I don't know where the $100 million-a-month number comes from, but my reasoning for why, say, $85 mil total is not enough is because Obama will have additional opportunity costs by refusing public financing.
In other words, the Obama campaign still has to engage in fundraising efforts, which takes some money itself, but more importantly time...while McCain's people don't have to worry about fundraising. So for it to be worth it, Obama needs considerably more than $85 million total from now to Nov. 4th.
How much these opportunity costs are that need to be recouped, I don't know exactly. But they are probably considerable, in my view.
I think this line of attack may be the one that starts to stick, especially as McCain's Plan A -- the "unpatriotic" line -- hasn't taken hold. However, there is a way to counter it a bit.
First off, it's key for Obama and the campaign to work in some more self-depreciating jokes and the like, kind of when Michelle was taking about Obama not taking out the trash (or something like that). A few high-profile self-depreciating lines would be helpful (as would avoiding anything that sounds uber-confident, rather than just normally confident, in his chances).
Secondly, the campaign's response is on the right track -- keep pointing out how ridiculously negative McCain's campaign is. Maybe it doesn't seem like a "meme" right now, but the campaign is on the right track trying to paint McCain as essentially a bitter old man with no optimism to spare.
This is not an election where negativity will play well. Americans are massively pessimistic right now, and want optimism. This is why Obama is walking the line between needing to attack McCain but doing so without sounding too negative. If Obama successfully paints McCain as insufferably negative, McCain simply won't be a viable option for many people, even if they also aren't crazy about Obama.
And yet, the Telecom corporations get just such a different treatment from many Democratic politicians. Why?
Well, last thing I knew Brown is not yet a member of Congress. Until he's in a position that matters (as opposed to candidate for an office), then his being for or against any policy, including FISA, is pretty worthless. Let's see if he can win before suggesting that he's leading any fight.
Smart strategy for him, because even if Clinton narrowly wins the popular vote in the big states, it looks like the state count will be pretty close -- in big part because of his big victories in the smaller caucus states.
I agree, but those are pretty big assumptions, no? It's looking like Clinton might get AZ, but I'd think NM would go for Obama (since it's a caucus) and MO is truly too close too call. God knows about Cali.
I did a quick calculation of the remaining counties, and it looks to be VERY close (like within 1-2% either way). That takes into account St. Louis, assuming Obama maintains his current margin in those counties, and if the smaller Clinton counties maintain the same margins.
It might looks slightly better for Hillary because there are a few smaller counties that have not reported at all, but it certainly could go either way.
Are there any numbers that show how many independent NH voters voted Democratic versus Republican? If the split is similar to the 60-40 split that was expected, I'm not sure how much this theory holds water, because it would not show an indy shift towards the Republican ballot.
The results in Beford are just in, and Clinton won there. This is an affluent town near Manchester (where I lived near for 5 years) that <u>should</u> be Obama country. Clinton might pull this out after all. I was fully expecting a solid Obama win in a town like Bedford.
I disagree that if Clinton wins that the race is over. I still think Obama wins SC, and FL and NV will be close. Either way, it's a very close race -- it might be fair to say that there's NO frontrunner between Clinton and Obama after tonight.
To be honest, I think the whole Hillary "tear up" story had little to no influence on this race. The fact is that she did a lot better amongst female voters (whom she lost in Iowa) and working-class voters, where she was expected to do pretty well. She's still losing the affluent/college voters.
Much of this has to do with the fact that the demographics are returning to the pre-Iowa expectations. The "tear incident" had nothing to do with it.