So much for a 50-state Obama campaign. Now down to 46 max
Exactly 44 years after Lyndon B. Johnson became the last Democrat to capture the state of North Dakota in a presidential election, it looks like Barack Obama won't be the next.
The Associated Press reported this evening and an Obama spokeswoman confirmed that the Chicago-based campaign is pulling its 50-some staffers out of the heavily Republican state full of embittered small towns and shipping the workers east to Minnesota and Wisconsin, where the Democrat's prospects seem brighter and closer.
John Kerry did the best of recent Democrats there, getting 36% of the North Dakota vote in 2004 -- 3 percentage points more than Al Gore in 2000.
The abandonment of at least one Midwestern state by Obama comes as a new AP poll indicates that race could play a significant role in deciding a close national election. (See video.) Some experts
estimate the first African American candidate of a major party might be as much as 6 percentage points more ahead if he wasn't black.
Obama supporters hope that their months of work, 11 closing North Dakota field offices and widespread television advertising in the rural state may benefit down-ticket Democrats on Nov. 4. The Obama staff evacuation comes as early balloting is about to start there.
According to the AP, the McCain campaign has no staff or offices in North Dakota, another of those high Plains states where the livestock population far outnumbers the humans.
Few campaigns ever openly admit abandoning any state and some, like George W. Bush in 2000 and McCain this year, openly talk of competing in a state like California, as a feint to force their opposition to defend it unnecessarily.
Earlier, Obama halted television advertising in Georgia. Idaho was conceded a Democratic write-off early on, as is Alaska now, given the presence of its popular Republican Gov. Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate on the GOP ticket.
-- Andrew Malcolm








Hey, 46 is pretty good. Have you bothered counting the states that McCain has given up on? I believe it includes some place rather close to home, your home, a state that has 55 electoral votes.
“A Dozen Reasons Why McCain Won’t Win: Money-Back Guarantee”
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Mitchell in NY | September 21, 2008 at 08:59 PM
How dare you describe Sarah Palin as a popular governor! Why, to read the lefty bloggerz and all the emails I am getting from my liberal friends, she is widely reviled and Alaska is up in arms at hpw her inclusion on the Repub ticket is affecting them. Surely she is being recalled by now? Surely? Surely? I am sure her approval rating has plummeted to, maybe 79%????
Posted by: Politicus Finch | September 21, 2008 at 09:15 PM
Looks like the son of Democrat in the Tennessee state legislature was a part of Palin's e-mail being hacked (a felony, btw.) Coincidence that it just happened to come from a congressman's family? I think not. How many times does Obama have to be linked to criminal activity before people start looking seriously his past and his connections?
Posted by: Florida Rez | September 21, 2008 at 09:16 PM
He's half black, half white. And if he happened to be green and purple, he'd still be a great man. It is tragic that some people can not see past the color of his skin.
I'm one of those Canadians that would give up my vote in our upcoming election to vote in the U.S. election. I have never even bothered to vote before, but I would vote for Obama.
For those of you for whom color matters, I wish you would wake up and realize that you have potentially the greatest leader in recent history willing to serve as the leader of the free world.
Tony H
Posted by: Tony Howdle | September 21, 2008 at 09:43 PM
Well, no big deal here. The state is lost so why spend time there. I am always stunned though how a state like North Dakota can vote against its own interests.
Posted by: Bob | September 21, 2008 at 10:01 PM
This race should be about ideas, not about race. But it is know wonder these things are still embedded in our politics with ageism and sexism just as prevalent.
http;//www.boppoll.com
Obama '08
Posted by: mgultch | September 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM
The first significant decision that any presidential candidate makes is that of a running mate for vice president.
Obama could have chosen Hillary Clinton - a GOOD choice or anyone else - not as good a choice.
Mc Cain chose Palin - a good choice or anyone else - a bad choice.
First choice - good judgment - John Mc Cain.
Who do you want to lead this country?
Posted by: Charlie J. Brown | September 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Obama himself said "I've been now in 57 states with one left to go" - Possibly he meant Islamic Countries when he made that slip of the tongue (see UTube video on this) - because there are 57 of them.
Posted by: John | September 21, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Sad to think that in 2008 we can have a racist bias in any state. Sad but true.
Posted by: Jill Again | September 21, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Blaming racism is the best they can do to explain why Obama isn't doing better? These are the same "experts" who claimed Bush was going to easily lose in the last election, based on exit polls.....but people buy into this arrogant mentality that any time Obama does poorly in an agriculture state it has to be racism, because "you have to be stupid not to vote for Obama". Total arrogance! What a childish way to blow off your opponents instead of engaging them in intellectual debate. Then again, liberals have a track record of not debating well and in no time, resorting to personal attacks when they are losing.
