Obama on offense in GOP’s red state strongholds

This race will essentially hinge on whether or not Sen. Obama is able to turn less than a handful of traditional red states over to the Democratic side this time around. States such as Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio are the major battlegrounds for the remaining days. In fact, they’re so important that Obama no longer has plans to campaign in states which voted Democrat in 2004.

The report from Yahoo News:

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. – Exuding confidence, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama intends to spend the overwhelming amount of his time in the campaign’s final two weeks in states that voted Republican in 2004 as he reaches for a decisive victory.

He and his aides appear so confident of his prospects that apart from a brief stop in Madison, Wis., next Thursday, Obama currently has no plans during the next 10 days to return to Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Hampshire or any other state that voted for John Kerry in 2004.

Instead, he intends to spend two days this week in Florida, where early voting begins on Monday, and travel to Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and possibly Nevada and Indiana. Those states hold 97 electoral votes combined, and Bush all in 2004.

Obama also may stop in West Virginia, where his campaign recently bought statewide television advertising in a late attempt to put the state’s five electoral votes into serious contention.

“I don’t want to say he won’t go to a Blue State, but we’re certainly concentrating on expanding the map,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist.

By contrast, McCain generally divides his time between states that usually vote Republican and a dwindling number that do not. He spent the weekend in Virginia and Ohio, both of which Bush carried in 2004.

Obama spent Saturday in Missouri and Sunday in North Carolina, two more states that sided with Bush in 2004, with another 26 electoral votes combined.

Obama’s schedules often are designed to carry him to as many key states as possible for brief stops.

As a result, McCain’s campaign time has been split between defending GOP strongholds and working the weaker Democratic-leaning states, that report also from Yahoo News:

TOLEDO, Ohio – Evoking “Joe the Plumber” near his hometown in this pivotal state, Republican John McCain on Sunday cast himself as the guardian of middle-class workers and small-business owners who fuel the economy.

“If I’m elected president, I won’t raise taxes on small businesses, as Sen. (Barack) Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs,” McCain said of his Democratic opponent during a rally at the convention center. “I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs, not send to Washington.”

McCain flew to Toledo, near where “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher lives, from the state capital of Columbus amid the GOP’s push for this swing state and its 20 electoral votes.

The Holland, Ohio, plumber was in New York making the media rounds with his family, but McCain has been evoking his spirit after making him the focal point the final presidential debate between McCain and Obama. McCain also mentions Wurzelbacher at his rallies after the plumber was videotaped questioning Obama about whether his tax plan would keep him from buying the two-man plumbing shop where he works.

While some analyses showed Wurzelbacher faring better under Obama’s plan than McCain’s, McCain has lashed out at Obama for saying that while his policies may force some to pay higher taxes, they were designed to “spread the wealth around” by targeting only families making over $250,000 annually.

“Sen. Obama is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of the pie than he is growing the pie,” McCain told a crowd of several thousand.

During an earlier rally at Otterbein College in Westerville, Ohio, McCain drew cheers when he proclaimed that he was campaigning “on behalf of Joe the Plumber and Rose the Teacher and Phil the Bricklayer and Wendy the Waitress.”

McCain has a serious task ahead of him considering Obama has a nearly bottomless war chest, raising an astonishing $150 million in the month of September.

Video report on the money gap from CBS News:

The bottom line here is that Obama has the ability to literally blanket these swing states with 24-hour a day ads on local channels. McCain is also running ads, however, they’re constrained with judging what states to run ads in and determining where they’ll be most effective.

  • U.S.A.

    ** Nuked by Admin **

    Don’t spam advertise for a candidate, it’s not acceptable here and will be removed every time. Post something of substance please, thanks!

  • Andrew

    The money issue makes me wonder. If Obama wins, how long will it take for the outcries to begin that he bought his way to the white house with campaign contributions? And how much validity will there be to this argument?

    Obviously having more money allows him to gain more exposure, but how much effect does that have in the long run? McCain’s been on the national circuit since the 2000 election so he started out with much more exposure, but, surprisingly, has had less money to maintain it. It’ll be interesting to see after all is said and done how much money was a factor in this race.

  • U.S.A.

    Come On…Man fear is everywhere!

    I vote Obama/Biden in 2008
    I vote Obama/Biden in 2012

    This has substance because I am stating my opinion that this is the team we need to lift us up baby!!!!!

    Ok lets see…..

    Obama will win all states this election. Better?

