and with all my biases on the table I predict a Blue Florida in November.  A number of recent conversations with folks on the fence - in other words: Republicans - makes it clear that none of them (including a Korean War vet and lifelong "R") are eager to vote for the GOP.  It does not take much for them to get more comfortable with Obama than an honest couple answers to concerns about his experience and ability to execute.

A good grassroots effort is all that is required imho to make this a Blue state.

-chris

and with all my basis acknowledged I give Obama the true edge here.

For one thing I think the polling is skewign to McCain (as Obama's support comes from those pollesters miss)

But more importantly MO has always been about GOTV and the turn out of St Louis and KC vs the rural areas.

And with Obama holding almost 110 more paid staffers (never mind the volunteers) I think Obama can do it.

Obama barely carried Missouri in the primaries, and that had everything to do with, as noted above, turnout in Kansas City and St. Louis; that's probably how he can come close in the general. Thus, while 150 paid workers sounds impressive, unless Obama does see some improvement outside the cities by September, I'd have to question what he's throwing money at. Time and again the Obama folks have shown, as past candidates have, a willingness to overspend to make a point... but Obama's got little to show for throwing tons of money (ads in Pennsylvania) or volunteers (in Texas) at the primaries. That McCain is leading Missouri at a time when almost no one can think of a reason for him to be appealing says to me that winning the state will be a hard road, and will come down to the things it's always come down to - turnout in the cities.

My advice to Obama is to campaign in five "firewall" states that Bush won twice--Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada--as if he needed all five of them to get to 370.

(Indiana, North Carolina and Florida would be in front of that, and played more opportunistically; the 21 states carried by Kerry, Gore or both are behind it)

Of those, Missouri and Nevada are the two where Obama does not now lead, and it seems to me, those states call for some urgent care right now.  I wouldn't mind if Obama spent as much as half the time between now and the convention in those two states, or if he picked a popular Democrat from Missouri or Nevada for VP. Gephardt, anyone? Former NV Senator Richard Bryan?

That spin is a joke. I'll bet he wasn't saying the same about another ''surge'' when that was announced but logical consistency is not a GOP strong point. It actually shows the opposite - expending resources where you think you can be competitive and where extra folks can make the difference. Why would you waste person power if you are way behind? No, they think they can win and so do I. But yeah it won't be electoral vote number 270, that is more likely Colorado, Ohio or Virginia.

McCain is spending money on ads. He spent three times as much as Obama on ads last month.

Obama is spending money on opening field offices and hiring staff.

With all the ads McCain ran, he still has not led in a single national poll since Obama clinched.  And his state numbers are not great either.

Meanwhile, the investments Obama has made will increasingly pay off in the coming months, both in the election results and in building expertise in our political communities.

From http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/s hock-and-awe-paid-organizer-version.html #comments

Shock and Awe, Paid Organizer Version

Amid on the ground reports that McCain is outspending Obama on the air at least 2-1 in places like Missouri, we learn that Obama's team is betting on a different strategy - overwhelming ground organization early and often.

In Missouri, Obama will have 150 paid organizers and maintain a 12-1 paid organizer edge in my native state. Show-me, indeed. In Michigan, Obama will put an unprecedented 150 field organizers on the ground. In Ohio, why not go for 300 field organizers? That sounds like a nice, absurdly large, round number.

This is the campaign equivalent of invasion with overwhelming force. In the coming days, we should be hearing more reports like these from other battlegrounds (here's Iowa, for example), giving us a clearer and clearer picture of each campaign's voter contact strategy. Already, however, Marc Ambinder has pointed out that:

   The polls don't account for the force multiplier effect that Obama's campaign will almost certainly bring to bear with its millions of volunteers and thousands of paid staffers. Whether that effect is 1.01, 1.05 or even 1.3 -- we don't know yet. But even the McCain campaign acknowledges its existence.

Those paid organizers are each recruiting underneath them volunteers and precinct captains (themselves responsible for recruitment and management of volunteers). As I've said before, it's a pyramid scheme aimed at massive voter-to-voter contact. Millions and millions and millions of voter contacts, all knocked out 5, 10, 50 at a time by volunteers. The info gleaned from the contacts is re-looped into the voter file, and repeat contacts are thereby more informed (undecideds can be persuaded; supporters can be urged to early vote; banked early votes allow campaigns to use resources more efficiently in the closing days, etc.). The principle is: voters persuade other voters more personally and powerfully than a 30-second TV ad. Ads give impressions; real people close the sale.

Consider for a moment an oft-discussed example that directly relates to ground organizing - the burgeoning power of the Latino vote. High-information voters like you and I read stories about Obama or McCain each speaking to this or that Latino group, each man arguing why he is the better candidate to implement policies that will improve quality of life for Latinos. But which campaign is more likely to do the actual on-ground registration and one-to-one voter contact in places Latinos live, such as Nevada?

Whatever the ultimate election outcome, it's clear the Obama campaign believes it knows what it's doing and a wise investment of resources when it sees one. An "almost preternatural self-confidence about their strategy" is how Ambinder describes it.