MyDD :: Obama camp contends they can win without FL, OH

Obama camp contends they can win without FL, OH

by louisprandtl, Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST

Senator Obama's campaign illustrated the unconventional and possibly innovative thinking of the campaign. They laid out a path to the presidency that would include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battleground states that decided the last two elections -- Florida and Ohio. In a session with HRC's supporters David Plouffe outlined "several alternatives to reaching the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House that runs counter to the conventional wisdom of recent elections."

At a fundraiser held at a Washington brewery Friday, Plouffe told a largely young crowd that the electoral map would be fundamentally different from the one in 2004. Wins in Ohio and Florida would guarantee Obama the presidency if he holds onto the states won by Democrat John Kerry, Plouffe said, but those two battlegrounds aren't required for victory.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/06/16/obama-camp-we-can-win-without-oh io-florida/

I think Obama campaign realizes that their action during primary process had significantly compromised their ability to compete in FL in the general election (which many of us had warned before). I'm not sure why Ohio is in the same category now that Obama has the able support of Gov. Ted Strickland and his state campaign machine. But does stating this aloud mean they are falling back to 48 state campaign strategy (or maybe less) from the earlier goal of competing in all 50 states?Anyway the campaign is definitely doing some innovative thinking to reach their goal of winning the WH in November.

Following silver spring's suggestion the following is also added for comprehensive reporting.

Florida, which has 27 electoral votes this year, gave the presidency to George W. Bush in the disputed election of 2000. Ohio, with its 20 electoral votes, ensured Bush of re-election in 2004 in his race against Kerry. The presumed Democratic nominee's electoral math counts on holding onto the states Kerry won, among them Michigan (17 electoral votes), where Obama campaigns on Monday and Tuesday. Plouffe said most of the Kerry states should be reliable for Obama, but three currently look relatively competitive with Republican rival John McCain — Pennsylvania, Michigan and particularly New Hampshire. Asked about his remarks, Plouffe said Ohio and Florida start out very competitive — but he stressed that they are not tougher than other swing states and said Obama will play "extremely hard" for both. But he said the strategy is not reliant on one or two states. "You have a lot of ways to get to 270," Plouffe said. "Our goal is not to be reliant on one state on November 4th."

Tags: Obama campaign, FL, OH, Presidential election (all tags)

Permalink :: 88 Comments :: Post a Comment

letting the historical references go to their head (2.00 / 2)

good luck with that map.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:46:26 AM EST

Which map? (none / 0)

I get 308 to 230 from the map on the homepage.

by username on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:52:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 1)

the historical EV map vs this "change" map.

never been proven or tested.

Hey, it is their game - if they want to roll the dice and dump a lot of democrats down the drain in doing so, go for it.

this type of rhetoric (oh, we don't need these states - when historically, YOU did - or we don't need these voters - when historically, YOU did) might come back and bite 'em in the ass

or not.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 4)

That's not what was said. Please actually attack arguments people make, not the arguments you wish they had made.

As I explained already downthread:

This was a conversation with Hillary donors. These folks place an incredible amount of focus on Ohio and Florida. They don't think any Democrat can win without one or both of these states. The Obama camp doesn't think it will lose them both, and intends to fight like hell for them both. That being said, they were trying to reassure these donors by pointing out that they can win without either state.

That doesn't mean that's the plan.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 1)

it is a matter of perception. when Obama came out and stated that he was sure he would get Hillary voters but his voters were not going to vote for her, that sends a perception message.

same with this. Sorry, but this is how it works in the real world. Most people don't blog and read/analyze in-depth things around.

heck, even those who do, still manage to get it wrong (I am still hearing the "as far as I know" charges without the full blown statement that Hillary made)

perception.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 2)

So a private conversation, not meant for public consumption, is the same thing as a public declaration of "Fuck Ohio and Florida!"?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (none / 0)

but it is out there for public consumption. Not so private anymore.

If anything, after bittergate, we know EVERYTHING is out there and nothing should be held as private.

parse the words carefully.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 2)

The problem I have with this line of reasoning is this:

What was said to the donors made a lot of sense to say, given that the Obama camp is trying to get them on board. You don't just ignore cogent arguments that support your side just because somebody might, somehow, take offense to them.

The bitter remarks were unwise. These are fine. He's talking strategy.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:22:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (none / 0)

Well, as I stated - it is no longer private and it is out there.

perception.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:24:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 3)

As is the clearly stated commitment to contend for OH and FL. I read Plouffe's comments as expressing a strategic flexibility, not a facile dichotomy between 'proven' dogmatic orthodoxy on one hand and courageous or creative innovation on the other.

