Sunday’s New York Times contains a bit of self-refuting dreck from Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny, headlined “Obama Is Mapping a Nationwide Push in G.O.P. Strongholds”:
Senator Barack Obama’s general election plan calls for broadening the electoral map by challenging Senator John McCain in typically Republican states  from North Carolina to Missouri to Montana  as Mr. Obama seeks to take advantage of voter turnout operations built in nearly 50 states in the long Democratic nomination battle, aides said.
What follows provides virtually no support for the lede. Indeed:
…While early assertions by presidential campaigns that they intend to expand the playing field are often little more than feints intended to force opponents to spend time and money defending states that they should have locked up, Mr. Obama’s fund-raising success gives his campaign more flexibility than most to play in more places.
Mr. Obama’s aides said some states where they intend to campaign  like Georgia, Missouri, Montana and North Carolina  might ultimately be too red to turn blue. But the result of making an effort there could force Mr. McCain to spend money or send him to campaign in what should be safe ground, rather than using those resources in states like Ohio.
Nagourney and Zeleny’s second paragraph is largely a refutation of the first, yet it got by the supposed editorial staff without an eyebrow raised.  The reality is as I noted on June 5:
[T]he map is unlikely to be recolored in any significant sense. Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee in large part because his team knows how to pick its battles, and how to allocate its resources shrewdly. Team Obama will likely focus on the states most likely to turn blue (and on weak spots in red states that could force the GOP to defend semi-marginal states). If the overall politcal environment moves further to the Democrats, Obama may expand his target list, but he will likely be reactive on that score, not proactive.
***
The third piece of hype is Obama’s retention of Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, while installing another of his top strategists, Paul Tewes, to help expand the DNC staff and oversee party operations. The spin that this is demonstrating a commitment to Dean-o’s 50 state strategy is bought by both Stein and the AP, but putting Tewes in charge of the nuts and bolts likely demonstrates a lack of confidence in Dean’s efforts to date.ÂÂ
The NYT can now be added to the list of those buying the 50-state hype. Beyond that, the Obama campaign is still selling the notion that it can put a state like Mississippi in play, though a look at the numbers proves this to be very difficult, if not impossible.
The Obama campaign has proven that it is smart and shrewd. That the New York Times is buying hype painting the campaign as bold and dumb speaks more to the establishment media’s own gullibility and wishful thinking.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
no surprise from this NYT authors.
They’ve been known to hyperventilated blabbering.
One thing in their defence. They said “challenging” electoral map, which does not necessarily means “changing” it
Hope AND Change ™ will set us free.
And when none of these Republican strongholds breaks for Obama!, the NYT will label them all racists. It’s a no-win situation.
“Nagourney and Zeleny’s second paragraph is largely a refutation of the first,”
It talks about how they expect to challenge and force a fight but probably lose. Thats not really a refutation.
btw, Karl, I am sure, McCain will challenge electoral map too-say in PA and NJ.
this year imho will be in some way dif then the previous 16 in conventional red/blue states spread….
Comment by Techie on 6/8 @ 7:11 am #
And when none of these Republican strongholds breaks for Obama! Hope AND Change â„¢ will set us free.
There, fixed it.
Karl,
If the body of the article does not support its lede, to the practiced propagandist, this is a feature, not a bug.
If the goal is to propagate the notion that O!’s executing a “50-State” strategy, then simply repeating it in a prominent place, like, in the headlines of a National paper (with it re-mentioned in the first ‘graph’s thesis sentence) is a pretty good assist.
Second, if another editorial goal is to buttress the printing publication’s credibility by pretending at even-handedness in an election year, the article’s contradiction serves again. At best, the editors can be accused of fairly “surrounding the story.” At worst, of (perhaps) tactical equivocation.
Pretty shrewd editing, I’d say.
And I haven’t even discussed the ways in which the use of multiple authors blurs each reporter’s accountability for the article’s final construction: a classic proxy play, heaped with dallops of deniability.
