The shrinking Obama map

posted at 11:00 am on September 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

At the beginning of this campaign, Barack Obama promised Democrats a 50-state strategy.  Three months later, Obama’s campaign map has shrunk considerably.  Instead of flipping the South and attacking in the interior West, Team Obama has gone back to the traditional focus on perennial battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio:

A few months ago, the rhetoric coming out of the Obama camp was that the Democratic presidential nominee’s victory could be sweeping, coming from flipping deep Republican states in the West or the South. But after the Democratic convention, Sen. Obama made a beeline for the traditional swing state he may need most, Pennsylvania, before quickly moving on to Ohio and Michigan.

Winning two of these three states isn’t only key to Sen. Obama’s strategy, but also critical for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain. “I think that what you’re going to see settling in is that the race is going to be very close in most of the battleground states, which is really what matters,” Sen. Obama told reporters Tuesday.

Tightening voter polls, a more competitive money race than originally envisioned and a McCain campaign invigorated by his unconventional vice-presidential pick are prompting a return to the old political map — and a grudging concession by some Obama campaign operatives that certain states once deemed winnable may be more of a long shot than once thought.

For Sen. Obama, this has prompted a change in focus: A campaign that visited nine states in mid-August has focused almost exclusively on three this month. Since closing out the convention, Sen. Obama will have held 21 campaign events through Tuesday, 18 of them in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. All three states went to either George W. Bush or John Kerry in 2004 by a margin of less than 4% — and were won in relative squeakers in 2000.

The reason for this became more obvious after the latest round of polling in North Carolina.  Obama had identified this as one state in which he expected to compete, and it was one of the few bright spots for Obama in the later primaries.  However, he now trails there by 20 points, joining Georgia and Florida as states that have moved out of his orbit.  Despite holding his convention in Denver, Colorado has begun shifting away from Obama as well.

Also, money troubles have apparently arisen within Obama’s campaign.  The 50-state strategy depended on an almost unlimited supply of money, but now the campaign has begun sending signals that they have not generated the kind of contributions necessary to pay for the fundraising costs involved and have Obama keep pace with McCain and the RNC. In fact, there’s another data point for this issue, involving Girl Scouts in Naperville:

Walsh said she called both campaigns and asked for free trinkets she could give the 7-year-olds to help them learn. If they did well, she explained, each Scout would earn her “Ms. President” patch. The tchotchkes would provide added incentive.

A representative for John McCain responded immediately, sending Walsh a box filled with stickers and signs. The Barack Obama camp wasn’t quite so generous, Walsh said. …

Walsh said the woman at Obama’s headquarters put her on hold. After a few minutes, she returned with the same answer. The woman told her that she sympathized, but the Obama campaign needs every penny it can get, Walsh said.

“She said, ‘We’re up against the machine and we just can’t hand anything out for free,’ ” Walsh said. “She was very nice . . . but I wasn’t getting anything.”

They were so hard up that they couldn’t send a box of campaign buttons or bumper stickers out to the Girl Scouts?  The Obama campaign raised almost $400 million dollars this year!  McCain has raised less than half of that, and still managed to scrounge up some memorabilia for the kids.  If Team Obama can’t manage what Team McCain can manage on twice the amount of money, doesn’t that say something about executive ability and the competence of the Obama team?

I suspect we will barely see Obama traveling outside of these battleground states for the next eight weeks, except for fundraisers to infuse desperately-needed cash into his machine.  After the last two weeks of him flailing to respond to the selection of Palin as McCain’s running mate, he’ll need all the help he can get.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

KrisinNE on September 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Just as I had expected.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on September 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Vanceone on September 10, 2008 at 11:09 AM

BOOYAH! I forwarded your ad idea to a friend of mine who works somewhere in the McCain org. I don’t know what kind of access he has, but who knows?

smellthecoffee on September 10, 2008 at 11:46 AM

I thought Obama stated that his campaign had made so much money that running the campaign was equal to Palin being mayor. Did she lose all her money on stupid greek play sets and the like?

Rbastid on September 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM

I’m really surprised at how many people are treating this as a purely mathematical issue, and concluding that Obama is still the favorite.

