What Red States Does Senator Obama Put In Play And Why?

Please feel free to use polling data, historical predicates, or any evidence you feel is useful to buttress your argument

Obama's Red State Appeal

Dave Filipi, a 58-year-old family doctor, made his way to the back room of McKenna's Blues Bar near the University of Nebraska's Omaha campus. Nervously smoothing his suit, he lingered in the doorway. "To be honest, I'm a Republican," Filipi sheepishly said as two dozen curious faces swung around toward him.

"Trust me, you're not the only one here," Solomon Kleinsmith, the head of the group Omaha for Obama and himself a lifelong Republican, replied with a chuckle. "Come, sit down."

Political organizing for Democrats in red states like Nebraska can often feel a bit like leading AA meetings. But that hasn't deterred more than 300 Nebraskans from forming a dozen groups for Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and they aren't the only ones. On Monday, the Obama campaign announced that over 300 Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans had decided to cross party lines to support Obama. At Obama events in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia and Georgia, a good 20% of audiences routinely raise their hands when emcees ask for Republicans in the crowd. A "Republicans for Obama" website has 11 state chapters with 146 members. An August University of Iowa even found Obama running third in the state among Republican candidates, behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani but ahead of both Fred Thompson and John McCain. And a national Gallup poll this month also found that nearly as many Republicans like Obama — 39% — than the 43% that dislike him, compared with the 78% of Republicans who held an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.

It seems a lot of Republicans took to heart Obama's statement in his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America." And with polls showing Obama still trailing Clinton and supporters urging him to become more aggressive in attacking the front-runner, his non-partisan appeal could be a useful rallying cry as Iowa and New Hampshire fast approach. Already, the campaign uses his electability as a defense when things don't go their way. Last Wednesday, when the former First Lady won the endorsement of the powerful Association of Federal, State and Municipal Employees Union — which has more than 30,000 members in Iowa — Obama campaign manager David Plouffe responded with this: "It is a bit surprising that the union probably most concerned with state and local election results would support the candidate with the likeliest least appeal in red states. When Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will not only win the presidency but his appeal to Republicans and Independents will lift down-ballot candidates all across the country."

Even some former Bush supporters and advisers are Obama converts. Three former major fund-raisers for the President have given money to Obama. One of them, James Canning, a Chicago financier, is openly supporting Obama after he grew tired of what he calls the G.O.P.'s "Neanderthal positions on things like stem cell research and global warming." Mark McKinnon, Bush's chief media consultant during both of his presidential campaigns, has warned his clients — including Senator John McCain — that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination McKinnon won't work against him in the general election. And Matthew Dowd, Bush's former top political strategist, told the New York Times that the only candidate that appeals to him this cycle in either party is Obama.

"I don't think Oklahoma has seen this kind of enthusiasm for a Democrat since Bobby Kennedy," marveled Lisa Pryor, chairwoman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, who is not endorsing a candidate, after an Obama rally in Oklahoma City in March that drew more than 1,000 people — each of whom paid $25 to get in, and handed over their contact information. "He could be the first Democrat to win Oklahoma since LBJ."

The demand for Obama in conservative states is a testament to his rock star status, a term he loathes for its implication that he's all style and no substance. But it may be the very fact that many voters don't yet know that much about the specifics of his politics that is sustaining his level of cross-party support. "I'm not seeing any pretty clear matches for me in the Republican crop," said Filipi, a lifelong Republican who found out about Omaha for Obama on the Internet. "The last few years I've really had to settle on who I've voted for. I haven't been inspired. I'm not sure Obama's that person either but he's the closest I've come to getting inspired in years."

In fact, Obama's voting record is the most liberal of any candidate, according to a National Journal analysis. Obama's score of 84.3% in the Journal's ratings formula tops even that of Representative Dennis Kucinich, who was considered the most liberal Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.

Republicans and Independents are a vital demographic for Obama, who needs to draw in new voters in order to compete with Clinton and Edwards in Iowa, the all-important first test of presidential politics. The three are essentially tied in polls in Iowa, where anyone, regardless of party identification, can show up and caucus provided they sign a (non-binding) letter saying they intend to change their registration. And while 76% of Edwards supporters caucused in 2004, only 55% of Obama's supporters took the time four years ago, according to another University of Iowa poll out this week. "For Obama, getting people who are less likely to caucus out the door in January will be critical," said David Redlawsk, the poll's director and an associate professor of political science.

