GOP Doom Watch

Michael Gerson:

The style and approach of general election campaigns are often conditioned by the method of victory in the primaries. The Obama team ends the season like a battle-worn Army division -- organized, relentless and skilled at fundraising, registering voters and getting them to the polls. Members of the McCain team feel more like survivors of a near-death experience -- convinced that the virtues of their candidate and the blessings of the political gods matter more than the money, phone banks and door-knocking of traditional politics.

This worries some Republican strategists. One recently described the McCain campaign to me as the political equivalent of a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movie: Every morning a few guys get together and say, "Let's put on a show!" McCain's state campaign organizations, coalition outreach and get-out-the-vote efforts are weak or nonexistent. But McCain campaign officials are convinced that they will win -- if they win -- in a different manner than the methodical Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004. McCain will either catch fire, or he won't -- and traditional efforts to boost turnout, in this view, are not likely to make the difference. Given its history, the McCain campaign is understandably proud of its stripped down, seat-of-the-pants, insurgent campaign style. But it may eventually be useful to have a serious campaign organization in, say, Colorado.

As Noam Scheiber says, it's hard to see any comparison in the merits of these approaches. If Gerson's take on the McCain campaign is accurate, then McCain is just doomed -- you can't run a nationwide, one-on-one, months-long campaign in the kind of seat-of-your-pants way that worked for McCain in the primaries.

This sounds like hubris born of a staff and a candidate that are unwilling to admit how much factors outside their control (namely, the Rudy collapse and the Huckaboom) played in delivering them a win in the primary.

Comments

McCain won the nomination through sheer luck -- he happened to eke out narrow victories in winner-take-all states while his rivals won in proportional states.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 11, 2008 6:26 PM

McCain is doomed (as I've been saying for months). He won his primary by default is what you were getting at, Matt. Obama won his by beating someone that was considered by most political observers to be a shoo-in. Slight difference there. Virtually every meaningful factor, the state of the economy, the country's opinion on the war, voter policy preference, money, only helps Obama. McCain is going to get smoked.

McCain and his aids are approaching his campaign the way Bushco approached the war: they will succeed by their sheer awesomeness and virtue, actual, real factors be damned!

Posted by Mitch Schindler | June 11, 2008 6:30 PM

The McCain campaign is modeled on low budget reality TV, like Paris Hilton's The Simple Live: let's put the star in some wacky situation, like sending him to campaign among poor blacks, and see what happens.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 11, 2008 6:35 PM

I'll assume they are thinking the press will continue to bring them donuts and are betting on it. That saves a lot of money and helped them tremendously in the primaries.
Unfortunately, at some points, those donuts may be brought in condolence.

Posted by carsick | June 11, 2008 6:37 PM

Another endorsement for proportional allocation of delegates. If the Dems ran a winner-take-all system like the Repubs (and as Mark Penn thought), it would have all been over by Feb. 5. Instead the Dem candidates were able to hone their messages, register voters in all 50 states (and a number of territories) and build a huge operation with a database full of donors and volunteers all across America. This is why Obama will be able to capitalize on McCain's blunders even in states like Mississippi where the Democratic Party has not lately been competitive.

That plus $5/gal. gas = Democratic Landslide in November.

Posted by kidkostar | June 11, 2008 6:41 PM

there is no evidence that mccain understands strategic thinking, so there should be no surprise that maybe his campaign doesn't either.

Posted by howard | June 11, 2008 6:41 PM

No, McCain will win the presidency thanks to voter anger at Obama's handling of the Jim Johnson situation and the October 30 release of Michelle Obama's "whitey" tape and the birth certificate revealing that Obama is actually a Hindu. That and fucked-up personal pages on Obama's site.

This is what I gather from the priorities of the bloggy right...

Posted by David Weigel | June 11, 2008 6:44 PM

I think the growing GOP rationalisation is different: that it's a hare-and-tortoise race, except they have the hounds.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 11, 2008 6:58 PM

For David Weigel,, What a fool. Don't you know history repeat its self every so often, that the last time a Senator from Arizona ran as a right winger he was defeated so bad that he was never heard from again. Almost the same time that change is needed so bad, fool's like you think is GHW Bush against Clinton. If I was a republican (thank god I'm not) I would buy a ticket to far away place cause that's where you will find more of your kind after Nov. Everything is coming democrat in all phases of the branches, History does repeat its self. Thanks GW Bush for that one

Posted by jmfields | June 11, 2008 7:01 PM

Gerson's behind-the-scenes take certainly appears to match up with what's been going on in plain sight. Since Obama secured the nomination, and there has been more available oxygen for coverage of McCain, McCain and his "team" have come off as unprofessional, unprepared, lacking any organized plan of attack, and sloppy. The rightwing will have to pin their hopes on arguing how all this shows how authentic he is.

Posted by bobbo | June 11, 2008 7:07 PM

How times change. From McClatchy & the Charlotte Observer.

Will crying 'liberal' help GOP this year? Some think not
By Jim Morrill | Charlotte Observer

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — When U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., dismissed his Democratic opponent last month as "Nancy Pelosi's chosen recruit" who had "pockets stuffed with cash from Washington liberals," one of the loudest groans came from a fellow North Carolina Republican.

“This shouting Liberal! Liberal! Liberal! stuff is not going to work this year,” Lee Teague, the GOP chairman in Mecklenburg County, which includes Charlotte, e-mailed a reporter.

“McHenry and a lot of other Republicans in Washington need to get a clue,” he added later.

Teague is among Republicans who say old bumper-sticker descriptions won't work in a year when voters are burdened by economic insecurities, and their party by an unpopular president.

"We don't have the brand power to do that right now, so we need to come to the table with a better game," said Michael Steele, chairman of GOPAC, a national group charged with electing Republicans. "We need some common-sense solutions that speak to where people are in their everyday lives. So running around screaming ‘this guy's a liberal' won't get you re-elected."...

...As a longtime strategist to former Republican Sen. Jesse Helms, Carter Wrenn pasted Democrats with the liberal tag. He said the label could work in the conservative 10th Congressional District, which includes Catawba, Lincoln and Cleveland counties and parts of Gaston and Iredell.

“But it may be largely irrelevant given the issues people are concerned about today,” Wrenn said. “It's almost like an anachronism.”

GOP Rep. Sue Myrick of Charlotte said Republicans “need to be talking about what they're going to do for people.”

Voters, she said, “don't have a clue who Nancy Pelosi is.”...

...“Republicans had better articulate a vision and a message that voters can trust, or they're just wasting their money running for office,” said [Michael]Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor.

“The American people lost confidence in our ability to steer the ship of state. We have to regain that. And we're not going to do that by name-calling.”

http://www.charlotte.com/540/story/663671.html

But if calling them "liberal" doesn't work, there's always trying to call them secret Muslims or radical black nationalist or 'Hey lookit what tha preacher Wright said please please listen where are you going I said this reverend said something crazy'.

Posted by El Cid | June 11, 2008 7:12 PM

It's been remarked that how you run your campaign is a pretty good measure of how you'd run a White House.

By that definition McCain would be a disaster...perhaps even worse than his prime mentor, Bush. At least Bush could hire good people to run a good campaign.

Posted by cm | June 11, 2008 7:14 PM

This sounds like hubris born of a staff and a candidate that are unwilling to admit how much factors outside their control (namely, the Rudy collapse and the Huckaboom) played in delivering them a win in the primary.

It sounds to me like a guy who doesn't really want to be president. When he was up here in New Hampshire he gave me the distinct impression of a man who believed he had blown his main chance in 2000, was on the wrong side of history in 2004, and was now just going through the motions to please his old fans. I really don't think he expected to win.

But his party surprised him and handed him the nomination, and now, damn, well he has to run.

I really wonder what McCain thinks about when he contemplates the possibility of spending four years with his nose to the grindstone in one of the toughest jobs in the world, handling endless crises, working late every day, managing a grueling travel and ceremonial schedule and taking endless shit from adversaries - all when he could be relaxing somewhere in the Arizona sun, enjoying Cindy's money. There has to be a part of him that wants to scream "no thanks".