The “news” ain’t, and maybe never was.
Karl,
It may be that the NYT is just preparing the ground for the Chicago Machine’s boytoy to break his word again. His promise to limit himself to public funding has even less value than most of his “good as lead” promises and a “50 state strategy” gives a fig leaf’s cover as a rationale for lying. Breaking his word again will allow him to waste a substantially larger amount of money in the battle ground, even after paying off Clinton.
Tim Kaine, ground pounding for Obama, asserts that O will win Virginia in Nov. based on his win there over HC last Feb. Kaine was not challenged with the question whether the Rev. Wright and TUCC stories appearance in Mar-April might have changed the outcome in Va in either the primary or the general. Were I in Obama’s camp, and I clearly am not, I’d be worried about that question (but of course, not adverting to that fact). Frankly, I wonder what the Obama affiliations will do to him in all of the states he won that were contested prior to the appearance of these stories.
“Kaine was not challenged with the question whether the Rev. Wright and TUCC stories appearance in Mar-April might have changed the outcome in Va in either the primary or the general.”
Electoral-vote.com has polls from May that average out to be a tie. The latest one showing an Obama lead.
Andrea
If polls console you, be my guest. Personally, I wouldn’t bet $1.00 on the value of a poll taken in May to reflect the outcome of a vote in Nov. Did you go back to polls taken on BHO v. HRC in Pa., Oh., Tx., Wv., In., etc. taken in Feb. and compare them with the results of the actual primaries? I haven’t, but you might want to.
“If polls console you, be my guest.”
What sort of other information could we use to gauge “whether the Rev. Wright and TUCC stories appearance in Mar-April might have changed the outcome in Va in either the primary or the general.” ? If nothing, then there’s not really much to “challenge” Tim Kaine with. Because apparently we shouldn’t bet a dollar on how information from today will affect november.
As for Dean, of course Obama didn’t force him out altogether. Dean presided over the DNC that manipulated the Michigan and Florida votes in his favor.
Andrea
“What sort of other information…”
Hmmm. Well what ‘sort’ of information do we have access to? We could start with the most immediate sort, namely our own opinions in the matter. Did I think differently about Obama before I learned of his affiliations than I after I learned of them? Did you? How about the people we meet and talk with about the matter? How about the information we find right here on the www/? Did it change? How about the widely available public media? How about Obama’s behavior with regard to these affiliations? Does any of this tell us something? Do we filter, certainly we do. Of all these sources, polling is rather down my list. But as I said before, be my guest.
“We could start with the most immediate sort, namely our own opinions in the matter. ”
And yet, if we sample “our own opinions” for several people, adding them up according to statistical principles, we wouldn’t bet a dollar on them. Tim Kaine’s own opinion already seems clear, I don’t see whats to challenge him on that.
Andrea
“…Tim Kaine’s own opinion already seems clear…
If you mean ‘Tim Kaine’s assertion that O. will win Va.’, well then, yes, quite clear. If, on the other hand, you mean as I did, ‘what is Tim Kaine’s opinion as to the effect of filling out the picture of Barack Obama’s affiliations and Obama’s subsequent action to distance himself from these ‘former’ affiliations?” I believe I have not heard Tim Kaine speak at all, and so it is unclear to me at least, if not to you. I can well imagine that Tim Kaine would rather not have to go on the record as to his opinion of the matters I raise (and which, to my knowledge, Chris Wallace did not). I would not blame him for it. Nor you.
“I believe I have not heard Tim Kaine speak at all”
He said he believes O will win. Then there’s your opinion, and then theres the opinion of others. And then there is several opinions sampled and added up according to statistical principles.
“I can well imagine that Tim Kaine would rather not have to go on the record as to his opinion of the matters I raise ”
Yeah I think you’re more interested in that than the actual finding out of the effect. Thats ok.
“The Obama campaign has proven that it is smart and shrewd.
– Sure. Like “talks without precondition” smart?
– Don’t think so. The young turks in the Obama camp had better SDASTFU and let the more experienced heads run things from here on out.