Yes, there are polls, polls, polls, in which Obama has solid fundamentals.

But quantitative models in the social sciences are at best loose approximations that might point directionally, to a possible trend, some of the time.

jeff_from_mpls on September 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM

I think it is a mathematical issue. More than 3/4 of voters are solidly backing one or the other candidate, and popularity or news stories don’t elect a president – the electoral college does. Iowa, New Mexico, and possibly Colorado have moved into the Obama column, and New Hampshire may have moved back into McCain’s column. Absent a total on-camera meltdown by a candidate, the die is becoming set for the election. If Obama loses Pennsylvania, the election is pretty much over for him – if McCain loses Colorado, he has to swing a great lakes state or get Iowa back to win.

Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM

A Star Implodes! (Could that be interpreted as a racist statement?)

AubieJon on September 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Only if it becomes a black hole.

MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 11:22 AM

A few things I’d add to that comment. Obama needs to be up in the polls by at least 10 points come election day if he has a chance to win. The Obama bounce was completely erased within days of the GOP convention coming to an end. The momentum is clearly with McCain/Palin at this time. The debates are really the last significant opportunity for both candidates to wrestle in the last remaining uncommitted voters, as most of the country has already decided. Obama will enter the debates losing in the national polls, and will have added pressure on his ability to perform away from a scripted environment.

This race is far from over. However, Obama should be up in the national polls at this time if we are to look back at the recent history of our national elections. The reasons & causes for this really doesn’t matter, it’s just a fact. To this point in the campaign, has Obama really answered the critical questions regarding his “go forward” plan for America, or has he changed his positions repeatedly. This is a fair question to ask, as we are talking about the position of potus. John Kerry ran the same campaign (flip flopping around on all of the key issues), and look how that worked out for him. Liberal Democrats are far too reliant upon polling data, which causes them to change their views almost daily.

This campaign is far from over, even though Obama is a rookie Senator, years away from being ready for such a powerful position. This is a result of having the media covering his back at every turn; period!

Keemo on September 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM

I bet Bill will get involved if it gets him within 10 feet of Sarah Palin.

BigD on September 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM

He’d probably be more interested in Bristol.

MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM

They were so hard up that they couldn’t send a box of campaign buttons or bumper stickers out to the Girl Scouts? The Obama campaign raised almost $400 million dollars this year!

Girl scouts 1) don’t vote, 2) don’t make campaign contributions, so to Obama, they 3) don’t matter.

McCain-Palin love the kids, though, don’t they?

JustTruth101 on September 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan. I think McCain/Hockey Mom can win at least one of those.

Pawlenty should be able to help some in his state, and Romney in MI.

Mr. Wednesday Night on September 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM

If your information is correct, has MSNBC simply begun to resort to lying?

begun????

MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM

If logistically possible, Gov. Palin should do an old fashioned locomotive campaign tour. Charter a train and hit every small town in between the big cities. Hold the rallies at or near the train stations to save time and money. The PR would be great and the local TV stations would eat it up.

equanimous on September 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM

I’m thinking tat Washington and Oregon are going to become battleground states. Those are Palin’s backyard. In Washington, Obama went from up 12 (Rasmussen) at the beginning of August to up 4 (Survey USA) for 9/5-7 this month. Oregon hasn’t been polled since the beginning of August and RCP had Obama up 7 then.

That’s 18EV. More than MI. McCain putting some time there would require Obama to fight on more ground.

BTW, Bush lost OR 0.44% in 2000 and 4.16% in 2004. In Washington Bush lost by 5.57% in 2000 and 7.17% in 2004. Even if M/P thought they could flip OR, it wouldn’t be that much more to stop in WA to put the pressure and help out Rossi for Governor (up one yesterday) on when out there, too.