Unlike Congress, the Presidency is always "in session".

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 11, 2008 7:17 PM

David Weigel is silly. The screwed up personnal pages on Obama's website surely would have given McCain the Presidency, but as Matthew and the other lefty bloggers pointed out, McCain has now promised to veto beer, and so natuarlly McCain's campaign is now doomed.

Posted by Al | June 11, 2008 7:27 PM

McCain backed into the nomination, because the field was so weak. He basically won the entire nomination based on 3 states: NH, where he had the name recognition from the past and a small enough state where organization didn't matter so much, SC, where Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson all divided the conservative vote, and FL, where he was trailing Romney until Gov Crist's endorsement. After winning FL, the entire GOP establishment annointed him.

It was a unique combination of factors that got McCain the nomination. Without Huckabee, Romney probably wins Iowa and SC and then probably Crist's endorsement and FL, and then maybe the whole thing. Without Romney or Thompson, Huckabee wins SC and it's a whole different ball game. If Crist endorses Romney he wins FL and it's a new game.

People forget that he won those states with vote totals not much above 30%. It wasn't exactly an overwhelming show. And the vote on the GOP side was lackluster anyway.

Basically, the other candidates cancelled each other out and that left McCain as the candidate with the most name recognition standing.

McCain did not win the nomination based on any great attributes or skill.

Posted by cm | June 11, 2008 7:27 PM

McCain's only hope is to stress the 2 things about Obama that will scare the shit out of middle America, racial (Rev Wright, Michelle, affirmative action, cradle to grave govt. programs) and radical (bomb throwers, Ayers, Danny Glover).

That's it. McCain must go hard core negative and get poor and working whitey motivated.

Posted by del | June 11, 2008 7:47 PM

Is it me, or have the battle-lines been drawn sorta thusly (drawn in very broad stereotypes, natch):

McCain supporters: "Look at Obama! He's super scary! Because of all of these totally unsubstantiated claims based on nonsensical innuendo! Pay attention to us!" [Furiously rack their brains for dirt to fling that isn't totally, completely batshit. Fail.]

Obama supporters: "Did you see the latest speech? It's awesome! He's awesome! I am so gonna vote for him! Oh, McBush said something?" [Point at McCain and snark, laugh, ignore him, then continue to talk about how super awesome Obama is.]

That is not a good zeitgeist for Sen. McCain's chances come th' fall.

(Disclosure: I am a supporter of Sen. Obama. I have drunk deep of the Hope Juice, and it is good.)

Posted by SGEW | June 11, 2008 7:50 PM

McCain doesn't have the nomination until the convention. The Republicans may not care about winning this year, but if they do care, there is still a possibility McCain isn't on the ballot in November. Jeb? I have no idea.

Or they could add Condi Rice. If it looks like a landslide, why not? A talking point for Democrats would be badly weakened.

Posted by bob mcmanus | June 11, 2008 8:53 PM

McCain has no argument on policy going for him. Period. He is the same as Bush and people clearly see that the Bush policies have failed. He has nowhere to hide.

Posted by cm | June 11, 2008 8:56 PM

You guys thought Obama-McCain was a facecrush... wait till you see Obama-Romney in 2012...

Posted by Gabriel | June 11, 2008 9:03 PM

bob: sure, the GOP can switch nominees at the convention. But to do so they'll have to convince all of those elected diehard McCain delegates to switch...that's very hard...these are very committed supporters to their candidate, like all delegates are.

If the GOP did switch candidates, they would pay a huge cost for that. There would be the big collective gasp about how the GOP was falling apart....nothing but negative press.

There would be the jockeying for position among the candidates who would want the nomination, unless there was a consensus choice, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus default.

Then whoever the nominee was would have to come out of the convention with huge negative press, and then have to put together a national campaign on the fly and introduce themselves to the American public with very little time left before the general election.

