What's the Matter With Georgia?

With talk in the air of the Obama campaigning trying to target Georgia as a potential pickup reach, I think Nate at 538 raises a cogent objection, noting that it's "very difficult to imagine Obama winning Georgia without winning North Carolina, and if he's won North Carolina, he almost certainly won't need Georgia." That seems right.

Elsewhere in the same post, Nate notes that McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days. Of course McCain's campaign HQ is in Virginia, so it's easy enough to do some covert organizing at this point while still maintaining blustery talk about winning Connecticut.

Photo by Flickr user Abbydonkrafts used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I think the talk about Georgia is different from the talk about North Carolina for the reason that some people expect Bob Barr to attract a non-zero number of Republican votes in Georgia. I don't know how likely that is, though.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | June 17, 2008 1:57 PM

Georgia has more blacks, so it isn't irrational. If Obama registers enough new black voters in Georgia, he may be able to win the state from McCain without expensive ad campaigns. Canvassers with clipboards are (I assume) comparatively cheap and worth deploying for even a longshot.

Posted by phil | June 17, 2008 1:57 PM

As I understand it, at least part of the rationale is that Libertarian Bob Barr might do uncommonly well in Georgia, his home state, and this would eat into McCain's vote totals, an effect that wouldn't apply in North Carolina.

I guess this explanation depends a lot on the Libertarian candidate getting more than 1% of the vote, so it may not be worth much -- but it's what I've heard.

Posted by apk01004 | June 17, 2008 1:59 PM

It's not about winning Georgia, it's about making McCain run around and spend money in every state.

Posted by Persia | June 17, 2008 1:59 PM

It depends on just how much Obama can turn out black voters. Georgia has a much higher % than North Carolina.

Could he increase black turnout by 50%? We don't know, but having a black person with a good chance to be president AND a very well funded campaign with thousands of FULL TIME volunteers is a situation we've never had before.

Posted by jim | June 17, 2008 2:00 PM

...if he's won North Carolina, he almost certainly won't need Georgia.

On behalf of Dean, Obama, and everyone else who ever invested in the concept of the 50 state strategy...

So effing what? Isn't the point to do it better than 50%+1? That was my understanding. I get why the listing is odd, but the suggestion that he only needs to focus on one of them in a year where his money will absolutely dwarf his opponent's (thus not like Rove's weird ideas in 2004) is odd at best.

Also, threadjack, but awesome: our favorite neocon meme is back!

Posted by jhupp | June 17, 2008 2:01 PM

if i recall correctly, Bob Barr made a real dent in a recent poll in both Georgia and North Carolina. Who knows. For the first time in years, I'll be out volunteering for the Democratic candidate in Georgia!

Posted by dylan | June 17, 2008 2:02 PM

I think What Persia said. If Georgia is the marginal state, the question is, is Obama better off putting resources into Georgia? Or putting them into Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana?

Considering the price of gas, the low hanging fruit of the giant-number of unregistered house races, and the fact that a big boost in black turnout could make Lynn Westmoreland and Phil Gingrey vulnerable, I think you have your answer.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 17, 2008 2:03 PM

It's not about winning Georgia, it's about making McCain run around and spend money in every state.

Absolutely right. Keep 'em running, make them play catch-up, and drain their funds.

Clinton stood her ground in key states and lost the nomination. McCain says he'll go after NJ, CT, etc., but he's either going to be playing defense in VA, NC, GA, CO, NV, etc., or else he's going to take an ass whoopin'. And the more tired he gets from running, the more bad gaffes he'll make, though it's tough to imagine a Dem candidate surviving the ever growing list of whoppers McCain has already pulled.

Posted by LFC | June 17, 2008 2:11 PM

Apparently, there are a half million unregistered African Americans in Georgia that could vote. If they registered in vote it would represent about a 20% swing.

Can they get them to register and vote? Who knows, but it is more likely in the context of this election than at any other time. Regardless, the long term consequence will be many more registered Democrats in Georgia then we currently have and that is a worthwhile goal on its own.

Posted by Mark | June 17, 2008 2:16 PM

I think the statement about Virginia is the reverse of what we have been seeing. If Virginia is not safe, then McCain is going to get trounced. So focus on places that are more hopeful - at least at this stage of the game - and hope that the overall election dynamic is enough to win states like Virginia. Making a serious play for Connecticut or the like would be the strategy dilemma that Matt outlined last week - McCain could play it safe and win almost all of the Bush states but drop Iowa and Ohio and Colorado, and lose in a reasonably close election. Or he could throw the bomb and give himself a chance to win but also make it possible that Obama wins in a landslide. Right now it looks like he is going for it.

