Tapper: “Obama’s Shrinking Map”
[Guest post by DRJ]
According to this June Newsweek Magazine article, Obama’s 50-state strategy was alive and well in June 2008, although not because he still hoped to be competitive in 50 states but as a strategy to chip away at McCain’s dwindling finances:
“Instead of the usual way of doing things—putting precious campaign dollars into only those states the candidate has a chance of winning—the Obama team will run hard everywhere, even in traditionally Republican states.
Sort of. Obama’s strategists don’t really believe he can beat John McCain in Utah. So why blow cash there? To force McCain, who has far less money on hand than Obama ($24 million versus $46 million) to spend more there, too. Ed Rendell, the Pennsylvania governor who won his state for Hillary Clinton but now backs Obama, suggests the 50-state approach is more like the arms race with the Soviets than a presidential-campaign strategy. “There’s something to be said for … making sure the other side spends resources to defend areas that they don’t normally spend resources in,” Rendell tells NEWSWEEK.”
Now Jake Tapper reports that the Obama campaign has moved its North Dakota workers to Minnesota and Wisconsin, apparently conceding that ND will be a red state in this election and further eroding Obama’s 50-state strategy. (Tapper also notes that Obama pulled staff out of Georgia earlier this month.)
Regular readers of WLS’s posts such as this one have known for some time that Obama’s fundraising has not kept up with his ambitious 50-state plan and it’s Obama’s funds, not McCain’s, that have been depleted. Thus, the Obama campaign could end up in the role of the Soviet Union in the Newsweek scenario.
Of course, Obama still has volunteer supporters and a large mailing list in many red states. Further, the campaign says it is active in these crucial states that voted for President Bush in 2004 but are still in play in this election: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Montana, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina.
— DRJ
I hope everyone who may be on the fence is paying attention. The Democratic Candidates main strategy is to OUTSPEND the opposition.
Not have a better vision.
Not have a better Strategy.
Not have better ideas.
He’ll simply outspend him.
Now, what do you think will happen when the Democratic candidate is president?
He’ll become fiscally conservative?
He won’t take you into entitlement land?
Sad to say, I am depending on the small minded racist democrat to save my country from an idiot such as this.
paul from fl (4dd8c4) — 9/22/2008 @ 12:56 pmI’ve helped raise money for politicians several times and my experience is this: collecting all donations past the first one becomes increasingly difficult the more times you ask. Mailing lists become useless after the second donation and so phone rooms raise the money by calling the poor slob dumb enough to give out their phone number. Then you have to send out a messenger if you can’t get a cc number and the pickups cost money and at least half won’t come up with the check. All the phone rooms I worked paid “fund raisers” a commission and the room manager made an over ride on everything; in other words what is called the “burn rate” of raised funds can be as high as 80 to 90% if you’re pounding them. We all assume that Obama has this killer list that will just rush to their emails and toss in the cash. I don’t believe it. The exception to the above rule are the die hard issue voters (abortion, environment, and so on) who you can scare into giving many times before they actually run out of money.
howard432 (cc8b85) — 9/22/2008 @ 1:01 pmPart of this is just shuffling the workers around, moving workers from A to B, and having others move from C to D, and still more into A and C. “Motion is Progress!” kind of thing (which used to be known as “don’t just stand there, do something!”) What the long term goal or eventual effect will be, I have no clue.
htom (412a17) — 9/22/2008 @ 1:02 pmTruly, this is a depressing place to be…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/22/2008 @ 1:03 pm“The McCain campaign apparently believes that factual questions from reporters are inadmissable. In fact, asking factual questions is obviously bias. So that’s why they won’t answer my emails…” Andrew Sullivan http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/now-they-target.html
I am gobsmacked by Sully’s hypocrisy, Could it be Sullivan spread vicious rumors about Sarah Palin’s newborn? Then Sully questioned that she is really not pro life because she got amnio? No wonder he is persona non grata with Team McCain-Palin. He is lucky Palin’s husband doesn’t kick his butt. Heck, Sarah Palin could kick his butt.
The Palin Plan should be Gov. Palin taking a half dozen press questions at every public event. If the press trys a low ball question, the crowd will boo them. It will also force the press to cover Palin events (like the 60,000 who showed up to see her in Florida on Sunday). I suspect she will do really well and it will be great free publicity for Team McCain in the battle ground states.
Joe (dcebbd) — 9/22/2008 @ 4:59 pmWelcome back to the intertubes, Patterico. As for Sully, I’m guessing that they won’t answer him because he’s insane.
Pablo (99243e) — 9/22/2008 @ 5:02 pmPatterico, Regarding the website reliability: I don’t know much about this stuff, but Cristoph at Ace of Spades claims a different cache system would improve the website’s reliability. He says he can’t comment here because he’s been banned.
Link to his comment
Obama’s only claim to leadership experience is his mismanaged campaign that, oddly enough, spent way too much money just as the GOP claims his administration would. I wish the GOP were fiscally conservative enough to make hay of this, but they are only slightly better on this front.
It’s sad that Obama’s intent was to dry Mccain out of money and ability to spread his message. You’d think he’d want to win on the virtue of his ideas, and not just because he had more cash. I guess now he has to ‘resort’ to a fair debate.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 9/22/2008 @ 5:48 pmDRJ,
You are a funny, funny person.
Now Obama is in trouble in Utah and North Dakota?
I am really enjoying watching this race.
jharp (f4bed7) — 9/22/2008 @ 5:55 pmjharp, watching? Well, maybe you are. But you are not observing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2008 @ 5:59 pm“The One” has always tried to game the system in his electoral pursuits; whether by getting a potential opponent disqualified from the ballot for petition irregularities, or by dredging up unfavorable material for a sealed court proceeding that forced a withdrawal.
He has never engaged in a straight-up election without resorting to some form of dirty-trick.
DICK TUCK LIVES!
Another Drew (1e1c13) — 9/22/2008 @ 6:03 pmObama’s shrinking map? Really? Thought you should have said McCain’s shrinking strength. Everyday the “Palin Effect” wears away and McCain is stuck with just…McCain.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/22/2008 @ 7:10 pmHe has never engaged in a straight-up election without resorting to some form of dirty-trick.
Not true, believe it or not – but only one time. He tried the rope – a – dope with Bobby Rush here, and got his clock cleaned. Rush tied a can to his backside and Obama never challenged him again.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/22/2008 @ 7:13 pmObama never challenged him again.
I know Sarah Palin, Senator, and you’re no Sarah Palin.
Apogee (366e8b) — 9/22/2008 @ 7:15 pmComment by Dmac — 9/22/2008 @ 7:13 pm
Even the Daley’s are a bit uneasy around Black Panthers – they bring new meaning to “Chicago Rules”.
Another Drew (1e1c13) — 9/22/2008 @ 7:47 pmThat was a breathtakingly stupid inference to draw from DRJ’s post.
Steverino (db5760) — 9/22/2008 @ 8:33 pmjharp,
Actually, the post is more about money than about Utah and North Dakota.
love2008,
The title “Tapper: ‘Obama’s Shrinking Map'” is in quotes because it isn’t my title, it’s Jake Tapper’s.
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/22/2008 @ 9:01 pm