And just in case Iowa Republicans and Independents aren't yet sold on Obama, Kleinsmith and his group of Omaha for Obama are working across the border in Iowa to convince them. "My big fear is: if he doesn't win Iowa that's it for him," Kleinsmith told his group. As well, he would surely argue, as it would be for the Democrats' already slim chances in a state like Nebraska.

Link to article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1680192,00.html?xid=rss-nation

"I don't think Oklahoma has seen this kind of enthusiasm for a Democrat since Bobby Kennedy," marveled Lisa Pryor, chairwoman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, who is not endorsing a candidate, after an Obama rally in Oklahoma City in March that drew more than 1,000 people — each of whom paid $25 to get in, and handed over their contact information. "He could be the first Democrat to win Oklahoma since LBJ."


He has some work to do in Oklahoma, ergo:



http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=5148f8f2-7339-4f15-aa04-8611f661d1a7

of course is all of her right-wing support including Murdoch who held the big fund raiser for her. That of course is so he can extend his holdings in newspapers and TV if she gets in.

There will be advantages to the dems in this election however that were not there before with all of the dissatisfaction among so many people with their own parties and the other party and politicians in particular. There will be some weird swings this coming election.

I want to find out what red states he puts in play... I asked people to provide polls and historical predicates...Instead you copied and pasted a string of anecdotes that reached its nadir or apex, depending on your bias, with the conclusion he can be the first Democratic candidate for president since LBJ to carry Oklahoma...

I then posted a poll with all the vagaries an isolated poll admittedly has that showed him not even competitive in Oklahoma...

Again, please provide an argument of what red states he puts in play that doesn't rely on anecdotes, homilies, bromides, or personal narratives...

Obama and Red States and it is. Just as good as any poll and in fact more informative as it is an investigative article where a poll, you can find pretty much to suit your own needs and you said to use anything to buttress your argument of which this article shows he can do ok in red states along with the other candidates. Note the articles title which is what you were asking.

You said he had a lot of work to do and I agreed he did along with all the candidates.

You say after complaining about the article, you then posted a poll, what poll, haven't seen one in this topic yet.

Repectfully the author found a few people in Oklahoma that like Obama... My gay friend likes Rudi... Should I infer from that Rudi will get many gay votes... Another friend's uber rich boss said , quote "William Jefferson Clinton was the best president in his lifetime"...Should I infer from that William Jefferson Clinton is the favorite of the uber rich...

I just can't make a lot of inferences from anecdotes....

I like and suits my needs. Haven't seen anything else that shows more substance and credibility here in your post other than this article which was done this November. So do you have a poll that shows your candidate and what the candidate can do in red states or do you have a poll that shows what Obama can or cannot do in red states?

Its a good and important question.

But it's not my raison d'etre to tout Senator Clinton ... I am trying to learn what red states Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or any Democrat puts in play...I am a Democrat first, hence my screen name...

IMHO, Clintonism sells in the suburbs, and that's the key to winning red states and other states ...To me Clintonism is social liberalism, and economic and foreign policy defense centrism... Americans will not vote a candidate they feel will not protect them... You may not like Clintonism but it is the formula that has won the last four presidential campaigns for the Democrats;1976, 1992, 1996, and 2000*...



*The Dems were jobbed in 2000...

is one without answers to your question yet other than maybe she is leading in NM, KY and Ohio. That could very well be. And Clintonism may very well have worked for her but that also could very well be her downfall as that is key in that so many people want to get away from those very kind of politics in Washington. She brings the same old thing out of Washington and she will cater to those such as Murdoch who wants to increase his power.

Obama will continue to make gains and come on stronger the more people get better acquainted with him. Hillary has her own problems to overcome.

Again, good question but not sure there is an answer to it yet as far as who will do the best in the red states.

Especially isolated polls this far out...But it gives us some idea of where to put our assets... Kind of like a triage...We should focus our efforts first where we have the most chance, then focus our efforts where we have less of a chance, and offer benign neglect to where we have no chance at all...