Posted by Curtis | June 17, 2008 2:34 PM

The 50 state strategy is about the DNC reinvigorating moribund state parties and funding organizers in every state. The ultimate goal is to have Democrats organized in every precinct in the country. Dean's vision was focused on competing on as many levels as possible and reestablishing the Democratic brand on a "neighbor to neighbor" basis.
Obama's campaign is a completely separate entity. Focusing on 30 states in the presidential election is not an affront to Dean's plan.

Even a massive increase in the African American vote
will not be enough in southern states.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/obama_and_the_black_vote_1.php

Posted by 4America | June 17, 2008 2:38 PM

Obama has a lot more money than McCain, so he's going to try to engage him in every state. It's like the end of the Civil War, where Grant broke Lee's army by attacking it again and again and again.

Posted by stm177 | June 17, 2008 2:41 PM

If the estimates as to the amounts of money are true , that the Obama campaign could raise upwards of $200 million for the general election then it makes since to start investing that money across the country for the election. At a certain point the Obama team will raise more than enough money to put in place crushing campaigns in all of the states that he has a legitimate shot at winning. Why not take the surplus money and put it in to states where you can narrow the margins like Georgia, South Carolina, or Mississippi. Obama's campaign can prevent a twenty point rout in any state. This helps Obama in the future politically and also helps down ballot candidates who would otherwise be swamped.
I worked in the last cycle as a volunteer for the Kerry campaign where we received absolutely no funding from either Kerry or the DNC. When the race was over I recall that Kerry had about fifteen million in unspent funds, a little of which could have gone a long way in helping out in our state. Kudos to the Obama campaign and making the Republicans fight for every inch of soil this fall.

Posted by Jack | June 17, 2008 2:46 PM

If the estimates as to the amounts of money are true , that the Obama campaign could raise upwards of $200 million for the general election then it makes since to start investing that money across the country for the election. At a certain point the Obama team will raise more than enough money to put in place crushing campaigns in all of the states that he has a legitimate shot at winning. Why not take the surplus money and put it in to states where you can narrow the margins like Georgia, South Carolina, or Mississippi. Obama's campaign can prevent a twenty point rout in any state. This helps Obama in the future politically and also helps down ballot candidates who would otherwise be swamped.
I worked in the last cycle as a volunteer for the Kerry campaign where we received absolutely no funding from either Kerry or the DNC. When the race was over I recall that Kerry had about fifteen million in unspent funds, a little of which could have gone a long way in helping out in our state. Kudos to the Obama campaign and making the Republicans fight for every inch of soil this fall.

Posted by Jack | June 17, 2008 2:47 PM

stm177: so what you're saying is Obama's going to march to the sea through Georgia. Might want to pick a different analogy if winning local voters is the intent.

Posted by phil | June 17, 2008 2:49 PM

...McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days...

I care little about the McCain campaign's poll-reading acumen. But I'm not holding my breath that the Kewl Kidz won't be until McCain doesn't waste time in California and New Jersey in October.

Posted by ThresherK | June 17, 2008 2:52 PM

...McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days...

I care little about the McCain campaign's poll-reading acumen. But I'm not holding my breath that the Kewl Kidz won't be until McCain doesn't waste time in California and New Jersey in October.

Posted by ThresherK | June 17, 2008 2:54 PM

is Obama better off putting resources into Georgia? Or putting them into Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana?

He'll know by the end of the summer. Registering voters is cheaper, quieter and more measurable than TV or even campaign appearances in the next two months.

Georgia's population is much more concentrated around metro Atlanta than NC's around Charlotte or the Triangle. That may include the exurban whites who are convinced that President Obama will authorize the enslavement of white people, but it also includes a lot of non-idiots.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 17, 2008 2:54 PM

I think What Persia said. If Georgia is the marginal state, the question is, is Obama better off putting resources into Georgia? Or putting them into Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana?

As far as I can see, he intends to spend in all four (as well as North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, and New Mexico). And he'll probably spend a bit in Alaska as well. He's got the resources to play on a larger board so he certainly should do it to try to bring as many marginal states as possible into play.

Yeah, I also think North Carolina is more winnable than Georgia. I don't think that's any reason for him to not offensively go for Georgia. With a combination of three things (the pricey Atlanta media market, the home state candidacy of Bob Barr who should run well in his old district at the very least, and the high number of unregistered black residents), it's got to be considered a prime offensive target.

