Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Let the Schedule Plotting Begi... | The SNL Hillary Massacre »

Sunday, May 11, 2008


posted by on May 11 at 13:55 PM

There’s a good front-page article in today’s NYT that sketches out both Obama and McCain’s coming campaign strategies (McCain is a continuation of the Bush era, Obama is out of touch with middle America); how both candidates are going to focus on Independent and Hispanic voters (Oh my god, O, pick Richardson!); and gives a run down of the states that are in play:

Both sides say the states clearly in play now include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Republicans said they hoped to put New Jersey and possibly California into play; Democrats said African-Americans could make Mr. Obama competitive in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Mr. Obama’s advisers said they had a strong chance of taking Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia away from the Republican column.

Re: Hispanic voters. Obama needs to highlight these two 2007 votes where McCain played to the GOP anti-immigrant craze by voting against chain migration and green card reforms that would have expanded citizenship opportunities. The legislation failed. (Obama voted yea on both measures—one, a Clinton amendment.)

Okay, but here’s the reason I’m posting. A minor paragraph that pops up late in the story goes like this:

The Republican National Committee, which is permitted to spend money on Mr. McCain’s behalf, has raised $31 million, compared with just $6 million by the Democratic National Committee.


On top of all the GOP sex scandals, haven’t the brilliant Democrats seen any of thisany of it??

Currently, 69 percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is doing his job. That is the highest disapproval rating since Gallup began polling 70 years ago — higher than Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon during Watergate, or Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis.

Today, notes polling expert Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute, more Americans think the country is on the wrong track than at any time since the late 1970s — which set the stage for the Republican resurgence of 1980, led by Ronald Reagan. The sentiment is even more negative now than it was in 1992, when the GOP lost the White House. Some 63 percent see the Iraq war as a mistake.

Bush’s troubles have sent voters fleeing from his party. In 2004, 47 percent of Americans leaned toward the Democratic Party, with 44 percent leaning Republican — a 3-point difference. Today, it’s 51 to 38 in favor of the Democrats — a gap of 13 percentage points.

My God. What is the DNC doing?

RSS icon Comments


Well, you know, some people attribute this to other Democratic entities sucking up money that would otherwise be headed for the DNC. Like, for example, presidential candidates who bring in large amounts of big-donor money despite having very little probability of winning the nomination.

Just saying.

Posted by youknowitstrue | May 11, 2008 2:13 PM

There's a very interesting article here about Obama's moves to consolidate fundraising that would otherwise go to the party and other general Democratic organizations under the banner of I can attest that his strategy's working: a couple of weeks ago, when a Democratic Party canvasser came to more door, my immediate response was "but I already gave to barack". It's a long but extremely interesting read.

Posted by quilsone | May 11, 2008 2:21 PM

dur, my door. need more coffee.

Posted by quilsone | May 11, 2008 2:23 PM

How is it that Obama is so out of touch with middle America when he did better there and in the South then Clinton did. Classic elitist attitude from the coast you always get with Feit. Chances are he's harboring the racist attitude yet deflects it by blaming others who he finds less sophisticated based on where they live.

Posted by Bud Dickman | May 11, 2008 2:29 PM

Well, let's see. Big oil has the Republicans in it's pocket and we are supplying them with billions. Then there's all the corporations that depend on keeping their labor costs down who support the R's and have huge amounts of money. Then there's the telecoms with billions that need the R's in the White House or they'll be prosecuted for spying illegally for the R's. I mean, the list goes on and on...

Posted by Vince | May 11, 2008 2:34 PM

Look at O's history and maybe there is a clue why old time Dems are skeptical about him. Check how he won his first race, who he took on next, who mentored him in the Senate and the whole she should quit routine.

Obama supporters are to a large extent not party people, don't like the party and have made it clear that if they don't get their way the party is over. History is not kind to the approach the O campaign is using.

The O people need to figure out what to do after adding the two quarts of water.

If O hasn't asked each of his 1.5 million contributors to kick in $75 to the DNC, it is a big mistake.

Posted by McG | May 11, 2008 2:51 PM
Obama supporters are to a large extent not party people, don't like the party and have made it clear that if they don't get their way the party is over.

At this point, McG, you're just beyond parody.