I look at politics as played on a football field with most successful candidates playing between the forty yard lines...The two biggest electoral catastrophes, Goldwater and McGovern, occurred when those gentlemen were portrayed, fairly or unfairly, as being far out on the other side of the field...

As far as Rupert Murdoch I suspect your average American doesn't know who he is and if he does he thinks Murdoch is just some rich guy who owns a television nation...

he is or not, you and I know who he is and the power and influence he has. The question is what is Hillary going to give him in return for all of his money and his support. I don't think he is doing it just out of the goodness of his heart.

Rupert is almost ideology free. Yes, he chases 'concessions' from governments, but more important to him are his delusions of grandeur as an electoral king maker. Provided a politician (and Rupert deals with the leaders) courts him, Rupert will always back the odds on winner in a contest, especially if there change in power in the offing.

The quid pro quos he asks for are less substantial, and less important to him than commonly imagined. His dreams center around the headline "It was The Sun which won it", as one of his newspapers famously pronounced.

Most recently his papers supported Kevin Rudd who;s platform included, withdrawal from Iraq, signing Kyoto, scraping anti-union legislation, and federal government takeover of hospitals. Perhaps not Rupert's favorite beer, but Rudd was going to win so Rupert was compelled to support him. When Blair was a certainty, same deal.

Rupert has backed Labor governments in Australia a dozen times since 1972, his first taste of politics. He switches to conservatives when they are certain to win. Being on the winning side is a compulsion for Murdoch. His support for Hillary Clinton in the Senate race in 2006, comes as no surprise at all. It is not so much indicative of the deals he hascut, as his pathological delusions of grandeur.

of the top editors from the Wall Street Journal just move to the New York times because of what Murdoch does.

Again, Murdoch has his motives with his money and support of Hillary and he has even made his own statement about wanting to take over the New York Times. Who else better to help him achieve this and we all know he has no intention of it remaining a liberal newspaper.

How many of his news and media are liberal and how many are conservative and right-wing?

I don't know if Rupert has 'flipped' any liberal papers. He typically buy conservative like The Times. But yes you are right, after Murdoch buys a paper, pretensions to objectivity and editorial independence fly out the window.

I have seen incredible biased, partisan reporting by the Murdoch press in favor of the Labor Party when I was in Australia. It's an extension of his megalomania, not his ideology. His first foray into politics (1972) was a one year campaign to oust a conservative government. He received no favors. By 1975 he was backing the conservatives again. The next year he strongly backed a Labor State government.

certainly do think that someone with her connections, her power and if she was to have the president's office would certainly be able to assist in that endeavor.

Other than that, nothing else, I think everyone knows who Rupert Murdoch is, where his politics is and what he intends to do with all of his media he owns as he does now. Rather strange how the Hillary supporters all of a sudden try to justify his and her connection when before he was so evil.

I have first hand experience of Murdoch's press and television interests destroying conservative governments in England and Australia. The headline "It was the The Sun who won it" referred to Blair's elation, long before he developed a taste for military aggression.

Murdoch is working hand in hand with the Chines government - his politics are secondary to his ambitions.

I don't approve of Clinton getting involved with Murdoch. I am not an apologist for either. The man has all the grace and loyalty of a rattle snake.

agree with you that "The man has all the grace and loyalty of a rattlesnake."

Maybe you have some firsthand experience but I don't think you have to have gone or live in Australia to know where his politics lie and as far as England, it is quite well known where he is at there as well as here in the US.

Whatever, Murdoch is what he is and I would venture most know where that is and he has even stated his agenda in the past. I hope he and Hillary have a very congenial and long-lasting relationship.

Hey, seriously, thanks for the info on Murdoch and for having a polite conversation about it. I respect your views no matter as long as you do the same and I appreciate what I can learn from someone else and those who have other points of views from mine. Unfortunately, there is a lot of namecalling on this board for some reason anymore and personal attacks of which nobody gets anything out of that.

Appreciated visiting with you on this. Are you from Australia or did you live and work there for a while. Was there a long time ago, and it is a really beautiful place, just in the Sydney area, Bondi and Coogee beaches. Had a great time.

