I don’t think this is true- I think he generally campaigned as a moderate Democrat on the issues- but his rhetoric and presentation was so unusually good that left-progressives just assumed he was with them. I think he campaigned as a moderate Democrat on the issues, and he’s generally governed as a moderate Democrat on the issues.
No way in hell he comes close in West Virginia. His EPA regs on coal have most of the state mad at him. He loses the southern coal counties that are 10 to 1 Dem registration. Even our US Senators won’t endorse him.
He can already write off WV. He will do good to get 40% here.
Arizona and Texas and West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee and Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
We’re going to write off West Virginia per jtgain.
Arizona and Texas and West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee and Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
West Virginia is now written off. Next, we’re going to write off Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky. Objections? If not then I will write off those three states also.
Arizona and Texas and West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee and Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
Now, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia are written off. Thus, the states that Obama can go after are Tennessee, Missouri, Arizona, and Texas. However, we have a choice: We can write off Texas and go after Arizona or we can write off Arizona and go after Texas, or we can go after both, or write off both. The question is: Should Obama go after Tennessee, Missouri, and Arizona or should Obama go after Tennessee, Missouri, and Texas?
Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans and Spam.
When people say this, what do they mean?
I can see two possible interpretations:
a. they believe that social conservatives will vote for a third party
b. they believe that social conservatives will stay home, voting for no one.
From a historical perspective, has they ever been a republican candidate that inspired *either *of these two possible outcomes?
A seems rather unlikely given that third-party candidates generally do way too poorly to affect the outcome of a race, and even then they’re usually more popular with dissatisfied democrats than with dissatisfied republicans (except Ross Perot, who drew 20% of his votes from dems and 27% from repubs). A lack of a tea party candidate prominently running at this point doesn’t seem to even give any A-minded social conservatives someone to waste a vote on.
How about B, has B ever happened (as backed by anemic social conservative voting stats for a given presidential election)?
This is one of Obama’s great strengths: He can fit in with almost any crowd. Everyone sees him as “one of us”.
elfkin, not only has that happened, I don’t know if there’s ever been a time when it hasn’t happened. Voter turnout is only ever a little over half of the population. There are plenty of people who stay home who, if you had just tried a little harder, you might have gotten to the polls.
Unless there were a significant dip from other elections, it’d be hard to attribute a low voter rate to a particular candidate vs people are lazy, wouldn’t it?
Yes.
From New York Times article, “Obama Camp, Sensing Shift, Bets on a Long Shot, Arizona.”
Besides Arizona, I see Tennessee, Missouri, and Louisiana in play.
What?! Have you not noticed how many Americans there are who will never see Obama as one of them?! They’ve certainly spent the last four years telling us so, often and loudly.
Well, yes, Obama does have a hard time passing himself off as a moron.
In '08, Arizona was 53%-44% for McCain, and recent polling shows Romney is doing slightly worse than that margin. Missouri went for McCain by less than 5,000 votes. Yeah, those are potential pick ups, even though I still disagree that Obama is seriously going to pick up many (any?) states in 2012.
But Louisiana was 58%-39% for McCain, and Tennessee was 57%-41% for McCain. If voters in those states couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hopey McChangey in 2008, I simply do not believe that Obama is going to do 9 to 10 points better in those states this year.
Of course Obama will have a red state strategy; that goes without saying. The questions are:
-
What states that he lost in 2008 will he put some money and effort into trying to win (if any besides Arizona); and
-
Will he throw in the towel early on any reddish states he won in 2008?
Answering (2) first, I think it’s pretty clear that the only state he won last time that he might give up on early (and I have no idea if he will) would be Indiana. He’s been polling pretty well in VA and NC, for instance, so there’s no reason to concede either of them. And news reports have said his campaign’s gearing up in that one CD in Nebraska that they won last time.
As far as (1) goes, what others have said about Arizona. Dems made inroads there in House races in 2006 and 2008, and its being McCain’s home state explains a good chunk of its margin in the Presidential race. It’s worth some effort to see if 2010 was an outlier there as it presumably was elsewhere.
After that, though, the pickings get slim. The belt of states from WV through KY and TN to MO, AR, LA is getting more Republican over time. MO is worth a shot only because it went for McCain by such a slender margin last time, but I wouldn’t put high hopes on it. Georgia’s probably worth a flyer because it’s one of those Southern states that’s getting more urbanized, so there’s a chance that it could be nudged into purple territory with a bit of work.
And while Obama has about zero chance of winning Texas in 2012, I really hope they can spare some money and effort for Texas to lay the groundwork for the future: it’s going to get more urbanized, it’s going to get more Hispanic, so it’s going to get more competitive. And we’d like to win some Congressional races there this year, too, to up our odds of taking back the House.
Obama has over 100 offices spread across nearly every state, including Wyoming. The campaign knows they will be buried in Super-PAC mud, so they’ve opted to take the technological route. They are trying to build a network of supporters who in turn will contact their friends, the idea being that you might trust an acquaintance more than some televised nonsense.
And they are bringing the battle to a greater number of swing states, that secures the team multiple pathways to victory. New to the list is Arizona, which was unobtainable in 2008 because their favorite son was running, but may be ripe for plucking this year.
The above was paraphrased off of an Economist article (sub req, I think):
If he has the same sort of funding advantage as he had in 2008, he probably will invest pretty heavily in places like Texas. That’s straight out of Sun Tsu: When you are much stronger than your enemy, you attack everywhere at once. It’s only when you’re weaker that you try to seek out the weak points.
And that’s a fact in all 58 states.
Congratulations, you’ve managed to find one singular flub he made, four years ago. Clearly, someone with a rate of erroneous statements that high must be an absolute moron, unfit to have any part in society.
There is nothing I would like to see more than a serious Democratic push in Tennessee, but there is no way Obama wins here. We only have two Democratic US House members and neither senator. The GOP holds a majority in both houses of the state legislature, and the governor’s seat. Not only did Obama lose Tennessee in '08; Kerry lost it in '04 and most tellingly Tennessean favorite son Al Gore lost it in '00. And the state is more Republican now than it was back then. Obama will win the Readers Digest Sweepstakes before he wins Tennessee.
Recent statements re the role of the Supreme Court in our system of government notwithstanding.
It was 57. And like I said as part of another discussion a while ago, it’s unfortunate people are unable these days to enjoy a flub on its own terms. Back to the thread topic: the New York Times recently ran a story about the Obama team thinking that Arizona might be in play this year because of demographic changes. I still think that’s fanciful, but maybe it’d be worth their while to go on offense.
If you’re gonna nitpick, he said he’d been to 57 and had 1 more to go, hence 58. But, that, as you’ve said is old news. Toward the topic at hand, I believe he needs to see where the dust settles a bit after the Reps self flagellation of the past few months - if Romney gains some traction among the undecided center it could end up being interesting - especially VA and NC.