Posted by tsm | May 11, 2008 2:59 PM

Jesus, Josh, you're a political reporter and you didn't know this? The DNC has been raising money more slowly because, yes, the people they normally tap have poured close to half a billion dollars into Clinton/Obama. But The DNC's been raising money slowly since Dean took over, because those "party people" that McG seems to be a fan of decided they would shut off the spigot with Dean in charge. It's a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy - the big donors said "Dean won't be able to raise money", then refuse to give the DNC money, hence making themselves look prophetic.

McG, btw, is talking from his/her ass about Obama supporters. It's the same nonsense that was spouted about Dean supporters in '04 before they became elected leaders in LD after LD across the country. The people who aren't helping are those "party people" who think the Dean - and now Obama - supporters don't belong.

Anyway, Josh, the RNC/DNC discrepancy is old news, and not particularly a big deal. The DNC has spent their money building the party in all 50 states, especially the states where it's been ignored. The DNCC and DCCC both have enormous fundraising advantages over their GOP counterparts, meaning the downticket races are in great shape for the D's. Obama will hardly need the kind of support from the DNC that McCain will from the RNC, because he'll be able to raise huge amounts of money on his own. But yeah, when there is officially one candidate, money will start to hit the DNC (albeit not at the pace of the RNC).

Do your homework before you hit the panic button, wouldja?

Posted by switzerblog | May 11, 2008 3:03 PM

McCain's going to take exactly zero of those "in play" states. California? Minnesota? Yeah, right -- he's not going to break 40% in either.

Posted by Fnarf | May 11, 2008 3:19 PM

@9, When I started reading this post I thought that that's what it was going to be about, how utterly ridiculous all of the GOP claims are.

Not to sound overconfident or anything.

Posted by quilsone | May 11, 2008 3:53 PM

The poor DNC. Our money goes to local candidates and Obama. When the DNC calls I just tell them that and then hang up. Now, if the primary were over. . . .

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) | May 11, 2008 4:10 PM

The DNC's fundraising is temporarily hamstrung by active fundraising by both candidates, and it's busy spending what money it does raise -- that fifty state strategy isn't cheap. The current disparity is nothing to worry about; compare it to the relative state of the parties' congressional committees.

Posted by Nat | May 11, 2008 4:13 PM


I'll echo Switzer above: Howard Dean, as chair of the DNC, has spent lots of dough to build the "50 State Strategy." He's spending money in places like Utah and Mississippi, instead of just stockpiling the dough, which was the plan under Terry McAullife. Thus, the fund raising disparity.

John McCain is coming to town soon, and none of the money he's raising will benefit the WSRP. None of it. The RNC is using Washington as an ATM. Talk about scandolous.

Posted by used to blog | May 11, 2008 4:19 PM

I love the 50 states strategy. Enough with the DNC conventional wisdom bullshit. We need another FDR/Reagan-style landslide in favor of the Democrats and that'll never happen as long as 75% of the states get completely ignored by the national party. If you ask my Dean is the best thing that happened to the DNC in years and years.

Posted by Fonky | May 11, 2008 4:20 PM

The DNC has put its money into building the party at the state and local level because -- wait for it -- IT'S WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO when we sent our WA delegation to the DNC meeting and told them: "Re-elect Dean!"

That money helped us build solid Democratic majorities in LDs and counties that had been solid GOP before, and helped us build the infrastructure we need to carry this state for any presidential candidate.

The NYT is nuts to think this state is "in play." Kerry beat Bush handily in 2004 and we're even stronger now.

Go away, Josh, you clueless little putz. Just go away.

Posted by ivan | May 11, 2008 4:21 PM

Don't panic Josh. Obama seems to have little trouble raising money hand over fist, all by himself. I don't think he'll need handouts from the DNC.

Fnarf @9, actually, McCain could conceivably take California. Probably not, but look at Arnold. Schwarzenegger painted himself as a moderate Republican, progressive on social issues (which is a lie, but people bought it), and got himself elected. Twice. In what is usually a democrat leaning state. If McCain can successfully portray himself as a moderate Republican in CA, he might just take it. And McCain has more support among hispanics than he has any right to have. It is an outside chance. He'd have to be a very savvy campaigner, and Obama would really have to fall on his face. But I can see the possibility.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | May 11, 2008 4:39 PM


No way. Schwarzenegger is a fucking movie star, and he ran against a blah Democratic candidate in that clusterfuck of a recall election. McCain is hitching his wagon to Bush, which is more than enough for him to lose in California.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 11, 2008 5:10 PM

Jeezus Pete - I thought we ran you out of here, Feet! When are you going to go? Is this like going to be one of those Cher farewell tours? Retire, retire...

