The Big Field

The NYT describes the strategic thinking behind Obama campaig efforts to expand the playing field a bit:

Mr. Obama’s aides said some states where they intend to campaign — like Georgia, Missouri, Montana and North Carolina — might ultimately be too red to turn blue. But the result of making an effort there could force Mr. McCain to spend money or send him to campaign in what should be safe ground, rather than using those resources in states like Ohio.

That's the normal account you hear, but I think in some ways it's the least-compelling reason to try and run a geographically broad campaign. The best reason, it seems to me, is probably just that it's an appealing electoral strategy to be seen as running a broad-based, nationwide political campaign. Bush talked in 2000 about the problems of poor minority children in school not so much because he thought he was going to get huge numbers of black people to vote for him, but to signal to voters everywhere that he was "a different kind of Republican," caring, etc. Even if Obama doesn't have any realistic prospect of winning North Carolina or Montana he certainly wants to win in places like Minnesota and Virginia and parts of Minnesota are like Montana, parts of Virginia are like North Carolina and an image as a broad-minded person who campaigns everywhere can be helpful. After all, Obama's eruption onto the national stage was a critique of the red/blue politics of cultural division, so it's good to dramatize that by running a nationwide campaign.

Beyond that, the more places you campaign the more places you're in a position to take advantage of unexpected good fortune. If for some reason McCain commits some kind of horrible gaffe that alienates the people of the big empty square states, it's good to have laid the groundwork to take advantage of that. Or maybe Bobb Barr will catch fire in the Deep South. In a narrowcast campaign, you need to guess in advance how things will unfold over the next several months and that's just difficult to do. If you have the cash to run a wide-focus campaign, then you can simply try to respond competently to events as they unfold however they unfold.

Comments

Also, given the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral college arithmetic, it doesn't make a lot of sense to campaign a lot in places where you know you're going to win. Obama winning by a nose in North Carolina is a catastrophe for McCain.

Posted by MattF | June 8, 2008 10:48 AM

It makes sense for Obama to campaign in every remotely close state, but it really doesn't make sense for him to campaign in the absolutely unwinnable, redder-than-red states... (I'm thinking of you, Utah, Wyoming and Alabama).

Posted by JRVJ | June 8, 2008 11:09 AM

Obama will win NC.
I live in Fayetteville, and the support for him here is tremendous. People of both sexes and all races were helping out. Even many of those in the Army at Ft. Bragg are for him. We had a lot of soldier's come to help in the days before the primary - sans uniform, of course.
And we have events already scheduled for the weeks and months ahead to register voter's, get contributions, and keep his name in the forefront until the Democratic Convention.
We also need to work to elect Kay Hagan and oust Libby Dole. And to elect Larry Kissell to Congress.
I'm with the Obama group here in the Sandhills and we are working to get all three elected.

Posted by Victor Small | June 8, 2008 11:15 AM

The 50-state strategy is also one of the best ways to battle the 'eliteness' perception. Why are the republicans so adept at painting the democrats as coastal elites out of touch with 'real' americans? Perhaps because democrats never bother to campaign in most of the country.

If Obama is campaigning everywhere, and making a patriotic and eloquent argument for progressive ideals, he still can't win everywhere. But it will be much harder for the RNC to paint him as an un-american outsider.

Posted by ArtB | June 8, 2008 11:22 AM

Spending money and time in a state that you are likely to lose only makes sense for the national campaign if you have more of one or the other than your opponent. The RNC is likely to be a neutralizer on money, and both only have so much time, so that logic seems questionable to me.

Probably the best reason to campaign in these states is to help down ballot candidates like Kay Hagan beat candidates like Liddy Dole.

Posted by Jeff S. | June 8, 2008 11:28 AM

I think campaigning hard in all 50 is important this year, because it sends another message that Obama is the anti-Bush. Bush and Rove spent eight years slicing the electorate, and courting only the people they thought were 'right.' Obama keeps talking about uniting the country-- it'd undermine the narrative of the campaign if he gave up on the red states.

