had a begrudging and resentful respect for the way Reagan changed the face of politics.  Even though it harmed our party for years to come.  I think we should all be grateful for the new red to blue strategy, even if you have no interest in the face of it.  After all we're all Democrats on this site, right?


by Tenafly Viper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:30:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

Not so sure the political shift we're seeing has anything to do with Obama, since the polls have indicated forever that Clinton would have been in exactly the same position (and Edwards even better, if you want to reach way back). So that being the case, if Kerry and Gore couldn't "expand the electorate," what exactly, short of just hype, makes Obama more likely to do it?


by ColoradoGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

I'm not saying that Obama gets all the credit for this.  Timing is everything, and more than likely a decade ago the 50 state strategy wouldn't have been as effective as it is today.

I'm not really sure which polls you're referring to that said Clinton and Edwards were map changing candidates.  Besides the shift of a few swing states, Clinton was primarily working towards the usual FL,MI,PA,OH map.  But ultimately it has more to do with strategy and timing than with the candidates themselves.

I wasn't praising Obama or asking anyone else to (I thought I was making that clear). I suppose my point was that even if you don't care about the presidential race, the race will help Democratic party coattails for years to come (in races all Democrats will care about).  Even if the phenomenon is merely a serendipitous one, it's still a good omen for Democrats in general.


by Tenafly Viper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

Rasmussen is reporting Obama leading now in VA.


by Makey on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:08:41 PM EST

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (1.50 / 2)

Same people complaining on every Obama post over and over again. So fucking predictable. It makes going through the comments section repetitive and boring as hell.


Yawn.
by spacemanspiff on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:26:03 PM EST

Thanks, Todd! (2.00 / 1)

You have made a seamless transition from Clinton supporter to Obama supporter, and it's appreciated. This blog had become so Clinton-centric that most posts on Obama were extremely negative. Jerome's were the most disparaging, and he still can't bring himself on board. I appreciate your willingess to realize that there is no real choice for democrats between Obama and McCain, and to go full throttle to support our nominee. It's a nice change.


by jadegirl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:32:41 PM EST

Nedra Pickler (none / 0)

Nothing else needs to be said.


by RandyMI on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:33:10 PM EST

Yes he does need them (none / 0)

I live in Minnesota and I would like to emphasize that we are now a SWING STATE and you cannot count on MN electoral votes for Obama.   The Repub. convention is here this year also, and our governor is being talked about as John McCain's running mate.
Do not assume MN electoral votes for BO.

That said, we do need Florida and Ohio. We need every state.  
 


by shellius on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:34:00 PM EST

MN is not a swing state. (2.00 / 1)

His leads have been overwhelming, and they've been the longest running blue state.


"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown
by auboy2006 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes he does need them (none / 0)

RCP has Obama up by 10.3%. You don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/mn/minnesota_mccain_vs_ob ama-550.html


by EnzoValenzetti on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Georgia? pffft (none / 0)


by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:35:35 PM EST

Re: Georgia? pffft (none / 0)

Georgia is possible based on the large AA population  some of which is currently unregistered but will be registered by the time of the election and turning out in very high numbers and that Georgia native Bob Barr is running for president as a libertarian and he's going to pull between 5-10% of the vote there mostly away from McCain. Both factors could certainly make the state competitive, at least to the point where McCain does actually have to spend money there to try and keep the state in his column.


by Quinton on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Georgia? pffft (none / 0)

Come ON. Georgia?


by ColoradoGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Georgia? pffft (none / 0)

Just to back that comment up a bit, anyone thinking that African American populations in the south will push Obama over the top is smoking something. The African American vote is among the most reliable bloc there is, no matter what color the national candidate is. Yes, a few -- A VERY FEW -- more folks might show up for Obama, but presidential year turnout among African Americans (as a percentage of registered voters) is 90% anyway. But they'll more than be balanced by the racist white vote.