In short, logistically, these days, it's virtually impossible to switch candidates at the convention.

And with regards to Jeb Bush...I'd say any candidate on the ballot this year with the last name Bush would lose in a landslide.

Posted by cm | June 11, 2008 9:04 PM

Replace McCain with Jeb? What's Jeb's last name again? Oh yeah.

No way.

Posted by Octavian | June 11, 2008 9:16 PM

McCain won the nomination because he really did give the GOP their best shot of winning the general election, given their field. And if the Democrats had nominated Clinton, he would have had a decent chance.

But they didn't, so he doesn't.

Posted by DTM | June 11, 2008 9:33 PM

Please, please - I'm on the Jeb train too! The GOP needs to be stripped of every legislator and senator. It needs a good, purifying purge, it needs the clarity that comes with winning 30 percent of the vote. It needs another Bush!

Jeb, our nation turns its lonely eyes on you! Pretty please, throw your hat into the ring.

Posted by roger | June 11, 2008 9:50 PM

"If Gerson's take on the McCain campaign is accurate, then McCain is just doomed" -- Li'l Matt

Well, no. Not at all.

Obama is going to have a tough time. Last time I checked he was still black and, alas, that matters in America.

What's more, if Obama was actually stupid enough to follow a certain young, white prepschool/Harvard grad's advice and put Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano on the ticket McCain would be in phenomenal shape to take the presidency.

Matt's never more ignorant, stupid or provincial than when he indulges in these beyond parody fantasies of a new "progressive coalition" that's somehow going to allow Obama (and, yeah, whatever woman Matt thinks suggesting as a possible VP will score him the most brownie points that day with millennium feminists) to walk into the presidency without a great deal of hard work, cynical plotting and good luck.

Get this straight: McCain can run a slapdash campaign and still win.

Thank God Obama and his people aren't anywhere near as naive and silly as Matt at his worst.

Posted by an exasperated aging liberal | June 11, 2008 9:54 PM

re: No, McCain will win the presidency thanks to voter anger at Obama's handling of the Jim Johnson situation

I'm a bit of a political junkie as witness how much time I spent in these parts-- and I've never even heard of Jim Johnson. I doubt the average voter has either

Posted by JonF | June 11, 2008 10:14 PM

I gotta say I agree with "an exasperated aging liberal." There's this kind of ridiculously premature triumphalism going on in certain quarters, as if the election result is a foregone conclusion. How'd that attitude work out for Sen. Clinton? After the primary season we just endured, it's hard for me to see how anyone could fall into it.

Posted by live | June 11, 2008 10:19 PM

I agree with all those who say McCain CAN win. And, I am a dedicated Obama supporter.

This is NOT going to be a cakewalk. There are still - what - 63,000,000 morons who voted for Bush in 2004 who are casting votes again this year?

All Dems have to work our hardest to win this November.

Posted by phoebes in santa fe | June 11, 2008 10:31 PM

Personally, I think Obama's race is going to turn out to be much less of a factor than some people think/fear/hope. And it could well end up being a net positive, particularly if the GOP makes one or more crucial mistakes. And in my experience, the people who call people like me "naive" for not sharing their assumption that Obama's race will be a large net negative tend to be unaware of a number of relevant facts, some general and some specific to Obama.

But, in a few months we shall see.

Posted by DTM | June 11, 2008 10:41 PM

I agree with all those who say McCain CAN win. And, I am a dedicated Obama supporter.

But I think the argument is better phrased 'Obama can lose', meaning that McCain wins by default: the Dems want it as a referendum on Bush; the GOP wants a referendum on Obama. Thinking about it that way shapes the way Democrats have to work between now and November.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 11, 2008 10:46 PM

I don't think Sebellius would be a bad choice. Folks who aren't going to vote for a black guy and a white woman, on that basis, aren't going to vote for a black guy alone, either, it seems to me.

Obama has a good chance to win whoever his veep is. Underestimating McCain is a bad idea, though. His upset victory was almost as amazing as Obama's. We'll just have to wait and see....

Posted by NoahB | June 11, 2008 10:51 PM

There are still - what - 63,000,000 morons who voted for Bush in 2004 who are casting votes again this year?

Nope. GOP turnout machine was largely church-run. GOP base is depressed/angry, and many will not vote or vote protest. Expect McCain to come up short of 60 mil. Expect Barack to break 70.

Posted by scythia | June 11, 2008 10:54 PM

Nope. GOP turnout machine was largely church-run. GOP base is depressed/angry, and many will not vote or vote protest. Expect McCain to come up short of 60 mil. Expect Barack to break 70.

Expect most of the people who make precise and confident predictions about the outcome of an election 8 months in the future to end up with egg on their face.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 11:01 PM

@jmfields: Sarcasm meter, blah blah, l2whatever.

Unless the lack of commenter registration on this site has driven it over the meta cliff, at which point I would have just lost the game.

Also, that had better not be the true Al with that follow-up comment, or I'll have to start thinking his voracious wingnuttery is veracious. Which no one wants to believe.

Posted by concerning the trolled | June 11, 2008 11:03 PM

Oh and BTW, Cid has an excellent find upthread:

“But it [the "liberal epithet"] may be largely irrelevant given the issues people are concerned about today,” Wrenn said. “It's almost like an anachronism"

Bingo. When Obama supporters talk about "post-partianship," it's not about centrist policies, or some gum-drop fantast of everybody working together. It's that the partisan divides of the late 20th century will not be the partisan divides of the 21st.

9-11 did change a lot of things. Joe Lieberman is now a Republican. Jim Webb is now a Democrat. Dianne Feinstein is now considered right-wing. Chuck Hagel is being floated as a possible veep for Obama (bad choice, but still).

This creates an inefficiency in the political marketplace, as millions of formerly R-leaning voters (esp. the Lib. indys) now have nowhere to turn. Obama understands this, and is exploiting this inefficiency to pick up votes. Until political realignment is complete, expect this mentality to crush its competition.

Posted by scythia | June 11, 2008 11:05 PM

Expect most of the people who make precise and confident predictions about the outcome of an election 8 months in the future to end up with egg on their face.

Cash money, Mixner. $100 says McCain doesn't break 60 mil. This is about long-term demographic shifts, and honestly, Obama's in dead-girl/live-boy territory (and I'm not sure even live boy could do him in at this point).

Posted by scythia | June 11, 2008 11:10 PM

Actually, I take that back. Huckabee as VP could jack him over 60, but I still don't think it'll be enough to win.

Posted by scythia | June 11, 2008 11:12 PM

I must be an irascible old liberal too, but I look at the current polling that has Obama only slightly ahead of the GOP flag bearer despite Bush being at 25% approvals, and both candidates well under 50%, and say it ain't gonna be no cakewalk. What does encourage me is the fact that Obama's people won by analyzing the electoral situation with exceeding shrewdness, pursuing their strategy with ruthless consistency, and organizing, organizing, organizing all over the US map. If they put that same intelligence and discipline to work in the general we have a chance. I do take some encouragement from the evidence that the wingnuts don't seem to have anything like the kind of ground operation Obama has going, and from the impressive numbers of new Dem registrations thanks to the extended and exciting primary. But that 47% to 41% number doesn't exactly look like justification for Obama triumphalism just yet.

Oh, and unless my irony meter has completely crashed, David Weigel was mocking the hopes of the right, not endorsing them.

Posted by DrBB | June 11, 2008 11:20 PM

Good idea, scythia. Send your $100 in cash to Matthew Yglesias, care of The Atlantic, with instructions to return the money to you in November if your prediction comes true, or to forward it to a registered charity of your choice if it doesn't.

Ask Matthew to confirm here on his blog that he has received the money from you.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 11:20 PM

I know you're not very bright, Mixner, but do you really not understand how a wager works? This isn't zero-sum. Unless you're planning to do the same...