Posted by Persia | June 8, 2008 11:29 AM

From a pragmatic perspective, attempting to stay competitive in every state means trying to keep a national message that can be tailored to the specific situation of every region of the country. That means not picking on the south, north, west, east, etc etc, saying "they're the cause of all our problems!". It keeps us honest, and stronger.

Plus, why not make right-wingers know you're all over their home turf? I live in Australia now, but I'd be happier than ever to do some canvassing in my home state of Texas, as I once did many years ago.

Posted by sweaty guy | June 8, 2008 11:45 AM

I think the campaigns just do not understand how targetting could be made to work.

The idea that you can do all of your campaigning in a few places, where the margins are especially close, mistakes the power of a political campaign. Political campaigns just cancel each other out, competing against each other in Ohio.

Targetting could work, if the campaign took advantage of the network of connections people have across the country. If Obama went to a region where he was not doing well, and retailed his candidacy, like he did in Iowa, but also amplified the drama of that microcosm of retail politics in a national campaign, that kind of targetting might actually work. That is, the campaign might actually change the dynamic of voter preference and allegiance. Most Americans, receiving only the national amplification, would only be witnesses to the reality tv retail politics, but they would be sympathetic witnesses. As Obama persuaded some of his target, he would also persuade people across the country, who felt connected to the target, by kinship or personal history.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 8, 2008 11:47 AM

Well, as a Blue resident of Dark Red Texas, Dems should campaign here because of down-ballot races, and because it's a really stupid idea for an organization that exists solely to get people elected to abandon huge groups of voters. We want people to vote for Democrats everywhere. Elections are not field hospitals, where the party can practice triage, allowing the severely wounded to die. Especially, this year, when we have a large fundraising advantage, Dems need to force their opponents to play defense as much as possible. Remember, so long as the other team is on defense it's not scoring points.

[See, a girl can use terrible military and sports metaphors in the same sentence.]

Posted by Karen | June 8, 2008 11:48 AM

Well, as a Blue resident of Dark Red Texas, Dems should campaign here because of down-ballot races, and because it's a really stupid idea for an organization that exists solely to get people elected to abandon huge groups of voters. We want people to vote for Democrats everywhere. Elections are not field hospitals, where the party can practice triage, allowing the severely wounded to die. Especially, this year, when we have a large fundraising advantage, Dems need to force their opponents to play defense as much as possible. Remember, so long as the other team is on defense it's not scoring points.

[See, a girl can use terrible military and sports metaphors in the same paragraph.]

Posted by Karen | June 8, 2008 11:50 AM

Damn. Sorry for the double post.

Posted by Karen | June 8, 2008 11:54 AM

We need a big victory

The obvious advantage to campaigning even in states you won't need to win to get to 50%+1 EC vote, is to help the down-ticket races. To get anything done, President Obama is going to need big enough majorities that the Blue Dogs woin't be able to block things by allying with the Republican minority.

A less obvious (some would say only obvious at all to tin-foil hat wearers) reason for a big margin of victory is to put the presidential election itself past easy judicial tampering. Yes, we are unlikely to get anything like the closeness of FL 2000, in a state whose EC votes decide the election. That highly unlikely scenario is indeed the easiest scenario for a Republican-packed SC to steal another election, because the controversy would come to the judges of its own, rather than having to be pursued, which would be bad for the credibility of the judicial decision. But to retain the presidency, especially this year when the control of the prosecutors and custody of the evidence from the last eight years is at stake, they might think it worthwhile to sacrifice a little judicial crediblity. The equal protection rationale of Bush v Gore is so elastic that it could be used as an excuse to throw out or redirect just about any state's result. But this will be harder to do, with the credibility needed to even pull it off, forget about the long-term credbility of the courts, the more states, and the higher the Dem victory margin, you would have to overcome to redirect the result, or just invalidate the result and force the choice of next president into the 20th Amendment procedure.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | June 8, 2008 12:06 PM

Increasing the number of battleground states _can_ pay off if any of the following are true:

1) You have more money than your opponent.
2) You can juggle more states than your opponent.
3) You can use volunteers to stretch your money further than your opponent can stretch his.
4) You have a favorable "wave" giving you strength, like the Democrats did in 2006.