Also,

Dusty on September 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Watch to see if the down ballot candidates in the non-contested states make a stink about not getting any help from Obama with their campaigns, or if the have no problems with Barack concentrating on places like Ohio, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. If those candidates begin acting like they’re happy not to have Obama in their neck of the woods, you know his campaign is in trouble.

jon1979 on September 10, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I’m in a non-battleground state, and I’ve noticed a distancing from Obama (and the democratic ticket in general) from our down ticket dem contenders. In fact, I now see very little advertising/campaining from the dems. Good news for us I guess. Kinda wish I was in a battleground so I could witness some of the fireworks..

meoky on September 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Keemo. I agree with you that this is far from over but don’t think that Obama needs to be up 10 now to win. What seems to be happening is that the pollsters are trying to figure out how to adjust their numbers for declarated party affiliation–this is why one Gallup poll had McCain up by 9 or 10 and others have Obama with a 1 point lead.

I posted this last night on another part of this blog and it suggests to me that McCain’s overall numbers are not as strong as Bush’s were in 2004 at this point and Bush barely won by 1.5% at the end.

CBS News (931 LV) 9/20 – 9/22 Bush +9
AP/Ipsos (931 LV) 9/20 – 9/22 Bush +7
Pew Research (989 RV) 9/17 – 9/21 Bush +3
NBC News/WSJ (787 LV) 9/17 – 9/19 Bush +4
Zogby (1066 LV) 9/17 – 9/19 Bush +3
IBD/TIPP (650 LV) 9/14 – 9/18 Bush +3
ARG (LV) 9/7 – 9/21 Bush +1
CBS News (1048 RV) 9/12 – 9/16 Bush +9
CNN/USAT/Gallup (767 LV) 9/13 – 9/15 Bush +14
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/12 – 9/15 Bush +4
Pew Research (725 LV) 9/11 – 9/14 Bush +1
Harris (867 LV) 9/9 – 9/13 Kerry +1
Newsweek (1003 RV) 9/9 – 9/10 Bush +6
IBD/TIPP (674 LV) 9/7 – 9/12 TIE
Zogby (1018 LV) 9/8 – 9/9 Bush +4
Time (857 LV) 9/7 – 9/9 52% Bush +11
AP/Ipsos (899 LV) 9/7 – 9/9 Bush +5
FOX/Opin. Dyn. (1000 LV) 9/7 – 9/8 Bush +4
ABC News/Wash Post (LV) 9/6 – 9/8 Bush +9
Pew Research (745 LV) 9/8 – 9/10 Bush +16
CBS News (909 RV) 9/6 – 9/8 Bush +7
CNN/USAT/Gallup (778 LV) 9/3 – 9/5 Bush +7
Newsweek (1,008 RV) 9/2 – 9/3 Bush +11

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Catholics Catholics Catholics

exhelodrvr on September 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Circling the wagons?

TooTall on September 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Dang, it happened to me, too!! How does he know I’m Protestant?

exhelodrvr on September 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM

The wheels are coming off the bus. I have been holding my breath since the GOP convention thinking it was too good to be true. I enjoy watching an old dude and his trophy VP school the Messiah and his flock. We sort of got a taste of this in the primaries. Hillary was kicking his arse all over the map in the final stretch, and ‘ol Downtown 3-point Obama couldn’t hit a layup to save his ass. I am entertained by it all…

Wyznowski on September 10, 2008 at 12:03 PM

I suspect we will barely see Obama traveling outside of these battleground states for the next eight weeks,…

.

Well that’s not a winning strategy either. The more Obama is seen, the more he is disliked. His success came from that old advertising expression, sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Obama is chuck, not prime. The more you see him, the more you realize it.

JiangxiDad on September 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM

What seems to be happening is that the pollsters are trying to figure out how to adjust their numbers for declarated party affiliation–this is why one Gallup poll had McCain up by 9 or 10 and others have Obama with a 1 point lead.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Yes, they are trying to figure out how many of us conservatives, with no desired republican candidate, crossed over to either vote for the weakest dem (Obama), or crossed over in operation chaos to vote for the other opponent (Hillary) to keep the dems spending their huge cash advantage.

Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM

begun????

MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM

You’re absolutely correct. Forgive me for being naive. Ignoring Olberman and Maddow, I’ve seen Matthews and others skew the truth greatly, but this was the first time I’d witnessed them telling me black was white.

