Telegraph: Barack Obama’s team believes he can win by a landslide

Posted by Kendall Harmon

But his aides are convinced that he has a strong chance of winning no fewer than nine states won by George W.Bush in the closely contested 2000 election, including former Republican strongholds like North Carolina, Virginia and even Indiana, which have not voted Democrat for a generation.

David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, said last week that Obama had "a lot of opportunity" in states which Mr Bush won four years ago.

But in private briefings in Washington, a member of Mr Obama's inner circle of policy advisers went much further in spelling out why the campaign's working assumptions far exceed the expectations of independent observers.

"Public polling companies and the media have underestimated the scale of new Democratic voters registration in these states," the campaign official told a friend. "We're much stronger on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina than people realise. If we get out the vote this may not be close at all."

I confess I was surprised to see this as I think it will hurt the Obama campaign. In any event, read it all.

Filed under: * Economics, PoliticsUS Presidential Election 2008

20 Comments
Posted September 30, 2008 at 7:00 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. David Fischler wrote:

Obama’s team is arrogant and overconfident, and have been all along. The really obnoxious thing about this is that it is based on the assumption that the economic situation will worsen, or at least not improve, over the next five weeks. They are betting on disaster, the same way that Don Fowler did when he crowed to a companion about Hurricane Gustav and how it would hurt the Republican convention, and it should turn every voter’s stomach. Though it won’t, of course—I doubt that this will even be mentioned in the American media.

September 30, 8:53 am | [comment link]
2. Brian from T19 wrote:

They are betting on disaster

They should David, it has worked for the Bush administration for 2 terms in office.  See Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”

September 30, 9:03 am | [comment link]
3. Branford wrote:

Brian - what was the disaster in 2000?

September 30, 10:32 am | [comment link]
4. plinx wrote:

Winners always seem arrogant to losers. People who see the political reality for what it is and capitalize on that correct view to win an election may indeed seem arrogant to the dead-enders who think that “conservative” means nothing must ever change. Too bad: change is coming very soon, and its name isn’t McCain.

September 30, 10:33 am | [comment link]
5. Eastern Anglican wrote:

#4 Yes, winners do seem arrogant to losers.  I am reminded of a certain arrogant politician who washed his hands, and certain priests who arrogantly understood the “change” needed.  Of course, this arrogance can be quickly compared to the humility of the true victor, Jesus Christ.

September 30, 10:49 am | [comment link]
6. plinx wrote:

Very bad analogy: the priests badly wanted to maintain the status quo, while Jesus most definitely reprsented a change that threatened their continued authority.

September 30, 11:09 am | [comment link]
7. COLUMCIL wrote:

Polls are deceptive.  The market is up.  Fear may subside.  With the inexperience of Obama we could be taxed.  When the vote is taken, we’ll know.  Polls don’t tell the story.  Nor does one day of the Market no matter how big the loss.  Folks have counted McCain out for a long time.  So did his captors during the war.  Surprise!

September 30, 11:33 am | [comment link]
8. plinx wrote:

After eight years of this train-wreck of an administration, the only surprise will be to the people who still (incredibly) think that the Party of the Right is doing a fine job. The sewage of the last decade is about to be flushed, and much needed change is coming. If you don’t see the tsunami, you’re blind.

September 30, 11:58 am | [comment link]
9. COLUMCIL wrote:

What interesting analogies:  sewers, flushing and tsunamis.  You have a lot of water on the brain!  Strain as you might, you have only regard for the things that haven’t gone well.  Too bad your good spirit is lost.  No one claims a record that has satisfied in every way.  The Right has erred; and so, by golly, the Liberal Left side.  But many good things have happened on both sides.  Blindness could be better atributed to those who only look in one direction.

September 30, 12:29 pm | [comment link]
10. Brian from T19 wrote:

<i>Brian - what was the disaster in 2000?,/i>

Bush’s inauguration;)

Actually, Klein’s book covers the past 3 decades and includes both parties.

September 30, 1:24 pm | [comment link]
11. The_Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

I think Obama is more likely to win than lose, but by a landslide? That’s a pipe dream.

