AP Poll: Obama takes a 7-point lead over McCain

Get more votes or votes that matter? Of the nine Federal positions in this state (hence the nine electoral votes), only two are held by the Democrats, and since it's winner takes all, it won't matter.

Not in the electoral college.

If McCain wins Mississippi by 65% he doesn't get any more electoral votes than if he won by 50.1%

And the Electoral College is what's important. If you can't flip a state, it doesn't matter if you lose somewhat more closely. And you can look at any EC projection map and see how few states are close enough to be "in play"

^ True. But it will help with the popular vote which, while having no legal existence or validity, gives "legitimacy" in the minds of those who don't understand (or want to understand) that the US is a federation of states rather than a single political entity. (See Bush 2000.)

Furthermore, the "coattails" phenomenon is well known. The higher the score a presidential candidate makes in a state, the more people from his own party will be helped by those who were not really decided but will nevertheless, once they choose a presidential candidate, vote straight party.

So there is a difference between winning a state with 65% and winning it with 50.1%. It is not a difference that will actually change things in every case, but it will change things in some cases so, if you've got the money to spare (and Obama does), why not do it?

Well Sheps post came in response to Pardot, after Pardot had said that it seemed Obama was now aiming for more overall votes to be able to claim a mandate, rather than just fighting for electoral votes.

Actually, I was responding to Ancalagon saying it was "working"

Which was in response to my post. Bailey...

I may have lost track of who was quoting who (this is incidentally why there is a nice helpful quote function in the board) but the point still stands that there are plenty of advantages to campaigning more widely for extra votes that may technically be useless if you think you are going to win the election, and that was elaborated prior to Sheps and your posts saying there was no point to it.

You really doubt it's paying off? Sure, McCain managed to close the gap in the polls and even took a lead in some cases in early Sept, but the majority of those polls still have a hard time taking newly registered voters into account. The morale of the Obama campaign has been high throughout the year (with ebbs and flows, but overall still quite positive), and I think this is a great reason why.

Dean and Obama took on the Bush model of 2004 and expanded and improved on it (IMO) and managed to make it a year-long effort. I keep seeing RID (Republicans in Denial) claiming that their 72 hour effort will counteract any Dem strategy thus far, but I absolutely believe that Obama volunteers will be out in force in that last, critical period as well, and will far outnumber GOP volunteers. When you connect with people early on, it makes a big difference. I've signed up to volunteer on election day (taking the day off), something I've never done before.

Have you not seen House and Senate Projections?!?! What about the special elections the Dems have picked up this year in traditional R strongholds. You don't think the 50 State Strategy had anything to do with this? That already having a political machine up and running in these states didn't contribute?!?!

Ed Rollins was on CNN the other night saying he thinks the GOP could lose at least six House seats.

I did not start this thread.

Riiight. We should be taking into account those new voter registrations; you know, the same new voter registrations for which ACORN is being investigated....

Man, where do you guys come up with this stuff?!?!

I don't think that's got anything to do with Obama having a 50 state plan.

Our House seat flipped in the special election and Obama will lose this district by 15 points and likely more. it flipped not because of anything the national party did, it was an entirely local dynamic. (and might flip back in a few weeks.

I suspect a lot of other local races are the same way.

and more to the point, Republicans losing house and senate seats is a further manifestation of "blame Bush"

The Dems crow about tons of new registration ever cycle, they point to unpolled youth voters every cycle...none of that ever shows up in November.

The Dems ARE more motivated because far too many Republicans are holding their nose for McCain and that doesn't drive the volunteers...and that WILL make a difference up and down the ticket. but that's not the 50 state strategy in play, that's the republicans having fucked up in nominating McCain and combined with the "Bush is the root of all evil" emem that the press helps the Dems sell.

Obama's blaming FOX for his lead not being bigger

In my opinion whether it is Obama, or McCain who wins, it will be much like the two elections that Bill Clinton won in. Neither will receive a 51% of the popular vote. Whichever one of them wins will be in the mid 40% range.

If the shoe fits...

By the way, has anyone stopped clinging to their Bibles and guns long enough to stop by the neighborhood Whole Foods and check out the price of arugala?

As opposed to the high degree of accuracy in the rest of the press about the doddering old cripple on his last hearbeat who still writes his letters with a quill pen, who's so confused about what to do next his socks don't match, and who's deep in the pocket of corrupt Washington lobbiest when he's not blowing his top or forgetting how many hoses he owns? And his airhead bimbo running mate who doesn't read, doesn't raise her kids properly and thinks Jesus rode a dinosaur?

Yeah, I'm SO sure everyone is getting a fair shake in the media except for the way Barry is being picked on my mean old Fox.

Ya know what, here's a thought.

You are about to be the most powerful man in the whole fuckin free world and if you can make it to that office without crying like a little girl because one media outlet in the whole damn country DOESN'T Praise your Holy Name with every breath then maybe you haven't got the balls to do the motherfuckin job.

Pussy.

Heh. They're nearly sure to lose at least six Senate seats. They'll be ecstatic to lose merely 15-20 seats in the House.

We need a Democrat Senate with more then 60 votes.

We need a Democrat House with well over 250 votes.

This way the Democrats totally ignore the Republicans and can take full blame for all the nonsense of the next four years.

In two years, almost no matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans will bear the blame for any bad economy we still have. In four years, almost no matter what the Democrats do, the Democrats are going to get the credit for an economic situation that rates to be on the upswing by then. Barring unlikely scenarios, the Republicans should be writing off the next four years and trying to figure out how to compete after that.

If the Republicans are politically smart and looking for whatever advantage they can get, they'll turn rabidly antiwar and hope that Obama somehow ends up staying bogged down in Iraq. That's their best chance at seeing light before 2016.

My God you are so delusional.......



In two years things will be worse as all the promises made right now by Obama and the Democrats will be broken. Four years form now no Democrat will have any excuse for the disaster.

The country will not get better with Obama in charge. I know you think it will so I'm saving all these threads to rub in your face provided your not homeless and prostituting yourself to survive and still have access to a computer.

And the Republicans will not turn rabidly anti-war.

I see.

So your advice is 'have absolutely no principles, make no solid stand on an issue and twist in the wind based on what your perception of popular opinion is'?

Unlikely, IMO. I don't see anyone else siphoning off enough votes for the winner to be "in the mid-40% range." My guess is that Obama will actually have a more or less comfortable win, probably in the range of 52 to 55% of the popular vote.

But normally, you have to have about 60% of the popular vote for it to be considered a "landslide" (1964 and 1984 are the benchmarks for "landslide elections" and in both of them the winner was near that level, just over it in 1964 and just under it in 1984). Otherwise, you just have a comfortable win.

Of course, even a comfortable win translates, in most cases, into a fairly wide margin in the electoral college. The electoral college does not reflect the magnitude of the win in terms of popularity, so much as the evenness of that win. (Someone who got 50.1% in every state would be just barely more popular than his opponent, but would have 100% in the EC.) So I don't doubt for a minute that those who need the affirmation of being supported by a large majority will try to spin the electoral college margin into a "landslide." But I don't expect Obama to come near 60% of the popular vote.

Which would be hilarious since many of those people complained about the Electoral College and want it to go away.

Even if that were true - and since it's not solely their fault now it's a pretty neat trick that it will be their fault in two years - the public looks at who's there NOW...they are no more likely to still be blamining the government of two years ago in 2010 than they are smart enough to recognize what's going on now didn't start when Bush got elected.

Higher taxes will never result in the ends you seek.

My one hope is that someone smart enough that was around in '94 whispers in Obama's ear when he decides to push for gun legislation.

My fear is that they'll just do an end-run around the Constitution and sign and ratify a UN Treaty.

If that happens, I will need to think long and hard about that oath "to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" that I've taken on a couple occasions.

Not to mention a more appropriate term would be for the Reagan landslide since his first election wasn't really a landslide. Definitely a win for him, but I wouldn't classify it as a landslide.

I also remember that at this point during the 2000 and 2004 elections polls coming out that Bush was behind Kerry.

Gallup's traditional poll has Obama and McCain within 2 points.

Amazing that you forgot to save the thread where you bet me that Dems were gonna impeach Bush if they won in 06...