October 28, 2008
TALK ABOUT STRETCHING THE MAP.... In June, shortly after securing the Democratic nomination, the Obama campaign began airing television ads in 14 "red" states, a group which included Montana. It seemed like an odd choice -- Bush beat Kerry in Montana by more than 20 points four years ago, and Bush beat Gore in the state by 25 points eight years ago. Did the Obama campaign know something we don't?
Actually, yes. A Rasmussen poll in July showed Obama with a narrow lead in Montana, and last week, an MSU-Billings poll showed Obama leading McCain by four, 44% to 40%.
With a week to go, the RNC has decided this is a state worth worrying about.
The Republican National Committee will begin running television ads in Montana beginning on Wednesday, a sign of how heavily the playing field is tilted against the GOP with just eight days left in the presidential election.
Obama has already spent about $2 million in the state, while the RNC's ad buy, which is a negative spot attacking Obama, will cost about $400,000.
Montana certainly seems like an unexpected addition to the list of swing states, but it's not as if Democrats are invisible there -- Montana does, after all have a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. What's more, Bill Clinton won the state in 1992, thanks to a very strong showing from Ross Perot -- and Ron Paul is on the ballot in Montana this year (as the Constitution Party's "nominee").
In the broader context, though, there are probably quite a few vulnerable Republican senators who are wondering why the RNC would rather invest nearly a half-million in Montana on McCain's behalf, as opposed to giving them a much-needed hand in the last week.
—Steve Benen 7:58 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (23)
I seriously doubt that Obama will win Montana. But it's awesome that he is making them sweat. The man knows what he is doing. And who knows; maybe Montana in 2012.
Posted by: The Answer Is Green on October 28, 2008 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK
Um, can anyone else say rout? OK then, rout!
I've been saying that this will be the biggest landslide since Reagan-Mondale, and it's looking more and more like it every day as we get closer to the election. For the health of American democracy, these Republican asshats need to be handed their hats, and their asses.
Posted by: Dismayed Liberal on October 28, 2008 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK
I will say to anyone who poo-pooed the 50 state strategy. There you have it "The Proof"
Posted by: John R on October 28, 2008 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK
OT, but call center workers in my current residence of Indiana refused to read a sleazy anti-Obama script.
Given how hard up you have to be to work telemarketing, their decision to forfeit a day's pay rather than perpetuate GOP slime is inspiring.
Posted by: Gregory on October 28, 2008 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK
"For the health of American democracy, these Republican asshats need to be handed their hats, and their asses."
That's why I don't think people will be lulled into a sence of over confidence. People really want to make a statement this time and I don't see people staying home sencing a landslide, so why bother? People want to be heard, and they want to be part of it. Huge turn out, landslide is my guess.
Posted by: Saint Zak on October 28, 2008 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK
call center workers in my current residence of Indiana... - Gregory
Never thought I would cheer telemarketers, but Woo Hoo! Hoorah for Indiana telemarketers!!
Posted by: Danp on October 28, 2008 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK
The electoral votes are pretty paltry, but there is some psychological benefit to having the APPEARANCE of a large physical portion of the US supporting your team.
Democrats look so sad when they win elections with California, New England and not a whole lot else despite these composing the lion's share of the country's population.
Less savvy Americans may look at the mass of red on the map and feel the Dems somehow don't deserve to win.
Montana and a few other monster midwest states may solidify the appearance of legitimacy as well as the fact.
As for Obama's brilliance in stretching the map. Before we used that term so much, it was Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. Obama stands on the shoulders of semi-giants.
Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on October 28, 2008 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK
OT, but call center workers in my current residence of Indiana refused to read a sleazy anti-Obama script.
Almost sounds like the stuff of inspirational films...
Posted by: koreyel on October 28, 2008 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK
But the really cool part is geographic.
If both Montana and North Dakota go for Obama, the EV map will show contiguous blue states along the West Coast, the Canadian border and the east coast at least to North Carolina, and possibly to Key West, skipping only South Carolina.
With pickups in the southwest (New Mexico), Rocky Mountains (Colorado), plains (Iowa) and midwest (Missouri), we'll have the incredibly shrinking redstate fuckers surrounded.
I just wish I could keep Kentucky from being one of them.
Posted by: Yellow Dog on October 28, 2008 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK
Add me to the list of people saying that it was obvious Howard Dean was right, and people should stop scoffing. "50 state strategy" is long-term thinking and it's paying off even faster than I had anticipated.