The mindset that "if he can win North Carolina he won't need Georgia, so he shouldn't go for Georgia" is insane to me. Replace North Carolina with Ohio/Florida and Georgia with any number of other potentially winnable marginal states and you've got the 2000 and 2004 elections all over again. We may not win both or we may not NEED to win both, but I'd sure rather see us win both. The stronger we run across the board, the better positioned we are as a party.

Posted by jbryan | June 17, 2008 2:54 PM

is Obama better off putting resources into Georgia? Or putting them into Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana?

He'll know by the end of the summer. Registering voters is cheaper, quieter and more measurable than TV or even campaign appearances in the next two months.

Georgia's population is much more concentrated around metro Atlanta than NC's around Charlotte or the Triangle. That may include the exurban whites who are convinced that President Obama will authorize the enslavement of white people, but it also includes a lot of non-idiots.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 17, 2008 2:54 PM

...McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days...

I care little about the McCain campaign's poll-reading acumen. As long as the Kewl Kidz won't be until McCain doesn't waste time in California and New Jersey in October.

Posted by ThresherK | June 17, 2008 2:56 PM

"Always remember the first rule of power tactics; power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

You can hear Obama talking a lot about how the struggle doesn't end on election day. That sounds like his community-organizer roots talking, to me.

I think looking at this solely as a move in the Presidential election may be a mistake. Obama may be thinking about the war, not just the battle. Putting organizers in Georgia doesn't just help the Obama campaign, it helps a lot of down-ticket campaigns, as well. It also forces the already cash-strapped Republican Congressional Committees to worry about their home turf.

It might be a mistake on par with Rove's having Bush campaign in California in the closing days of the 2000 election, or it might just pay off in the opening months of the Obama administration. It might even pay off (for Democrats) in the opening months of a McCain administration, too.

Posted by dm | June 17, 2008 2:57 PM

"...it's easy enough to do some covert organizing at this point while still maintaining blustery talk about winning Connecticut."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't know about the bluster. The same dunces that comprise the Connecticut electorate and voted Lieberman into office as an independent might vote for McCain. Could happen in a few states you'd think were Obama wins. Given the chance to pass on Bush in '04 (long after it was apparent to sentient people everywhere he was an idiot) he was returned to office. Ergo, Americans largely fall into the "not too bright" category. The perfect fan club for a man graduating 894th out of 899 in his class. See you in Iran! And Syria! Bring your Kevlar!

Posted by steve duncan | June 17, 2008 2:58 PM

black turnout could make Lynn Westmoreland and Phil Gingrey vulnerable

You're making me moist, Nicholas. GINGREY!

Posted by jonnybutter | June 17, 2008 3:01 PM

...McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days...

I care little about the McCain campaign's poll-reading acumen. As long as the Kewl Kidz won't be until McCain doesn't waste time in California and New Jersey in October.

Posted by ThresherK | June 17, 2008 3:02 PM

And also, I think we're going to win Virginia, and it's exciting.

Posted by jbryan | June 17, 2008 3:02 PM

Okay, let's assume that Obama gets all of the same states that Kerry did in 2004 (for 252 electors). Michigan and New Hampshire are really the only serious toss-ups among them. Michigan's pretty clearly going to go for Obama; but let's give McCain New Hampshire for the sake of argument. That would give Obama about 248 electoral votes going in. Iowa's polling strongly in favor of Obama at the moment, as is Colorado; so seven more electoral votes, for 264 likely Obama electors.

If Obama defends those two states (Iowa and Michigan) successfully, and wins any - any - of the following tossup states: Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, or Missouri; he wins.

If he defends those states and takes only New Mexico or Nevada, it comes to a 269-269 tie. In that event, it's decided by the House of Representatives. Each state would get one vote, so if a state has a more Democrat congressmen than Republican congressmen, it would (presumably) vote Democrat. Currently the delegations are 26-21 majority Democrats (with three delegations tied).

So if Obama wins in any one of eight states, there's a Democrat in the White House.

Posted by Tel | June 17, 2008 3:13 PM

...McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days...

I care little about the McCain campaign's poll-reading acumen. Just give me Kewl Kidz who aren't if McCain wastes time in California and New Jersey in October.

Posted by ThresherK | June 17, 2008 3:13 PM

It's starting to look like my home state of Indiana could be in play, too. That is a big development, since Indiana has not voted Democratic since 1964 - and before that only in 1912, 1932, and 1936 in the twentieth century. It's true that Obama probably won't need to campaign here, since a victory here would certainly correlate with bigger victories in battleground states. On the other hand, the Obama camp actually has a decent set of institutions in place and a network of volunteers in case he did want to campaign here and force McCain to commit resources here away from battleground states. Remember that Obama's showing in northwest Indiana caused him to virtually tie in the state against Hillary - considered a must-win for her, and that signaled the end of Clinton's serious efforts to undermine Obama.

Posted by Chuck | June 17, 2008 3:30 PM

I think Nate at 538 raises a cogent objection, noting that it's "very difficult to imagine Obama winning Georgia without winning North Carolina, and if he's won North Carolina, he almost certainly won't need Georgia." That seems right.

Eh? If he wins Georgia and North Carolina, that's 30 electoral votes. If he simply wins North Carolina, that's 15 electoral votes. So if by winning Georgia, Obama can also lock up North Carolina, then he should try to win Georgia.

This election can and should be an ass kicking that reduces the red parts of the map to Appalachia, the Bayou, and the Prairie. At the very least, we should be playing it that way because we have nearly every advantage.

Posted by southpaw | June 17, 2008 3:32 PM

phil said:

stm177: so what you're saying is Obama's going to march to the sea through Georgia. Might want to pick a different analogy if winning local voters is the intent.

That's not what stm177 said. The analogy was addressing Grant v. Lee in isolation. Who said anything about Sh3rm@n?

Posted by cmholm | June 17, 2008 3:34 PM

On one more note related to my last comment, perhaps what Obama's somewhat unexpected strength in certain red states illustrates is not only the candidates unique abilities to draw votes (which, given Obama's natural talent and biography, certainly plays a major role), but what happens when a Democrat actually tries to campaign in a red state. Usually, in presidential elections, candidates only campaign in battleground states and spend very little time trying to get to know voters in the states that aren't expected to vote for them. Obama was forced to campaign everywhere in the primary, and it turned out that in those states the longer he campaigned, on average, the higher his poll numbers climbed - even in red states. Perhaps Democrats should just try to campaign in such states and break this cycle of red states versus blue states. Maybe national candidates will do better than they expect. I think Obama is already proving that. We might just see a tsunami this year if the campaign is run correctly . . .

Posted by Chuck | June 17, 2008 3:38 PM

I'm originally from Indiana. I like throwing this statistic out there:

Dukakis lost the nation by 7.5% got 39.7% in IN, Kerry lost the nation the nation by 2.5% got 39.2% in IN. Indiana has been trending the wrong way for awhile.

Obamaniacs from Chicago will descend into Lake county and tighten up the race. But Indiana is going to be five percent worse for Obama than the nation. He might win it ... in a 1980 type landslide.

And phil, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of Sherman.

Posted by Kiran | June 17, 2008 3:51 PM

I'm originally from Indiana. I like throwing this statistic out there:

Dukakis lost the nation by 7.5% got 39.7% in IN, Kerry lost the nation the nation by 2.5% got 39.2% in IN. Indiana has been trending the wrong way for awhile.

Obamaniacs from Chicago will descend into Lake county and tighten up the race. But Indiana is going to be five percent worse for Obama than the nation. He might win it ... in a 1980 type landslide.

And phil, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of Sherman.

Posted by Kiran | June 17, 2008 3:51 PM

"That is a big development, since Indiana has not voted Democratic since 1964 - and before that only in 1912, 1932, and 1936 in the twentieth century."

Interesting. All four of those were landslides for the Democrats - Wilson, Roosevelt (twice), and Johnson. 1912 was the closest election, with Wilson taking "only" 435 electors. (There were only two other Democratic landslides in the 1900s, in 1940 and 1944).

Posted by Tel | June 17, 2008 4:06 PM

What is an Obama-inspired 527 buys ad time in rural Georgia with the thought of boosting Barr's candidacy. Tell people that with two unappealing choices (for them) let them send a strong message in support of Barr.

McCain was up 10 in a June Rasmussen poll. If barr can boost his numbers to the 4% range and Obama can increase overall turnout by 5-6% then this race could be very close.

And you force McCain to buy in Atlanta. Which limits him from buying in Detroit or Milwaukee.

Posted by George | June 17, 2008 4:09 PM

the 'virginia turning blue' meme needs to be addressed. as far as i know, the Dems that have won statewide elections--warner, kaine and webb--were all culturally moderate (at least) and certainly pro gun rights.

since senator obama does not share these positions, he may have a tougher road

Posted by nitish | June 17, 2008 4:11 PM

I'm originally from Indiana. I like throwing this statistic out there:

Since you like statistics, here's a fun one: Sens. Obama and Clinton got more votes in the 2008 Democratic primary in Indiana than John Kerry got in the 2004 general election. And the Obama/Clinton primary vote totals (1.26 million) is almost as many as the number of votes President Bush got in Indiana in the general (1.46 million).

