Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
OBAMA GOES BIG.
A lot of people have portrayed Obama's decision to campaign hard in places like Alaska, Texas, and Wyoming as an example of hubris -- comparable to the Bush campaign's last-minute expenditures in California in 2000 or New Jersey in 2004. But as Michael Turk at The Next Right speculated last night and Ben Smith confirms today, Obama is actually concerned about far more than getting those states' electoral votes in November.
In fact, many states that are unlikely to be competitive in November have been chosen for attention from the Obama campaign because they either have Senate or congressional races that are likely to be very competitive or state legislatures that are likely to swap party control. Sure, the campaign hasn't entirely abandoned the idea that it can win say, North Dakota, but even if it doesn't win, it knows there's still a lot to gain by competing there.
And while Obama may be doing this because he can -- his leads in some polls are reaching double digits and his cash advantage is likely to be huge -- he's also showing a remarkable degree of foresight and concern for his party. I mean, I may be wrong (please tell me if I am), but I don't think Clinton did anything like this in 1996 when he was doing as well as Obama is now. Neither did Reagan in 1984. And I certainly doubt that any non-incumbent president has ever tried anything similar.
This should be reassuring news for Democrats, not just because it has the potential to help them across the country, but because it shows that Obama cares about a lot more than being elected. If he's already looking at the size of his congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 (and after, given that he's also targeting state legislatures which will control the next round of redistricting) that reflects a deep desire to push for big changes that require a big majority in Congress (something both LBJ and FDR had when they pushed through big progressive reforms).
--Sam Boyd
COMMENTS (9)
Of course, this also probably explains his support of Barrow in Georgia. Since he sees himself as a party leader, not just a free-lance candidate, he can't afford the luxury of seeking to purge the party of Blue Dogs while trying to forge a governing majority.
Posted by: David in Nashville | June 25, 2008 10:49 AM
More evidence: I'm running a local campaign in a Republican state, but the Obama organizers here are carrying literature with ALL of the candidates names on it - the entire Democratic slate, right down the ballot. I've never seen anything like it.
Posted by: arbitrista | June 25, 2008 10:57 AM
You're not wrong. Bill Clinton never did anything like this. To this day, The Big Dog's pavlovian response on the issue of party support is to talk about the personal appearances he made for such-and-such a candidate somewhere; he simply doesn't see any of this in bigger terms.
Posted by: Cicero55 | June 25, 2008 11:49 AM
Sure, the campaign hasn't entirely abandoned the idea that it can win say, North Dakota, but even if it doesn't win, it knows there's still a lot to gain by competing there.
Er...not in North Dakota. I think he really thinks he can win there because, you know, the congressional delegation is already 100% Democratic. The state legislature is irrelevant, because North Dakota only has one congressional seat, so there won't be any redistricting.
You might have found a better example (hint: Montana is not a better example of this - two Democratic senators, one house seat, and the Democratic candidate for the House seat is hopeless. Texas would be a good example, since there's a potentially competitive Senate race and important state legislative elections that will determine who gets to control redistricting.)
Posted by: John | June 25, 2008 12:34 PM
One of the biggest mistakes a political party can make is setting its sights too short.
This is not about any single election, people. It is about "winning hearts & minds." The GOP has large tracts of (mostly empty) land because we cede it to them.
I live in NC and it isn't nearly as "red" as many would believe. As people follow jobs, dreams, retirements, etc. the demographics evolve and this favors Progressives.
Get the word out! Even if we don't win THIS election in a certain state, we plant the seeds for future wins.
Posted by: Cathexis | June 25, 2008 12:47 PM
I just don't see how campaigning somewhere can be construed as hubris. Hubris is thinking you can just disregard it.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 1:38 PM
You're correct that Clinton didn't do this -- remember, triangulation partly against the Dems in Congress was his strategy for his own victory. Reagan in '84 foolishly (and vainly) tried for a 50-state presidential sweep by campaigning in Mondale's MN the final week, leaving on the table a number of vulnerable Senate seats that, had the GOP taken them, might have offset the Dem gains of '86 (and got Robert Bork on the court, as well as Iran/Contra squelched).
To be somewhat fair to Clinton vis a vis Obama -- part of the reason Barack can go all out like this is both the disintegration of the GOP brand, thanks to Bush, and the improvement in the Dem brand, thanks at least somewhat to Clinton's successful presidency. Campaigning for an all-Dem government wasn't as easy a sell in '96 as it is today.
Posted by: demtom | June 25, 2008 2:31 PM
It's a sign that Obama realizes that a President can't do anything unless he has a Congress willing to help him pass the bills he wants. I think it's wonderful, and it also answers the question that LBJ would always ask when someone came to him with a legislative proposal: "how many votes you got?" If you don't have the votes, and the people sitting in the House and/or Senate don't owe you anything since you never campaigned for them, why bother to stick your neck out for the President?
Go Obama!
Posted by: Chris Tharrington | June 25, 2008 7:15 PM
Obama should forget campaigning in Alaska since its Governor, Sarah Palin, is now likely to be McCain's veep-mate.
Posted by: Ted | June 25, 2008 10:09 PM