With all the obsession with polls, I think people are missing the bigger picture about the Obama campaign. For starters, the polls haven't moved much over the past 3 months - maybe 1 or 2% tops. Compare that to a normal move of between 5-10% from conventions, and you're talking about absolutely nothing. What has gone unnoticed is what Obama has been doing with all his money. Many people have noticed that McCain is either matching or outspending Obama on ads and wondered why, given Obama's huge fundraising advantage. It's all being spent on building a ground game - people are really missing the big picture when looking at polls. I'm attaching several articles, so I won't post the whole things - just the core: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/obama-leads-better-than-31-in-field.html Summary: Obama has more than 3 times as many field offices open nationwide, and many of McCain's in that group are actually GOP offices. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/not-even-close.html Summary: In terms of direct voter contacts, the Obama campaign holds about a 35-1 advantage. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/20/obamas_paid_staff_dwarfing_mccains/?page=1 Summary: In terms of paid staff, the Obama campaign dwarfs the McCain campaign. The campaign is also aiming to have six million grass-roots volunteers by election day making calls, helping with GOTV, etc. That would represent between 4-5% of the entire likely voting population. I don't think the polls will show much separation between now and election day, but if the Obama campaign's ground game can reach it's potential (big IF at this point), you could see something entirely different on election day.
This came up before and will be an unpredictable wild card on election day. We will see if this unprecedented effort was worth the money.
Why did undecideds break for Hillary 4:1? If that trend continues to work against Obama in the General, you are looking at a landslide. Remember, this vaunted ground game led to Obama losing the popular vote in the primary. If it weren't for the corrupt caucus process, Hillary is the nominee and up 10% in the polls...
They didn't. They did in some states. In others, they broke massively in Obama's favor. This is particularly true in the early and February states. Not surprisingly, that's where he had the established year-long ground game infrastructure. From my understanding, his ground game structure didn't exist in March+ states at the time - once the race went to that area, both campaigns were building infrastructure as they went. Most of his long-term ground infrastructure was in Super Tuesday and before states, as opposed to PA, NC, IN, etc. And it certainly wasn't in MI/FL, which you'd have to count to even make any kind of rational "she won the popular vote" argument.
Read a couple of articles today talking about McCain outspending Obama in 11 traditional swing states. At first glance it seems impressive. Then the articles start talking about Obama challenging McCain in 7 traditional red states. And could very well flip at least 5 of them. Obama is also opening up rural offices in surprisingly remote places that republicans have taken for granted and think are safe. Obama has opened field offices in all states. He is going to steamroll McCain on the ground
Do you really think a voter who preferred Hillary over Obama in the Democratic primaries will prefer four more years of Bush to Obama? Really? REALITY
If what The Cat and Deckard are saying is true in the other thread, apparently it's true. If they **** over this election because their wittle feewings are hoit, they deserve four more years of Bush.
I saw their anecdotal speculation in the other thread and, with no offense to Cat/Deck, do not put a lot of stock in that view.
4 democrats to 1 democrat apparently voted for Clinton. Do you think those same 4 are automatically switching to McCain?
RM95 (and mc mark), that's a gross exaggeration of what The Cat and I said, if I'm getting The Cat's remarks right. Frankly, the attitude you are displaying in your post is one of the problems Obama has with supporters of Hillary Clinton... the cheap sexist slam... aimed at them. Sorry, but that's how I see your remarks. And before you get upset with me, try to remember, if you've been reading this forum, that I supported both Obama and Clinton during the primaries, even if that proved damned near impossible here. My remarks in the other thread, and previously, were based on my own experiences with female Clinton supporters. Like Obama supporters, of both sexes, they have a strong, emotional tie with Clinton's run for the nomination. In my opinion, many would feel Clinton was slighted if Barack chose a woman with far less experience that Hillary has. They would feel pandered to. All of her female supporters? Certainly not, in my opinion, but I know some personally that would feel that way? Fair? As fair as the emotional attachment to Barack I have seen here countless times. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
There is nothing cheaper or more sexist than insisting only one woman is qualified to be VP. Kathleen Sebelius is a popular two-term governor of a red state. It's passing stupid to suggest she has "less experience" than Hillary.
Folks: please, for the 4 millionth time, don't let Troller_Jorge set you against one another. His post, for the 8,365th time, was completely irrelevant to the thread topic and simply meant to be divisive and distracting. This is a thread about Obama's ground game.
So now you are saying I'm stupid because I have an opinion that differs from you? Well **** you, Batman. Impeach Bush/Cheney/Batman Jones.