BuckeyeSam on September 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM

In a sick twisted wish for a painful loss for Hussein & Omarosa…I hope he wins the popular vote by getting huge percentages of the numerically few “engineered” districts but then loses the electoral vote as the grown ups in the rest of America weigh in.

Alden Pyle on September 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Oh delicious irony! That would be such a treat to see the Dems try to work themselves into a righteous lather – again.

KrisinNE on September 10, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Newsweek (1,008 RV) 9/2 – 9/3 Bush +11

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Bush sucked in the debates. You never know what will happen this time.

pedestrian on September 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Western Pennsylvania is going to be the end of Team Barry. He might hold PA, but I think really bad numbers in the western part of the state and a disappointing performance in Pittsburgh/Allegheny County itself may do him in.

Of course he could lose the election anyway, because OH and FL are clearly slipping away.

forest on September 10, 2008 at 12:15 PM

The more Obama is seen, the more he is disliked. His success came from that old advertising expression, sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Obama is chuck, not prime. The more you see him, the more you realize it.

JiangxiDad on September 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM

I agree, and I think that’s why his numbers are going to sink even more after the debates. A lot of voters are still clueless about what Obama really is — a big taxing, big spending, big government Liberal who is inexperienced and incredibly naive about the need for a strong national defense. Once the undecided voters have a chance to see the very real differences between Obama and McCain, most will realize they don’t want Obama anywhere near the White House.

AZCoyote on September 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Forest, Bush didn’t win OH or FL. If Barry wins either of them and keeps PA and MI, it’s game over for McCain/Palin.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM

For what it’s worth, there is no bigger democrat/union supporter than my brother-in-law, a Pennsylvania resident. The last time we were together, and we try to avoid politics to maintain family harmony, he told me flat out he will not vote for Obama.

I get the feeling there are 1000s of Pennsylvania residents like my b.i.l. who will not be voting Obama. dare I hope that my state is a McCain possibility.

MoodyBlu on September 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Oops. My bad. I meant to say “Kerry didn’t win OH or FL”.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Take a look at an electoral projection map. If you give Obama all states from Maryland to Maine, except New Hampshire, add in Mich, Wis, Ill, Iowa, then add in New Mexico and Colorado, the three West Coast states and Hawaii, you arrive at 269 electoral votes. A tie is a win for Obama.
Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM

It’s interesting to check this out. On the linked page at the WSJ, click ‘Electoral College Calculator:2 Your predictions, past results and experts’ opinions.’ and then study the map as it is, and then click on ’2004 election’ under ‘previous election results’

and then ‘restore defaults’

I wonder how much different it’s going to be this time.

wise_man on September 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Can’t give anything to the Girl Scouts or brother George unless it’s paid for with tax dollars.

Zoltan on September 10, 2008 at 12:24 PM

I’m thinking tat Washington and Oregon are going to become battleground states. Those are Palin’s backyard. In Washington, Obama went from up 12 (Rasmussen) at the beginning of August to up 4 (Survey USA) for 9/5-7 this month. …
Dusty on September 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM

It also helps that you have a hotly contested guv race there where the GOP lost by a few hundred votes to the dems 4 years ago. IF things keep going the way they are currently, I definitely see coattails for McCain-Palin

ConservativePartyNow on September 10, 2008 at 12:25 PM

I wonder how much different it’s going to be this time.

wise_man on September 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM

I forgot to include Minn for Obama in my post earlier. I came up with a 269-269 tie easily; McCain winning; not so easy. But, if McCain wins Penn, I can’t see Barry winning.

Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Forest, Bush didn’t win OH or FL. If Barry wins either of them and keeps PA and MI, it’s game over for McCain/Palin.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM

He didn’t?? BTW, Ohio is gone for Obama, and MI is not looking good either

ConservativePartyNow on September 10, 2008 at 12:26 PM

[jim m on September 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM]

Gore didn’t either.

Dusty on September 10, 2008 at 12:26 PM

I’m thinking that Washington and Oregon are going to become battleground states. Those are Palin’s backyard.

Well if 1400 non-contiguous miles (distance from Seattle to Anchorage) can be considered in one’s backyard. Russia is closer and only slightly less socialist than Washington State.