The problem with strategic flexibility is that at a certain point, they will have to narrow focus and choose. A candidate has only so much time, so much money, and so many surrogates and activists. But at this point, I find this open-mindedness refreshing and intelligent. Your comments seem to infer that a road has already been chosen and it's a potentially foolhardy one. If Obama's campaign is releasing statements like this in Sept. without solid polling data to back them up, I will join you in your alarmism. But at this point, strategic creativity and flexibility serves them well. Misreading this as cavalierly writing off OH and FL strikes me as sloppy reading of what was said, whether private or public.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 5)

He told a bunch of younger people, over beer, that the map might look different this time around. He didn't say that they were abandoning any voters. Please, let's dial down the outrage.

by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 3)

Please. The old map has obviously not worked for us. We need to stop placing all bets on FL & OH and holding our breath. I like that they're looking at other ways to win.

If he can hold NH, I think this is a good victory path: Kerry states + Iowa + Colorado + New Mexico.

"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown

by auboy2006 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (none / 0)

the old map worked nicely during the 1990's.

it is about the candidates, not the "map".

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:15:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (none / 0)

The old map consisted of a lot more than Kerry states + Ohio and Florida... Clinton won NM and CO in 1992, yet now, you pooh pooh those states?

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:23:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (none / 0)

nope. I am not.

where did I state that?

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (none / 0)

The good old-fashioned "South will rise again!" map worked great in the 30s and 40s. Why mess with success?

by username on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (1.00 / 2)

totally ignoring what I wrote.

so SFTU until you can grow up and actually read what I posted.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:27:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 1)

Okay, here's what you wrote:

the old map worked nicely during the 1990's.

it is about the candidates, not the "map".

Try to think about what I wrote before spouting off (hint: maps change).

by username on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (none / 0)

I wrote that in response to this quote

Please. The old map has obviously not worked for us.

which was obviously untrue.

It is about the candidates. The map DOES change based on a candidate. However, Obama can carry the historical states as well as expanding. After all, he is going to have a ton of money, no?

perhaps if you read the whole thread line, instead of parsing thru what was obviously a response to the quote I posted above, you might wish to think about what I wrote before spouting off.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:38:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 2)

"Obviously untrue?" It sure didn't work so well the last two cycles.

Other than that, I think we're in violent agreement: it is about the candidates, and there's no particular reason to write off FL and OH. It's just that they're not make-or-break states this time around.

by username on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 1)

yet you wrote

The good old-fashioned "South will rise again!" map worked great in the 30s and 40s. Why mess with success?

lol. Seems we both are just a little hot headed this morning.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (none / 0)

But hillary said it was all about the map, remember???????????

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 2)

There have been many different historical maps. New England used to be solid Republican, the south solid Democratic.

Things change, you know.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 1)

New England flipped due to which President?

The south flipped due to Civil Rights being enacted. Things do change - but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which map? (2.00 / 4)

Can you read? No one said they didn't need voters, they stated they weren't playing a 2 state game like every other campaign of my ADULT lifetime has turned into over the past 20 years. No more, no less. And how does sinking money into more areas dump more people down the drain? I would think it would be the opposite, but that would just be logical.

by Dog Chains on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: letting the historical references go to their (2.00 / 5)

Kerry + Iowa + New Mexico + Nevada
Kerry + Iowa + New Mexico + Colorado
Kerry + Iowa + Nevada + Colorado
Kerry + Iowa + Virginia
Kerry + Iowa + Missouri
Kerry + Colorado + New Mexico + Nevada
etc.

There's nothing unreasonable about recognizing these very much viable paths to the nomination.

In the future, before making a comment, perhaps you should first ask yourself:
(a) Am I making this comment because it includes rational analysis of electoral strategy for a Democratic nominee?
or
(b) Am I making this comment because I hate Obama?

If (b), it's probably not a good or even interesting comment, so I'd probably stand back until you come up with a thought that's more in line with (a).

by Stroszek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: letting the historical references go to their (1.00 / 1)

it is a)

and taking in accounts of history is not such an unwise thing to do. Kerry didn't get those states in question, did he?

it is possible Obama can. It is also possible for him to get OH & FL as well.

don't put all of your eggs in one basket - that is all I am saying.

as far as your b) choice, STFU. Criticism of Obama is not "hatred". Get over yourself.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:27:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: letting the historical references go to their (2.00 / 4)

re: eggs and baskets, indeed, which is exactly what Plouffe is saying. They have the resources to compete for more than one path to victory, and they've learned from history, that blowing all one's resources to saturate one or two states is both unwise and risky.

