Why Montana, Obama?

Because He Can? (0.00 / 0)

The Obama campaign probably just picked the 18 states that looked like they might be competitive. In addition, at that stage in the campaign, it appeared that Obama would have a tough time in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but was doing shockingly well in North Dakota, Montana, maybe South Dakota, and Alaska.

My guess is that, of the Bush states, the biggest stretch was Georgia, followed by Indiana and North Dakota, followed by either Montana, Missouri, or North Carolina.

---

by: niq @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 16:01:56 PM UTC

The 50 state strategy (0.00 / 0)

doesn't stop at 270 electoral votes. It looks at all 538. Did anybody else see Dean's ear to ear grin on the Rachel Maddow Show last night? It said it all.

If we would have had a candidate who would have mounted an effective campaign, we could have picked off Rehberg, too.

It's all about the future.

Besides, Obama wants to vacation here and go fly fishing. He might feel a little more comfortable in a blue state. ;-)

---

by: JC @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 17:03:48 PM UTC

Right, this is Dean's strategy too, not just Obama's (0.00 / 0)

I think it's an obvious move to try for Montana--the benefit:cost ratio is very favorable.  The benefit is the psychological effect of seeing a very big splotch of blue across the western US, making the map look dramatically different from 2000 or 2004, and thus supporting the argument that times have changed.

Also, I think the RNC's last-minute $300,000 ad buy in the state provides a loud and clear answer to Jay's question.

---

by: Duncan Idaho @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 00:08:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Geographic mandate (0.00 / 0)

That, and he has loads of money and Montana is cheap.

---

by: Chris O. @ Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 21:19:20 PM UTC

3 Reasons (0.00 / 0)

1. Psycological. Instead of the usual big swath of red across the middle of America on maps, Montana is good sized chunk of it that'll be blue. Suddenly it doesn't seem like the R's control most of America.

2. Knows the importance of winning in the western states to the future dominance of the Democratic party. Montana is the first test case.

3. Brian Schweitzer. Obama's activity, manpower and money in Montana is going to have an impact on the downticket races. Schweitzer needs an agreeable Montana congress to ensure he accomplishes enough for his 'legacy'. A favorable legacy will help out the gov if he decides for a higher office run. (In addition, how many times has Obama mentioned clean-coal - the guv's pet project???) I think Obama has a keen eye towards the gov.

I think Obama isn't thinking about Montana in the context of just this cycle. He's already thinking about 8 years from now, which people he wants in the Democratic primaries and what the party is going to look like in the long term. In essence, a team player.  

---

by: Steven Lohrenz @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 13:53:41 PM UTC