The day a black man comes within 15 points of winning a southern state is the day, sadly, I eat my keyboard.


by ColoradoGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Georgia? pffft (none / 0)

Get ready to eat your keyboard. There are over 500K blacks that are not registered in Georgia and the Obama campaign is planning on getting them registered. You also have to take into consideration that Bob Barr is from Georgia and could take away as much as 10% of the vote from McCain. Right now Obama is down only 8-10 points in Georgia. Factor turnout and Bob Barr and yes, an Obama win is definitley possible.


by sweet potato pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2)

The key takeaway here is that, even if the map ultimately looks about the same, you want McCain to have to waste his time and money in states that he'll ultimately win.  A dollar spent in Georgia is a dollar that can't be spent in Ohio.  Some people are looking at this at a superficial level and missing the deeper strategy.


by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:35:56 PM EST

He's not ditching FL (none / 0)

Even though I think FL is uphill, he just hired some very big name (as far as FL goes) help. In OH, he hired Strickland's guy. Some reporters never went beyond high school government class.


by RandyMI on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM EST

Re: PA, NJ & MI are by no means a lock (2.00 / 1)

Todd,

We can all agree that this may be an odd year in terms of the electoral map. We can all also agree that any Democrat in 2008 has a built-in advantage due to the Anti-Republican brand name.

But with that said, previously blue states like PA,MI, NJ & NH are by no means an Obama lock.

I live & am part of one of the largest Labor Unions in PA & NJ. I can say with confidence that 95% of All Labor leaders in PA & NJ would tell you "privately" that McCain has a very realistic shot of carrying either one or both states.

The exact same feedback is coming out of Michigan.

Kerry fought hard to win Mi,PA,NJ & NH. Senator Obama will have to work even harder than Kerry to keep these states. ( Despite all the negatives today that are associated with the GOP )

So I absolutely Do Not Agree with the Spin of some that...

1)Obama does not need Ohio

2)Obama will surely carry states like PA,MI,NJ,NH

If Obama losses Ohio & FL, he has Very Little Room for Error. It would be 2004 & 2000 all over again. Add any one state among MI,PA & NJ- then we all better pray he can carry states like IA,NM & VA.

Many young chickens in MYDD & KOS are way too young to have ever witnessed states like Michigan, PA, NJ go Republican. All they ever saw was a Blue MI,PA,NJ.

This is were all the " Bravado" is coming from. Even have one person offering to bet $ 1,000 to show his extreme confidence.

As if being so "confident" & displaying "bravado" will somehow Lock these states for Obama.

While the 45+ yrs old crowd can still remember MI,NJ & PA going Red.

If I had to bet my home today, I would still put it on Obama. But I would have my fingers crossed.

Obama has a whole lot of work to do in convincing millions of voters. We got a long way to go.


by libdemusa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:43:43 PM EST

last time NJ, PA, and MI went GOP (none / 0)

was in 1988, when Bush swamped Dukakis. But they all also went GOP in 1984, 1980, and 1972. Carter did win PA but lose MI and NJ in 1976. We lost 1988, 1984, 1980, and 1972. I don't wanna go back either. People don't realize it was BILL CLINTON who brought those states into our column and did it strong. NJ went Dem in 1992, and has never been close since. PA has gone Dem in every election since 1992, along with MI. too bad they'll never give him any credit for anything.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's remember (none / 0)

PA and MI were not sure things by any means for Al Gore and John Kerry.  Nor would they be sure things if Hillary Clinton were the nominee, although she would have greater probability of carrying PA (and possibly MI).  But if you want to cherry-pick states, WA, OR, MN, and WI are clearly not sure things for Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama has a greater probability of winning all those states than she does.


by Brad G on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Does Not Need Florida Or Ohio (1.00 / 1)

But I'll bet he still gets them -- or least makes make Bush/McCain spend his last dime to scratch by.