Posted by U.R. Feet Stink | May 11, 2008 5:23 PM

Most of the comments above have covered this - but I thought I'd reiterate. Obama + DNC should greatly outraise McCain + RNC in this election and the DSCC and DCCC are kicking the shit out of the Republican congressional fundraisers. Also, the Dem. candidates themselves are far outraising the GOP candidates. The money just isn't being as centralized as it traditionally has and that's probably a good thing. Also don't forget the lib interest groups who have been raising a lot of money (like MoveOn etc.). Money should not be an issue at any level in this election.

Posted by Ed | May 11, 2008 5:58 PM

Obama's campaign has reached a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC. Under the agreement, individuals can donate up to $28,500 and the money is split between the DNC and Obama (with most going to the DNC). More info at

So the DNC will not be hurting for cash for long. It would sure be nice if someone would put the Hillary campaign out of its misery, though, so that everyone can focus on the general election.

Posted by Kerry | May 11, 2008 6:41 PM

***Washington*** is in play? How so?

Posted by Really? | May 11, 2008 6:51 PM

I am always impressed by Josh's ability to find fault in others when he is confused and doesn't understand an issue.

Adios fuckface. Don't come back.

Posted by doink | May 11, 2008 6:55 PM

@22 My point exactly! Why is Feet hanging around like the hovering stench of a bad bathroom shit-blast? I thought he did his big, "So long suckers" speech more than a month ago and that the Slog would be safe from the likes of his "I INVENTED THIS" and "I BROKE THIS STORY FIRST" self-fellating self. Feet, I was a daily Slog reader once you made your announcement, but now I'm not so sure. . . are you back? Go away, stinkbot, seriously. Or did all the other tribes cast you out for chest-thumping too much?

Posted by I Invented Feet | May 11, 2008 8:01 PM

Most people, like myself, are giving to local candidates directly, people in our states, and to Sen Obama or Sen Clinton.

We have NOT been giving as much to the DNC because we couldn't trust them until this point. They were all about Old Politics - we're about New Politics.

Not to worry - the GOP is hurting VERY VERY BADLY - front page news in the Wall Street Journal last week is that they're losing the fundraising race across the board.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 11, 2008 10:34 PM

1. DNC howard dean specifically is fucking up in the fundraising department and the idea that spending money on 50 states has something to do with how much is raised is absurd.

2. Obama's electoral path to victory:

yes WA OR are not in play, we will win. Yes he will get MN WI IA. NM

Oh and if you think he can't control her....why would you think he should be president? There's no other VP choice that helps so much in MA OH PA FL NM NV also sh'ed make AR and WV and maybe even KY possible. What'd we leave out, VA? Yup, he might get that one, too.

50 state strategy = make HRC VP.

50 states - (FL OH PA MA MO AR WV) = pick Richardson or someone other than HRC.

3. in the head to head polls against McCain both HRC and Obama still about the same and both are virtually tied with McCain, so generic D beats a generic R doesn't mean anything.

4. Unity, hope and change!

Posted by PC | May 11, 2008 10:38 PM

You're high on crack if you think MA is going to go for McCain. It's not possible. Again, Obama will take 60% or better there. MO and OH are much more reasonable possibilities.

Posted by Fnarf | May 12, 2008 9:04 AM

hey where's the morning news?

What about Karen Sebelius for VP?

A woman gov from a GOP state fits the change thing.

But her speech on national TV was terrible, even KS isn't voting Dem, and she's unknown outside of KS.

Posted by PC | May 12, 2008 9:21 AM

It's Kathleen, PC, not Karen. And if the choice for VP is going to be either

1) A successful and rather liberal Midwestern female governor with very high approval ratings in her very red home state, and

2) A highly polarizing Northeastern female senator with some Senate voting baggage and fairly high disapproval ratings amongst Democrats, let alone independents/Republicans,

... well, then I certainly think there's a good argument to be made for (1).

Posted by tsm | May 12, 2008 12:47 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).