In each of these cases, you try to grow the playing field and force your opponent to match your bets. And if your opponent has a poorly disciplined operation, or if they can't stretch their money as far, you'll have an advantage.

Of course, Matt's arguments for a 50-state-strategy are also critical: We need to be a national party, not a regional party, and we need to be prepared for lucky breaks.

Posted by Eric | June 8, 2008 12:08 PM

Another reason to campaign in lots of places: Coattails.
Doesn't make sense to limit his appearances to Ohio, Florida and a swing state to be named later if Obama can get Dems elected everywhere.

Posted by Gold Star for Robot Boy | June 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Obama should definitely campaign in all 50 states.

I don't think he needs to carpet bomb Utah and Idaho with advertising money, but if you look at a map of where Bush and Kerry made appearances in 2004, there were about 20 states where neither candidate put in an appearance. Both of them concentrated on Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

This means that a lot of those little Republican states have gone years without a candidate visiting them, and many of the voters there are questioning their brand loyalty for other reasons. There might not be enough votes available in Utah for Obama to win, but he might make it close enough to put it in play next time.

The other thing is that campaigning in all 50 states would force McCain to do so as well, and making a 72 year old man match Obama's travel schedule would make the differences between them more apparent.

Posted by Splitting Image | June 8, 2008 2:31 PM

1. 500k unregistered blacks in GA, who may be registered by November.

2. Bob Barr on the ballot in GA and NC.

Posted by Why It Makes Sense | June 8, 2008 3:05 PM

1. What everyone else said: down-ticket races.
2. Long-term planning. So you don't win Virginia this year, but you lay the ground-work to compete again next time, and you chip away at the other party's lead over time. Journey of a thousand miles etc.

Posted by bobbo | June 8, 2008 3:15 PM

Take a look at where competitive or potentially competitive Senate races are:

Alaska
Colorado
Louisiana
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oregon
Virginia

These are all either purple or red states. If this year is a blowout Dem year, they might have a shot at an upset in the Kentucky or Texas Senate races, both solid red states.

Whether or not he has a chance at winning any deep-red states, Obama has a real reason to compete there. Not so in the deep-blue states. The scenario where Obama runs up huge numbers in Illinois and California, and thereby wins the popular vote, but loses the Electoral College, doesn't make sense - that's not how he's going to deploy resources. The scenario where he makes North Carolina close, but loses Virginia, also doesn't make sense; a close NC should imply victory in VA.

He could well lose, but he won't lose by being strategically stupid in his. deployment of resources - the primaries should have established that, at least.

Posted by Noah Millman | June 8, 2008 4:39 PM

Take a look at where competitive or potentially competitive Senate races are:

Alaska
Colorado
Louisiana
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oregon
Virginia

These are all either purple or red states. If this year is a blowout Dem year, they might have a shot at an upset in the Kentucky or Texas Senate races, both solid red states.

Whether or not he has a chance at winning any deep-red states, Obama has a real reason to compete there. Not so in the deep-blue states. The scenario where Obama runs up huge numbers in Illinois and California, and thereby wins the popular vote, but loses the Electoral College, doesn't make sense - that's not how he's going to deploy resources. The scenario where he makes North Carolina close, but loses Virginia, also doesn't make sense; a close NC should imply victory in VA.

He could well lose, but he won't lose by being strategically stupid in his. deployment of resources - the primaries should have established that, at least.

Posted by Noah Millman | June 8, 2008 4:41 PM

"The RNC is likely to be a neutralizer on money, and both only have so much time, so that logic seems questionable to me."

I don't mean to sound combative, but can you tell me why you are making this claim? None of the numbers I've seen back this up. Obama raised about three times as much ($270 million) as McCain ($90-100 million) during the primaries, while his opponent, Clinton, raised about double ($200 million) what McCain collected. Of course, the DNC has a lot less ($4-5 million) on hand than the RNC ($40 million), but unless there are some figures I am not aware of, or a general consensus the RNC is going to raise money like Obama is raising, I am not sure what the hell it is you are talking about. Even with slightly increasing totals each month, it doesn't seem like McCain and the RNC will even be close to parity with Obama and the DNC.

Posted by Brian | June 8, 2008 6:52 PM

Turnout.

The voter registration drive currently underway is a relatively inexpensive way for the Obama campaign to gauge the viability of competing in states that would otherwise be considered in the bag for the GOP.

And yes, you compete everywhere, because you can never be certain what that will bring along the line and down the ticket.

it really doesn't make sense for him to campaign in the absolutely unwinnable, redder-than-red states... (I'm thinking of you, Utah, Wyoming and Alabama).

There's a difference between the late-campaign punt (Bush in California, 2000) and the early/mid-campaign acknowledgement that a state exists. Especially if you're looking to get five or ten percent of the 'nonvoting 40%' to the polls across the board. Picking up on what Bruce Wilder said, there are common interests that cross state lines: going to Montana seems less like token targeting if you're prepared to say the same thing in Wyoming or even Idaho.

You show up, you help the downticket candidates (if they want your help) and you stop the press from creating a narrative about how it's all about 15,000 people in Dayton who can't decide between Tide and Gain.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 8, 2008 11:30 PM

" it really doesn't make sense for him to campaign in the absolutely unwinnable, redder-than-red states... (I'm thinking of you, Utah, Wyoming and Alabama).

There's a difference between the late-campaign punt (Bush in California, 2000) and the early/mid-campaign acknowledgement that a state exists. Especially if you're looking to get five or ten percent of the 'nonvoting 40%' to the polls across the board. Picking up on what Bruce Wilder said, there are common interests that cross state lines: going to Montana seems less like token targeting if you're prepared to say the same thing in Wyoming or even Idaho.

You show up, you help the downticket candidates (if they want your help) and you stop the press from creating a narrative about how it's all about 15,000 people in Dayton who can't decide between Tide and Gain."

All true. The thing is, Obama doesn't seem to be trying for the redder than red states, any more than the McCain camp, to whatever extent it is serious about this, is making a play for a state like Rhode Island. He seems to be looking into the states where there might be some remote chance of an upset.

But to take your argument about states that are close to one another in another direction, why can't they coordinate advertising so it can reach different parts of different states? I know that different media markets may make it difficult, even if I am not sure of what determines what in different areas of the country, but is it really that hard to advertise in the same way along the southern parts of Ohio, both east and west, so that it also reaches different parts of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana?

Posted by Brian | June 9, 2008 1:27 AM

"1. 500k unregistered blacks in GA, who may be registered by November.

2. Bob Barr on the ballot in GA and NC.

Posted by Why It Makes Sense | June 8, 2008 3:05 PM"

Holy shit, if that's true, why haven't we registered those black voters in Georgia yet? Add in the growing number of unregistered Latino newly naturalized citizens in Georgia and Georgia could become the next Virginia.

Posted by Reality Man | June 9, 2008 2:50 AM

If obama wants to win georgia etc. he has to try to keep the republicans attention away from those states and his work there.

Posted by maz hess | June 9, 2008 6:07 AM

Am I the only person who finds it ironic that Obamabots are now debating if he should run in the States that effectively provided the margin of victory in the primaries? I am not a member of an organized political party - I am a Democrat.

Posted by phg | June 9, 2008 10:50 AM