I hope you are right but I just don’t see the liberal idiots who keep electing Patty Murray to office changing stripes and voting for the non-Democrat on a ballot. If they were open to that kind of thing, Murray would be out of office for her post 9/11/01 praise of the Taliban as being more humane than America. Remember?

“We’ve got to ask, why is this man (Bin Ladin) so popular around the world?” “Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?” [bin Laden] has been “out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that.”
“How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?”

You really think the leftist morons who support a politician making that kind of attack against America are going to turn away from an empty multi-racial suit?

highhopes on September 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM

I definitely see coattails for McCain-Palin

ConservativePartyNow on September 10, 2008 at 12:25 PM

That’s counter-intuitive to McCain’s change and reform message. Too many riding the coattails would be the very incumbents that McCain’s message says are part of the problem. More likely, IMO, would be a huge bipartisan backlash against all incumbents akin to the 1976 elections.

highhopes on September 10, 2008 at 12:33 PM

FACT 1) Obama raised $400,000,000 in contributions
FACT 2) He can’t afford 30 stickers for the GIRL Scouts
FACT 3) HE CAN AFFORD TO SEND 30 PEOPLE TO ALASKA TO DIG UP DIRT ON SARAH PALIN

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PIGTURE?

NightmareOnKStreet on September 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on September 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM

The High cost of Arugula

(apologies for anyone who said that before.. I only read page 2 of the comments)

DaveC on September 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM

You really think the leftist morons who support a politician making that kind of attack against America are going to turn away from an empty multi-racial suit?

[highhopes on September 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM]

Who’s to say that is the reason Obama would win? I notice that both WA Senators are women. They beat beat men. If identity politics is the big issue, maybe their affinity will be sex not race. Further WA seems to have a strong independence/states-rights streak and maybe McCain/Palin are more their style than a nanny-state Obama/Biden.

Why is Rossi (R) running neck and neck with Gregoire (D) if Cantwell’s politics is the prevalent attitude?

Dusty on September 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM

FACT 1) Obama raised $400,000,000 in contributions

I want to know where this money went. I’m not in a battleground state but I have yet to see an Obama television ad. There are few Obama or McCain signs in evidence and New Orleans should be fertile ground for the demographics Obama thinks is going to turn the south deep blue. There’s not an awful lot to show for all that money raised.

highhopes on September 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM

FACT 3) HE CAN AFFORD TO SEND 30 PEOPLE TO ALASKA TO DIG UP DIRT ON SARAH PALIN

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PIGTURE?

NightmareOnKStreet on September 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM

He might claim that those 30 don’t work for him and are associated with a 527 that he denounces. There are ways he’ll try to spin out of that one.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on September 10, 2008 at 12:50 PM

highhopes on September 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Greasy pockets. That’s the Daley machine side of him. He’s lubing people up now for favors after he takes the oath. It would be nice for an open and transparent look at their books. But like another famous Chicagoan, you always have two sets of books.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on September 10, 2008 at 12:52 PM

This is good news! Girl Scouts selling those yummy cookies and wearing McCain/Palin pins! I like that image!

petunia on September 10, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Piper is about the right age isn’t she…. hmmm what could we do with Piper in a Girl Scout uniform… Ms. President badge….

petunia on September 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM

I find myself remembering the number of states Obama lost at the end of the primary campaign.

Also, I noticed at the time (as did others) that Obama owed his victory in the primary to the caucus states. The well-organized, ground-level enthusiasm of his supporters made the difference in those states. Clinton did better in the non-caucus states.

I wondered then, and I wonder now, just how well Obama’s victories in the caucus states will translate to victories in those states in the general election. Or will they translate at all?

Also, what is Obama’s current poll standing in those states? I’m not in a position to do the analysis, unfortunately. But I wonder how many caucus states he won NOT because he had widespread support there, but because of his enthusiastic, well-organized “feet on the street” campaign workers.

glendower on September 10, 2008 at 1:14 PM

In fact, there’s another data point for this issue, involving Girl Scouts in Naperville…

In fact there’s another datum for this issue…

Tzetzes on September 10, 2008 at 1:16 PM

That’s funny my dad lives in Clark county Ohio and frankly Kerry’s international backing cost him the state in all likelihood as Clark had been trending Blue…..

first time I have ever been called “cosmopolitan” in my life however,

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Sven,

My post was just pure sarcasm.