Posted by: Mally | September 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Funny what a prescribed story line will do to the actual story. No, Obama isn't going to contest every state. But the game's still being played on the Republican side of the field. THAT'S the story. So instead of the 20 yard line, Obama's at the 30.
Posted by: keller | September 21, 2008 at 11:18 PM
People are people, and it's pointless to judge them. Some people are invariably stupid and ignorant, and they inevitably vote Republican - this is simply a fact of life. There's no point complaining about it, and Barack Obama doesn't wring his hands about how things are - he simply deals with them. That's why he's the next President of the United States, racism or not. Merry Christmas, America - you're going to get a real President for the first time in nearly half a century.
Posted by: Brian Altmeyer | September 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM
race as an issue does not suprise me, it doe not take a rocket scientist to figure this election, I would not care if he was purple with a pink tu-tu, issues are very important for me so Obama has my vote, Mc cain should stop repackaging old goods. Enough Already!!!
Posted by: mo | September 21, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Mgultch, Sarah Palin might be a great choice for getting McCain elected, but she'd be a terrible President, so she's not a good choice for VP either. I don't see that as good-for-the-country judgement, but it might be good for McCain. Lieberman would have been a far better VP or President and might have been a good enough getting-elected choice; too bad Rove wouldn't let McCain pick him.
Hillary? Too many people in both major parties passionately her, and whether it's for good reasons or bad, it would kill Obama's election, just as McCain would lose if he'd picked Romney or Giuliani or Dick Cheney as his VP. Biden's a bit dull sometimes, but he'd be a great VP.
Posted by: Bill in San Francisco | September 22, 2008 at 01:14 AM
Funny how this article is starts out addressing Obama's campaign retreat from North Dakota and then morphs into an expose of how he would be farther ahead if there weren't so many bigots out there.
North Dakota was never "in play"....it addresses something of an amateurish political outlook by Obama to allocate money to a state that hadn't been carried in over forty years by the democrats. And since the bigoted six percent was not identified as Republican or Democrats...were are going to have to assume it is both
Posted by: NBrown | September 22, 2008 at 01:52 AM
I am in contact with friends who insist, this late in the game, that all the lies about Obama that have been de-bunked a million times are true. Sigh.
Palin is touring the country with a script and she won't take questions, but that doesn't raise any eyebrows.
Palin is running for VP, and people act like it's just a short wait until she'd president. (shudder)
So racism is alive and well in America. Gee, what a shock.
Posted by: Raven Raving | September 22, 2008 at 02:17 AM
Florida Rez, your comment is illogical. Please explain how the son of a Congressman in Tennessee has anything to do with Obama.
If anything, McCain/Palin is getting an easy ride here. I can only imagine the reaction if it was Obama with a pregnant, unmarried, teenage daughter, or if Obama had dumped his first wife, or if Obama had graduated at the bottom of his class... I could go on, but I've made my point.
Posted by: Mark | September 22, 2008 at 02:33 AM
It seems like it's ok for African Americans to vote for Obama simply because he is Black, but not ok for European Americans to vote against him because he is Black.
Racism works both ways, not just one.
I supported Hillary Clinton and and am not voting for Obama. I have serious doubts in his ability to be a President for all of America.
Posted by: Nick in Washington State | September 22, 2008 at 02:45 AM
My only bias is against idiots. Two of whom, John "Deregulate The Economy" McCain and Sarah "I Can See Russia From Here" Palin, happen to be on the Republican ticket.
Posted by: Vic Arpeggio | September 22, 2008 at 03:01 AM
If he weren't black, we would have never heard his name.
Other than that, he is just clean and articulate, with not much else to recomend him.
Posted by: Sternberg | September 22, 2008 at 03:19 AM
If we elect another Republican after the mess that's been created with Reaganomics, we deserve a depression. Oh, except for the rich.
Posted by: David Blackburn | September 22, 2008 at 03:31 AM
As the owner/manager of Idaho's premier marketing/polling research and consulting firm, I can tell you that Idaho, if not already, should definitely be one of those four non-focused states for the Obama campaign.
