A bold strategy suggestion: Invest in KY, MS, GA, and TX ground game

[Gore1FL]

I don't know how much Obama has on hand, but imagine if he invested a good amount in what are likley lost causes for the Democrats this year... specifically the states I mentioned in the thread title.

All four of these states have Senate seats in striking distance. Could Obama coattails win one, two, three, or all four of them?

I'm not saying he should go to any of these and give stump speeches, but certainly election day phone banking and rides to the polls could make a difference.

He clearly has money,as he is buying a half hour on networks at the end of the month.

Thoughts?

[tbyg52]

1. As a resident of Texas, I say "YES, PLEASE!"

Noriega could use the help, and I don't believe the polls that show McCain at 57% here.

[crazy_vanilla]

2. I second that nt

[RagAss]

3. We're down in OHIO -2 ... why spend a dime in Blood Red states?

[tbyg52]

4. In the case of Texas, because Noriega has a) a chance and b) not much money. nt

[RagAss]

8. ok...hear you.

[skooooo]

6. especially KY..

KY is a lost cause.

[Gore1FL]

10. Not in the Senate race it isn't.

[iamthebandfanman]

13. i disagree

i think if obama were to make a tour around the state and give people a chance to talk to him and hear him speak, itd change alot of peoples minds...

alot of people in kentucky only have the perception of him that right wing radio gives them..

[Gore1FL]

9. The point isn't to abandon OH

the point is to stop filibusters in the Senate.

What poll is Obama losing in OH?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. No. The most important thing now is to ensure victory, period.

Obama can get a landslide without even any of those states. It would be not prudent to spend there trying to "run up the score" when you're not completely certain of a victory at all, even if it's pretty likely.

It's the kind of reckless move McCain would do.

[Gore1FL]

11. It isn't about "running up the score"

It is about trying to get 60 Senate seats without including Lieberman.

[book_worm]

7. recent polls in Georgia, certainly, indicate that Obama should spend more there.

Plus it would help us pick up the Senate seat.

[JohnnyCougar]

12. Exactly. We would win Georgia right now if we had a ground game there.

The polls are very tight, and they don't take into account all the new registrations.

[Chichiri]

14. Georgia, *maybe.* The others, not worth time with 23 days to go.

[Gore1FL]

16. See my post below.

I obviously was not clear enough in the original post to the point of doing this, based on the responses, so the one below clarifies my point:

Senate races in those states are mostly within a ground game margin:

GA 3%
KY 4%
MS 4%
TX 7%

Top ticket help in the ground game could make the difference in these important races.

[Gore1FL]

15. Let me Clarify the point

This suggestion is to help the down ballot, not so much as an effort to win the states for the electoral votes.

My argument is that this could give the like of Chambliss, Cornyn, McConnell, and Wicker a hell of a fight. Assuming Democratic leads hold in MN, OR, and TX, any two victories in the states I mentioned would give the Democrats 60 Senate seats (including Sanders, but excluding Lieberman).