  • Bill Hedges

    Andrew–McCain has released all donors giving him $200 or more. Not Obama. Obama has out-spent Nixion. Is expected to surpass all….Obama has asked for Special investigator in ACORN case. Though he says he has ittle involvement. Hopefully all question will be answered come election day.

  • The outcries are already happening Andrew. The daft thing is, Obama wouldn’t have had any of this money if the “PATRIOTIC” Americans (LOL 😉 ) didn’t give him it in the first place because they believe in him that much.

    I threw a few bucks his way myself 🙂

  • PeoplePower

    Bill – Obama *has* released the donors giving $200 or more. It’s required by law that this be done.

    I can’t remember the website, but if you google campaign finance, or something similar, you can get a list of people who have donated to both campaigns. Anyone contributing $200, or more, must identify themselves.

    They’re both extremely long lists and they both contain people who have given, and have had their money returned for whatever reason.

    I think you will find that a lot of the “scandals” surrounding Obama are molehills being made mountains out of to try desparately to give McCain a shot.

    I’ve said this repeatedly, but McCain lost a ton of voters by turning down the path of GW Bush style of politricking. Plus, by bending his own values/beliefs to attempt to garner support of the whacko-right (not regular Republicans or regular social conservatives – but the loony right) he lost a lot more middle-of-the-road voters.

    The far right scares a ton of voters away, as does the far left. I think Obama simply has done a better job of staying on message and sliding back into a centrist rhetoric. Of course, his “centrist” will appear leftist to right-leaning folks…so please refrain from questioning whether he’s “truly centrist” in his rhetoric…

  • Bill Hedges

    People Power- Thank you for correcting me

  • Pats

    I’m beginning to see why the resemblance of Obama to the Messiah was drawn. The Messiah said he did not come for the saints but the lost ones. Obama too is not going for states won by democrats in past elections but those they lost. More notable is his stands for the middle class. Well done! At last the needy has a voice .

  • EricF

    i heard a guy on FOX&Friends this morning say that any money a business puts back into that business will still be taxed at the increased rate. can anyone confirm or dispute this?

    it sounds to me like the obama plan is antisuccess and will only help small business’ that arent doing good. what kind of sense does that make? how is that good for America?

  • JD

    McCain has $47 million left to use in October after reporting he spent $37 million in September.

    Campaign topper Rick Davis holds 11:30 am ET media call on Obama’s record-breaking fundraising total last month.

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1851970,00.html

    Money Crunch for McCain. 🙂

  • EricF

    JD you are a pathetic little worm. you care more about your side winning than making America a better place for all. i will pray for you.

  • JD

    EricF, I do care about America and, though McCain is a good guy, his pick for VP, reaction to the economy, and he offers no change from the path that we are on.

    Also, I supply you with information all the time from my side but you insist on calling me a “pathetic little worm”… I am not sure that you help your cause when you use that language.

    However, you have to admit that if the tables were turned you would be posting the same information.

    Still, let me just say that your language has the smack of a desperate man with nothing left but fear, slander, and your conspiricy theory.

    Good luck on election day. I look forward to all the bad names you will be slinging the next day.

    Don’t for get to pray for me and more importantly your next president, Barack Obama.

    Other News…

    AFL-CIO Mail Blitz: McCain “Disaster for Retirees”

    Latest effort by the Obama-backing union federation focuses on a particularly key constituency, slamming McCain’s Social Security, health care policies.

    Half a million copies will be dropped in battleground states.

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/afl-cio_mail_blitz_hammers_mcc.php

  • swede

    ericF –

    “it sounds to me like the obama plan is antisuccess and will only help small business’ that arent doing good. what kind of sense does that make? how is that good for America?”

    it might be because, according to the small business association – 66% of small business fail within the first four years. if small businesses are the main employment providers it seems very logical to me that helping struggling small businesses will be *very* good for america.

    small businesses:

    “Have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade
    Employ 50.6 percent of the country’s private sector workforce
    Represent 97 percent of all the exporters of goods
    Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms
    Generate a majority of the innovations that come from United States companies”

    Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, June 2006.

    just a thought…

  • That’s a very good point swede.

    Also a lot of small businesses fail because you have giant stores like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc etc etc, that take customers away from small businesses.

    Another thing to remember is that an indicator to the success of a country’s economy is shown in the housing market and everything that is attached to housing; builders, kitchen makers, plumbers, electricians, plasterers, landscapers etc etc etc, at the moment I think we can all agree that the housing market has taken a turn for the worse.