Greg
Gregory P. Smith
Greg Smith & Associates
Boise, Idaho
gregsm@quickidaho.com
Posted by: Greg Smith | September 22, 2008 at 03:51 AM
CNN & MSNBC PLEASE EXPLAIN TO AMERICAN PUBLIC! WHY ITS RACIST WHEN WHITE VOTERS DO NOT AGREE OR SUPPORT THE INEXPERIENCED MEDIA MADE OBAMA, BUT IT’S NOT RACISM WHEN 90% PLUS BLACK VOTERS ARE ONLY SUPPORTING THE BLACK CANDIDATE? LIKE OPRAH ETC…
Barack Obama privately tried to persuade Iraqi political leaders to stall an agreement on scaling back American troops in Iraq while publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal, Obama’s campaign is not a train wreck; it’s Chernobyl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqHFk-3yQM
One of CNN's leading Obama sychophants, Candy Crowley, let the cat out of the Obama bag, when she told viewers that the Obama campaign had wanted horrific Wall Street headlines to help their campaign. Crowley, and fellow Obama sychophant David Gergen, were extolling the virtues of bad economic news for the Obama campaign. Of course, no one would expect CNN to actually deal with the issue of who or what party is responsible for the economy. No, their template is the economy is horrible, we are going to blame Bush and McCain and Obama will benefit. The Drudge Report had this story on its site this morning, but realized how bad this is for the Obama campaign. It's beyond audacious that we have one candidate for President who is full of hope. Hope that the economy is so bad, that he can win an election because of it. The conservative internet has its work cut out.
The mainstream media has frankly put the security of our great country at risk with an Obama coronation media like CNN & MSNBC is the only way Obama managed to steal the Dem nom. It’s extremely concerning that so many Americans could care less about who their candidate really is?? simply amazing and frankly scarey.
PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE WITH EVERYONE ASAP
"The Last 100 Days"
Hon. James David Manning, PhD.
www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html
Posted by: louise | September 22, 2008 at 04:33 AM
"Some experts estimate the first African American candidate of a major party might be as much as 6 percentage points more ahead if he wasn't black."
Typical liberal reporting. What experts? How do they figure this? This is an example of a race baiting comment. A statement that has NO merit and nothing in the article to back it up. Furthermore, I don't believe it! Was John Kerry up by 6 points? How about Al Gore?
Posted by: Ron | September 22, 2008 at 04:35 AM
I hear Kentucky's next, that Obama $ has been pulled out of the state. Won't stop me for voting for him though. Racism is deep but not obvioius.
Posted by: mdenis46 | September 22, 2008 at 04:43 AM
"Looks like the son of Democrat in the Tennessee state legislature was a part of Palin's e-mail being hacked (a felony, btw.) Coincidence that it just happened to come from a congressman's family? I think not. How many times does Obama have to be linked to criminal activity before people start looking seriously his past and his connections?"
I'm no Obamabot, but assuming that he is responsible for the hacking - aside from the Anon being an Obamabot - is just plain Silly!
Also, am I the only Anon that is thinking about McGovern's win in 1972?
Posted by: RE: Politicus Finch | September 22, 2008 at 04:52 AM
I find it fascinating that the MSM is begining to blame "race" for a probable Obama loss in November. Rather than simply focusing on blaming whites for their attitude, perhaps they should spend a little time reflecting on the aspects of black culture and behavior that have created the negative image that the MSM is reporting. Acceptance of negative aspects of 'black' culture is being seen as helping to create a coarsened mainstream American culture. This combined with special preferences as a substitute for the earlier vision of equality has created an extremely divisive situation that is creating even more damage to our country.
Posted by: Nan | September 22, 2008 at 05:03 AM
Hey, don't give up on Georgia yet, we're still fighting here!
As to why...does anyone really have to ask? Any white candidate should be able to beat McCain or just about any other Republican for the office.
Posted by: Allen | September 22, 2008 at 05:08 AM
Actually Obama would probably be up by 15 percentage points if he had some genuine executive experience and could form an opinion without conferring with his 300 foreign policy advisors first. Alas, there is no there there.
Posted by: Joanne600 | September 22, 2008 at 05:09 AM
Is it possible that people could leave race out of this? I am so sick of hearing about it! Suddenly I belive that America does have racial issues and they aren't against blacks, they are against whites. Just because I am a white American who sincerely dislikes Obama as a candidate. He lies, contradicts himself, has no respect for our flag or our national anthem and is inexperienced and arrogant, all reasons not to vote for him. I wouldn't not care if he were purple and was descended from parents on Mars. I want the man to win who knows our country and isn't so arrogant and vile. Obama is a gifted speaker but that alone cannot run the White House. Quit whining people. If you care so much about Obama why don't you try to sell us on the issues and quit worrying about color. 10 to 1 Toni who made the post about racism is black and is a racist. He has not recovered from slavery yet! Slavery is dead. Almost everybody who was involved in it is now dead. Martin Luther King's dream has come through. When I see a man I do not judge him by his skin but by his character. Get over yourself. See Obama for what he is - NOTHING! Stop making excuses and take your sweet little self to the polls and vote Obama. You are lucky to be an American and have that option.
