Matthew Yglesias (June 25, 2008) - Department of Lame Retorts (Politics)

« Obama's Tunes | Main | State Directors »

Department of Lame Retorts

25 Jun 2008 02:41 pm

It seems the Obama campaign has an ambitious plan to put staff resources into states it's unlikely to win, such as Texas and Wyoming, in order to be able to help out with registration and organization to assist downballot Democrats. In Texas, for example, Democrats are close to gaining control of the State Legislature (and thus the redistricting process). The best part, though, is this comeback from the McCain campaign:

"It’s revealing that Barack Obama has now been forced to expand the states on his map because he’s so weak in traditional Democratic targets such as West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, not to mention his ongoing problems in Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Uh huh. Here's the latest polling:

Obama%20vs.%20McCain3.png

I'm not sure that being ahead in Ohio (and Pennsylvania) and tied in Florida when winning either would deliver you the election qualifies as "weak."

Permalink :: Comments (24) ::

Comments (24)

I think there is a lot of Bradley Effect going on or artifacts in the polling methodology in Florida, for example. No way will FL go into the blue column five months from now and Ohio may well follow once again FL's example.

Posted by daveinboca | June 25, 2008 3:09 PM

Alaska, North Dakota and North Carolina are toss-ups?!??!

Posted by Jayhawk Max | June 25, 2008 3:16 PM

Well, what is Rogers supposed to say? He isn't being paid to admit harmful truths.

And the truth is that McCain could get buried in a landslide if there is a significant bandwagon effect. So they have to talk like they are in great shape, even though they know better.

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 3:25 PM

The best part of Obama's map...flip MI with OH, and Obama wins with 273 electoral votes (pickups in IA, NM, CO, NH). Technically he wins without NH either, as a 269 tie goes to Obama.

A path to victory without EITHER FL or OH? What a pleasant thought...

Posted by rashomon | June 25, 2008 3:29 PM

Alaska, North Dakota and North Carolina are toss-ups?!??!

I think that red states are more in play this year for two reasons.

First, many die-hard GOP supporters are disgusted with McCain as a choice. That was Rove's gambit. He went faaaaaaarrrrr right and locked up much of the evangelical vote, but now they see themselves as having no candidate so why bother. Any candidate today could either go with the far right minority, or lose them and go for a broader middle, but not both. Heckuva' job, Karl.

Second, many previously die-hard GOP supporters are disgusted with the GOP's performance. Since Rove had his fingers in most of those pies, at least part of that can be laid at his feet too though, of course, there is plenty of blame to go around for the entire Bush administration and every GOP Congressman.

So much for the "architect". What he built was impressive for a few years, but had no structural integrity (or any integrity of any kind) and started to fall apart quickly.

Posted by LFC | June 25, 2008 3:47 PM

Shorter Brian Rogers: 'The Obama campaign is in its "last throes"!!!'

Posted by LFC | June 25, 2008 3:51 PM

Pedantic note -
Control of the redistricting process will not be determined by the 2008 elections. The 2010 census results are not released until late in that year, and the various legislatures will deal with this in 2011, after the next election cycle.

Gains this time are terrific, and with most State Senate terms being 4 years, do at least for half the members lock them in place. But nearly all State general assembly/lower house seats are two year terms, and most states still have half of their Senates to elect in 2010.

Posted by hopeless pedant | June 25, 2008 3:53 PM

It's a good thing we have the well-presented evidence and arguments of daveinboca, which easily outweigh whatever multiple polls might show.

Posted by KCinDC | June 25, 2008 3:58 PM

Control of the redistricting process will not be determined by the 2008 elections.

The GOP redistrict Texas in a non-census year, and it was upheld. Why would the rules be any different for the Dems?

Posted by LFC | June 25, 2008 4:11 PM

That's awesome. "The fact that our opponent has an ambitious plan to contest every election and leave us no safe ground where we can conserve our already-limited resources is actually good news for us, because it shows that his own safe territory isn't enough." It reminds me of Baghdad Bob.

