really?

Seems to be that you, Joan and Salon have made that Job # this election season.

I know you probably meant that the 50 State strategy is not the best way to be spending money *right now*. But, as a general rule, the 50 State Strategy is a fantastic idea that should be pursued year-round, election year or no. We have to keep beating it into people's heads that they are voting against their own interests. Or, did you not read "What's the Matter with Kansas"?

How democratic is it for the outcome of a presidential election to be determined by the residents of 8 to 12 states?

It's time--long past due time--to abolish the electoral college.

Was just that, a strategy, not a short-term one-election tactical plan. The goal was to flip enough states this election to make flipping a few more next election more likely, while building political infrastructure in states where we (the Democrats) had none or close to it. You can't sell anything if you don't have people on the ground to distribute it.

There are tactical benefits as well, of course: scaring the GOP enough in places like GA to force them to tack to the crazy right with someone like Palin, a move which has begun to sour independents in a lot of more unsettled states, and which I believe will end up being a net negative when the EVs are counted. That's how you play chess, as opposed to tic-tac-toe, sir.

and therefore the whole 50 state strategy is stupid... Okay. Lets calm down the hyperbole a couple notches. The 50 state strategy (designed by Howard Dean) gave us unexpected wins in places like Montana and North Carolina in 2006. If you want a true progressive movement (which Salon obviously doesn't) you have to reach all the people, not just the ones in the blue states. It is good electoral policy to move resources to Minnesota and Wisconsin. But if you really want to reach the people, Dems have to start making inroads in the fly over and rural states. If not, we will continue on the conservative trend of the last 30 to 35 years.

...Obama is certainly correct in pursuing a 50-state strategy. He can't help the color of his skin, you know.

If you don't realize that the 50-state strategy has already had a positive effect, I can only conclude that it's willful blindness.

Hillary would have been a much stronger candidate than the anointed one.

Who can't figure out the early special menu at Denny's. It'll get chucked to the Supreme Court who will anoint Presidentress Sarah Palin.

I don't think the 50 state strategy sounds stupid, just damn expensive! I mean, we get it Tom, we really do: ditch the south, hit the north and west hard. Yes. Yes. Hey, I was ready to let go of that dream four years ago (http://fuckthesouth.com anyone?). But calling it stupid is counter factual. Any strategy should encompass a whole, or stop calling itself a strategy.

Now, it serves the strategy to tactically win these elections by whatever works, but don't call the whole strategy stupid.

...a dem candidate with a funny name and a worrisome racial background flips ia, co, nm, va, possibly oh while making war hero, maverick, and general all-around good-time guy mccain work his tail off to hold fl, nc, and possibly (maybe) oh would *not* be a map-expanding campaign??? sorry, i'm still with the 50-staters on this. you're not seeing the us map for all of those pesky states...

I like Thomas Schaller's perspective, I really do, but he is blinded at this point by his own theory. There is more going on -- check out North Carolina, virtually a tie, and with Dole behind(!) in the Senate race. Will Obama win that state? Not likely at all, but that it is contested is the point. As the election date gets closer, of course resources move. But really, if there hadn't been a broad strategy, would Nevade be in play? Colorado?

The recent poll showing McCain even with Obama here was a joke and everyone knew it aside from McCain's people, who wasted a few million on TV ads here. However, the latest Rasmussen (which shows Obama with an eight-point lead) has just brought them back to reality, and while it will make Minnesota's local TV channels easier to watch, it means they'll have more to spend in places like Virginia and Ohio.

The Ras poll: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election

A local blogger's satirical take on how prominent local righty bloggers will try to spin it:

http://centrisity.blogspot.com/2008/09/mn-still-presidential-toss-up.html

I agree with a blogger that wrote that the "50 State Strategy" is not a strategy at all. A "strategy" is where you pick and choose where you will apply your resources, making sacrifices to better acheive a goal. Campaigning in all 50 states is simply refusing to deploy a strategy to the electoral college. You can oppose strategizing, but don't call it a strategy.

Was to force McCain to spend money he can barely afford in states that he would not have normally needed to. Yes Obama will probably still lose those states but he may win some and McCain will have financial difficulties.

That being said as far as the outcome of the General election it must be taken into account the fact that the republicans are relatively demoralized, democrats are energized and young people are expected to vote in larger numbers than ever before.

I don't think it is stupid to give administrative and organizational support to Democrats in western and southern states. I am a proud Southern Democrat eager to see the party's presence expanded in my area and other areas that are most succeptible to the economic and social misrule of the Republicans. The 50-state strategy is worth it, and I hope that it remains the policy of the Democratic Party.

Please tell me how Hilary would have been a more viable candidate than Obama. Die-hard Hilary supporters keep coming on the letters threads and making that statement apropo of nothing.

I keep asking this question and none of Hilary's supporters ever answer it and I think it goes directly to the heart of Hilary's viability. What about Bill? How would Hilary have outlined what Bill's role would have been if she were to have won the GE? How would we have kept the media and rethugs from wanting to re-fight every year of Bill's presidency? Has Bill been a good boy the past 8 years?

All these questions would have come up in the GE with Hilary as the Dem candidate. Please tell me how they would have been answered.