Posted by: Darlin | September 22, 2008 at 06:26 AM
"...the first African American candidate of a major party might be as much as 6 percentage points more ahead if he wasn't black.'
I wonder if the AP did a poll and figured out how many people wouldn't be voting for him BECAUSE he is black?
Posted by: Matthew Vincent | September 22, 2008 at 07:23 AM
What? No, "I was a lifelong Republican but now I just can't vote for McCain" posts yet?
Mr. Axelrod, you're slipping sir. How much money is Obama paying you to just sit on your hands??? Get your astroturfers over here quick! Turn these comments in Obama's favor!
Play the racism card when you have no other convincing arguments, smear that Palin girl, do whatever it takes to win!
'Cause that's what we Dems are about, winning at all costs!
Posted by: Trav | September 22, 2008 at 07:26 AM
"embittered small towns"????
Shouldn't that be "embittered small town where they cling to their guns and religions and reject the message of hopey changiness offered by his Holiness, the LIghtworking Messiah, Barack H. Obama."
He heals the sick, raises the dead, and can turn water into fine French wine, but he can't carry North Dakota?
Truly, His ways are mysterious.
Posted by: JackieE | September 22, 2008 at 07:26 AM
Oh Jill, Jill, Jilll...
You've bought into the race-mongers' propaganda. Even my own kids have seen through that - and they are KIDS.
Please follow Tony Howdle's example and don't vote - it's just too hard for people like you and you might hurt your simple self.
Posted by: Redhead Infidel | September 22, 2008 at 07:31 AM
What's with the characterization of North Dakota's "embittered small towns"? With this attitude, either from the author of the article, or from the Obama campaign, it's not hard to see why many Americans don't buy into the Obama mystique. Obama and his MSM cheerleaders don't have a clue about how to appeal to average voters, but they can surely insert foot into mouth.
Posted by: fgmorley | September 22, 2008 at 07:38 AM
"heavily Republican state full of embittered small towns"
Embittered?
Do you have any comprehension of how condescending this sounds?
Posted by: Phil | September 22, 2008 at 08:33 AM
I live in North Dakota and to think that he was going to win in a very red state is pretty over confident, while a lot of us seen it coming, it doesn't mean we are racist in North Dakota, it means we reject marxism.
Posted by: goon | September 22, 2008 at 08:49 AM
Where are the facts? I realize that you don't have actual reporters anymore, but if you can't report the facts, put it on the editorial page(s).
How come he's pulling out? What are the poll numbers? What are the breakdowns?
Where's the explaination of where the people are going and the policy behind how campaign resources are being used.
Or you could interview people in North Dakota about the impact the offices and staff had, and then the impact of their leaving.
Perhaps you're just bitter that you can't cover the field offices in North Dakota anymore. Oops, I guess you never did that. Perhaps it's because you're just a hometown paper with state-wide pretentions and a national campaign is outside your coverage area.
Posted by: Mary Hartigan | September 22, 2008 at 09:08 AM
What happened to Obama's fifty-SEVEN state campaign?
Posted by: Jerry | September 22, 2008 at 09:16 AM
"embittered small towns." Maybe that should describe all of the urban areas that voted Kerry and did not win.
Posted by: Aaron | September 22, 2008 at 09:48 AM
OBAMA / BIDEN:
THE LEAST QUALIFIED PRESIDENTIAL TICKET IN AMERICAN HISTORY. HANDS DOWN. COMBINED THEY HAVE:
NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE
NO BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
Posted by: steve | September 22, 2008 at 09:49 AM
Obama is abandoning a state in which Democrats are seldom competitive so naturally we're going to blame it on racism because you know how those small town embittered folks are--always voting against their own interests and afraid of people who don't look like the other presidents on the dollar bill. They probably don't like his funny name either. And I bet they think he's a Muslim. Let's face it, small town Americans in red states suck canal water and should be disenfranchised. What a shame the first post-racial candidate isn't able to unite them with their educated betters who judge people solely on the content of their characters and have not a prejudiced nor biased bone in their bodies. What a tragedy that these poor self-deluded folks don't recognize the best educated, wisest, most qualified, most experienced, most intelligent, most fantabulous presidential candidate ever! Poor fools, we should pity, not censure them.
Posted by: SukieTawdry | September 22, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Why is the poll on race discussed in this post about North Dakota? Is it meant to imply that Obama is doing poorly in North Dakota because the people there are racist? Although I am not from North Dakota, if I were I would be offended by this insinuation.