Conceding is the DLC way.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:53:30 PM EST

first, he DOES need Ohio or Florida (1.00 / 1)

because placing your bets on Missouri and Virginia, which went GOP by more than 7 in 2004 is no sure thing. Virginia was the ONLY southern state to go for Gerald Ford, and has not gone Dem since 1964.

Second, he will NEVER win Mississippi. Those states vote GOP because of black people and civil rights. Whites still outnumber blacks big time there. Even if there are that many unregistered black voters, not all of them are gonna get necessarily registered, and are not all going to vote. And count on racial backlash in a state that elected Trent Lott numerous times and hasn't went Dem since 1976, and was extremely close that year. With Georgia, same thing tho it did go for Clinton once and was close in 1996, but again there is intense racial polarization there. Louisiana did go for Clinton 45.6-41 in 1992, and 52-40 in 1996. Louisiana is still a very VERY uphill fight in Jindal country.

This all being said, he is not likely to win those states, and he already has to defend PA, NH, NJ, WI, MN which means he should go for OH and FL because he is WAY closer to winning those than MS,  VA, GA, CO. He cannot lose those states. Thinking he can win without Ohio or Florida is FOOLISH.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:27:59 PM EST

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida (none / 0)

I'm with Nedra on this, gotta say. Your path to the White House that doesn't include Florida or Ohio, while plausible, is an awfully close shave and is plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face only to hyper optimistic bloggers.

Anytime anyone presents a strategy that includes my home state of Colorado, I cringe. I hope to the ever-living God no one in Chicago is counting on Colorado (or Nevada, or Missouri, or Virginia). Is that what all this momentum we've been building amounts to? Unlike the primaries, Obama will not have a money advantage in the Fall, and some of these states are natural McCain strongholds. You're equating possibilities -- perhaps accompanied by small polling leads -- with likelihood or even certainties. That and $2.25 buys you a latte. Maybe.

The fact is, if Obama doesn't win Ohio that very likely means he's struggling in Michigan and Pennsylvania too. New Hampshire is going to be a bear (that's practically McCain's second home).


by ColoradoGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:34:46 PM EST

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida (none / 0)

Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls in Colorado and he is raising a multitude of what McCain is raising. You don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/co/colorado_mccain_vs_oba ma-546.html


by EnzoValenzetti on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Note To Media: Obama Does Not Need Florida Or (none / 0)

what's the opposite of schadenfreude? I seem to need that word to describe many comments around here lately.


by Metrobot on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:51:08 PM EST

Whew, I was worried (none / 0)

Since it is written here that BO will win MI and PA, why sweat it.

This game is easy!


by Newport News Dem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:01:43 PM EST

Lame announcement. (none / 0)

What a silly announcement to make.  Just win as many as you can, and take no chances.  Obama has the resources to go full force in every state.

When you say that you "don't need" OH and FL it does nothing but tick off voters in these two states.

- Matt


by mjc888 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:08:45 PM EST

Re: Not all states (none / 0)

I don't think he has the money to compete in TX and some states that would only go Democratic in a landslide victory.  For Obama to win in a sqeaker, he'd have to carry PA, MI, and FL or OH or he'd have to win PA, MI, IA, CO, and NM.  For Obama to win comfortably, he'd have to carry PA, OH, MI, FL, VA, NC, MO, CO, NM, and IA.  For an Obama landslide victory, he'd win TX and/or GA in addition to the other states.


by Brad G on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nedra Pickler (none / 0)

Nedra Pickler is the biggest hack in the entire AP corps. Do an internet search and you will savor the massive, massive hackery on this talking-point mimeograph named Nedra. When the AP reports something off of Drudge, or sourced by some unsavory douchebag like Roger Stone, check the byline and you'll probably find the name Pickler attached to it.

Nedra Pickler is the Dick Morris of the AP (minus the hooker).


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:14:22 AM EST

Re: Nedra Pickler (none / 0)

Here's an example from Crooks & Liars.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.