Yes, my logic assumes that a band that can draw 70,000 in one part of the country would be promoted (and would tour) in similar fashion in other parts of the country. I'm a capitalist. Too bad that you can't seem to understand the logic. Perhaps it's the same poor judgement that makes you think that those people somehow weren't there to see Obama...or, perhaps, you don't really believe the silly strawman argument that you threw out there in the first place. Some un-heard-of band, yeah right! Again, please show us how many other times this band has drawn 70,000.
As for your reliance on the polls, I'm not sure which one you're referring to, but I've seen polls in recent weeks showing Obama winning by as much as 16 points or as little as 3 points; most seem to be about six points. The one constant in all of them is that Obama is ahead and McCain is losing. Still, too early for them to mean much anyway; polls usually start to become good indicators after Labor Day.
As for the debates, again, Obama's people are smart - waiting until the traditional post-convention period to have them. Why would they be foolish enough to allow the candidate that is consistently losing in the polls to dictate terms of the debate? Clearly, Obama and his team have been better negotiators on this issue.
Remember, I launched this thread because, tactically, this has become a theme. Obama and his people seem to be controlling the message, dictating terms, and outcampaigning McCain and his advisers at every turn.
Yes, my logic assumes that a band that can draw 70,000 in one part of the country would be promoted (and would tour) in similar fashion in other parts of the country. I'm a capitalist. Too bad that you can't seem to understand the logic. Perhaps it's the same poor judgement that makes you think that those people somehow weren't there to see Obama...or, perhaps, you don't really believe the silly strawman argument that you threw out there in the first place. Some un-heard-of band, yeah right! Again, please show us how many other times this band has drawn 70,000.
Yes, my logic assumes that a politician that can draw 70,000 in one part of the country would be promoted (and would campaign) in similar fashion in other parts of the country. Yes TF, I do understand your logic. I’m not going to waste my time trying to determine the exact supporter / non supporter ratio at the 08 May 08 Portland rally. As you noted, the Obama Campaign is not stupid, they used this logic to establish a comfortable level of expectation as to the number of supporters expected at one of his open air rallies.
Within a 200 mile radius of Columbia, SC, the population is only slightly lower than the combined state population of Oregon and Washington (12M). Obama’s December 07 open air rally at Columbia’s William Brice Stadium drew 29,000 supports.
Within a 200 mile radius of Philadelphia, the population easily exceeds the combined state population of Oregon and Washington. Obama’s April 08 open air rally at Philadelphia’s Independence Park drew 35,000 supporters.
Within a 200 mile radius of Portland, the population is roughly 6 million people. Obama’s May 08 open air rally at Portland’s Waterfront Park drew
75,000 supporters!
It’s blatantly obvious that there were major changes in the marketing strategy used to plan Obama’s May 08 open air rally in Portland. I don’t mean to minimize their efforts; I actually admire the genius marketing strategy used to inflate the number of attendants at the rally. I challenge your assertion that all in attendance were there for the sole purpose of hearing Obama speak.
The Obama Campaign used value added and smooth marketing tactics, along with the carnival atmosphere, to double his open air rally record crowd of 35K. One major change in their marketing strategy was the addition of a 45 minute opening act by a regionally popular, native Portland “indy†band.
The Obama campaign used the new marketing strategies to target and promote the rally at 23 Colleges and Universities across Oregon and Washington. They provided free bus transportation, strategically placed at numerous locations around Oregon and Washington. They expanded the free distribution of numerous electronic devises and hard cold cash.
The new marketing strategy, the “surgeâ€, worked very well and the event went off as planned. The Obama Campaign captured that much needed image, the one that portrays Obama as the great “unifierâ€, able to attract the masses with his sheer elegance, graceful oration and divine persona. Job well done!
Looking back, the Obama Campaign should have added a locally popular band as opening act in the Philadelphia and Columbia open air rallies.
As for your reliance on the polls, I'm not sure which one you're referring to, but I've seen polls in recent weeks showing Obama winning by as much as 16 points or as little as 3 points; most seem to be about six points. The one constant in all of them is that Obama is ahead and McCain is losing. Still, too early for them to mean much anyway; polls usually start to become good indicators after Labor Day.
Since polls aren’t good indicators until after Labor Day, why do you offer current poll results as proof positive of Obama’s lead over McCain?
Seriously.
As I’m sure you’re aware, campaigns continually monitor poll results throughout the election process. Poll results allow a candidate to tailor their message and effectively address issues and concerns that are of the utmost concern to the general public. Polls are the fuel that powers campaigns.
As to the polls I reference, I find the website
realclearpolitics to be a good, single point resource.
In a related story, CNN reports John McCain has narrowed the gap in four crucial battleground states. McCain overcame a 5 point deficient in Colorado to move ahead of Obama by 2 points. In Minnesota, McCain has overcome a 15 point deficient and now trails Obama by 2 points. It’s halftime at the campaign game and Obama holds a slim 4.5 point lead.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ews-for-mccain/
The final run to Election Day will be full of pitfalls and surprises. Despite all the Obama hype, he is not a shoe in for POTUS. This race will be close and it’s way too early to declare Obama the winner.
As for the debates, again, Obama's people are smart - waiting until the traditional post-convention period to have them. Why would they be foolish enough to allow the candidate that is consistently losing in the polls to dictate terms of the debate? Clearly, Obama and his team have been better negotiators on this issue.
“ the traditional post-convention period..†?? During the race to win the DNC nomination, Obama frequently debated his position with Senator Clinton at numerous town hall style meetings as well as national debates. Why the digressive “change†in strategy by the progressive thinking Senator. If Obama is what you say he is, a couple of town hall duels with McCain should easily seal the deal. What’s Obama waiting for? You really think Obama believes his 4.8% lead in the election polls grant him the authority to dictate the terms and conditions of all town hall meetings and national debates? Obama come across as arrogant at times.
Remember, I launched this thread because, tactically, this has become a theme. Obama and his people seem to be controlling the message, dictating terms, and outcampaigning McCain and his advisers at every turn.
The media has long since adopted a kid glove approach when interviewing or questioning Obama. Watch any television, listen to any radio and browse the internet and you will quickly conclude that Obama is outspending McCain with his massive media blitz. It’s easy to understand why you think Obama is controlling the message. The MSM became biased after they allowed Obama to exercise a measured amount of control over them.