September 30, 1:59 pm | [comment link]
12. John Wilkins wrote:

I personally think it will be close, but fivethirtyeight.com has Obama winning 83% of the time in its simulations.  There is a 25% chance he can win more than 375 electoral votes.

The idea is simple- best Case:  If there is a 40 percent increase among African-Americans and a 50 percent increase in both the youth and Latino vote nationally, its 360 electoral college votes for Obama.

If there is an increase of 40% for the youth and 20% for blacks, then the electoral vote is more than 300, still. 

But if people are honestly bored by Obama, and there is no increase in likely voters, then it is pretty much 50/50.

Obama is spending a lot of time on the ground game.  It’s his community organizing experience.  Add that his campaign is well-run, and you have the makings for a landslide.  McCain is being outmaneuvered and keeps making mistakes.

September 30, 2:43 pm | [comment link]
13. Milton wrote:

What do you folks mean by all this talk about Bush as though he won a second term as President?  There was no way any educated, enlightened voter could choose Bush over Kerry!  What, I didn’t hear you, what did you say?  Oh,...  Beware this time around of bitter small-town voters with long memories who don’t take part in polls and are clinging in desperation to God and guns.

September 30, 6:28 pm | [comment link]
14. BabyBlue wrote:

The pollsters are still using landlines.  Wonder how that might be skewing the poll data?

bb

September 30, 8:09 pm | [comment link]
15. plinx wrote:

“Oh,… Beware this time around of bitter small-town voters with long memories who don’t take part in polls and are clinging in desperation to God and guns. “

Their time is over. That group clearly loves Palin, as she is a mirror of them, but “Mooselini” is also clearly scaring the bejeesus out of everyone else. The 27% dead-enders who still think Georgie Boy is doing a heckuva job are not enough to win this election. The Republicans are going to get absolutely annihilated this cycle. And who says that they don’t participate in polls? Any evidence of that? Nope.

October 1, 11:15 am | [comment link]
16. John Wilkins wrote:

cellphones apparently give Obama a +2.8 advantage.

October 1, 11:36 am | [comment link]
17. Milton wrote:

plinx, you have your head too far in statistics and polls conducted by and of those who agree with you too get my point.  Many voters live in “flyover country” and are too busy surviving to pay attention to polls or to answer the phone when/if a pollster calls.  So their influence will remain under the radar until the election itself, just as it did 4 years ago.  And no one takes kindly to being called “bitter” when they are simply trying the best they can to make ends meet and not always successfully, let alone the implied accusations of racism, violence, and ignorance and paranoia “proved” by their faith in the Christian God that Obama belatedly professes to follow.  They will make their feelings known on election day, and the results just may surprise you again!

October 1, 2:44 pm | [comment link]
18. Milton wrote:

By the way, I think “Mooselini” is a hoot! smile  (not to mix metaphors!)  Don’t give her any ideas, she may use it successfuly to rally the troops and use your obvious contempt against the Dems.

The Republicans are going to get absolutely annihilated this cycle. And who says that they don’t participate in polls? Any evidence of that? Nope.

How would anyone have “evidence” of which people don’t take part in polls?  Take a poll? smile
Any evidence that the Republicans will get absolutelu annihilated this cycle, when so many polls (to give the type of evidence of which you are fond) have the race in a virtual dead heat or within a few points either way?  Nope.  At least, none other than your own wishful thinking and fantasizing and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. (“their time is over”, “dead-enders”)

October 1, 2:53 pm | [comment link]
19. plinx wrote:

“They will make their feelings known on election day, and the results just may surprise you again!”

Rule One: When a campaign starts attacking the media, things aren’t going well.
Rule Two: When a campaign says the polls are wrong, things aren’t very good. 
Rule Three: When a campaign says “the only poll that counts is the one on election day” usually
means a campaign is about to lose.

It’s possible to be bitter AND a loser, as they’re about to find out.

October 1, 2:56 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Gallup Daily: Obama Maintains 8-Point Lead

Previous entry (below): LA Times: Robert Kuttner and J.D. Foster debate the Economy and the Bailout Bill

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)