An Odd Strategy
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Jay Cost looks at Obama’s television advertising buys, and notes that the campaign has so far opted not to advertise in several states that Clinton won in ‘96 (and in ‘92 for that matter):
Compare the ad buys to the 1996 results, and you’ll notice that there are six states Clinton won that Obama, who is flush with cash and could spend anywhere, has chosen to leave off his list. Obviously, Arizona is easily explained, as it is McCain’s home state. However, there are five other states not included in the buys: Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Arkansas. We can make three points about them.
First, they have been more supportive of successful Democratic presidential candidates than North Dakota et al. Bill Clinton won all five in 1996 and 1992. Jimmy Carter won them all in 1976. Until recently, West Virginia was solidly Democratic – voting for Carter in 1980 and Dukakis in 1988.
Second, with the exception of Kentucky, all of them were more supportive of Kerry in 2004 than North Dakota et al.
Third, they generally remain Democratic in their partisanship.
As Cost notes, the campaign has not been running ads in these states because these were states where Obama was particularly weak in the primaries. Three of them are in Appalachia, and four of them belong to what I once dubbed “the Casey belt,” because of the prevalence of so-called “Casey Democrats” in these states. The phrase refers to states that still tilt towards the Democrats in many local and state elections and continue to have greater Democratic than Republican registration, while their Democratic voters tend to be socially conservative. So it was no accident that Obama fared quite badly with white Democrats in all of these states and lost the primaries in four of them. There is tremendous resistance to his candidacy among many of these Democrats similar to the resistance Kerry faced, but as Cost observes the states where Obama is making unconventional ad buys demonstrated even greater resistance to Kerry.
Except for Indiana, which is a natural target for an Illinois candidate, most of the “map-expanding” moves that Obama is making right now make little sense. I know that the Montana, North Dakota and Alaska polls show a very close race, and at least one has shown Obama leading in Montana, but there are structural reasons that these states almost never vote Democratic in the presidential race, just as there are structural reasons why “the Casey belt” states are more likely to vote that way. Many of the latter would be reverting to previous voting patterns, while the newly targeted states will have to break with long-established patterns. Put another way, if these states even voted for Bob Dole, odds are they will still end up voting for Dole Mk II McCain.
What makes this strategy even more odd is that Georgia, North Dakota, Alaska, Montana, and Indiana add up to 33 electoral votes, while Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Arkansas add up to 39 electoral votes, and the first five are much less likely to flip to the Democratic side. Winning the latter five may not be easy for Obama, but it should by all rights be easier than winning the others, and even if he is entirely successful in winning the traditionally ”red” states the payoff is not as great. What is still more puzzling about the strategy is that it is unnecessary. Colorado and New Mexico are much more likely to vote Democratic this year than these others, and so long as Obama holds all the Kerry states and wins these along with Iowa he will narrowly win the election.
Filed under: politics
Daniel,
If you take a look at the projections on fivethirtyeight.com Obama’s choices look a lot more reasonable. In polling done in Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, Obama is getting crushed, but polling in places like Montana, SD, and Indiana, he’s doing far better, and Alaska and Georgia are where the campaign expects Bob Barr to take a chunk out of McCain’s support. (Plouffe mentioned something about this in one of his press dealie-os.)
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
My only caveat here is that I think campaigning in Louisiana is equally as insane as campaigning in Georgia. LA is markedly different state than it was in 1996 or before, and it’s well-known that it’s one of the only states actually trending Republican right now. Also, Obama is down by 20 there according to Rasmussen. Whether it’s voted for Democrats or not, I would take a +5 in Montana over a -20 in Louisiana any day.
That said, he should shoot for West Virginia and Arkansas at the least. I honestly believe he can win them. But I also believe he can North Dakota, Alaska and Montana – and he *will* win Indiana.
Fair enough. I saw the new Rasmussen numbers today, and it’s true that Louisiana is out of reach. He has a much better shot at Indiana than any Democrat in recent memory. I’m doubtful it will happen, but coming from an adjacent state and exploiting an anti-GOP mood there might work.
mvymvy: My main concern about a national popular vote based on having a majority of states give their electors to the popular vote winner will annihilate any Presidential campaign by a third party. Third parties will no longer be a mere nuisance to the oligarchy politics of Demo-publicans and Republi-crats, But they may very well put our presidential election into turmoil, consider that in 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton won the presidency without a majority of the popular vote. Let alone that in 2000 neitther Bush or Gore received 50% of the popular vote. If the next Ross Perot causes such a political crisis, how does this state law determine the winner. Will those states have a run-off election, will they just pledge their votes to the candidate with a plurality of votes, will this law be completely undermined by a Ralph Nader?
No sir, the fancy scheme to enact popular vote elections is a disaster waiting to happen. Rather the states should enact proportional distribution of Electoral votes. granted the GOP’s efforts to get this on the ballot in California were lambasted in TAC’s 11-19-07 issue “California Schemin’” by Steven Greenhut, but when one looks beyond the political maneuvering of a loser party in an unfriendly state, proportional voting for Electors lives up to our founder’s ideals. Granted, proportional voting will definately give a bigger chunk of the electors to the loyal opposition, the massive spillover benefit is that voters will have an incentive to vote their conscience when states are not winner take all. If that happens, there will become a group of relatively independent electors who can actually play king -er- president maker in the Electoral College, just like our founders intended.
The Founders created the Electoral College as a check against the elections of demagogues. Unfortunately, the establishment of winner take all elections and political partisanship has made the Electoral College not more than a formality. But proportional voting returns those teeth to the College. Imagine if in ‘92 ‘96 or 2000 the third party insurgent has a proportional share of the Electors, we could have had a President Perot, we could have had a President Gore. Although these possibilities send shivers down my spine, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I would rather suffer the consequences of a working Electoral College than an ineffective one.