– As far as challenges, if the O camp want to run a political “arms race”, they better check the DNC coffers first. Last time I heard the RNC was up over 2:1 in campaign funds. Be kind of embarrassing to do all that bluffing and then not be able to match the bet down the home stretch.
– Smart and shrewd. Heh. Right.
Andrea
Let me ask you then, directly. Do you or do you not believe that the cascade of tempered negative news about Sen. Obama during March, April, and May played a roll, had a negative effect on his vote tallies in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, South Dakota, all states that he lost to Sen. Clinton (did I miss any?)? Contrariwise, did that mildly negative news play a positive roll in his wins in North Carolina, Oregon, and Montana all states he won (again, did I miss any?)?
this strikes me as the first non BS to come out of that lot in some time. The Dems are picking up seats, rather comfortably, across the south. Polls are like assholes, as in EVERY one now has one. The fact that they are winning federal seats in areas where they did not have electoral operations four years ago is all you need to know.
no republicans can run on the war–even though things are giving evidence of permanently turning around there from a violence perspective–and every dem can run against it now. even in alabama.
– Correct McGruder. The embarrassment is in what you didn’t say. Almost to a man and woman, every win of the Dems, including 2006, is being successfully hustled because they’re running as right of center moderates, not Leftward nutbags. Very blue-dog, all the way.
– In other words, the Leftist bullshit is still kick it to the curb unpopular, so the Dems do the only thing they can, run as Dinos.
– Theres a reason Nancy can’t even get the toilet paper changed in the Senate bathrooms.
The Obama campaign has proven that it is smart and shrewd
You keep saying that. How do you perceive this to be true? He’s running on a cult of personality, not cleverness, he barely won the nomination to the most hated woman in America.
BBH
The real extent of the “well organized, smart and shrewd” was displayed in Vegas where the SEIU was chomping at the bit to toss BHO its endorsement based upon the effective use of “community organizers” to intimidate the casino caucus attendees and springboarding off of a victory in the west.
They didn’t make it there (and were forced into endorsing after a defeat), just as they didn’t overcome Clinton in NH, which was also “well organized” by the same SEIU/ACORN thugs. Obama’s SEIU/ACORN squadristi have been very effective in certain settings and they will be ruthless with the knock and drag within prog fiefs in November but there just aren’t enough prog fiefs in the right states nor are there enough SEIU/ACORN squadristi to make the tactic scalable within the time remaining.
– ‘Xactly Chris. She, and her scuzebag hubby basically beat themselves but blowing off the caucus battle, and any number of other things that made her look weak and poorly prepared.
– I saw nothing smart and shred in Obamas camp. They basically wound up the teleprompter, and let him fill the time with glowing oratory. And even then, he got his impulsive tit in a wringer.
– He was sucking air near the end of the debates with her, saying things like “at times I don’t know who I’m running against”, looking effete and weak. Thats why they suddenly cut them off, and “didn’t need anymore debates”. His camp knows his glaring weakness, and will try to avoid the town-hall format like the plague.
– Yeh Rick. This whole “Southern strategy” thing amuses the crap out of Me. The whole game breaker for Obama was to tip toe past the race thing, hoping no one would notice the 93% Black bias during the primary.
– In this day and age with the 24 hour news cycle, and every media outlet that can use a graphics work station cranking it up for ratings, he might as well bet he could win three state lotteries in a row.
– Now his achilles heel kicks in, in the form of the dreaded “white voter backlash”, fueled by his “smart and shrewd” clinging to guns and bibles comment. Right. Check. Uh huh. you bet’cha.
Well, let’s be charitable to the authors and editors of the above piece. Hey, it’s hard to concentrate and do detail work when you’ve got “Obama Thrills” constantly zinging up your (left) leg.
sashal, andrea:
When your headline talks abot a nationwide push, and you talk about other campaigns making feints, and you end up describing likely feints, it’s pretty weak beer.
