50 State vs. 50% + 1

An interesting peak into the different strategies of the Obama and Hillary campaigns. Wisely, in my view, Obama used Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. Hillary…not so much. Her attitude, seen below, says it all:

Last night, in the Politico interview, as Clinton advocated to seat delegates from illegitimate “primaries” in big states Florida and Michigan, she also defended her decision to ignore rural states, saying, “We’re never going to carry Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho. It’s just not going to happen.” The reference to North Dakota was particularly jarring since the state has elected not one, but two, Democratic US Senators that today serve in Washington, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad. To write off so much of the country is to abandon Democrats running for Congress, and will only result in having a less governable situation if one does become president.

But there you have it: a very clear distinction between the two Democratic presidential candidates in their priorities in terms of campaigning. And depending on who wins the nomination, you will see either a campaign that ignores rural states (and voters) or one that engages them and the issues unique to them. Clinton - who last summer at the Yearly Kos debate answered a question by saying she was for DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s fifty state strategy - has at least made it clear now that, “It’s just not going to happen.”

50% + 1 is a strategy of scratching out a victory of just 51%, your base plus a handful of independents by targeting micro-niches of voters. It's a very Rovian strategy, one I hope goes the way of the Rockefeller Republican.