Home › Blogs › CJK's blog ›

Obama's Red State game

Submitted by CJK on Sun, 07/13/2008 - 12:35
in

Can Obama flip a solid red state?

He sure wants us to think that he can. He's spending money in Alaska (61% Bush), The Dakotas (62/59% Bush), Georgia (57% Bush) and other states that haven't voted for a Democrat in the last three to four decades. 

There is little precedence for such a dramatic flip, however. As Karl Rove pointed out recently, Bush managed to flip West Virginia, a Democratic stronghold that voted for the likes of Carter and Dukakis, by concentrating on a specific local issue (gun control, I believe) which gave him a narrow victory in 2000.  Obama lacks a similar local issue to push.

Furthermore, although some polls in these states show a close race, it is highly unlikely that they will remain that close on election day.  That's because the polls also showed McCain beating Clinton relatively easy in these states.  Given that the only real difference between Obama and Clinton was that Obama had even less experience than she did, most of the people switching sides from McCain to Obama must be falling for Obama's "hope", "change", and "new politics" nonsense. As we draw closer to election day it will become increasingly clear to those voters that Obama is just another phony politician who's trying to hide his liberalism and extremely partisan voting record.

Or at least that's my theory. In any case, McCain can't be goaded into wasting his money in these states when Obama is outspending him 2:1 currently, according to USA Today.  Based on that, we really should hope that his fundraising machine turns out to be a flop.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

WVA pre 2000 was reliably Democrat, but...

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 07/13/2008 - 15:51.

not by huge margins.  Clinton's 1996 performance of 51.%% was about what Dukakis got in 1988, 52.2%; ( neither time was the state seriously contested, BTW) which might have led Rove and co. to think the Dem "ceiling" was pretty close to 50% and the Perot vote in '92 and '96 came out of our hide. The last big Dem here win was in '76 with a southern baptist Democrat against a Republican from the upper Midwest.

The other thing to remember about WVA is the state "flipped" in the New Deal era and many of the old Democrat voters were coming off the rolls acturially. Bob Byrd is still with us, but his age appropriate allies are not able to cast ballots in large numbers outside Cook County.

Hard to see a place where the GOP "ceiling" is that low and where Republicans are coming off the rolls due to age.....those sorts of places (i.e. upstate NY)  largely flipped already.  the other angle is the Dems got too 'green" for any of the energy producing states ( Gore bailed out on LA after initially contesting the state) and that has yet to change.......I don't see the Drill Never party winning Alaska

 

McCain Should Ignore Obama's Head Fake

Submitted by Jeff Roberts on Sun, 07/13/2008 - 19:59.

The Obama campaign is foolish to make a play for these states, but he thinks he has money to burn and actually believes his own press releases.  Red states that went for Bush by 10-15 points are not going to be flipped by Obama.  This nonsense about the youth vote and huge black turnout is trotted out every election year, and it's always turns out to be a non-factor.

I think Obama is trying to spread the map out and make McCain play defense in safe states.  Obama thinks he's going to have a huge cash advantage, and can break McCain's bank.

McCain should ignore him and focus on Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that's where this election is going to either be won or lost. 

Hmmm...

Submitted by CodenameV on Sun, 07/13/2008 - 23:02.

He "actually believes his own press releases"? I know its uncommon, but isn't that what we want in a presidential candidate, to believe what he says? There is nothing wrong to have a 50-state strategy, check the polls, many different states are in play.

As far as your take on the youth vote, you're half right. The youth vote is trotted out every election year, along with every other demographic scenario, however its never reflected in the numbers themselves, except this year. Check the primary turnout numbers, most states toped records for voter turnout, most notably in the youth vote. Otherwise, Obama has a clear advantage in just about every age demographic, Courtesy of Gallup:

 

I'm sure that after McCains comments, in which he calls Social Security "a disgrace", he can kiss is lead in the 65+ category, and the state of Florida goodbye. Make sure you know the facts next time.

 

I Hope Obama Follows Your Advice

Submitted by Jeff Roberts on Sun, 07/13/2008 - 23:58.

I hope Obama spends time and money in states that went for Bush by 20 points.  It would be like McCain wasting money on states like New York and California.

Obama, and his cult-like followers  think he's the next messiah that's going to win in some sort of Reagan-like blowout that completely redraws the political map. 

They're going to be sadly mistaken when the Electoral map looks a lot like it did in 2004.

 

Heard of the concept "margin of error"?

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 06:50.

"Otherwise, Obama has a clear advantage in just about every age demographic, "

Obama's lead in the 30-65 age group is well within the MOE. The Obama strategy seems to be this time the kids vote at a higher rate than their grandparents. We'll see.

Hell, if Axelrod wants to outdo Karl Rove's failed gamble of dropping $15M @ California in 2000 when it could have been better spent in FL and PA, have at it

Nobama's 50 state plan

Submitted by texicali on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 00:08.

if his fundraising keeps dropping he can't fund a 50 state plan much less contest 20% GOP winning states....the McCain camp won't throw ad money at a 20% GOP win state just because Nobama is...Steve is much smarter than that he'll make NObama chase them

Agreed: Head Fake City

Submitted by section9 on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 06:58.

McCain must show discipline and go at the Midwest, VA, PA, Colorado, NV, and New Mexico.

This notion that Georgia is going to go for Obama is nonsense. It won't. Karl poured cold water on the nonsense coming out of Plouffe and Axelrod (well, look, they were doing Powerpoint stuff for Donors, so of course they were going to say that Alaska was in play!

The black vote was all out for Gore to the tune of 95% in 2000. Obama won't be able to beat Gore's numbers. That's Obama's hidden problem.

The Yoot vote won't turn out.

The "elderly" will vote for McCain.

His vaunted money machine may not be what it's cracked up to be, now that the Clinton is out of the race. 

The fact that it's tied right now means that Nobama can't yet close the deal in a summertime in which he should be pulling away. Strange but true. I expected him to be ten points up in Rasumussen right now, but he's not.

All that said, we're operating under the dead weight of a hideously inept McCain campaign that has wasted three months and has failed to define its opponent. We're also having to deal with a totally A**clown RNC.

For all that, Obama still has the advantage going into the fall.

95% black vote for Gore isn't the same

Submitted by elay on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 10:59.

Gore's 95% and Obama's 95%+ won't be the same because of turnout.  Obama's numbers from people who identify themselves as black will be a lot higher than Gore's because the turnout is likely to be much higher.  How much higher and whether or not it can make a difference is the question.

Gore was hardly the rockstar and Messianic figure Obama is portrayed as for the  so-called "black community." McCain needs to be aware of it and try to head it off.