Posted by scythia | June 11, 2008 11:25 PM

If I remember correctly, Bob Dole ran a similar campaign. It is one of many similarities between Oldster McOldy and Bob I'm Holding A Pencil Dole.

I keep trying to push this analogy in hopes of scoring enough blog-points so that I can get the Matt Yglesias pen knife with the compass built in the handle. On the other side it says: "Density Rules!"

Posted by cw | June 11, 2008 11:44 PM

I know you're not very bright, Mixner, but do you really not understand how a wager works?

I know you're rather dense, scythia, but did you really not understand me when I said I think it's foolish to make confident and precise predictions about the outcomes of elections 8 months in the future?

You're the one who offered to risk $100 on his powers of prediction. So follow through. If your prediction turns out to be right, you can brag about it. If not, your hundred dollars will go to what you consider a worthy cause.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 11:55 PM

FYI Mixner, I hope you're not planning on doing any GOTV for Obama in the fall. The election is only FIVE months away, not eight. November will be here sooner than you think.

Posted by kidkostar | June 12, 2008 12:13 AM

As a Clinton supporter, John McCain is worthy of my vote. Obama is a "selected and not an elected nominee." Eighteen million voters judged Hillary more qualified to be President.

Since the Democratic Party, Obama, and the pundits conspired to hijack the nomination, we will not fall in line. What's the evidence? Supers such as Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, and Rockefeller endorsing a candidate that had lost their state primaries. So their judgment overrides the will of the voters. MI and FL votes being cut in half or delegates stolen from Hillary and given to Obama.

His lead in delegates is only through the supers. Without it, he only has 1800 delegates. You can have your victory dance, but the voters have judged Obama unqualified to be President. It isn't because he is AA. Serving 3 years in the Senate isn't a threshold for becoming the POTUS. In our opinion, it is Clinton or McCain but never Obama.

Posted by EWard | June 12, 2008 12:15 AM

"His lead in delegates is only through the supers."

EWard, as usual, is full of stupidity, but I picked that sentence because it's my favorite.

Posted by 55 | June 12, 2008 12:22 AM

You're a moron, Ward. Everything you said about Obama's lead and experience applies more to Clinton.

Take this bullshit down the road. Enjoy your McCain victory in November when Bush launches the Iran war, and you're paying $10/gallon for gas at the pump. nitwit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 12, 2008 12:23 AM

FYI Mixner, I hope you're not planning on doing any GOTV for Obama in the fall. The election is only FIVE months away, not eight. November will be here sooner than you think.

As an aside, this is exactly what I was referring to when I made the "not so bright" crack. Glad to see someone else picked up on it.

Also, Mixner won't GOTV. It requires walking.

Posted by scythia | June 12, 2008 12:41 AM

Obama's in dead-girl/live-boy territory (and I'm not sure even live boy could do him in at this point).

Ok, now you're sounding a little overconfident. Don't do that, it scares me...

Posted by fp | June 12, 2008 12:41 AM

A few points to remember:

One, keep in mind that there are McCain trolls who post pretending to be former Hillary supporters who are going to McCain. It's not the most clever move in the world, which is why the McCain camp thought of it.

Second, McCain is indeed a lame candidate. No one seems to care very much what he says or does. And every time he opens up his mouth he says something stupid. He is a gaffe machine.

He backed into the nomination, and in a real sense was selected by Gov Crist of FL...if Crist had endorsed Romney instead, then Romney would have been the nominee. Think about it...one person chose the GOP nominee.

Posted by cm | June 12, 2008 12:46 AM

Lord, I know I shouldn't, but:

EWard, since you have stopped by, could you please explain how people like you handle the fact that Hillary Clinton has declared her support for Obama, and called, in the strongest possible terms, for her supporters to help elect Obama?

Is she an Obamabot? Do you think she drank Kool-Aid? Was she blackmailed? Kidnapped and replaced by a robot? How do you make that work, in your head?

Posted by live | June 12, 2008 1:14 AM

exasperated aging liberal: "What's more, if Obama was actually stupid enough to follow a certain young, white prepschool/Harvard grad's advice and put Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano on the ticket McCain would be in phenomenal shape to take the presidency."

