Jim Messina (pictured left), Campaign Manager for the Barack Obama 2012 campaign discusses the paths to 270 Electoral votes.

Although the President got 47% of the vote in 2008, clearly that wasn’t enough for the campaign to include Georgia  in 2012. Unless you think there is a stealth plan that includes GA.

They will however, come here for probably a half dozen fundraisers, please don’t confuse the two.

If we learned nothing from the 2008 campaign, once Team Obama makes a plan they will stick with it, and work it hard.

Let me pose this question: If someone from the campaign were to ask why they should make GA part of this plan, what pitch would you make, what reasons would you give? Remember this is a campaign team that is all about the metrics, so you need numbers and targets, not a bunch of touchy feelie  reasons why.


4 Responses to Real or No Real?

  1. JMPrince says:

    Adversus solem ne loquitor.

  2. Ladida says:

    I can’t imagine any pitch that makes sense. We’ve still got a lot of work to do, on so many levels. Frankly, all the recent talk of “Georgia being in play” never rang true, so I’m not surprised by this video. It’s just something they like to say before hitting the ATL ATM again. It makes us all feel a little better, even though we know every dollar that leaves the state is two the GOP won’t have to spend here. What can you do? Political giving is largely personality driven and President Obama is a superstar.

    • Ed says:


      I would say don’t invest here. Can we please realize 08 was an aberration and at best Obama is an aberration of a candidate in Georgia? A good year for us is when he hit 40% statewide. 2012 will be much tougher for Obama, invest in, you know, fertile ground.

      • Trevor Southerland says:

        I hate all the self-defeatist talk. 40% is not a “good year” — 40% doesn’t even qualify as a normal year. 40% is a bad year and given the population patterns, etc… time is on our side.

        2010: Senate 39%, Gov. 43%, Lt. Gov. 41.9%
        2008: President 47%, Senate 46.8%
        2006: Gov. 38%, Lt. Gov. 42.3%
        2004: President 41.4%, Senate 40%,
        2002: Senate 45.9%, Gov. 46.3%, Lt. Gov. 51.9%
        2000: President 43.3%, Senate 58.2%
        1998: Senate 45.2%, Gov. 52.5%, Lt. Gov. 56.3%
        1996: President 45.8%, Senate 48.9%