In the comparable elements of the campaigns, though – those which are quantifiable and on which both campaigns depend – Obama seems to have an edge – fundraising, advertising, GOTV, voter enthusiasm, etc. Certainly, the causal relationship between these factors and a “good” campaign is iffy, but I think we can assume that causality is at least partially intertwined with these things. I.e., a good campaign raises money, and successful fundraising reinforces a good campaign. How much of that is the fundamentals, rather than the campaign is up in the air – but I don’t think we can confidently say it’s exclusively (or even primarily) the former.

Your argument about Obama needing to spend money in other locations would be very acceptable in past elections. In the past money has been a limiting factor. However, I think for the Obama campaign and its $600 million they might be running out of places to spend money. I don’t know how many ads and how much money can be spent, but with the few remaining days, they might really need spend some of that extra cash. Also, I think that aiming at Arizona is nothing but a posturing move. The fact that Obama is event thinking about going in to McCain’s home turf shows 1) How strong Obama’s camp believe they are and 2) How weak they percieve McCain’s camp to be. Of course, I’d like to believe your argument that they have made a mistake with spending decisions. However, until I can see some numbers on the Obama budget and how they look financially I believe we must take into account that they have their heads screwed on somewhat right and are doing this because they can and it won’t affect other advertising campaigns.