Posted by Cyrus | June 25, 2008 4:17 PM

Er... Tennessee is a "traditional" Democrat victory? Discounting 1992 and 1996 - VP Al Gore was from TN - the only times they've voted Democrat were in 1976 (for Carter) and 1964 (for Johnson). Prior to that you have to go all the way back to 1948 to have a Democratic vote (and one of their electors voted for Thurmond). Even counting 92 and 96, voting Dem 5 times out of the last 15 doesn't exactly make it a "traditional" Democratic target.

Posted by Tel | June 25, 2008 4:34 PM

"The GOP redistrict Texas in a non-census year, and it was upheld. Why would the rules be any different for the Dems?"

Because they always are?

Posted by Ginger Yellow | June 25, 2008 4:41 PM

I'm not sure if it's such a disadvantage to lose a "traditional" target like West Virginia and Arkansas if it means bringing in new targets like Colorado, Virginia, Indiana, Alaska, North Carolina, Georgia, and a whole host of other states that McCain will be forced to aggressively defend. And considering the continual future growth of CO/VA/NC, I know I'd take them in a heartbeat over precipitously declining old states like WV.

But as long as they can take comfort in small victories, who are we to say no.

...and Ohio may well follow once again FL's example.

It may. But given a year like 2006, where they tossed out the thoroughly corrupt governing party from the governorship and several statewide offices, replaced an incumbent Republican senator, and saw considerable competitiveness in the House races... and then following it up with 2008 where no fewer than 5 House races are again competitive and where Democrats have seen a surge of popularity lead by the governor, buoyed party registration from the primary, and the unpopularity of the president and his party... I like our chances.

Posted by jbryan | June 25, 2008 4:46 PM

It’s revealing that Barack Obama has now been forced ...

FAIL.

The 50-state strategy is what drove the GOP into the fucking sea in 2006. This "retort" reminds me of this.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 25, 2008 4:54 PM

Control of the redistricting process will not be determined by the 2008 elections. The 2010 census results are not released until late in that year, and the various legislatures will deal with this in 2011, after the next election cycle.

Depends on the state, and when the state legislature is elected and for how long. In Texas, the State Senate, at least, seems to be elected in two groups for four year terms, so half the state senators who'll be there in 2011 will be chosen this year. Even in the House, which seems to be elected for two year terms, getting a Democratic majority now would probably make it more likely to have a Democratic majority after the 2010 elections than would a continued Republican majority.

Posted by John | June 25, 2008 5:04 PM

daveinboca, where was the Bradley effect when Obama was polling well behind both Hillary and McCain in Florida? The fact that he's polling ahead of McCain now shows that he's made up a lot of ground. The Bradley effect has been widely debunked as a polling phenomenon, by the way.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 25, 2008 5:06 PM

Texas may be closer than people think. Clinton won about 47% of the two-party vote in '96. Take W off the ballot and throw in the general unpopularity of the Republicans and a worsening economy, and it's not unreasonable to suggest that Obama could win there. He could at least force McCain to spend there.

Posted by Dave | June 25, 2008 5:10 PM

anyone still using FAIL should be clubbed to death with an iPhone

The first poll that matters to anyone not working on either campaign will be conducted on August 29.

Posted by dude, where are my electoral votes | June 25, 2008 6:18 PM

Re: Florida

With McCain and the GOP now creaming that they want to fill the coasts with oil wells, Florida may be in play after all. Even Republicans in Florida want to keep the beaches clear and clean.

Posted by JonF | June 25, 2008 6:47 PM

Obama's efforts to get Democrats like Melissa Bean, Claire McCaskill, and Bill Foster elected must be because he isn't too confident about his own seat in Illinois. When he was campaigning for Bean in 2004, that must have been because he wanted to salvage at least something good for the Democratic party in light of his imminent defeat at the hands of Alan Keyes.

Posted by Julian Elson | June 25, 2008 6:57 PM