Now, sure, some of those were Republicans seeking to tamper in the primary. But not that many. It's still a striking set of numbers. Can Indiana be won? I don't know. I doubt it will be. But the polls have been close, and given the primary results, I wouldn't rule it out.

Posted by jbryan | June 17, 2008 4:14 PM

Nitish, Obama might benefit from some up-ballot help this year in VA. Mark Warner (D) is going to be running for Senate against Jim Gilmore (R). Gilmore made an absolute mess of the state's finances when he was governor - I honestly can't figure out what makes him think he has a chance at Senator. (Yes, the Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsiblity in Virginia - isn't that supposed to be one of the signs of the apocalypse?) The latest Rasmussen poll has Warner beating the pants off Gilmore by about 60% to 33%. And fivethirtyeight.com shows the last two polls in VA favoring Obama. I'd say that this particular meme has some justification.

Posted by Tel | June 17, 2008 4:28 PM

Tel,

Gilmore has no chance at winning the VA Senate race; he's just too stupid to realize it. It's unlikely anyone could win against Warner; but, Gilmore probably couldn't win running against Matt.

Posted by SamChevre | June 17, 2008 4:36 PM

since clinton and obama largely shared the same positions on alotta issues--particularly social and/or cultural issues, many voters may not know obama is pro-gun control (at least pro-gun bans despite the goofy 'knife-gun' joke earlier this week), pro partial birth abortion, and not exactly the fiscal conservative that Tel references...

obama would be helped more by the across the ballot dems if he actually shared more of their stances.

counterintuitively, mccain could burnish his independent / 'maverick' status by saying "if you like their guys for these positions, i'm more your guy than obama".

Posted by Nitish | June 17, 2008 5:14 PM

I doubt that Obama will carry the state but it is possible his coattails could switch a couple of congressional districts, maybe even the Senate race.

It would be funny as hell if he managed to unseat Jack "lapel pin" Kingston in Georgia's 1st congressional district which includes part of Savannah.

Posted by Molly McRae | June 17, 2008 5:27 PM

...McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days...

I care little about the McCain campaign's poll-reading acumen. Just give me Kewl Kidz who aren't if McCain wastes time in California and New Jersey in October.

Posted by ThresherK | June 17, 2008 5:41 PM

...McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days...

I care little about the McCain campaign's poll-reading acumen. Just give me Kewl Kidz who aren't if McCain wastes time in California and New Jersey in October.

Posted by ThresherK | June 17, 2008 5:44 PM

Okay, Thresher, we get it. Go away.

Posted by jbryan | June 17, 2008 6:44 PM

Contesting Georgia has the qualities of a classic political chess move. It is not a question of how economic, capturing Georgia would be for Obama. It is a question of what John McCain would have to do to retain Georgia, with certainty.

The critical thing to look at is not blacks in Georgia, who would vote for Obama. The critical thing to look at, is who the whites in Georgia are, who would vote for McCain.

Of all the States Obama could come close to winning, Georgia has the highest concentration of far-right Republicans of just the types demoralized and disaffected by McCain's image and candidacy. To appeal to and motivate the Republican Right voters of Georgia, McCain will have to make statements and strike poses, which will make McCain anathema is much of the rest of the country. Contesting Georgia is akin to keeping the Republican Primary going, until November, forcing McCain to tack to his Right.

It is a classic illustration of the beauty of a 50-state strategy as opposed to a battleground strategy. Contesting only close States allows an opponent to tailor his appeal to appear more centrist than it is. If you can get a candidate to defend "home turf" you force that candidate to reveal his "true colors" to voters in more moderate States.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 18, 2008 3:27 AM

...McCain at least claims to be treating Virginia as a safe state rather than a swing state in which case he may want to read the polls more closely or take note of who's winning statewide elections these days...

I care little about the McCain campaign's poll-reading acumen. Just give me Kewl Kidz who aren't if McCain wastes time in California and New Jersey in October.

Posted by ThresherK | June 18, 2008 5:42 AM

Beautiful picture.

Posted by ranjit | June 18, 2008 3:11 PM

Obama is also going to be looking very hard at Senate races, trying to move his party closer to the 61 votes needed to defeat filibusters (60 votes just means Lieberman becomes de facto Majority Leader). Georgia may have a very tight race, and therefore merit more resources from the Obama campaign than you'd otherwise see.

Posted by Craig | June 23, 2008 10:18 AM