If McCain picks Condi Rice or Sarah Palin I worry he'd pick up some of the second-gen feminists who never saw through Clinton. Sebelius could be a huge strength for Obama with that crowd.

No matter the VP picks, I agree the fall is a real race, and that the Dems will only win if we work at it.

Posted by Rachel Q | June 12, 2008 1:24 AM

No matter the VP picks, I agree the fall is a real race, and that the Dems will only win if we work at it.

None of my comments should be construed to suggest that I don't think we have to work our asses off. It's because the demographics are so favorable that we need to flood the party with money and volunteer hours, so we can maximize our House, Senate, and state-level pickups.

But, no, I don't think the presidential race will be close:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_democrats_reagan.html

Don't get stuck in the defeatist mentality! This is what winning feels like! Enjoy it, and help run up the score. You won't see a blowout like this one for a long time...

Posted by scythia | June 12, 2008 1:55 AM

Don't look now, EWard, but your "18 million voters" are now behind Obama. Just sayin'.

Posted by El Cid | June 12, 2008 7:29 AM

By the way, of course Obama can't just retreat to Walden Pond and then come back in January to get inaugurated. And generally, I agree that maximizing your candidate's vote count takes a lot of hard work (and smart work) from the candidate and his campaign staff. But that of course is part of the point Matt is making: Obama has already demonstrated that he and his staff work very hard (and very smart) to identify and obtain every possible marginal voter. Meanwhile, McCain and his staff do not. So to the extent one thinks hard (and smart) campaigning matters, that is yet another reason to think the Democrats happen to be in a great position this time.

Posted by DTM | June 12, 2008 7:43 AM

Bear in mind, EWard doesn't like Obama because he isn't "classy" (read: deferential) like that nice Mr. Jackie Robinson.

I mean really--how dare he steal Hillary's nomination just because he won more delegates, more contests, and more votes?

Posted by Marc | June 12, 2008 8:42 AM

I'm a bit of a political junkie as witness how much time I spent in these parts-- and I've never even heard of Jim Johnson. I doubt the average voter has either

Nonsense! Most football fans have heard of him--he's almost as famous as Barry Switzer.

Posted by rea | June 12, 2008 8:44 AM

Marc

Obama had the media, the DP, money, and organization behind him. That wasn't good enough. MI and Fl were mishandled by the party. Long before the DC meeting, Obama had blocked any chance of a revote funded by party fundraisers. So the DP cuts the votes of Fl in half and awards uncommitted delegates to Obama from MI. Don't tell me that he did not steal the nomination when this type of travesty happens.

Posted by EWard | June 12, 2008 9:36 AM

EWard,

Clinton is telling her supporters to now support Obama. So why aren't you listening to her?

Posted by DTM | June 12, 2008 9:42 AM

I think it's safe to say this won't work. From what I've read, it's not as if McCain is taking a more reserved approach. It's as if he's barely trying, because he either won't put forth the effort or because he can't since he doesn't have the resources. Meanwhile, the exact opposite can be said of Obama's team.

It's hard to know if the fifty-state strategy represents a serious attempt to contest a far greater number of states or if it's much more symbolic than the team is letting on. I'd say it's a mix of the two. The Obama campaign may have an open or two open in Utah or Alabama, but I doubt that there will be a serious effort to win the votes of those states unless things start to go really well for Obama and horribly for McCain. Yet I believe there will be a serious effort to contest not only Virginia and Colorado, but states like North Carolina and Georgia. That may change in August or September as each campaign reallocates resources according to what progress it has or hasn't made, but right now, it looks as if Obama is going on the offense in a variety of ways.

Can the same be said about McCain? For all of the talk that his team understandably puts out, does anyone really think he's going to try to contest, New York, New Jersey, or more likely, California? Even if it wanted to, would his campaign have the money?