Oddly enough, the same poll finds Obama ahead of McCain! It would seem that if race is impacting the election it is not actually damaging Obama much.
I recommend reading the following blog post to put the poll and its findings in context:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/ap%E2%80%99s-ron-fournier-racial-arsonist-and-unethical-journalist
Posted by: Laura | September 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Tony H, You said, " I'm one of those Canadians that would give up my vote in our upcoming election to vote in the U.S. election. I have never even bothered to vote before, but I would vote for Obama. "
I assume you are aware of all of Obama's associations with people like Rev. Wright, Ayers, Soros, Rezko, etc. I am wondering why you choose to dismiss those associations and how those people helped to influence Obama.
Posted by: Jacob | September 22, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Like South Dakota and southern United States North Dakota has a history of racism against people of color in this case indians. (North Dakoa is a racist state). Only progressive politically when it comes to family farm money from uncle sugar. To their credit they have good senators from that state.
Posted by: Archie haase | September 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Barach Oboma was a follower of the Reverend Wright for a number of years and has talked on the good things the minister has done (in his opinion) but not much about the false accusations made by him and his church concerning their concern for the egregious acts they claim were committed by the U.S. Govt.
Now Barrach is affiliated with George Soros -his second and current mentor- whose views about our society and politics are well known by the liberal community. The latest speech made by Barach closely reflect George's views on his political science views namely the validity of our constitutional rights including- the right to bear arms and freedom of religion. Both of these are basic rights and not up for debate by anybody including junior senators.
I remember the Communists used to refer to our freedom of religion as a narcotic of the masses' .I am concerned that Barach's reference to religeon was a trial balloon to see how the public will react to Barach's/ George Soros political science opinions and the direction they want the United States to go. From what I have heard, the response hasn't been favorable to Oboma remarks and has instead resulted in a greater scrutiny by the citizens of the United States of his views, and his mentors namely the Reverend Wright-advisor on anti American views and George Soros- financial support, Tony Rezo- indited fixer and William Ayers- unrepentant terrorist.
Posted by: john's son | September 22, 2008 at 04:09 PM
So the Dems' first African American candidate would do 6% better if he were white? In fact, he'd do 100% worse.
If he were white, then he'd not be the Dems' first African American candidate. He'd just be the junior senator from IL busy doing nothing in the Senate, and HRC would be the Dems' nominee for president. She's white, but not African American white and so would not benefit from the 6%.
I'm just following your logic.
Posted by: indga | September 22, 2008 at 05:17 PM
Why is it that stupid people tend to be concentrated in rural areas and small towns? Is it genetic: their forebears weren't too bright and had to move into the remote and marginal areas because the best land had already been taken-up by the smart people. Or is that that they truly believe the myth of the rugged individual making his own way through life (with a little help from agricultural subsidies, cheap water, and import restrictions); or do they just not get out much and mix only with their own ignorant kind? The world is a much bigger and more complex place than you seem to think and you need people with brains and talent to lead you. It is a no-brainer to vote for Obama for President.
Posted by: Eric Yendall | September 22, 2008 at 05:47 PM
I am a college student and resident of North Dakota and someone who is very very liberal. I live in Fargo which is our biggest city, small by a lot of your standards I am sure, but bigger for our region. Anyway, blogs like this is why some people in the midwest have problems with some of the coast-bias. Fargo and ND for that matter overall is not a very racist state. Our senators and congressman are all Democrats not to mention the 2 senators are probably some of the best in the country and are good friends of Obamas. Obama is doing well in ND and the polls here are actually neck and neck. I know, I worked for the campaign doing voter identification. Just take a look at the map on Politico.comhttp://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html Yes, for presidential elections we do tend to vote Republican as it is documented, but this year there is more a chance then ever, its still a longshot but theres still a shot. Any political scientist could tell you why he is pulling out. I am a political science major. We have 3 electoral votes, its not racism, Fargo is a pretty liberal city as far as cities in this state go. The fact this election is very close everywhere means Obama needs to divert his resources to the obvious "swing states". Its simple election strategy. You divert your resources to where you need them most. Right now its in key midwestern swing states. ND is close, but its not going to be hugely important with just 3 electoral votes. If ND does go to Obama it will just demonstrate the strength of his message as well as the dissatisfaction with the current administration. Bush also has very low approval rating here. A lot of rural people in this state don't support McCain because he has a terrible farm bill record.
Posted by: Bill | September 22, 2008 at 07:50 PM
did you really just describe north dakota as a state of embittered small towns? and you wonder why they dislike you? huh. for the life of me, i just can't figure it out..
Posted by: Liz | September 22, 2008 at 09:15 PM