Obama in North Dakota and Montana

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I know a lot of people are raving about how Obama is blowing all his money on those states and he's such an idiot for wasting money but please note here:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/obamas_run_more_negative_ads.php

The combined total he's running is....$59,000. Less than McCain has spent in other states he can't win. Also less than 0.1% of the amount he's raised in August alone.

Will Obama win those states? No, probably not. But the hacks need to quit acting like he's flushing millions of dollars down the drain and bankrupting his campaign by by running a few ads and having a small campaign office there. If Obama loses the election, it's not going to be because he pissed a massive amount of his money away in those states.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

For once, I agree with you.

[Jeff from NC]

Combined, ND and Montana have 6 electoral votes, more than Nevada, New Hampshire, or New Mexico.  Why not try to win them, especially if the election is close, the numbers are promising (and they are - Obama is usually down by 2 to 3 points), and the advertising is cheap?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think what should worry McCain is just how close those states are compared to 4 years ago.

I mean, McCain is miles ahead of Obama in experience and leadership.. he should be blowing Bush away in these places.  And we have the Moose Huntin' Mama on the ticket, further solidifying the lead, right?

[Padfoot]

I'm waiting for some more polling to be done here before I'm ready to say Obama has a realistic chance in either of these states anymore.  Pre-Palin the numbers looked good but post-Palin is not looking as favorable.  All three polls taken in ND since the Palin announcement have McCain leading well outside the MOE.  Rasmussen was really the only pollster watching Montana and their latest poll (McCain +11) is a complete reversal on their earlier polls showing Obama neck and neck with McCain.  ARG says its still close but we all know how reliable they were this year.

[bgwah]

I agree that spending money in small states like North Dakota and Montana isn't a big deal. Now, Georgia on the other hand...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I agree that spending money in small states like North Dakota and Montana isn't a big deal. Now, Georgia on the other hand...

Yeah I have no clue what was up there. But it's over.

[??????????]

Combined, ND and Montana have 6 electoral votes, more than Nevada, New Hampshire, or New Mexico.  Why not try to win them, especially if the election is close, the numbers are promising (and they are - Obama is usually down by 2 to 3 points), and the advertising is cheap?

Those states are not and I repeat not in play.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

MT
2000 - R +25% (Nader 6%)
2004 - R +20%

ND
2000 - R +27% (Nader 3%)
2004 - R +27%

My predictions.

MT
2008 - R 55% D 44%

ND
2008 - R 56% D 43%