  • Babs

    Hmmm, pudding, in your last paragraph you just named an awful lot of small businesses who are hurt by the turndown in the housing crisis. Thanks for making that point. By addressing this crisis, McCain – as you have pointed out – is the one who is propping up small businesses and helping them to once again grow.

    You see, it really does have a domino effect. Obama wants to give the relief to the banks, who don’t employ these small businesses, McCain wants to give the relief to homeowners, who do employ and are employed by these small businesses.

    swede, thanks for taking the time to pull these figures. Hopefully sooner than later people will read enough to finally understand that small businesses move this country. And we are not up for the Obama tax plan. It’s not just we small businesses who will lose if Obama is elected, it’s half the country’s work force. Hopefully they’ll get it before they vote.

  • EricF

    Bar Stool Economics

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

    So, that’s what they decided to do.

    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

    And so:

    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

    “I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

    “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

    “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

  • EricF

    Palin-

    the biggest crisis the Obama camp has to worry about is Joe Bidens next speaking engagement.

    PWNED! ahahahahaha!

    i never ever want to hear anyone say McCain made the wrong VP choice.

  • swede

    i’m sorry eric – but i don’t buy into your analogy. working everyday is nothing like drinking a beer every night.

    i don’t think you can ‘explain’ economics in the way you just did. once again – you are assuming all ten men are the same – and the only difference is their wealth. that is unrealistic. what if you put it this way – the bottom were wounded veterans who couldn’t get a job – and at the top were the perfectly healthy people with all the connections and power. money is not the only variable in this equation.

  • EricF

    swede. Obama (the government) has plans on trying to redistribute and control PRIVATE wealth. do you think there wont be circumstances? i think you missed the big picture.

  • Babs

    You did miss the picture, swede. It doesn’t matter about who works where in the analogy. Why? Because the government doesn’t make that distinction either.

  • swede

    i think you overly-simplified things so you could make a point. and i disagree with your point. i didn’t miss what you were trying to say – i just disagree.

    and – at what point does wealth become private? at any rate above the current tax rate? the government has been redistributing private wealth since it inception (they are called taxes) maybe not to the current degree (i’m not talking about obamas plan because i am not defending obamas plan – i am repudiating your logic) – but it has none the less.

  • Stalin

    swede,

    Beer = taxes paid or not paid. What if the bottom were crack addicts that wasted the opportunities given to them. What if the top are people that worked their butts off to create a better life for themselves and their family? It is a typical liberal argument to villify the successful and excuse the poor. Without the successful, there are no jobs for the poor to change their status.

  • EricF

    people can say whatever they like. the writing is on the wall. if Obama gets elected you will see record closings the very next day. America is not the only market. government cannot control private wealth. people crack me up thinking Obama has some magic power that will make everyone just go along with what he says. too funny.

    the sad part is how people think hes going to fix the economy with once a year checks. think people! that $500 or $1,000 is not going to make up for the higher prices everyone will be paying on goods and services.

    i will be honest here. a part of me wants Obama to win just so everyone can see how dumb they are for voting for this guy. i dont really want him to win but i want people to realize how dumb they are.

  • swede

    stalin – if equating the poor to crack addicts is conservative and equating the poor to be injured veterans is liberal – call me a liberal all you want. i would rather be compassionate and empathetic than cruel and cynical. and i understood what the beer analogy mean. i just thought it was a bad analogy.

    eric – i am not saying government should (or can) control private wealth. i do not think obama is the cure-all of government (that would be its collapse). i am not even pro-obama. and if your main contribution to this site is to have people ‘realize how dumb they are’ – i think you need to take a good shot of humility and empathy. i don’t have the all the answers – obama doesn’t – mccain doesn’t – and i am pretty sure you don’t either.

    i think it is sad that as soon as someone says something to dispute what they say or the logic they use – they are quickly labeled (liberal – in my case). stalin and eric – you don’t know me. please don’t presume to know my political persuasion by my three posts. not all liberals think the same. not all conservatives think the same. please don’t be too quick to put people in these neat little groups. political polarization is a marketing myth. we are not all that different. all i was trying to do was to answer a question you had – maybe looking at it from a different angle or perspective. i was truely trying to have a debate. not be a part of this ‘liberals are dumb’ and ‘conservatives are stupid’ bs.