Christopher Taylor, Rick, BBH:
Obama’s campaign was smart and shrewd in its campaign strategy of organizing in caucus states to pick up delegates in a cost effective measure, doing the same in Congressional districts in states it knew it might lose overall, etc. It’s how McGovern got by Muskie in ’72. Rick is partially right about NV, though O! did well for the available demographics. BBH is partially right in noting that the Clintons helped by not focusing on the caucus states, but part of winning is exploiting the mistakes of your opponent. Obama is running a personality-driven campaign, and he can be lousy on issues, but it is a gross error to overlook his organizational skill, particularly in a campaign that looks to be close. No one should be fooled into thinking O! is suddenly going to pour lots of his money into states where he’s behind by nine points; it’s not going to happen.
– All very true Karl, and I’m not overlooking the few things the O camp got right. But when you add in the caucus blunder on Hills part, you have to know that things weren’t chugging along smoothly for Obamessiah, just from the closness of the final tally. Hell, as everyone ub the country knows by now, from her endless catterwalling, she beat him in the popular vote. In view of all the tactical mistakes she made, that couldn’t happen in a campaign run “smart and shrewd” on his part.
– The observation that a lot of pols are making that he limped actoss the finish line is pretty dead on, and remember, if the DNC hadn’t decided he was their man for the Mich/Florida hearings, the two of them would still be slugging it out.
– I still say that the biggest thing Obama has going for him is hes up against the worst public speaker, both in appearance and delivery, since Richard Nixon.
Nixon was positively polished in comparison to McCain.
“though O! did well for the available demographics.”
Karl,
26% among Latinos in NV was a canary shrieking into a bullhorn wrt an early warning. He got 29% in CA and FL isn’t in play at all based upon his 28% showing there. I’d say he has a bit of a hill to climb among the bitter clingers in PA, NJ, and MI as well.
– Well of course the O’s will plead nolo contendre in Fl and MI, but truth be known I think they welcomed those messes because I don’t think he wanted to take her on in her type of demographics anymore than he had too. Every time he did he got his ass kicked.
– Post all the Wrights and comments, and knowing what she does now, if the Primary started tomorrow no doubt things would be quite different. That can’t be giving his camp warm fuzzies looking down the road at the general.
“Let me ask you then, directly. ”
I recall the polls showing a dip for him. I assumed it was because of the wright coverage.
Rick (and BBH),
If you look at the head-to-head national numbers from Gallup, you’ll find O! is beating Maverick with the “Hispanic” vote about the way Gore did with Bush in 2000, so O! does not seem to have as much a problem as the primary numbers suggest.
But to the extent the primaries were driven by demographics, O! looked weak at the end bcause the final leg of the campaign included a lot of states that are tough for O! demographically. Had the season ended with the Potomac primaries, the MSM would be gushing over his big momentum.
MI is the most interesting case (to me, anyway) so far. It almost always ends up voting like PA, but it’s more red now than PA is in the polling. There are several possible theories as to why that is. But if I was forced to guess at gunpoint, PA, NJ and MI all go blue by November, though they are spots where Maverick could force O! to spend money to nail them down.
I agree that so far, O! does not look like the juggernaut portrayed in the MSM — and have written as much here before. That he is roughly even with McCain (an unexciting candidate, shall we say) at the moment in light of the polling on right track/ wrong track, perceptions of the economy, the hindsight conclusion that Iraq was a mistake (though most think we can get a good outcome now), high gas prices, etc. — tells you about the weakness of O! (and similarly of HRC). But the weakness of both nominees and the closeness of the race only highlights the import of having a good organization.
“MI is the most interesting case (to me, anyway) so far. It almost always ends up voting like PA, but it’s more red now than PA is in the polling. There are several possible theories as to why that is.”
I’ve heard its because he didn’t campaign in MI. Could be other things.
[…] claiming that they will be running that 50-state strategy. The New York Times did that story lamely two weeks ago — and it was still more enlightening than this morning’s piece, which […]