In fact, this is the quote from the diary itself:

"Wins in Ohio and Florida would guarantee Obama the presidency if he holds onto the states won by Democrat John Kerry, Plouffe said, but those two battlegrounds aren't required for victory."

So obviously, the campaign views Ohio and Florida as the two "guarantees" and, as such, they will compete for them in full. This assertion that they're giving up on Ohio and Florida is false, unsupported by any evidence (including the quoted article), and strikes me as something someone just said because they're looking for reasons to gripe about the nominee.

Now, criticism is all fine and good... when it accurately represents those being criticized.

by Stroszek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: letting the historical references go to their (2.00 / 2)

If you take the time to read exactly what the Obama Campaign said, you'll see that you are arguing the same thing that they are! The headline of this piece is misleading, and maybe you bought into the hype. They never said they were taking their eggs out of Florida and Ohio baskets. They said that they weren't going to bet the farm ONLY ON THOSE STATES, which seems to have been the democratic strategy for the last 2 elections (3 states including Florida). They're saying that they will fight to win these states, but they will also fight for other swing states to build alternate pathways to the presidency. Fighting for multiple pathways to the White House is smart, and it's certainly not controversial like some here are pathetically suggesting.

by glopster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: letting the historical references go to their (none / 0)

read my post about perception.

it doesn't matter what you think I "bought" into - I read the article as well - it is the perception.

This is out there for public consumption now. You think that this isn't going to be boiled down to a sound-bite? Or you really think there will be the in-depth analysis of said strategy?

most likely: sound-bite.

perception.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:40:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: letting the historical references go to their (none / 0)

oh and it does play to the perception that Obama has a "problem with low-income white voters" as well. He may or may not - I don't know the latest polling on this one - but it does feed right into it.

but whatever.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:42:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: letting the historical references go to their (none / 0)

I agree that in many past elections, sound bytes have been more influential than in-depth analysis. Yes, sound bytes still have their lame place in our politics, but...

You can't tell me you haven't noticed the incredible spike in attention toward politics our nation is experiencing during this election cycle. I overhear discussion of politics by strangers all the time. That really hasn't happened to me before. Sound bytes will not be as effective when the electorate is more tuned in to the details of an election, which I believe they are. I am not worried that a perception will build that Obama is not going to compete for Ohio.

by glopster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: letting the historical references go to their (none / 0)

sure, because of the historical nature of the candidates. Not to mention the writers strike pushed people to watch debates. However, most people are not blogging. Most people are interested because of the nature of the candidates - we had a woman & an AA compete strongly and it went all the way down to the last day. Now, we will have an AA go against the oldest man ever to run as a first term president. And the perception about McCain is still very good amongst Americans.

however, sound bytes will still be here to stay. Obama's campaign, Hillary's campaign both used them.

and so will McCain.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama camp contends they can win without FL, OH (2.00 / 1)

what do they think? comment away...

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:47:43 AM EST

Re: Little room for error (none / 0)

Suppose Sen. Clinton said she could win without WI, OR, and MN -- "swing" states where Barack Obama performs significantly better in the polls. How would that make you feel?

If Sen. Clinton won FL and all the Kerry states but WI or MN, she would lose the Electoral College. If she won OH and all the Kerry states but OR, MN, or WI, she would also lose the EC. That's how little room for error she has with her plan.

Let's quite cherry-picking states, and remember the goal is to get to 270 EC votes. That's the only thing deciding who is President.

by Brad G on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:44:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Little room for error (none / 0)

It wouldn't make any reasonable person think much of anything. It's just strategizing and talking about strategizing. All campaigns do this. It's silly and juvenile to construe it as meaning they are somehow dissing those states.

by Becky G on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In addition (2.00 / 1)

Important Senate races take place this year in CO, MN, OR, and ME. If Obama can win CO and the other states by large margins, Democrats are on their way to a filibuster-proof Senate.

by Brad G on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:46:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it's downplaying expectations (2.00 / 2)

And there are several ways to win the electoral map without those two states. You can win one, like PA, which I think is possible, and not win FL, and get all the other Kerry states.

by slinkerwink on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM EST

Re: it's downplaying expectations (2.00 / 2)

Quite possible. But also reflects the fact that they'll be targeting several Western/Mountain States. I'm not sure about downplaying OH. GOP in OH is in a disarray for a variety of reasons..

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's downplaying expectations (2.00 / 1)

Ohio has racial issues that make WV look like Maine.... that's the problem with Ohio... It's really a backwards state. I've lived here all my life, and I fell much more at home in rural MI than in even urban Ohio...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's downplaying expectations (2.00 / 2)

The Cleveland and Columbus metropolitan areas aren't that way and they'll be Obama strongholds. Cincinnati (where I live) and southeastern Ohio are the regressive pools of stagnant conservativism. That's the whole problem with Ohio, and why it's always a swing state; it's not just "backwards", it's very much a state divided.

John McCain: The kids aren't alright, my friends.

by differance on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:56:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Addendum (none / 0)

That should read "greater Cincinnati"; the urban sections of Hamilton County will go for Obama.

John McCain: The kids aren't alright, my friends.

by differance on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:57:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's downplaying expectations (none / 0)

Obama almost lost the west side of Cleveland... this place is white as snow and is very hostile to diversity.... even though it's chock full of democrats...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama camp contends they can win without (2.00 / 1)

I think you're reading far too many assumptions into a single statement. It is possible to win without those states. That is a factually accurate statement. It would be much better if we did win them. I highly doubt that they're writing off either state.

by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:51:11 AM EST

Re: Obama camp contends they can win without (none / 0)

Exactly. This is a mundane and uninteresting comment, obvious to anyone with a map of EV values. It's getting play because TPM misconstrued Plouffe's statement in the headline.

by Stroszek on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

From the completely true claim that Ohio and Florida aren't absolutely necessary, from the completely true claim that there are many different paths to the presidency -- you somehow leap to the conclusion that they won't try to compete in those states.

So, yeah, what's your major malfunction that makes you ditch all sorts of self-respect to intentionally twist something into something you know it's not?

by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

1)Please read carefully what I wrote.
2)Mine was a question and not a conclusion.
3)No personal attacks please. I can make the same conclusion about you too as your last statement. Thank you.

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (2.00 / 1)

I think it's a perfectly logical assumption. Since OH and FL may be out of reach, focus on the other 48 states.

I mean, sure he's down by 35 in Utah and 24 in AL and double digits in a few other states, so he'll campaign in those places, but trying to come back from 4 down in Ohio? That's crazy talk!

by TCQuad on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

lol

One thing to note - Obama may "change" the map for himself, but will it work for a post-Obama world?

who knows?

it is a risk, imho.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

And betting everything on Ohio+Florida is somehow less of a risk than having contingency plans with a dozen different paths to the presidency?

Cute.

by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:14:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

nope. not stating that. You just should not make those types of statements of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Obama can get both OH & FL. He isn't down by that much and he could get them - at the very least OH.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

Please.

Let's worry about the election of 2008 instead of future elections. The one thing we know about elections is that the game always changes.

We should not base our 2008 strategy on what we want to do in 2012 or 2016 when we have no idea what the political climate will be like.

I want to win NOW with whatever strategy works best to ensure victory.

by PSUdan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

if all one worries about is the current election and not take in account future elections, that is a short-sighted and selfish strategy.

Work on keeping those swing states AS well as expansion. Don't go out and state they can win without them, because we may lose those states forever.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

Forever? Are you serious?

Nothing lasts forever in politics. Nothing.

by PSUdan on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

forever as in my lifetime and yours.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:43:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As for the future (2.00 / 2)

If you're concerned about the future, you should realize that Pennsylvania and Ohio are both going to lose House seats (and thus electoral votes) in the 2010 reapportionment.

So in the future, those states will have less electoral clout than they do now.

by Angry White Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (2.00 / 1)

First of all, no one suggested that Obama isn't going to fight for Ohio. If you think that's what the Obama camp said, you're either being lazy and not reading, or you need to re-read without your "I don't like Obama" goggles on.

Secondly, the other states in play are more like Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, maybe even Georgia, and a couple of others.
And I don't have to use sarcasm to suggest that it is worth building toward democratic wins in these states in addition to building toward wins in OH, FL and PA.