No offense intended, but “Sven”? From Ohio? MN, ND, even Wisconsin sure, but Ohio?

BobMbx on September 10, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Given that we’ve seen quite a few stacked polls (commissioned and paid for by leftist MSM entities in which Dems and left-leaning idependents are over-sampled) which nevertheless still show McCain/Palin ahead and growing, I’m very heartened.
.
The McCain/Palin war-chest being in excellent financial shape, whereas the Obama/Biden war-chest is in bad condition and getting worse is better still.
.
Additionally, name-calling and sending thirty-strong Dig-Up-Dirt teams to Alaska smells like Dem. defensive desperation to me.
.
“President McCain”, “Vice President Palin”! :-)

DavePa on September 10, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I think comparing this election to 2004 is like fighting the last war. There are many differences, and the main one is that Obama is simply not as strong a candidate as Kerry.

Because Kerry lost, everyone looks on him as a weak choice. But actually he was a pretty strong pick in many ways, and he matches up very well against Obama. Consider:

Kerry – Long-time, well-known senator

Obama – First-term senator of no distinction

Kerry – Military veteran with three Purple Hearts

Obama – No military background

Kerry – Able to speak cogently off the cuff

Obama – Inarticulate and gaffe-prone without a prompter

Plus, Kerry was running against an unpopular incumbent president in the middle of an unpopular war.

Obama is running against a widely liked “maverick” senator whose “surge” strategy turned the war around.

There is just no reason to assume Obama will perform nearly as well as Kerry on Election Day.

sauropod on September 10, 2008 at 2:08 PM

…Also, I noticed at the time (as did others) that Obama owed his victory in the primary to the caucus states. The well-organized, ground-level white guilt enthusiasm of his supporters made the difference in those states…
glendower on September 10, 2008 at 1:14 PM

-Fixed it for ya.

NightmareOnKStreet on September 10, 2008 at 2:10 PM

The High cost of Arugula
DaveC on September 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM

;0)

NightmareOnKStreet on September 10, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Ah, typical liberal strategy: throw money at the problem until it goes away! Which requires neither leadership, executive experience, or competence.

Remember it isn’t what they’ve done, it is what they say they’ve done, and what they promise to do in the future that counts.

I R A Darth Aggie on September 10, 2008 at 3:22 PM

This race is far from over. However, Obama should be up in the national polls at this time if we are to look back at the recent history of our national elections. The reasons & causes for this really doesn’t matter, it’s just a fact.

Keemo on September 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM

That’s my recollection, too, Keemo, and I’ve been saying this for at least a week. For the Democrat to be dead even at the beginning of September is a pretty clear sign of a Republican landslide in November, barring some unexpected wind change. I think the Democrats know this, too, though they’re not going to say so. The Obama campaign is in serious trouble.

philwynk on September 10, 2008 at 4:16 PM

Maybe they decided that since 7 year olds can’t vote that sending them a box of campaign buttons or bumper stickers would be like putting lipstick on a pig.

Dollayo on September 10, 2008 at 4:58 PM

How the heck did Ohio get so many electoral votes? (WSJ map) Do they really have that large a population?

PattyJ on September 10, 2008 at 5:34 PM

If Team Obama can’t manage what Team McCain can manage on twice the amount of money, doesn’t that say something about executive ability and the competence of the Obama team?

A while back Obama was bragging about his executive experience as exemplified by the great number of people he had working for him on the campaign. I assume that hoard now works for some less competent underling.

burt on September 10, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Maybe ‘the machine’ needs to fire summa dose expensive males and hire some more lower-paid females.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.

pambi on September 10, 2008 at 6:26 PM

That map is still way too close for comfort. Bush 41 lost ’cause he just couldn’t believe that people would vote for a draft dodger. Wrong.

We can’t assume that people won’t vote for a Muslim non-Muslim Marxist.

Mojave Mark on September 10, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2