Flying Pink Unicorns

Obama's Texas strategy.

I assume that Obama will be the democratic nominee. Maybe I'll make yet another post about that. Anyway, this post is even more valid if Hillary somehow ends up as the nominee.

I think Obama should make a huge push to win Texas in the general election in November. A huge push, where a lot of time is spent and, in particular, where a lot of money is spent. Here's why.

I don't think Obama can win Texas (bear with me). In the best election in recent years for the democrats, 1996, Dole beat Clinton by just under 5 points in an election Clinton won by 8.5 points. In other words, Texas was 13.5 points more Republican (or redder) than the whole country (including Texas). So it would seem that trying to win Texas is a lost cause for a democrat just now. And it may well be. I still think Obama should spend huge resources trying.

First, as more Hispanics register and vote, and as immigration becomes a huge issue, that may well add a few points to the democrats (although McCain is widely seen, rightly, as not anti-immigrantion/anti Mexican immigration, as so many Republicans are).

Second, campaigning in Texas is excellent practice for campaigning in states democrats can win, namely neighboring Louisiana and Arkansas (which Clinton won twice) and in my opinion could be won by Obama in 2008, New Mexico (won by Clinton twice and Gore by a hair, but lost by Kerry) and to a lesser extent Missouri and Colorado. Colorado is trending democratic, big time, and is expected to be in play this year, although its similarity with Texas is, to say the least, tenuous. Missouri is always a swing state, but again, it isn't really similar to Texas. Still, campaigning more in the region and less in the Midwest and Florida can't hurt in Missouri and Colorado.

Finally, the main reason by far for my Texas Strategy is money. Obama will have more of it than he knows what to do with. I expect that assuming he wants to, Obama will raise north of $1 billion dollars! In contrast, in 2004 Bush raised $360 and Kerry raised more than $317.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/index.asp

I expect Obama to be an order of magnitude better, both because of the enthusiasm he generates, and because of the enthusiasm of democrats following 8 years of Bush, who democrats loathe. The huge sums he has raised in the primary season seem clear evidence to me that, at a minimum, he will blow Bush's 2004 fundraising numbers out of the water.

McCain and the Republicans, in contrast, are struggling financially. This is a stunning turn of events. I asked myself how Obama could best to use a boatload of money, I looked for an expensive big state to spend it in and Texas jumped off the page. It is the second biggest electoral prize (34 electoral votes, compared to Florida's 27) behind huge California (55). In addition, the GOP can't win without it. Not a chance in hell. If Obama spends time and big big money in Texas there is every chance that the polls will show him within striking distance of McCain there. This will inspire raw panic on the GOP side, which is a good thing, and will divert precious money the GOP would much rather spend in the traditional swing states (Florida, Ohio, Missouri, the Midwest).

As an added bonus, the democrats might even begin rebuilding their name in Texas, which if you ask me is a hot idea. Simply writing off gigantic swaths of the country is lousy politics and is bad for the nation as a whole. Much better for the democrats, as Howard Dean has emphasized, to compete in all 50 states (or at least as many as humanely possible).

If the election is a landslide none of this matters a bit. And a landslide is what I expect, in favor of the democrats. Still, you always plan for failure, and if the election is close my strategy (particularly if money is the main resource poured in rather than time) could swing Arkansas, Louisiana and New Mexico (which borders Arizona, McCain's home state). Had Gore won either Arkansas or Louisiana he would have won, regardless of Florida. It may seem like a lot of money and effort for small states, assuming Texas is unwinnable. But again, Obama will have more money than he can possibly effectively spend, and as between a ton more ads in Florida or Ohio in freaking September, or a whole new battlefield, which may help in a few neighboring states, I vote to flood Texas with money.

The other new expensive battleground, which Obama is 100% certain to go after, vigorously, is Virgina. Bill Clinton came within 2 points in 1996, and Virgina is much less unfavorable for the democrats now than it was then. Ask Senator Webb. Advertising in Northern Virginia, near DC, is very expensive. Obama cleaned Hillary's clock in Va., and should run very well against McCain. But this is low hanging fruit-- an obvious choice to spend money and time. Texas is much more subtle. Potentially more powerful. And more useful as a party building strategy/mandate strategy.

Fight for Texas Obama!