But for better comparison, let's look at Wisconsin. I read a few days ago, perhaps at TPM Election Central, that Obama's organizers would be holding six different voter registration drives in the city of Milwaukee on the same day in early June. Perhaps McCain's volunteers are mounting similar efforts in swing areas, but something tells me they aren't. (If someone knows information on this that I don't, please let me know.) I am not sure what would be a realistic goal for these volunteers--it's been a few years since I've done voter registration--but let's say that they registered 400 new voters. Kerry won by 11,384 votes in 2004, so that would be about 3.5% of his margin of victory. Assuming that Obama's team can replicate these numbers in swing states, I don't see how McCain is going to win.

Posted by Brian | June 12, 2008 11:58 AM

I think it's safe to say this won't work. From what I've read, it's not as if McCain is taking a more reserved approach. It's as if he's barely trying, because he either won't put forth the effort or because he can't since he doesn't have the resources. Meanwhile, the exact opposite can be said of Obama's team.

It's hard to know if the fifty-state strategy represents a serious attempt to contest a far greater number of states or if it's much more symbolic than the team is letting on. I'd say it's a mix of the two. The Obama campaign may have an open or two open in Utah or Alabama, but I doubt that there will be a serious effort to win the votes of those states unless things start to go really well for Obama and horribly for McCain. Yet I believe there will be a serious effort to contest not only Virginia and Colorado, but states like North Carolina and Georgia. That may change in August or September as each campaign reallocates resources according to what progress it has or hasn't made, but right now, it looks as if Obama is going on the offense in a variety of ways.

Can the same be said about McCain? For all of the talk that his team understandably puts out, does anyone really think he's going to try to contest, New York, New Jersey, or more likely, California? Even if it wanted to, would his campaign have the money?

But for better comparison, let's look at Wisconsin. I read a few days ago, perhaps at TPM Election Central, that Obama's organizers would be holding six different voter registration drives in the city of Milwaukee on the same day in early June. Perhaps McCain's volunteers are mounting similar efforts in swing areas, but something tells me they aren't. (If someone knows information on this that I don't, please let me know.) I am not sure what would be a realistic goal for these volunteers--it's been a few years since I've done voter registration--but let's say that they registered 400 new voters. Kerry won by 11,384 votes in 2004, so that would be about 3.5% of his margin of victory. Assuming that Obama's team can replicate these numbers in swing states, I don't see how McCain is going to win.

Posted by Brian | June 12, 2008 12:00 PM

Will Obama Go Negative?

What have Marc and Andrew been smoking? He has run the most divisive Democratic campaign to grab the nomination. There is anger building against Obama, the DP, the media, and his supporters for his race baiting campaign style. Labeling the Clintons as racists worked. He won the AA vote by a 90 to 10 margin. Of course, it is Hillary's fault. She hasn't done anything for civil rights while working as an attorney, first lady, or senator.

Despite Obama's money, organization, the DP, and the MSM behind him this has been the closest Democratic race in history. She was forced out by her own party to falsely crown Obama as the "presumptive nominee." His delegate lead is only through the supers.

I take the candidacy of Obama very seriously. He truly might be the POTUS. This is why a coalition of the most unlikely groups are coming together to back McCain. Hillary's Iowa Youth Chair echoed my thoughts when he endorse the MAC. The most important issue about this election is honesty and trust. For Hillary's eighteen million voters, it now belongs to McCain.

El Cid had cited the Rasmussen poll as proof of Obama's strength. All candidates get a bump, and Obama's was average. However, through anecdotal evidence, several people were called by the pollsters and hung up on when they stated they would vote for McCain.

Posted by EWard | June 13, 2008 3:37 PM

El Cid had cited the Rasmussen poll as proof of Obama's strength. All candidates get a bump, and Obama's was average. However, through anecdotal evidence, several people were called by the pollsters and hung up on when they stated they would vote for McCain.

Posted by EWard

Not only is that true, Larry C. Johnson will soon be posting a video of Michelle Obama forcing the Rasmussen pollsters to hang up on all those poor, oppressed McCain Democrats.

Posted by El Cid | June 13, 2008 3:40 PM