Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Why President Obama should compete in Arizona

by Frank Schnittger Thu Sep 27th, 2012 at 08:18:27 AM EST

President Obama has been building a national lead of c.5% with bigger leads in all the battleground states except N. Carolina where he is roughly tied. However the key to a successful second term will be in his ability to broaden his support base beyond his 2008 map and in his ability to re-gain control of Congress.

In this regard, the benefits of his competing in traditionally red states states like Arizona which have become more competitive recently are numerous:

  1. It shows confidence and that he is competing for the support of all Americans.

  2. It takes away from the national narrative that he is running an overly cautious campaign and helps to excite his base everywhere

  3. There are proportionally more undecided in Arizona when compared to battleground states.

  4. Any improvement in polling in Arizona will have a marginal beneficial impact on his national polling and thus on the psychology of the race more generally.

  5. Arizona is relatively virgin territory and voters there are not fatigued with excessive adverting - so the impact of any ads will be far greater

  6. The surprise factor will make it newsworthy and multiply his actual investment in advertising on news/talk programs

  7. It will be demoralizing for Romney to have to actually compete on his own "turf" and will show he is in bad shape nationally if he has to do so - not to mention draining his resources from elsewhere.

  8. All Obama has to do is show up at a rally for a couple of hours and ask "has anybody seen Romney here lately?"

  9. It helps a key competitive senate candidate (Carmona) and in other down ballot races.

  10. It builds the Dem map for the future

  11. It gives Californian Dem supporters something positive to do in a competitive neighboring state.

  12. Depending on the structure of the media markets, any investment in Arizona may also have a spill-over effect in border regions of Nevada and New Mexico.

Ditto in Montana, Indiana, Missouri and South Carolina - the investment in time/money doesn't have to be huge to create a multiplier effect, force Romney further onto the defensive and have an incremental positive effect on national polls. There simply aren't enough undecideds left in the "battleground" states to make any further improvement possible there without huge incremental cost.

Sometimes fighting behind enemy lines can have a hugely disproportionate effect in damaging enemy morale when compared to the usual front-line pitched battle.


Poll
Should President Obama compete in Arizona?
. Yes 88%
. No 11%

Votes: 9
Results | Other Polls
Display:
Also available in Orange and in Boo.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Sep 27th, 2012 at 08:46:21 AM EST
I think Boo is kidding himself on South Carolina.  North Carolina is very close right now.  If North Carolina's close, South Carolina's not.  He's getting wrapped up in Nate Silver's average showing Romney up by 0.2%.

But take a look at the dates on those polls.

Arizona and Montana, then perhaps Missouri, Indiana and Georgia (I don't buy Obama being down as much as the few polls say he is in those states).

Just remember though: This is an "internal poll".  The poll may or may not exist.  It may or may not have the results they suggest.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Sep 27th, 2012 at 11:06:12 AM EST
Polls aren't published? In France, any poll cited in the press must be made available according certain rules (size of people sample polled, questions asked, error margin...)

A free fox in a free henhouse!
by Xavier in Paris on Thu Sep 27th, 2012 at 12:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
See Polling Controversy Raises Questions of Disclosure (WSJ, October 7, 2009)

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 27th, 2012 at 12:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Sep 27th, 2012 at 03:03:31 PM EST
There was some discussion today at DK about that ad. I gather there was a snark version -- and I'm honestly not sure which one is shown here.

Which, I suppose, tells you what you need to know about the state of the Romney campaign. It seems to be the Three Stooges getting caught up in a Mel Brooks movie.

I am hopeful that the prez will have a big enough lead to offset whatever voter disenfranchisement is attempted, and that his electoral coattails will be long enough to sweep out some of the more dreadful denizens of DC.

by Mnemosyne on Fri Sep 28th, 2012 at 01:07:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There will always be crazies in Washington. The key question is whether they will control the House or the Senate.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Sep 28th, 2012 at 04:09:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the best policy is generally to stop digging. But in his new ad trying to show empathy with the Middle class, Romney refers to the Middle class as "them", unlike Obama who wants to talk to you.

See this for another amazing display of Romney campaign incompetence.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Sep 27th, 2012 at 04:06:09 PM EST
There's added leverage on the money side, since Obama would be spending official campaign funds, which by law have to be offered the best advertising rate, while the Romney campaign would be going in with SuperPAC money and would have to pay whatever rate is charged.

The Arizona media market is not yet saturated, but it has a high profile Senate race, and if the Presidential campaigns get in, it could saturate. And it can make quite a difference: reporting is that for a particular spot in Ohio that cost the Obama campaign $150,000, the Romney supporting SuperPac had to pay $900,000.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:44:37 PM EST
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Sep 29th, 2012 at 04:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure for the SuperPACs, its an argument against the regulation that requires broadcasters to sell ads to official campaigns at their best advertising rate.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Sep 29th, 2012 at 07:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Sep 29th, 2012 at 07:17:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I voted "No" because I believe that if Obama went to Arizona (I have other names for it, but another day.), Sheriff Joe Arse-hole-o would send his deputies to arrest him as an illegal immigrant (whether it was in Maricopa County or not), and there would be blood.  Arizona is Utah with a climate closer to Hell and more Confederate ex-pats.
by rifek on Mon Oct 1st, 2012 at 12:40:44 AM EST
And yet Obama and Carmona are within 5% of winning there and the Dem folks there - who have a lot less protection than Obama - could do with a little support. Winning Arizona would send a message that there is one less state willing to tolerate racism and outright arseholery...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 1st, 2012 at 04:25:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries