...of the "sub-prime" thing, I actually agree with you.
The idea of contesting all states and all congressional districts, which Obama is using, is a shift to a new strategy (actually an old strategy) that is designed to change from "eking out victories" to winning large majorities for progressives.
It's an idea promoted by both Markos and Jerome, by the way.
I've tried, again and again, to drive home the point that we're going to win this thing regardless of who our nominee turns out to be. Tough to get purchase with that idea, though, in the heat of an acrimonious primary season.
I'd be very surprised if McCain got more than 200 electoral votes, regardless of who gets the Democratic nod.
Think of it this way: this guy has a basically unimpeded path to his party's nomination, and the other party's primary is sucking up all the media oxygen. Yet, McCain's campaign is still, managing to screw up and get press about it.
In fact, IMHO we should just chuck his nomination, and have the general election between Clinton and Obama.
Seriously, it's kind of difficult to do. Generally speaking, you'd need some sort of client-side script to determine how long you stay on a given page. If NOT, then you'd have no means of determining the length of stay, if a second page weren't selected.
So, I suspect "visit length" is one of the more unreliable stats at which you could choose to look.
See, I'm not sure I agree with those sentiments. While I think some of Clinton's current "kitchen sink" strategy is poorly thought out and is not in the best interests of winning in November, I think she is simply a "to the death" campaigner who wants to win -- and that's not a bad trait in a Democrat.
In my opinion, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 not because of the "swing-state strategy", but in spite of it.
Clinton is a rare politician, with rare political skill. He was also facing a dud of an opponent in 1992, who himself was facing a divided caucus thanks in part to Perot.
I believe Bill Clinton was able to overcome a strategy that overall has been a loser for Democrats for nearly 30 years. But it's not a ticket for long-term success.
We simply cannot depend upon the strength of political skill and personality alone to win power. And no matter what some Obama supporters seem to think, I believe he's doing as well as he is not primarily because of his oratorical skills (which are, indeed, formidable), but rather due to the ground-game, contest-every-state electoral strategy his campaign is running.
Between Obama and Clinton, they have more than 1.25 million donors, the vast majority of whom are nowhere near tapped out.
What's more, even as Obama and Clinton are raising buttloads of money, the Democratic congressional, senatorial and national committees are also badly outraising their counterparts (well, except for the DNC/RNC, but everything else more than makes up for it).