But his aides are convinced that he has a strong chance of winning no fewer than nine states won by George W.Bush in the closely contested 2000 election, including former Republican strongholds like North Carolina, Virginia and even Indiana, which have not voted Democrat for a generation.
David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, said last week that Obama had “a lot of opportunity” in states which Mr Bush won four years ago.
But in private briefings in Washington, a member of Mr Obama’s inner circle of policy advisers went much further in spelling out why the campaign’s working assumptions far exceed the expectations of independent observers.
“Public polling companies and the media have underestimated the scale of new Democratic voters registration in these states,” the campaign official told a friend. “We’re much stronger on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina than people realise. If we get out the vote this may not be close at all.”
Obama’s team is arrogant and overconfident, and have been all along. The really obnoxious thing about this is that it is based on the assumption that the economic situation will worsen, or at least not improve, over the next five weeks. They are betting on disaster, the same way that Don Fowler did when he crowed to a companion about Hurricane Gustav and how it would hurt the Republican convention, and it should turn every voter’s stomach. Though it won’t, of course–I doubt that this will even be mentioned in the American media.
They are betting on disaster
They should David, it has worked for the Bush administration for 2 terms in office. See Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”
Brian – what was the disaster in 2000?
Winners always seem arrogant to losers. People who see the political reality for what it is and capitalize on that correct view to win an election may indeed seem arrogant to the dead-enders who think that “conservative” means nothing must ever change. Too bad: change is coming very soon, and its name isn’t McCain.
#4 Yes, winners do seem arrogant to losers. I am reminded of a certain arrogant politician who washed his hands, and certain priests who arrogantly understood the “change” needed. Of course, this arrogance can be quickly compared to the humility of the true victor, Jesus Christ.
Very bad analogy: the priests badly wanted to maintain the status quo, while Jesus most definitely reprsented a change that threatened their continued authority.
Polls are deceptive. The market is up. Fear may subside. With the inexperience of Obama we could be taxed. When the vote is taken, we’ll know. Polls don’t tell the story. Nor does one day of the Market no matter how big the loss. Folks have counted McCain out for a long time. So did his captors during the war. Surprise!
After eight years of this train-wreck of an administration, the only surprise will be to the people who still (incredibly) think that the Party of the Right is doing a fine job. The sewage of the last decade is about to be flushed, and much needed change is coming. If you don’t see the tsunami, you’re blind.
What interesting analogies: sewers, flushing and tsunamis. You have a lot of water on the brain! Strain as you might, you have only regard for the things that haven’t gone well. Too bad your good spirit is lost. No one claims a record that has satisfied in every way. The Right has erred; and so, by golly, the Liberal Left side. But many good things have happened on both sides. Blindness could be better atributed to those who only look in one direction.
Brian – what was the disaster in 2000?,/i>
Bush’s inauguration;)
Actually, Klein’s book covers the past 3 decades and includes both parties.
I think Obama is more likely to win than lose, but by a landslide? That’s a pipe dream.
I personally think it will be close, but fivethirtyeight.com has Obama winning 83% of the time in its simulations. There is a 25% chance he can win more than 375 electoral votes.
The idea is simple- best Case: If there is a 40 percent increase among African-Americans and a 50 percent increase in both the youth and Latino vote nationally, its 360 electoral college votes for Obama.
If there is an increase of 40% for the youth and 20% for blacks, then the electoral vote is more than 300, still.
But if people are honestly bored by Obama, and there is no increase in likely voters, then it is pretty much 50/50.
Obama is spending a lot of time on the ground game. It’s his community organizing experience. Add that his campaign is well-run, and you have the makings for a landslide. McCain is being outmaneuvered and keeps making mistakes.
What do you folks mean by all this talk about Bush as though he won a second term as President? There was no way any educated, enlightened voter could choose Bush over Kerry! What, I didn’t hear you, what did you say? Oh,… Beware this time around of bitter small-town voters with long memories who don’t take part in polls and are clinging in desperation to God and guns.
The pollsters are still using landlines. Wonder how that might be skewing the poll data?
bb
“Oh,… Beware this time around of bitter small-town voters with long memories who don’t take part in polls and are clinging in desperation to God and guns. ”
Their time is over. That group clearly loves Palin, as she is a mirror of them, but “Mooselini” is also clearly scaring the bejeesus out of everyone else. The 27% dead-enders who still think Georgie Boy is doing a heckuva job are not enough to win this election. The Republicans are going to get absolutely annihilated this cycle. And who says that they don’t participate in polls? Any evidence of that? Nope.
cellphones apparently give Obama a +2.8 advantage.
plinx, you have your head too far in statistics and polls conducted by and of those who agree with you too get my point. Many voters live in “flyover country” and are too busy surviving to pay attention to polls or to answer the phone when/if a pollster calls. So their influence will remain under the radar until the election itself, just as it did 4 years ago. And no one takes kindly to being called “bitter” when they are simply trying the best they can to make ends meet and not always successfully, let alone the implied accusations of racism, violence, and ignorance and paranoia “proved” by their faith in the Christian God that Obama belatedly professes to follow. They will make their feelings known on election day, and the results just may surprise you again!
By the way, I think “Mooselini” is a hoot! 🙂 (not to mix metaphors!) Don’t give her any ideas, she may use it successfuly to rally the troops and use your obvious contempt against the Dems.
How would anyone have “evidence” of which people don’t take part in polls? Take a poll? 🙂
Any evidence that the Republicans will get absolutelu annihilated this cycle, when so many polls (to give the type of evidence of which you are fond) have the race in a virtual dead heat or within a few points either way? Nope. At least, none other than your own wishful thinking and fantasizing and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. (“their time is over”, “dead-enders”)
“They will make their feelings known on election day, and the results just may surprise you again!”
Rule One: When a campaign starts attacking the media, things aren’t going well.
Rule Two: When a campaign says the polls are wrong, things aren’t very good.
Rule Three: When a campaign says “the only poll that counts is the one on election day” usually
means a campaign is about to lose.
It’s possible to be bitter AND a loser, as they’re about to find out.