Holding actions
Sen. Barack Obama's N.C. appearance this Monday has folks chewing on this question: what exactly is he up to? Does one of the Senate's most liberal/progressive members think he's going to turn a reliably red state blue? Or is this some sort of campaign head fake, a quick dodge to confuse the opposition while he breaks the other way?
A New York Times story offers one of several possible explanations. I say one of several because I think if you polled the heart-of-hearts of 10 Obama campaign strategists, you might just get three or four different answers.
But this story suggests that North Carolina could be a sort of holding action, designed to cause attrition on the other side as much as score a full on victory. From the second half of the story:
Mr. Obama's aides said some states where they intend to campaign - like Georgia, Missouri, Montana and North Carolina — might ultimately be too red to turn blue. But the result of making an effort there could force Mr. McCain to spend money or send him to campaign in what should be safe ground, rather than using those resources in states like Ohio.Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said that the primary contest had left the campaign with strong get-out-the-vote operations in Republican states that were small enough that better-than-usual turnout could make a difference in the general election. Among those he pointed to was Alaska, which last voted for a Democrat in 1964.
"Do we have to win any of those to get to 270?" Mr. Plouffe said, referring to the number of electoral votes needed to win the election. "No. Do we have reason to think we can be competitive there? Yes. Do we have organizations in those states to be competitive? Yes. This is where the primary was really helpful to us now."
I don't know if a state where you've had a Democratic governor 16 years running and nearly unhindered control of the Democratic legislature for nigh on a century really qualifies as "too red," but one can't ignore the last 30-plus years of Tar Heels voting for Republican presidential candidates in the general election.
Curiously, I've heard similar theories about Congressional and Senate campaigns. National or state strategists will look for credible, well funded challengers who might not have enough electoral oomph to win but can keep the incumbent pinned down.
I would think that is one reason Democrat Kay Hagan's race against Republican U.S. Senate incumbent Elizabeth Dole is getting so much attention. Not only is there the primary objective of winning a seat in the Senate that could help secure the 60-40 majority that Democrats fervently desire, but there's a secondary benefit. Even if Hagan loses, if she runs a good campaign she'll keep Dole pinned down rather than letting her jet about the United States helping out other Republicans.
Now, no campaign ever - EVER - will say they're playing for a loss. They'd be dumb to and frankly, you can't run expecting to lose. So I would expect that Hagan's folks will be quick to say something like, "What, are you stupid? Look at the polling. She can win this thing." Likewise, I would doubt you're ever going to see a direct quote from Obama's folks saying they expect the campaign in North Carolina to be anything other than a success.
