by warmwaterpenguin, Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:44:15 PM EDT
This was originally comment, but by the time I finished saying everything I felt needed saying (and by the time I'd reiterated it incessantly to make sure I was understood, as I neurotically tend to do), I realized I'd written a diary.
There's a lot of anger out there and frustration over Obama's apparent leap to the center. I've thought about writing about FISA, but the fact is what can be said has been. By the time I got up the confidence to write something, the lines were drawn and that was that.
Well I'm getting in on the ground floor of this Wesley Clark hullabaloo. Thanks in advance for reading. I'm a bit nervous but here it goes:
by conspiracy, Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:01:02 AM EDT
Politico interviews Deputy Campaign Manager Steve Hildebrand who tells Ben Smith "[Obama] will focus his resources largely in 14 states George W. Bush won in 2004... hoping to score upsets in places like Virginia, Indiana, and Georgia."
"In an unusual move, Obama's campaign will also devote some resources to states it's unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places like Texas and Wyoming."
Which leads to perhaps the greatest spin of the cycle. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers: "It's revealing that Barack Obama has now been forced to expand the states on his map because he's so weak in traditional Democratic targets such as West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, not to mention his ongoing problems in Pennsylvania and Ohio,".
Hilarious. The whole article is very revealing of how the campaign is thinking. Also from the Chicago Tribune:
Sen. Barack Obama "could make major gains in at least nine states the Democratic ticket lost in 2004 if he can achieve a relatively modest increase in turnout among young and African-American voters,"
Long way to go yet but it is encouraging to read about all this offense.
by politicsmatters, Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM EDT
Last week Obama met with a group of evangelical leaders.
Tonight he's meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and on Thursday he'll be meeting with member of the Congressional black caucus. http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/17/obama
As far as I'm concerned, all of this is good. It's important to make the rounds, to connect with people who don't know you that well and those who already do.
But who should be next? I tend to think Obama should meet with a group of women elected representatives. This would fit with the congressional groups he's meeting with this week and would be a positive signal to Clinton supporters who have committed to Obama without much enthusiasm or who are persuadable but haven't been willing to commit yet.
As I've said here before, I'm a 50 year old woman, a life-long feminist and a union member. I used to support Clinton until the Iowa caucuses and then switched to Obama. I think Obama's doing just fine in the current polls and I do think that even more of the Clinton supporters will be voting for Obama than currently say they will. But I also think it would be worth doing some events and having some meetings with women political leaders.
Should those be scheduled? Or is the timing not quite right?
by Searching For Pericles, Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:09:40 AM EDT
John McCain has a front page strategy briefing up on the front of his website. Here's the link: http://www.johnmccain.com/
On it, there is an Electoral Map. With state broken down into Solid or Lean GOP, Tossup, Lean or Solid Dem. Standard fare.
Over at 538.com they have posted a picture of the map on McCain's front page. Linky: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
(Sorry, I didn't include the picture)
What caught my eye was that the math and map seemed worng, right away.
The site comes up with only 537 electoral votes and the totals for each individual category are also off. He either can't add or can't color.
In defense of McCain (and Rick Davis who did the presentation), the presentation itself does have the correct number of EVs (538), but it gets the number of states in our Union wrong, tallying only 49. Way to go Rick!
That's right, the party that once tallied terror statistics based on a 10 month year now alternatively proves it can't add up the number of electoral votes (and divide them by category correctly) OR can't figure out they're short one state. I can't wait until they have charge of the economy.
More detail below the jump.
by the mollusk, Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:17:35 AM EDT
Poblano over at www.fivethirtyeight.com has an interesting post up today examining the frequency of negative hits against the three remaining Presidential candidates, McCain, Clinton, and Obama. The metric used is press releases by each of the candidates, the DNC and the RNC. The differences are quite stark with Barack Obama both sustaining the highest total number of negative attacks and delivering the lowest number of negative attacks.
The current tallies, from September 2007 to May 2008 are: 226 attacks on Obama, 196 attacks on McCain, and 56 attacks on Clinton. Meanwhile Obama has delivered 19 attacks compared to McCain's 27 and Clinton's 144. But, the real key, I believe is this statement from Pablano: