McCain: Obama going after Virginia “a waste of money”

File this under the hilariously out-of-touch file:

Del. Christopher B. Saxman (R-Staunton), a co-chairman of McCain’s Virginia campaign, said Obama’s efforts “sound like a tremendous waste of money.”

“They could be a lot more effective with probably half that number,” Saxman said. “It is being done to create this image of momentum and enthusiasm that frankly is just not out there.”

Well, I might agree that putting offices in Lynchburg, Roanoke, Blacksburg, Martinsville, and Danville may be overkill, but really – it gives an image of momentum and enthusiasm that isn’t there? Really? Then why has Obama led in each of the last four polls in Virginia (not even counting the horrible Zogby Interactive poll).

I guess McCain is just going to cover his ears and sing, pretending that the election is still being fought in Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin instead of Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

Also, Obama is trying to do what many democrats in the past haven’t done – and that’s drive out turnout in traditionally red areas to increase his chances in the state. Also, he’s putting offices in the cities where the biggest universities in the state reside: Virginia Tech (Blacksburg), University of Virginia (Charlottesville), James Madison (Harrisonburg), Virginia State (Petersburg), George Mason (Fairfax), Old Dominion (Norfolk), and William and Mary (Williamsburg). I’m sure that’s not an accident.

Of course, given June’s fund raising money, it’s not like Obama doesn’t have the money and, frankly, once the Olympics start in 3 weeks, most of the remaining primary money will be best spent doing organization anyway. Also, opening your offices across from Ben and Jerry shops can’t hurt.

Jumping the Shark

I don’t think there is a shark big enough.

Would the DNC have kept FDR off the convention ballot?

Apparently the PUMA’s current rage, when they aren’t still claiming that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, is complaining that Clinton’s name probably won’t be put into nomination at the DNC Convention.  To try to prove their point, they’re running an ad in CQ asking “Would Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi keep [Franklin Roosevelt] off the ballot?” since FDR hadn’t clenched the nomination going into the 1932 convention.

However, this comparison is silly in several respects:

1. No, FDR didn’t go into the convention with enough delegates to win the nomination, but he did have the most support, so obviously he would have been on the ballot (more on this in point 3)
2. Point #1 makes the second point obvious: no one had enough support going in, so it would have been silly to keep any credible candidate off the ballot. (of course, the PUMAs would argue that Obama doesn’t have a majority since “only pledged delegates” count towards the pre-convention count, and no, he doesn’t have enough pledged delegates alone to win.  However, he obviously has enough superdelegates to put him over the top).
3. FDR Actually did have a majority of support, but in 1932 a candidate needed 2/3 of the delegate vote to be nominated.  On the first ballot, FDR actually received 58% of the delegate votes.
4. The current primary process of choosing a nominee didn’t even start until 1972.  For example, the ‘68 nominee Humbert Humphrey didn’t even participate in a single primary and only 13 primaries were held that year.  While they did indeed have a few primaries, even as far back as 1932, the process was nothing like it is today.

So let’s see…how is Clinton different from Roosevelt:

1. FDR had the most delegates, Clinton does not
2. FDR (nor anyone) had enough delegates to win on the first ballot, Obama does
3. FDR actually did have a majority of delegates, Clinton clearly doesn’t
4. FDR was nominated at a time when the nomination was usually decided at the convention, while nominees are almost always decided before the convention nowdays.

The last time any more than one candidate’s name was put into nomination at the Democratic Convention was 1992 after which the practice largely stopped (it occured in ‘88, ‘84, and 1980 as well at least).  In 1996, Clinton didn’t see any meaningful opposition while in 2000 and 2004, even though there were candidates with a non-insignficant number of delegates, they chose to release their delegates before the nomination process occured at the convention.

And on top of all of this, Clinton clearly isn’t gunning for the nomination anymore, and the only real reason she hasn’t released her delegates is that she can’t until she ends her campaign, and she won’t do that until her campaign debts are paid off or until the convention.  I’d put the chances of her releasing her delegates at the convention at approaching 100%, in which case there is no reason to put her name into nomination to begin with.

$52 million man

That’s a lot of cash.  Obama and the DNC now have $92.3 million in the bank after the DNC also raised $22 million itself.  McCain and the RNC has about $95 million in the bank after McCain also raised $22 million and the RNC raised $26 million.

So let’s see:

Obama + DNC: Raised $74 million

McCain + RNC: Raised $48 million

The RNC still has more cash on hand because the DNC had mostly been spending the money on building up it’s operations in the states, but has now switched over to general election Presidential mode.

And don’t forget that the DSCC and the DCCC have also ridiculously outraised their republican counterparts as well.

Not only is the GOP down in the approval ratings, but they no longer have a money advantage to counteract that.