Interesting info from The Field, who seem to really know their stuff: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=888 Bottom line, Obama is likely to get blown out in Pennsylvania based on the distribution of delegates and the districts that have them (4, 5, 6, and 7 delegate districts each work very differently). He really needs to learn from Hillary and get the media off the PA bandwagon and start pushing the next set of primaries in IN and NC, where he's likely to win in two states that are combined bigger than PA.
that's an interesting comment on the hillary strategy, play up the states she wins, obama needs to do the same
She did that during February where she ignored 9 or 10 states or whatever it was. He's let her win that argument that TX/OH/PA were the three that mattered - he needs to see if he can change that narrative. He can't downplay PA because he has a 50-state strategy, but he has to make sure people know that there are 9 states after that (of which he's probably favored in at least 5).
It looks like the Obama campaign is turning to sarcasm now. I'm not sure it'll be effective, but it's amusing. Basically, they took a Clinton memo and annotated it. The original memo sounds like it was written by T_J. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Annotating_Pennsylvania.html Annotating Pennsylvania In a laudably bloggy spirit, the Obama campaign annotates a bravado-filled Clinton memo from earlier today ("Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral.") This exchange jumped out a bit though: The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election? [Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.] That sort of suggests Obama is contemplating a strategy that doesn't run through the traditional swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, though an Obama aide assures me that's not what it means, and that he expects to beat McCain there as well. Full, annotated, memo after the jump. From: Bill Burton Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 6:36 PM To: Bill Burton Subject: FW: The Clinton Memo... as annotated by the Obama communicationsdepartment To: Interested Parties From: Clinton Campaign Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.] The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election? (Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.) After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far - every state except his home state of Illinois. (If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.) Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972. (What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.) But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania. (Huh?) This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November. (I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.) In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans - all of which point to a candidacy past its prime. ("A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.) For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin. But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups. (That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton) In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats. (I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right) Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state? (You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?) In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas. (Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.) So the late deciders - those making up their minds in the last days before the election - have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island. (If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.) If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November. (If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us - I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.) (Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.)
Yes We Can [Make fun of the Clinton campaign's ridiculously flawed logic.] My God woman, you are a desperate idiot!
A little left-over business from March 4: I was "elected" tonight. I am now Jefferson County Precinct 42 Republican Party Chairman. The previous chairman decided not to seek re-election, and asked me if I was I was interested. They elected me tonight at the Executive Committee meeting.
Obama gained another 7 delegates today from Iowa, as a bunch of Edwards people shifted to him at the state convention. For comparative purposes, that alone would negate all of Hillary's March 4th gains.
Bill Clinton reportedly terrified that Hillary is about to officially lose Texas http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/bill-clinton-reportedly-terrified-that.html You'll recall that the media declared Hillary the winner of Texas before it was actually over. Texas had a primary and a caucus, and Hillary only won the primary. The winner of Texas is decided by adding the delegates from both the primary and the caucus. Come this weekend, we should find out that Obama really won Texas. A NY Daily News reporter accidentally got invited to a private conference call Bill Clinton was holding today with Texas delegates. Seems the campaign is terrified that people may finally figure out this weekend that Hillary lost Texas.
I'm getting a little disturbed how Obama's advisors has mastered the political underpinnings of the system. His performance in caucuses has been brilliant. His lawyers silently won the revote battles in FL and MI. And Obama's qualifiers for leaving Trinity had Wright didn't leave are nothing short of a politician who has mastered legal/political language.
