Obama Pulls Campaign Staff From North Dakota

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 07:15:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has confirmed he is closing up shop in North Dakota.

An Obama spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, confirmed Sunday that the campaign's North Dakota staffers were being sent to Minnesota and Wisconsin, where recent polls have shown a tight race between Obama and Republican John McCain.

McCain has no offices or staffers in the state, which has gone Republican since 1964 when it voted for Lyndon B. Johnson.

Obama's campaign is stressing the benefits of its presence since July to the downticket races: [More...]

"In Minot, these folks have been working seven-day weeks, 12 hours a day, since July," [Obama superdelegate Jim]Maxson said. "They're reaching a point of diminishing return on their efforts. I think this is a wise move for them to relocate, and we'll be fine."

A statement provided by [Obama spokesperson Amy] Brundage said the Obama campaign "always knew it would be an uphill battle," but staffers "built a grassroots movement we are proud of, and an infrastructure that will help candidates up and down the ballot."

The LA Times has more and says Obama is now running a 46 state race, having given up on Georgia, Idaho and Alaska as well.

I think this is a wise idea. I'd like to see Obama put a lot more resources into Ohio and Florida and keep up the pressure in PA and MI.

< Palin in Florida | What Amount Will the Government Pay for the Acquired Assets? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Pulls Campaign Staff From North Dakota | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Now I think we know (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by BrianJ on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:45:25 AM EST

The effect of the Palin nomination.

Obama had been competitive in the Dakotas, Montana, and Alaska before she was added to McCain's ticket. He's now effectively conceded all four.

SO that's 12 electoral votes moved from "Probably McCain" to "Definitely McCain." Not as much as you'd expect from all the sturm und drang, but probably a bit more than Biden's worth to Obama.

Obama was never competitive in (none / 0) (#19)
by tigercourse on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:18:27 AM EST

the Dakotas, Montana or Alaska. Palin didn't change anything there. Just as McCain could never win New York, Obama could never win Montana.


: Simply not true (none / 0) (#23)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM EST

Clinton won MT in 92, (though this is one of the few states that you could actually say Perot may have tilted), and Obama was up 5 or so in multiple polls until the Palin nom.

I'm glad (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:27:13 AM EST

And it's obvious that, contrary to what we all thought before, Obama will need a ground game in the midwest. Sarah Palin's Fargo shtick plays there.

Ouch. The Prairie Home (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:35:05 AM EST

Companion demographic.


Obama was fixing to beat Bill Clinton's showing (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:36:54 AM EST

there. As soon as I heard Palin speak the first time, I knew exactly why McCain had chosen her.

It wasn't about Hillary supporters or the evangelics. It was about the upper midwest.


Isn't Daschle supposed to bring (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:47:25 AM EST

in both Dakotas? Guess not.

P.S. I'm thinking my tendency to defend Gov. Palin against her hostile attackers and my Iowa roots may somehow be intertwined even though I disagree with her on each of her political stances.


I don't think Daschle even brought S. Dakota (none / 0) (#14)
by stefystef on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:30:05 AM EST

so I don't see Daschle being able to help in anyway.

So much for the 50 state strategy. He's down to 46 state... wonder which state will be next.


With the help of (none / 0) (#20)
by KeysDan on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM EST

Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, was to be a sure thing.


Do the 46 states include Utah? (none / 0) (#24)
by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:03:45 AM EST

Any Utah resources should immediately be reallocated to Nevada. The Obama campaign should be only a token symbolic presence in every solid-red state (which would include UT, WY, OK, MS, AL, and SC), unless:

Obama is highly confident of winning overall, AND
There is some identifiable, significant, potentially swing-able downticket race in that red state.

daschle is a you know what (none / 0) (#16)
by supertroopers on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:10:32 AM EST

...


How's this for an Oct. surprise? (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:55:05 AM EST

Some enterprising reporter discovers Palin's current speaking voice is recently acquired for political gain.


Oh, it's real (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:00:20 AM EST

Voters catch on the cultural cues. Heck, it's probably 75% of why most people vote the way they do.

For the unwashed, politics and elections are about culture as much as they are ideology.


I suspect that's true for more than (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by oculus on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:03:33 AM EST

"the unwashed."


: For some subject or another, we are all (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:08:36 AM EST

unwashed.

You are (none / 0) (#10)
by CoralGables on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:17:04 AM EST

far nicer in your terminology than I am. Where you see a majority of votes based on cultural cues, I see those cultural cues spoken by carnival shysters. With the GOP claiming the election will be based on personalities and not issues, I'm expecting them to roll into town like Harold Hill in the Music Man...only this time Marian Paroo is in on the con.