If not (and I haven't seen them) what evidence can there be either way?

Here's a link... There aren't many state D-R polls at this time but at least here's some frame of reference:


http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

There is no answer. It depends on the campaign, and politics in America comprises 30 second negative ads, polls, and media commentators telling the audience who is winning. BTW, good to see a post from you. Some of the more recent threads have been highly indigestible.

DSB

but an election is a two way street - and the Republican field is the weakest since Gerald Ford had the baton. Negative campaigning was not his strongest suit either.

I seem to have misread that part...thanks.

I don't find anecdotes persuasive...

Doug Wilder proved that. Probably more importantly, the state is trending Democratic in recent years.

Do you think it likely that a Black man would win in the South?

And Harold Ford has demonstrated it can be done in TN... He did get 49% of the vote which is close...

How many head to head polls do we have in red states that pit Obama against Rep candidates? You're asking for something that doesn't really exist for any candidate yet.

But I will ask one simple question though: Given that Obama has overall head to head leads against the likely GOP leaders

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_obama-228.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_thompson_vs_obama-308.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-231.html#polls

And given that he only needs to add Ohio, where a Dem shift can be seen and where there is mucch suffering from Bushco's economic mangling, how much does it matter?

He doesn't need the South. He needs to hold what Kerry did and add Ohio - a barely (and probably falsely) red state last time where Republicans are struggling.

The same of course is true for all Dem candidates, which is what makes this Clinton=unelectable crap just as much crap as your implied contention is. Nobody NEEDS to turn Texas or Alabama - just Ohio.

So what blue states do you see him losing, or do you think he can't take OH?

I think there are red states beyond the reach of any national Democrat and I'd lay my reputation, for what its worth on that assertion... Those red states that are not beyond reach are Iowa, New Mexico, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Arizona, and Florida...

The question is which Democrat would do best in those states... That's what I'm trying to learn...

But I would need more than a few random polls to convince me we have a real shot there...

the only Democratic candidate that is not openly mocked when he shows up on the TV in the break room (tuned to Fox, natch).

Anecdotal, true, but there you have it, a live report, direct from Florida. :P

P.S. I always switch it to another channel when nobody is in there.

it doesn't, in any practical way, matter that much unless we nominate someone who CAN'T take Ohio. I'd say Missouri more likely than Virginia by the way, but overall your list is sound. But again. Take Ohio and it's over. Miss Ohio (with no Blackwell?) and take either Florida (wildcard there) OR two of the 6-8 possible/probable blue swings and you're home.

I don't want to be Panglossean here but barring sudden scandal or wildcards like terrorist attacks I don't think the GE is a problem if we nominate any of the major candidates. Now a Gravel or Kucinich sure - they would be seen as wacky enough to turn off moderates - but how likely is that? Sure all manner of things COULD happen, but no point playing that game. Anyone but those two, barring major attacks in US or stupid scandals (which is why Hillary has an edge in this area over most candidates in my mind - she is pre-scoured for skeletons and pre-smeared and any scandal will simply be rehash. The American Idol crowd doesn't like repeats) and we're picking the president innthe next six months not the nominee (which might explain the rancor somewhat).

with. That will certainly make a difference. In the end, I don't really see how you can say who is going to do best overall in the red states for certain.

They hold all the traditionally red states and "steal" a few purple ones... Huckleberry and Thompson would be best in that scenario...

If they are looking for a candidate who can "play" everywhere then Romney is their candidate...However his Mormon religion, and his too slick by half persona is a detriment...

We will see...

Thank you for pointing that out...

I'd have to look at a map but I suspect both parties go into the general with about one hundred and eighty or so Electoral College Votes...

I've missed you... any who depends upon when and how you define a "red" state. here in Colorado. their are more registered repubes than Dems, with a Dem Gov. and legislature. so for the sake of argument. i will reluctantly consider Colorado as red. here i see huge support for obama. he has opened an office here and i see more Obama stickers than any other. from the desk i fly three days a week nearly a day goes by that someone does not come in and ask for an Obama sticker. most of those want a sticker for free as they cannot afford them. we dole them out for free whereas His office charges for them.