Sheesh

by glopster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:43:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

again, you folks have really got to stop with the "obama haters" or "I don't like Obama" BS because someone criticizes him

Read my posts about perception. I read the article - and just like Obama supporters who were "outraged" over the "as far as I know" comment, they were working off a perception and being lazy and not watching/reading the full interview.

perception. Sheesh. What is wrong with you? I am pointing out that this type of talk from the Obama campaign will continue to alienate voters.

they are not going to be reading all the articles and blogging about it.

sound-bites = perception.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:46:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

My comment was not responding to you

That's your perception being out-of-whack right there if you ask me.

by glopster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

I was responding to TCQuad

My perception tells me he/she is a different person than you.

by glopster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (1.00 / 1)

Oh, so I cannot remark on a what I find offensive about your comments?

okay. Maybe you need to get a private chat room or something. I didn't know you were the Ms Manners of mydd

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (2.00 / 1)

No,
You don't get it.

TCQuaid was not making some argument about perception in his statement.

Read what he wrote first before you type. Slow down.

Then read my response.

Then read your response which insinuated that I was refuting a completely different line of reasoning- Your line of reasoning.

TC suggested that the Obama campaign suggested that Ohio was not worth fighting for, but Alaska and Utah were.

I was responding to that.

Not to you.

Do you get it?

I wasn't talking about perception, OK?

I wasn't talking about sound bites, OK?

That's fine if you have opinions about those things, but when you respond to a comment I make to someone else with a non-sequitor suggesting that I was talking to you instead of him/her, I think it's fair to point out that you are being hasty with your responses, and you are not arguing from a place of logical consistency.

by glopster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (none / 0)

OK, so after I made the original post, I got caught up with work and just wandered back, so I apologize for the delay.

Two quick things: It's quad (as in, having four, a quadrangle or what we call the semi-rectangular areas on campus here), not Quaid (as in Dennis or Randy).

Also, I did not suggest that Ohio was not worth fighting for... Well, if you read it literally, I did, but I thought the fact I chose the most absurdly lopsided Republican states to contrast with Ohio, a relatively close state, would telegraph the fact that I was being sarcastic.

The original diary contained the sentence:

But does stating this aloud mean they are falling back to 48 state campaign strategy (or maybe less) from the earlier goal of competing in all 50 states?

If the Obama camp was to chose 48 states, Ohio would make the cut. Utah and Wyoming may not (because they're way out of reach anyways), but Ohio would.

by TCQuad on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's your major malfunction? (2.00 / 1)

perception. Sheesh. What is wrong with you? I am pointing out that this type of talk from the Obama campaign will continue to alienate voters.

Then maybe your perception needs to change, because I don't see what you're getting at.

I don't claim to speak for anyone in OH or FL, but to be honest, this would make me want to go out and volunteer, register more Democrats, or at least make the effort to convince people to vote Democratic in the fall. If they say their roadmap doesn't necessarily need to go through my state, then I would want to make sure that it does.

And, I agree with the others when they say that you're reading too much into that particular comment, but I fail to see how it would turn anyone off, in either context.

Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

by Massadonious on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will win OH (2.00 / 2)

by highgrade on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM EST

Re: Obama will win OH (none / 0)

I don't see any reason why he cannot. I don't know what prompted Obama campaign's current line of thinking..

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama will win OH (none / 0)

The fact that they even MENTIONED Florida, which I still think had a 40% chance of going blue even if Hillary was running, tells me they were talking to people who were asking about those two states. Telling them that there's more ways to win than those two states.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:04:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama camp contends (2.00 / 5)

I'm an Ohioan. I don't see how he loses here frankly.

But he's making a pitch to donors who are worried. Some of them don't think he can win the presidency because they don't think he can win those two states.

All he is doing is reassuring them that he can win without them, not saying that he won't fight like hell for them.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:58:28 AM EST

Good explanation... (none / 0)

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:59:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama camp contends (none / 0)

Yup. He knows (as anyone does who looks) that Florida is going to be a VERY tough sell. But he also knows that there's enough other states out there to make up for it, and also that if McCain doesn't try to win Florida as much as Obama, he very well might not.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama camp contends (none / 0)

I'm an Ohioan, too, and I can definitely see him losing. then he won the primary only be a couple points int he 10th district (Kucinich's district) that is not a good omen. Our racial problems are worse than in Appalachia, since we actually have African Americans here... it's enough that we certainly could lose... Although, I'm hopeful that the Strickland machine can pull it out!

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Florida will be seated (2.00 / 1)

With half their delegate votes. The Republicans did precisely the same thing. Floridians must be quite stupid indeed if they think that's a reason to vote for McCain rather than Obama.

by JJE on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:00:57 AM EST

you should have ... (2.00 / 2)

included this statement in your diary:

"Asked about his remarks, Plouffe said Ohio and Florida start out very competitive -- but he stressed that they are not tougher than other swing states and said Obama will play "extremely hard" for both. But he said the strategy is not reliant on one or two states."

-- it kind of changes the trajectory of what was said and how it's being reported here.

by silver spring on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:01:59 AM EST

Re: you should have ... (none / 0)

Per your suggestion I've added the next 2 paragraphs fully as an update.

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama should not anticipate massive shifts... (2.00 / 1)

...in the electorate. This is a very risky strategy. But, as long as there's significant focus on tradtional battlegrounds, I'm cool with their strategy.

by bobswern on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09:55 AM EST

Don't be silly (2.00 / 2)

I think Obama campaign realizes that their action during primary process had significantly compromised their ability to compete in FL in the general election (which many of us had warned before).

The Obama campaign's actions during the primary process has nothing to do with their contention that they don't have to put all their eggs into the Florida basket like Kerry and Gore did.

The fact that Florida has a long and studied history of screwing Democrats over and the fact that the Republicans own the infrastructure in the state right now (Crist is a huge McCain supporter) and the fact that gay marriage is on the ballot this year there are all contributers to the strategy of preparing alternate methods of winning without that state.

Ohio's status as a 2004 let-down state is what prompts Obama's rhetoric on that state.

What he's saying is that this is a whole new ballgame from elections in the past. We're not going to fall into the same traps that previous campaigns did.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST

Re: Don't be silly (2.00 / 1)

It still concerns me that they are throwing out that memo... It gives me the impression that they are not all that confident about OH.

FL was a lost cause no matter who won the nomination... Hillary would have made it close, but the system down there is designed to disenfranchise democrats as a whole...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It doesn't imply that at all (none / 0)

...once bitten, twice shy, though.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:43:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It doesn't imply that at all (2.00 / 1)

Well, I just now Isaw on Cleveland's ABC news affiliate, the headline "Obama plans to win without Ohio"... then they explained that the campaign was going to focus their campaigns on VA and GA instead of OH.

Yeah, it's a BS story, and we know how much ABC news just "loves" Obama.... Still, that's not the kind of message you want to give people in this state, especially when McCain is running non-stop unchallenged ads here.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It doesn't imply that at all (none / 0)

My link was to a CNN story. That's how it's getting played..and we all know when MSM plays the same tune over and over, fiction become facts..

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It doesn't imply that at all (2.00 / 1)

that is what I was talking about - perception and sound-bytes

I was practically slammed on my head for even trying to bring it up. Oh NOOOO - everyone is wired into this election.

sorry - most people aren't. They are going to hear that soundbyte on TV and the perception rolls on.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We can only correct them (2.00 / 1)

The media is idiotic? Stop the presses! No, really, stop them.

Obama can clarify his position later.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2008 is slightly different than 04 (none / 0)

We have a Dem Gov. Ted Strickland and a Dem Senator Sherrod Brown who won in '06. If Sherrod Brown with his pro-union and populist left stance can win in OH, I'm not sure why Obama is downplaying OH. There's no reason why Obama won't win OH in 08.

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:34:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I told you why (2.00 / 2)

We lost Ohio in 2004 and it was a huge heartbreak.

We're going to compete for it heavily this time around, but have contingency plans in case it doesn't pan out.

Not going to downplay Strickland's great machine; Obama having gone against it, I know how effective it is.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama camp contends they can win without FL, O (2.00 / 3)

Why is it the primary process that made Obama have a hard time in Florida? This is something someone'll have to explain to me. Considering the political machine the Republicans have in place in Florida, why was it a shoo-in for Clinton to nab, and why doesn't that have any bearing on Obama's ease or not of winning in Florida- only the primary process?

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM EST

I like the idea that (2.00 / 1)

he could win without OH and FL, but I'm not sure I like the fact that his campaign is telling people that. I want the people in those states to believe that they're very much wanted and needed. One of Hillary's biggest mistakes, IMO, was allowing Penn to push the "We don't need these states, and they're not important" thing.

So this news makes me feel both optimistic and wary.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST

Re: I like the idea that (2.00 / 1)

Obama campaign ran a very tight but methodical primary campaign. I agree that it is not exactly clear how it helps to publicly proclaim that some states are not required for his win. HRC's mistake about Penn's strategy was stunning and we don't want the Dem nominee making the same mistake.

by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah - not a good idea to advertise this strategy. (none / 0)

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.