: Well, I can get worked up about it myself, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:27:23 AM EST

but the truth of the matter is that we see it in a lot of places. Though controversial, think about what the point of minority-majority districts is.
The bottom line is that people like to vote for politicians who make them feel comfortable. The comfort can come from a variety of sources: does he look/sound like me? my family? does he understand me? does he agree with me on the issues that I think are important?
I'd like to see more of the latter, but I'd be committing pundit malpractice if I didn't recognize the importance of the others.

Well done (none / 0) (#9)
by s5 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:12:40 AM EST

This is what I liked about his general election prospects after watching his primary campaign in action. He'll adapt to changing circumstances and follow different strategies, rather than sticking to a single path to victory.

there is nothing new about closing shop, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by kempis on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 06:15:30 AM EST

conceding a state, and moving one's resources to a more competitive state.

I confess to reading this with some resentment as I had to suffer through Obama-supporting political neophytes praising Obama's "50 State Strategy!" during the primaries. They took it to mean that he was going to compete in every single state, unlike the wicked Hillary Clinton who would...do what Obama is now doing.


The 50-State Strategy worked! (In the primaries) (none / 0) (#25)
by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:17:20 AM EST

In the primaries, some Democrat was bound to win the delegates from Idaho, Utah, Alabama, and the other red states.

And guess what, Mark Penn? Those delegates' votes counted at the convention, as one vote each.

Same as yours, Terry McAuliffe.


Oh c'mon (none / 0) (#26)
by kempis on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:37:16 PM EST

The "50 State Strategy!" was hype. Obama didn't run in all 50 states. He made a play for Southern red states with high AA populations (except for TN and AR, which he effectively conceded to Hillary).

He didn't campaign in WV and KY. When Hillary's resources and polling led her to cut back on some states and concentrate on others, she was pilloried at DK for treating some states as "flyover country" and selfishly caring only about those states she could win!

Their behavior was ridiculous. And hypocritical, considering that when Obama cuts and runs from a state to conserve his resources, he's not being "selfish" nor is her "writing off the voters of that state" nor does he "only care about states he can win."

Nope. He's being "flexible" and smart with his resources.

(You can't help but laugh at some of this stuff.)


: correction (none / 0) (#27)
by kempis on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:39:13 PM EST

GAH!
Damned fingers....

nor is her "writing off the voters of that state"
should be
nor is HE .....
Sorry.

: I think it was a serious mistake for Obama to (none / 0) (#28)
by Don in Seattle on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST

concede WV and KY the way he did. Not that he reasonably could have beaten Clinton in those states, but he could have reduced her relatively massive delegate and popular-vote margins there, while improving his long-term national image as a "fighter" and a "man of the people" (i.e., not an "elitist").

polls (none / 0) (#12)
by yacovm on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:19:24 AM EST

Last election these crowds that one could still hear echoing "four more years!" that resonated and ultimately stirred a winning cause, was based on Bush would do better in time of war. Did they forget the attracts happened on his watch?
I keep hearing polls insinuating McCain would do better in war because of his experience. Let's reverse the situation. Who would do better making peace? Better yet. Who would do better in preventing war? Who is the best ticket on talks with our Arab and Muslim friends, McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden? Education is the key here, all nations learning from each other in a give and take of important attitude and feelings. One thing is certain, in the Muslim culture; it is easier for men to converse with each other rather then man and women that's where Biden has the advantage over Palin. On the same token a man who cries fire ("I would fire him") is a scary image of McCain's hand slamming down on a big red button yelling "fire!" Our friends and allies of the Arab and Muslim nations would apt to have a better rapport with Obama

polls (none / 0) (#13)
by yacovm on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:03:26 AM EST

Are there any close down ticket races... (none / 0) (#18)
by EL seattle on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:45:40 AM EST

...in those states where Obama has closed up shop?

If there are, perhaps he'll consider scheduling a public appearance or two in the state to make up for the fact that he is not actively fighting for the local votes on his behalf.

: Are there campaign funds to (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:40:43 AM EST

be raised in the Dakotas? If so, you wish may be granted.

: I believe several Dem (none / 0) (#22)
by kenosharick on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:07:54 AM EST

congressmen here in Georgia are in tight races, though I don't know whether Obama showing up would help or hurt. In the senate race, saxby chambliss will win in a walk- unfortunately. I was living in Wis. when he was first elected, but remember those disgustinging, underhanded lying ads he ran against Sen. Max Cleland.