Obama Will Compete for Neb. Electoral Vote

2008 Election Home · Meet the 2008 Presidential Candidates · Select a Candidate - Take the Survey · 2008 State Primary & Caucus Dates · Voice Your Opinion · Voter Resources · Addressing the Issues · About the U.S. Electoral College

Campaign 2008 Links
	Republican National Committee
	The Democratic Party
	The Corner on National Review Online - Political Blog

There are currently no active polls at this time.
Click here to view other polls on our site and past poll results.

Save

Lincoln, Neb.
Posted: 5:13 PM Jun 26, 2008
Last Updated: 5:13 PM Jun 26, 2008
Reporter: Associated Press
Email Address: desk@kolnkgin.com

5 comments

A | A | A

Barack Obama's presidential campaign is confirming that the Democrat will compete for the electoral vote awarded to the winner of the Omaha-based congressional district.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said Thursday that going after the vote is part of Obama's strategy to first win states that John Kerry did in 2004 and then go after others, like Nebraska, that President Bush captured.

Plouffe said the intention is to widen the campaign and fight more aggressively across a broad playing field.

Nebraska can split its five electoral votes, although it's never happened before. One is awarded to the winner of each of the three congressional districts; the other two go to the statewide winner.

More Stories
Nebraska Farm Bureau Endorses Mike Johanns for U.S. Senate

Heineman Could Be Ag Secretary for McCain

Nelson: Clinton Did Her Job in Denver

First-Time Delegate Heads to Denver Convention

State Fair Senate Debate

Hagel Visits Central Nebraska

Kleeb Campaigns in Omaha, Lincoln

Johanns Tours Central Neb.

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: lynnette Location: iowa on Jul 3, 2008 at 11:04 AM
most of the cost of the Iraq war is being borrowed. much of that from China, and oil-producing countries. If the big oil companies want to develop oil fields in Iraq and take profits from them, it may be necessary to keep troops there to protect the oil fields and the big oil corporations. I think that is why Bush and McCain really want long-term bases and troop presence in Iraq. The U. S. has also handed out big bundles of cash to all sorts of people over there, some of them perhaps have bought guns with it to fight our troops. The US invasion also moved so fast that mostly oil fields were protected, and many weapons storage depots were not guarded, so insurgent got those weapons too. We do need to give humanitarian and emergency aid to other people, including food aid, who are in need and in desperate situations. I don't like the military aid we give to dictators however. We need to give to help people in other countries, not their military leaders, as we too often do.

Posted by: lynnette Location: iowa on Jul 3, 2008 at 10:43 AM
to Marie: I can answer your question. Republicans and Democrats in Congress disagree on what to do in the long run, and in the short run, and neither will allow the other party to pass its plan. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill because of the filibuster rule, and neither side can get 60 votes. Republicans want to emphasize nuclear energy, getting rights to oil reserves in the U. S. and Iraq into the hands of the big oil companies, and what they call "clean coal." Democrats want an "Apollo-moonrace type" program to develop "Green" energy sources, wind, solar, waves, and new technologies (and reviving patents for inventions that have not been developed, because they were purchased by competing interests -- auto manufacturers, for example). Also Democrats want to limit speculation in oil, which has incresed from about $9 billion when Bush came in to over $250 billion now, according to one expert I heard. Bills are pending to curb speculation. That should help now!

Posted by: MARIE Location: MICHIGAN on Jun 30, 2008 at 06:06 AM
I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT OBAMA WILL BE ADDRESSING NEBRASKA. I AS A NEBRASKA NATIVE WOULD ASK HIM WHY ISN'T SOMETHING BEING DONE WITH THESE GAS PRICES? THOSE THAT ARE LOOSING JOB'S AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE GAS TO PUT IN THE CAR'S TO LOOK FOR JOBS AND THOSE THAT DO HAVE JOBS ARE ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET WITH WHAT LITTLE THEY DO HAVE......LOOSING HOMES,LOOSING JOBS, PRICES RISING, WE ARE TO BE THE RICHEST NATION THERE IS AND YET WE ARE BECOMING THE POOREST!! I WONDER WHY WE ARE GIVING SO FREELY TO OTHER COUNTRY'S WHEN OUR OWN COUNTRY IS AT RISK....

Posted by: lynnette Location: iowa on Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Nebraska is so interesting for its political and governmental differences -- unicameral legislature and splitting the electoral vote. that's one of the great things about having different states having slightly different systems. it makes you think "outside-the-box," and realize that there are different ways of doing things. sometimes it shows that one way is better. sometimes it shows that several ways are OK in different ways. I think that is very healthy for this country. On other things, however, it's good for states to get together and try to solve mutual problems, such as river flooding and cigarette taxes. I don't like the winner-take-all attitude or policy in general, so I like Nebraska's system of possibly dividing the electoral vote. It doesn't seem fair to have only 1,000 votes difference in one state give all of that state's votes to one candidate, while in another state, the other candidate could win by l00,000 votes. I'd prefer proportional division, state-wide.

Posted by: Andrew Location: Lincoln on Jun 27, 2008 at 08:35 AM
I still have faith in my fellow Nebraskans not to contribute votes to this anti-American, racist, disshonest candidate.

November Election Day Countdown: