I don't think anyone said they were offended. The point (as I take it anyway), is that they are basically acknowledging that their policies are unpopular, but they can still win because John McCain has admirable personal qualities. Yes, people often vote on character, but when 80% of the people think the country is on the wrong track, the idea that they aren't concerned with policies is a tad absurd. At the very least, they don't want a campaign spin doctor telling them that they only vote on superficial matters. So it makes sense for Obama to highlight the McCain camp's suggestion that policies don't matter, especially since it's possible to simultaneously argue that you are the better candidate on the issues, as well as in matters of personal temperament.

Posted at September 3, 2008 2:06 PM in response to Obama Hammers McCain On "Not About Issues" Quote

the two ratings changes for the Republicans are in seats they already hold, with the magazine declaring them to be safer than before

You may want to double check that one. The two races that shifted toward the Republicans according to CQ:

TX-22 (Lampson-D) from Lean Dem to No Clear Favorite
IL-11 (open-R) from Favor Dem to Lean Dem

Posted at July 25, 2008 10:25 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup

It's actually a newspaper in Spain, so not many U.S. Hispanics reading it. I assumed it was a U.S. paper until I followed the link because the post says "Spanish-language." Sort of redundant to call a Spanish paper Spanish-language.

Posted at June 6, 2008 9:41 AM in response to Edwards: I Don't Want To Run For VP

Obama ran a successful campaign by not passively accepting the media's temporary focus, instead looking at the bigger picture. If he ran his campaign based on media coverage he would have gone into panic mode after each loss, but instead he knew he had the numbers and just had to wait out the media's fascination with whatever shiny object the Clinton camp was waving in front of them. So I don't think he should start the GE by indulging the Clinton VP talk, even if to refute it.

That said, if he can hasten the end of this sort of talk without changing his larger gameplan he should. It seems like there are other ways to send the message that it will not be Clinton without picking someone else. Obviously, he can't directly say "it won't be her," but some well-placed leaks could get the message out that she's not being considered seriously without making a big deal out of it and alienating her supporters. If it's clear it's not going to be her the media will start talking about who it could be instead of wasting time speculating about her. Of course, the best way to do this would be for Clinton to come out and say she doesn't want it, or that she realizes she's not the best choice, but I think the chances of her removing herself from the spotlight in this manner are slim.

Posted at June 4, 2008 1:35 PM in response to Obama Needs To Make VP Choice by End of June

According to the Green Papers it's 8-7 Clinton in SD and 9-7 Obama in Montana. I don't know where NBC's numbers came from because it would take a blowout (about 61-39) to get a 9-6 split in SD. Not that it really matters.

Posted at June 4, 2008 10:10 AM in response to For Hillary, Montana And South Dakota Are Too Little, Too Late

Is this based on those who voted for her in the primaries? First, states like California have changed their minds and would support Obama now. Second, supporting her in the primary doesn't automatically translate to support for her being VP. If Clinton won I would want her to win the general, so I would be opposed to Obama being the VP because he had spent the last year arguing that she shouldn't be president. I would like someone who had the same appeal as Obama (anti-war, new blood, etc), but not Obama himself. The Clinton supporters who think she shouldn't be the VP nominee for this reason may be partially offset by Obama supporters who think putting the runner-up on the ticket is the way to win, but when things die down most Democrats, as opposed to Hillary idolaters, will realize that she is not the right choice.

Posted at June 3, 2008 3:37 PM in response to Hillary Supporter Dianne Feinstein: The Race Is Over, Make Hillary Veep

Well, "viable" wasn't the right word, but your larger point that 1% isn't an accurate measure of McCain's support is important. Getting 30% against one opponent as the presumptive nominee isn't necessarily better than getting 16% against three opponents while the nomination is still up in the air. Meanwhile, while virtually all the Republicans will probably support their nominee, I don't think the same can be said for Democrats who didn't vote for Obama, who have shown in the last two elections that they are willing to cross party lines at the presidential level (Kerry only won them 69-30). It's not McCain's best state, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking Obama is in better shape than McCain. It's better to emphasize Obama's advantages in the true swing states in the West and Midwest.

Posted at May 13, 2008 12:03 PM in response to John McCain won 1 percent of the Caucus Vote in West Virginia

The election process is not over.... how come he is acting like the remaining states no longer matter

Cognitive dissonance from a Clinton supporter... almost a cliche at this point. Which campaign explicitly and repeatedly told us certain states don't matter?

Even if you think that visiting states that will factor in the general election is presumptuous, you'll notice that Obama is still visiting and the campaign is still working in upcoming primary states. Perhaps he is starting to look to the general (not unreasonable, considering that even many Clinton supporters are starting to accept that he will be the nominee), but he is by no means ignoring the states that haven't voted yet.

Posted at May 12, 2008 2:55 PM in response to Obama Camp: We're Moving On To General Election States Now

South Dakota? I wouldn't say that a visit to a small, solid red state with a primary in a few weeks has much of a GE feel to it.

Posted at May 12, 2008 2:24 PM in response to Obama Camp: We're Moving On To General Election States Now

Wasn't the Clinton campaign emphasizing that superdelegates could base their decision on whatever they want? Now that they are making an independent decision, based on their view that Obama is the presumptive nominee, Clinton supporters are upset about it. Along the same lines, after PA we heard how "more people had voted for her" (a clever way of obscuring the fact that some of those who voted for her didn't have the option of voting for Obama). Now that her gains from PA have been wiped out and the popular vote count is unlikely to favor Clinton even if you include Michigan, we aren't hearing much about that anymore either. It seems like they'll run out of arguments eventually, but not before they get to the bottom of the barrel.

Posted at May 9, 2008 4:05 PM in response to Clinton Supporters Email-Bomb Superdelegates