  • Stalin

    swede:

    You really need to read my posts. I didn’t say you were a liberal. I said it is a liberal argument. Regardless, I was just countering your baseless assumptions with baseless assumptions of my own to prove a point. I’m sorry you didn’t get it.

  • swede

    and i was using a baseless assumption to counter a faulty line of logic (that the only difference between the poor and the wealthy is how much money they have)

    maybe we should just stop using baseless assumptions and faulty logic.

  • swede

    stalin –
    ” I didn’t say you were a liberal. I said it is a liberal argument.”

    what is the difference. you call an argument a liberal argument (i presume) because you hear it from liberals – right. so either way – you are associating me (and my arguments) with ‘liberals’. my point was that this should be less about liberal versus conservative and more about what is going to work. but – i am sure that is a liberal argument as well 😉

  • Stalin

    swede:

    Our discussion is officially going nowhere. Have a good afternoon.

  • The Dali-Bama has no problem keeping the blue in the American flag but the only RED he wants in the flag is his socialist programs and the only sharing of wealth is with big government.So much for bi-partisanship.

  • And what parts of socialism do you actually object to DD Mao? The part where everyone gets a fair chance or the part where everyone gets covered by healthcare?

    As for Big Government, many Republicans have said this but they have yet to point to a quote where Obama has actually said he’d increase Government. I could be wrong here, but I don’t think I am, but Government has increased more under Bush (he’s one of them Republicans) than it did under Clinton (he’s a Democrat).

    Anyway, here’s a video of McCain talking about socialism.
    http://www.youtube.com/v/BVn2-1oZYXE

  • nzpudding……….It depends on how YOU define fair chance. do you mean on the way my country was founded where if you work hard,get a good education and obey the law? Or do you mean the way American Democrats interpt it by a level playing field being where it’s not determined by equal opportunity but by equal outcome.They don’t want to lift the poor up but to bring the acheivers down and this is wrong.

  • Babs

    “The part where everyone gets a fair chance” Actually, pudding, this is capitolism at its best. Everyone gets a fair chance to be something in this country, without anyone else taking it away from them.

    Socialism takes your success away from you, or at the very least limits it. No one will aspire to earn $250K when Obama is just going to take it away from you. Spreading the wealth = spreading some wealth some earned to others who have not earned it. Socialism.

    My small businesses will not work for those that don’t put the same sweat equity into their success that I have. And those elite 5% is probably moving their money overseas even as we speak. There won’t be much wealth for Obama to spread by the time he takes office. We’ll shut that door on him.

  • nzpudding………..I object to every aspect of Socialism especially when it’s in regard to my country America.!!!

  • swede

    babs,

    “Everyone gets a fair chance to be something in this country, without anyone else taking it away from them.’

    this simply isn’t true. discrimination exists. sterotypes exist. oppression exist. all in this country. none of which are ‘fair’.

    if you think otherwise – i would have to conclude you live in a bubble.

    do i think ‘only the top 5%’ should help in reducing or eliminating these. no. everyone should. but the government taxing people to help these afflicted by the unfair realities mentioned above is not socialism. its humanity. programs to help these people exist because we haven’t done a good enough job in the past to do it on an individual giving basis. thus government steps in. do i think this right? no. but it is reality. truth is – if the government would stop these programs – suffering in this country would increase tenfold. and if government would increase these programs – we would *all* be a little better off. again – this is not socialism.

    if so – we have been living in a socialist country for quite some time and neither mccain or obama will change that.

    truth is – if were we to *all* give in proportion to what we earn to address social issues – the government wouldn’t have to. but we don’t.

  • swede

    just found this to help my point…

    http://www.justgive.org/html/don_info/howmuch.html

    notice:

    “The people that give the most actually make the least. Households earning under $10,000 a year — far below the poverty line — gave 5.2% of their income to charity. That’s a larger percentage of their money than any other income group.’

    just some food for thought.

  • swede……………..What you describe is not only socialism but Coerced Larceny.If you want to give your money to the government who does such a wonderful job in the past past 50 years with the Great Society programs and it’s “War on Poverty” ( wheres the exit strategy in that war?)and can’t even run organizations like FEMA then you go right ahead. Americans give more money to charities than any other nation.Government stepped in simply because money is where the power is. Charities,church groups and family assistance worked for 160 years up until the New Deal and only declined due to government taking over this grand handout larceny .There is nothing humanity about being forced to give your hard earned money to be pissed away by government.As far as if these programs were stopped well you only have to look at 1996 when the welfare program was reformed and how these people adjusted.The only thing you were right about is there is socialism in America but conservatives are fighting it.

  • Babs

    swede, you’re preaching to the wrong person. I’m a woman – more than any other minority we have been discriminated against, oppressed, and stereotyped. But we’ve made it anyway – if we wanted to. My statements stand.

  • swede

    babs- you have made it. but not on your own.

    how much of our ‘socialist government wealth distribution’ money went to help end gender discrimination? WIC? come on. no one makes it on their own. and the government has done a lot in this regard. socialism?

  • Babs

    Not on my own? And you know that how? I made it the same way everyone else does, by working hard, making good decisions, and picking my own self up when I failed. I wasn’t born to money, I earned it. And I’m not taking you or anyone else to raise.

  • Babs

    Pudding, I just noticed you said this:

    “I threw a few bucks his way myself ”

    And how was that received by Obama – since it’s illegal?

  • swede

    i was referring to ‘women’ in general. you said ‘we’ve made it anyway’ talking about women as a group. as was i. you may not have any ‘help’ but women as a whole sure have. so we all have.

  • Swede………..How does a robber holding a gun to your head and saying give me your money differ than the government taking OUR MONEY through tax coercetion to redistribute OUR WEALTH?
    The Constitution list 18 items I believe in the first Article on how government can spend our money and no where do I see anything about taking MY MONEY to give it to another person.Nor does it show up in the Declaration of Independence anywhere.

  • swede

    “Section 8 – Powers of Congress

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

    i think what we are debating here is what the ‘general welfare of the united states’ means.

    our constitution was set up to be adaptable. that is why we have amendments. and – if you are a believer in our democracy – the things that are done are done only because the majority of americans want them to be done. part of being in a democracy is realizing you are in the minority. realizing when your ideals are not shared by the majority of the country. you can try and convince people all you want – vote for whom you choose but things will only change when the majority of the people want them to. we just happen to be on opposite sides of the debate. i believe taking care of the poor, oppressed, and otherwise is included in the ‘gerneral welfare of the united states’ because taking care of its citizens is taking care of the united states. obviously – you disagree?

  • Babs

    I agree to giving anyone a hand up, not a hand out. And that by choice – not mandate.

  • swede,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I knew you would refer to the general welfare clause.This has turned inside out for the 200 years we have had it in the Constitution.Heres where we differ. you believe the general welfare clause covers the needy while I believe that it covers the general running of the country. Now when you say adaptable using the admendment route I agree. however if you are saying the constitution is a living breathing thing that should adapt to the times I totally disagree.If the constitution was living where you could change it with the times it would soon have no meaning as A LEGAL DOCUMENT.Every administration and society would change it and it would have no meaning.
    I’m not sure where you are heading with your in the minority speel but I refer you to http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy where it shows Americans overwhelmingly by 84% to 13% prefer that government focus on improving economic conditions as opposed to redistributing wealth.

  • swede

    i am not saying the constitution should adapt to the times independently of amendments. that is what amendments are for – to address issues the founding fathers didn’t/couldn’t account for. i am not suggesting that it should mean something different today than it did 200 years ago. i think we agree?

    i think we truly disagree here: you believe we should address improving economic conditions on way – and i another. you call it ‘redistribution wealth’ – i call it taxes. it is the same. you may not want hight taxes – at all costs. i may be willing to pay higher taxes if it helps the general ‘welfare of the united states’. you also pointed to the general inefficiency we have shown wrt katrina and whatnot – but you have to understand – that is democracy. inefficient. if a small, very efficient government is what you want – you want a monarchy/dictator. they are efficient.

    please stop using war metaphors. we are not having a war. it is a debate. not name calling and conspiracy theories. if you disagree – fine. tell me how and why you disagree. if you make a compelling case – i may just take your side. if you call ‘my’ side a bunch of ‘liberal socialist’ i will just ignore you. that is bs. debate. don’t argue.

    we are in a democracy. your views may not be shared by most. we’ll see in november i guess – who the majority is. i will do my part – as i am sure you will do yours – and in the end we will be ‘force’ to do whatever our elected officials decide. don’t like it – leave. don’t start name calling and conjuring conspiracy theories just because you disagree. that is where i was headed with the ‘minority thing’. being civil.