Sure, the Democrats have caught some breaks (stock market tanking, etc.) but you have to be "in position" to catch breaks when they come. That *should* be standard strategery.
Posted by: Z. Mulls on October 28, 2008 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK
Howard Dean, absolutely, deserves our thanks for his foresight. Conceding states before the race even starts is a recipe for failure.
Posted by: jen f on October 28, 2008 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK
If there were down-ticket races of any importance in Montana, I could understand the RNC boosting McCain (or attacking Obama) there, because turnout's very much affected by whether people care about the Presidential race.
But there isn't. They'd be better off spending the money in NC or GA, where both McCain and the respective states' embattled GOP Senators could still win.
But if they want to throw $400K into Montana, far be it from me to complain. I'm all for it.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist on October 28, 2008 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK
Low-tech cyclist's right. This is hysterical reaction on the RNC's part and won't help GOP senators who need it. So, ha.
Posted by: shortstop on October 28, 2008 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK
His team's work with DeanSpace also bootstrapped an entire generation of activist software developers. Nonprofit groups like CivicSpace and the work that was poured into open-source projects like Drupal have built tools that small groups are now leveraging for their infrastructure.
Dean and his team laid some really amazing foundation.
Posted by: Jeff Eaton on October 28, 2008 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK
Don't any of you guys remember Gov. Schweitzer's terrific speech at the convention. Of course Obama's in the lead when a governor with a 70% approval rating is pulling for him.
Posted by: Out west on October 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK
If Obama wins Montana he'll have Ron Paul to thank.
Not that he will, but he should.
Posted by: Sean Scallon on October 28, 2008 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK
I seriously doubt that Obama will win Montana. -The Answer Is Green
Getting the RNC to spend $400k in Montana is winning Montana for Obama and so many down ticket races.
Posted by: doubtful on October 28, 2008 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK
I have been saying for the months that the "50 state strategy" was key in this election and beyond.
Now we need to keep the pressure on. The Dems have been building up organization, donor lists, volunteers, mailing lists, phone lists etc etc in these 'red' states. All this can be put to use in the 2012 cycle to increase Democrat presence in the House and the Senate.
But even more critical our local elections (where tomorrows national leaders come from). Get Dems unto school boards, city councils, state legislatures, governors. We've played defense for too long, content to hold on to coasts and neglecting the midde of the country.
Dean was right and Obama followed that model brilliantly.
Posted by: thorin-1 on October 28, 2008 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK
If both Montana and North Dakota go for Obama, the EV map will show contiguous blue states along the West Coast, the Canadian border and the east coast at least to North Carolina, and possibly to Key West, skipping only South Carolina.
Playing with the electoral map, and contracting and expanding the states around, I saw that if you expand to the limits of any possible Obama landslide you do get that. Except you are wrong about the Canadian border. You have that little sliver of the Idaho pan-handle.
But we should both probably put this game down and not count eggs until they hatch.
Posted by: Justin on October 28, 2008 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK
Montana for Obama? Why not? Don't overlook that the state has a popular Democratic Governor (Brian Schweitzer) and two Democratic Senators (Max Baucus + Jon Tester).
If you'll pardon the expression, it should surprise nobody if the Big Sky turns blue next week.
-Z
Posted by: Zorro on October 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK
Justin -aha! Yet, that is where those Bridges to Nowhwere can become quite handy...use to span that troubling sliver of Idaho pan-handle.
grin...
Posted by: sduffys on October 28, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK
Montana for Obama? Why not? The state has a popular Democratic Governor (Brian Schweitzer) and two Democratic Senators (Jon Tester + Max Baucus).
If you'll pardon the expression, it should surprise nobody if the Big Sky state turns blue next Tuesday.
-Z
Posted by: Zorro on October 28, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK
Montana's perhaps one of the last outposts of non-psychopath conservatism in the mountain West. A lot of people up there are "leave me alone" types who feel increasingly ill at ease with the panty-sniffing wing of the Republican Party, out of control spending in Washington, and neocon warmongering. They have also chafed at having vast areas of their state handed over to oil and lumber companies to have their way with under Bush's (well, actually Cheney's) "energy policy".
I wouldn't bet the house on an Obama pickup there next week, but it's definitely heading in a purpleish direction as residents wake up to the fact that eight years of Republican rule has not, in fact, been good for their "conservative" values.
Posted by: jonas on October 28, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK