Battleground State Analysis

This may seem like a strange time to do a state-by-state evaluation of the Presidential race given that we're in the midst of the conventions and the polls are in flux, but two weeks from now I anticipate a substantial McCain lead in every poll as a result of his convention bounce that will last throughout September, so that will alter the political map in a way that is not necessarily permanent as well. It may very well be that McCain's post-convention bounce remains or even grows throughout October, but recent election history suggests convention bounces rarely stick and the race ultimately reverts to the pre-convention divide give or take a couple of points. Thus, the best snapshot of what we should expect can probably be given now when neither convention is over and the candidates are evenly divided.

With that said, here's a look at how all the battleground, or even conceivable battleground, states are likely to tumble come November by my estimation...

Alaska--This is uncharted territory as Alaska has never been a battleground state before and it's tough to measure how voters there will respond to an intense campaign. In the past, third-party candidates have done very well in Alaska. Nader got somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% there in 2000. If Obama can consolidate most of that vote, and the GOP suffers from its badly battered image from countless state scandals, Obama could yet put forth the best showing a Democratic Presidential candidate has made in Alaska in decades. But I highly doubt that even in a perfect storm, it'll be enough for Obama to win Alaska, particularly with the oil issue rising in prominence. Prediction: McCain by 10.

Colorado--There are three states that are almost impossible to call at this point, and Colorado is one of them. Obama's support among upper-middle class whites is slipping, which puts in jeopardy the suburban doughnut around Denver that he needs to win comfortably if he wants to turn this state blue. It didn't seem like a tall order two weeks ago, but it's looking increasingly so and I suspect McCain's childish but effective attack campaign will ultimately finish him off. Colorado looks like a classic bellwether this year, but I have to give a slight edge to McCain. Prediction: McCain by 2.

Florida--It seems incredibly unlikely that Obama can win in Florida. The selection of Joe Lieberman as McCain's running mate would completely finish Obama off, but it's highly unlikely Lieberman would even be needed. Florida's elderly voters are exactly the kind who will respond to GOP doubts raised about Obama, and exactly the kind where undecided voters will break against Obama the way Democratic primary voters did and the way Florida's general election voters broke Republican in 2000 and 2004. It won't even be close. Prediction: McCain by 8.

Georgia--Of the seven red states that the Obama campaign is targeting, only one of them strikes me as an irrational pipe dream....and that state is Georgia. The Obama campaign's calculation is that if they can get to 47%, native son Libertarian candidate Bob Barr will divide the conservative vote with McCain. But it's very unlikely that Barr will be that much of a factor in the end. If he gets even 3% in Georgia, I'd be incredibly surprised, particularly if the concern is raised that a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama. It certainly doesn't merit wasting resources in the expensive Atlanta media market. Georgia is getting more Republican every year, and it's often blamed on the rural "bubba" vote, but the reality is that the needle hasn't moved much with the bubbas in recent years. The needle has moved with the saturation of exurban yuppies of the hardest-core variety who live in the fast-growing Atlanta suburbs. And neither the bubbas or the corporate lap dogs will be voting for Obama in the kind of numbers necessary to lift him even to 47%. Prediction: McCain by 13.

Indiana--Never would I have guessed six months ago that Indiana would emerge as a potential swing state this election cycle (or any election cycle in my lifetime for that matter), but I've seen enough polling evidence to indicate that Obama's within striking distance there and that his campaign presence there is wise. Had Obama selected favorite son Evan Bayh as his running mate, I suspect we'd have a real contest in Indiana. Without Bayh on the ticket, I strongly suspect the state will fall back on traditional partisan allegiances, at least enough to assure McCain a fairly comfortable victory. Prediction: McCain by 9.

Iowa--Like most of the Upper Midwest and the northern Plains states, Iowa is an outlier in that its demographic groups would seem to indicate an easy victory for McCain, but where Obama is seeing significant gains over previous Democratic nominees. Although Obama is still vulnerable enough to lose the voters of Iowa, I see no evidence of it happening yet and will thus fall back on a comfortable Obama victory in November. Prediction: Obama by 4.

Maine--I have yet to see any polling numbers in Maine. It's assumed to be comfortably Democrat, but rarely is it a slam-dunk in national elections, particularly its northern Congressional district. With New Hampshire polling as closely as it is, I'm not yet convinced Maine won't prove to be reasonably close as well. Prediction: Obama by 6.

Massachusetts--It won't be a swing state, but unfavorable ethnic groups (read Irish Catholics) will ensure Obama with the weakest performance by a Democratic Presidential nominee in 20 years. Prediction: Obama by 9.

Michigan--Obama's an easy target in Michigan. Racial polarization is worse in Detroit than virtually anywhere else in America, and the white working-class voters of Macomb County are gonna be tremendously distrustful of voting for Obama, and a TV ad linking Obama to embattled Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is likely to be the final nail in Obama's coffin in Michigan. Even beyond the race issue, the McCain campaign will hone in on Obama's promise to raise CAFE standards, a radioactive position in Detroit. On the surface, Romney's loose ties to Michigan probably won't help much if he's McCain's running mate, but a carefully calibrated economic message appealing to working-class whites will most likely assure Michigan will go from blue to red this fall. Obama's one potential saving grace.....the Upper Peninsula. They think like Wisconsin....they vote like Wisconsin. And Wisconsin continues to look like Obama country. If Obama can do 5-7 points better on the UP than Kerry did, it could offset the expected losses he'll incur in suburban Detroit. Probably not enough ultimately though. Prediction: McCain by 2.

Minnesota--I've seen enough evidence to recognize that Obama's lead has declined substantially in Minnesota. Why Minnesota and not Iowa or Wisconsin? Probably because there are far more yuppies in Minnesota....affluent white metro area suburbanites who appear, contrary to popular opinion that it's exclusively the white working class, to be Obama's weakest link. Particularly if McCain opts for Pawlenty as his running mate, Minnesota could very easily slip out of the Democrats' hands. But I'll have to see more poll evidence before I put my home state in the McCain column. It's teetering on the edge, but still leans narrowly Obama. Prediction: Obama by 2.

Mississippi--A lot of doe-eyed optimists fancied that MS's black population could put Obama over the top in what is arguably the most conservative state in America. The likelihood of higher proportional black turnout probably means the margin in Mississippi won't be as lopsided as usual, but keep in mind that already amazingly low 15% of whites that typically vote Democratic in Mississippi is almost certain to shrink even further with Obama as the Democratic nominee. In the end, it'll still be McCain by double digits. Prediction: McCain by 14.

Missouri--I was always skeptical of Obama's chances given how white and Southern the culture is everywhere between Kansas City and St. Louis. There was never any chance of Obama winning at least 100 of Missouri's 115 counties. but a really strong showing in suburban St. Louis, assisted by Obama being a known quantity due to the close proximity to Illinois, had the potential to put Missouri in play. But as appears to be happening everywhere, Obama's hold on upper middle-class suburbanites seems to be slipping. Even if he wins them back, it's hard to imagine Missouri going for Obama. Every place outside of metropolitan St. Louis is just too demographically hostile. Prediction: McCain by 7.

Montana--The Obama campaign continues to be bullish about this most unlikely state, and amazingly, it's hard to discount their optimism. All the polls are within the margin of error. Considering how cheap of a media market Montana is, they'd be fools not to hit this state hard. With all that said, Obama is not a comfortable fit for the libertarian-minded gunslingers of Montana. It won't take much effort on the part of McCain to make them realize that. Prediction: McCain by 5.

Nebraska--You don't hear much anymore about one or two of Nebraska's proportionally divided electoral votes being potential Obama pick-ups. Not surprising. It was never gonna happen. All three districts are way too crimson red. Prediction: McCain by 24.

Nevada--Like Colorado, it's too difficult to call Nevada with any degree of confidence at this stage of the race. Frankly, with its insane population growth and increasingly minority-heavy demographics, it's almost impossible to call Nevada ANY election cycle. For the most part, the polls have leaned McCain, but if there's a single state where the perennially disappointing outreach to register a groundswell of Democratic-leaning Latino voters is effective, Nevada would be the state. But when you factor that even when Obama was doing better than he is now in the national polls, he still wasn't doing very good business in Nevada, you have to assume that McCain will have the edge there in November. Prediction: McCain by 3.

New Hampshire--The third of three states I consider essentially too close to confidently call at this stage. Assuming that the late-deciding voters break against Obama as they did in the primary, however, one has to assume the McCain-friendly state of New Hampshire will do their boy proud one final time. Prediction: McCain by 2.

New Mexico--Polls are all over the place but generally lean to Obama. I cited before that I expect the current polling numbers showing Latinos heavily favoring Obama are flawed, and that will undoubtedly have an influence on New Mexico which has the most Latinos of any state in the country. It's a tough call, and I suspect this will once again be one of the closest states in the country, but I'll narrowly give the edge to Obama right now. But his lead is shakier than cafeteria Jell-o. Prediction: Obama by 1

North Carolina--The polls are all surprisingly close in a state where Kerry lost by double digits despite sharing the ticket with native son John Edwards. They're close enough to indicate that a significant number of whites have to be crossing over for Obama. Blacks could not get Obama within 3-5 points in the state on their own. All of this is encouraging for future election cycles, but it's almost certainly too soon for the demographic shift of to benefit Obama in 2008. Prediction: McCain by 7.

North Dakota--Another state that is undoubtedly surprising the hell out of just about everybody in that it appears close based on early polls. I scratch my head myself wondering where all of this crossover appeal is coming from, and can only include that McCain's hostility towards biofuels (and farm programs in general) are hurting him more than Obama is necessarily helping himself. In the end, McCain is likely to win comfortably, but it's certainly worth the resources for Obama to invest in this cheap media market and grow the electoral map in the process. Prediction: McCain by 7.

Ohio--When you do the math in Ohio, it's hard to see how Obama can win it, despite tied polls and the general perception that Ohio is once again the chief battleground state. I don't suspect it'll be that close unless Obama wins back the upper-middle class suburban vote that has been trending against him in the last couple of weeks, because he needs winning margins in traditionally Republican-leaning exurban counties surrounding Cleveland and Columbus to offset his almost certain loss of support versus Kerry in rural Ohio, particularly the Appalachian counties of southern and eastern Ohio. I just can't see how the arithmatic works out. Prediction: McCain by 5.

Oregon--Nobody is mentioning Oregon as a potential battleground state but there's no reason to believe it won't be. Obama would certainly seem to have an edge, but I suspect his victory in Oregon will be smalle than McCain's victory in many states that are deemed to be battlegrounds. Prediction: Obama by 5.

Pennsylvania--While every poll shows Obama with an advantage in Pennsylvania, his losing it is far from out of the question. One has to suspect that Obama's entire lead in PA is the product of robust strength in the affluent suburbs of Philadelphia....and that he's underperforming past Democrats everywhere outside of metropolitan Philly, particularly in southwestern Pennsylvania. If his numbers continue wobbling among the upper-income educated, McCain could win PA too. I'm leaning towards Obama holding it right now though. Prediction: Obama by 2.

South Dakota--I've only seen one poll in South Dakota and McCain was only leading by four, so it's worth including the state in this list. South Dakota is becoming more conservative with the yuppie culture of Sioux Falls far removed from its blue-collar meatpacking roots and with conservative tourism industry workers on the rise and populist farmers on the decline. It's not likely to be close....but probably CLOSER than anyone predicted. Prediction: McCain by 9.

Virginia--It would take a perfect storm for Obama to win Virginia. That was the case even when Obama was mopping the floor with McCain with suburbanite professionals. The margin Obama would need in northern Virginia to win statewide would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 points--better than Tim Kaine or Jim Webb--when factoring in the fact that he'll almost certainly underperform Gore and Kerry in the rural Shenandoah Valley of western Virginia. Polls are amazingly close, but I see absolutely no chance of the arithmatic working out for Obama. Prediction: McCain by 4.

Wisconsin--I've seen nothing to indicate that McCain is making inroads in Wisconsin. The final result will certainly not be the blowout that early polls suggested, but I'm still fairly confident Obama can win Wisconsin. Predicton: Obama by 4.

Final Tally...McCain 297, Obama 241

One final prediction: Most election years, there's a three-way competition for the "reddest state" in America between Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. This year, I'll go out on a limb and predict that Oklahoma goes stronger for McCain than any of those three states.

Thoughts on the Veepstakes

Before I ponder the running mate candidates too intensively, let me first state that I'm stunned at how drug out this process has been. I would have predicted both candidates to have selected running mates at least a month ago. Frankly I think it was a mistake, particularly for the Obama campaign, to let this drag on throughout the month of August as the GOP slime machine beat him senseless. He could stolen some headlines for himself by selecting his running mate a couple of weeks ago, but seems so fond of dangling the "well-kept secret" in front of the media and the public that he wasted an opportunity to go on the offensive. And keep in mind, John Kerry picked John Edwards on July 6, 2004. And even in the low-intensity 2000 campaign, Bush picked Cheney on July 27, 2000, and Gore picked Lieberman on August 7, 2000. So we are WAY behind schedule this year. And I don't really understand why considering how much sooner the calendar ran on every other aspect of this never-ending 2008 Presidential campaign.

Let's start with Obama's veep prospects, beginning with what I deem the good choices, followed by the bad choices...

The good.....

Ted Strickland--Oh that's right. The popular Ohio Governor and former Appalachain Congressman, and perhaps the one man who could have helped Obama in his weakest territory in the country, took himself out of the running back in June. If Obama loses Ohio by 1-2 percentage points and it costs him the election, Strickland could have alot to answer for within the party.

Evan Bayh--There's ample evidence that Indiana is in play this year, and its 11 electoral votes would be one helluva feather in Obama's cap if he could win it. With the popular Bayh, it could happen. Without Bayh, the chances are extremely slim. Bayh also adds a unique blend of youth and experience to the ticket. He's only 52 and looks considerably younger than that, yet nonetheless has eight years experience as Indiana Governor and 10 years experience as a U.S. Senator. Not a bad resume. There are two small problems with Bayh however. He has a reputation as not being a fighter...and in this election with a nominee as vulnerable on character issues as Obama, an attack dog is needed. Secondly, Bayh was a staunch supporter of the foolhardy Iraq war, and continued to be a hawk long after being a hawk was no longer cool in Democratic circles. Nonetheless, Bayh is my favorite of those on Obama's short list.

Joe Biden--The Obama ticket desperately needs someone on the ticket who can shore up his foreign policy credentials and few in the Democratic Party are as solid on those matters as Biden. Biden is known to be a long-winded talker, but it seemed as though he reined in his rhetorical excesses in his impressive performances in the primary debates last year. And the gravitas he brings to the table would almost assuredly help Biden mop the floor up with GOP lightweights like Willard Romney or Tim Pawlenty in the veep debate. The downsides of Biden....he brings no geographical strengths to the ticket and would not help Obama in any swing states. Beyond that, Biden has time and time again displayed an Al Gore-esque inability to control himself from making destructive self-aggrandizing statements.

Sam Nunn--I'm kind of surprised the conservative former Democratic Senator from Georgia no longer seems to be on the veep short list. While it's doubtful he would be able to help Obama much in Georgia, he would be a political masterstroke as he is widely praised as a center-right Democrat that would "balance the ticket", but had the wisdom to be right about Iraq when most of his "centrist" ilk were rubber-stamping Bush's war policy. His only downside far as I can tell is his history as being against gays in the military, which has almost certainly left some residual ill will in the homosexual community. Still, that's a pretty limited downside for a guy who seems to no longer be in the running.

The bad....

Hillary Clinton--There shouldn't be much explanation necessary here. A Hillary selection would be so bad at so many different levels it blows the mind. For every "angry Hillary supporter" it would help bring on board, it would alienate at least two would-be Obama supporters who loathe Hillary.

Tim Kaine--I just don't understand this one at all. Obama's biggest weakness in this campaign is his experience deficit versus McCain, so he plans to counter that by choosing the one man in American politics with even less experience than himself as his running mate??!?!?! I seriously question how much value Kaine would even be in Virginia. And even if he was a significant help to Obama in Virginia, he would be a liability in the other 49 states. Yet Kaine remains on the short list.... In my opinion, he'd be the worst veep pick since Dan Quayle.

Kathleen Sebelius--Another head scratcher for me. She's not from a swing state. She has no foreign policy experience to round out the ticket. Her ascendancy to a national ticket reeks of tokenism even more than the Geraldine Ferraro selection of 1984 did.....or at least it would to the insulted Hillary supporters. This is another brainfart that should have been deep-sixed long ago.

Bill Richardson--On paper, Richardson looks fantastic. But a good debater he is not, and I think the Obama campaign realizes and African-American and a Hispanic sharing a ticket is a concept America is in no way ready for. It's too bad for Richardson because in other ways he'd be an outstanding selection.

Now, onto McCain's veep list. The good...

Joe Lieberman--Wow would this be a coup d'tat for McCain to pull this off. Sure, the fundies would be foaming at the mouth over the pro-choice selection....for a few days. But in the end, they'd be onboard, as would a lot of conservative Democrats who respect Lieberman not to mention a good percentage of the Jewish community in swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

Tom Ridge--Again, the outrage among the religious right over the pro-choice selection would quickly fade and McCain would be left with a well-respected elder statesman who doesn't look all that elder. More importantly, he would put Pennsylvania back in play....and if Obama is fighting tooth and nail to hang onto Pennsylvania, he's not gonna be elected President.

Tim Pawlenty--I would have put my home state's Governor in a "neutral" category a month ago. While he would be a perfectly competent selection who could ably serve the requisite role of the running mate, I never bought into the idea that voters concerned about McCain's age would waive those concerns if he picked a youthful running mate. Furthermore, it didn't look at though Minnesota would be a swing state last month, but it certainly does now, meaning Pawlenty's stock has risen considerably.

Charlie Crist--Crist no longer seems to be on the short list, and his only real purpose on the ticket would be to take Florida completely off the table. But that would be huge in terms of freeing up resources for McCain to take the fight to Obama's turf rather than going through the usual motions of $25 million wasted on Florida only to once again discover on election night that the pre-election polls were five points too generous for the Democrat.

The bad.....

Willard Romney--Willard's Presidential campaign SHOULD go down as one of the biggest disasters in history. Here is a guy who by all intents and purposes should have been able to breezily buy the GOP nomination, but failed every step of the way. Even his most ardent supporters in the primary were only onboard because he was the closest thing to a conservative left in the race after the Fred Thompson departure. And McCain hates the guy's guts to boot! The only potential positive that Willard could bring to the table would be the outside possibility that he would move the needle in HIS FATHER'S home state of Michigan...and that seems like quite a stretch.

Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina--McCain continues to toy with the idea of selecting women CEOs with questionable track records in the companies they ran. Either of them would get eaten alive in a debate with Joe Biden or Sam Nunn, or even Evan Bayh, on foreign policy matters. That's why I don't think McCain is serious about them.

My guess is that it comes down to Bayh or Biden for Obama....and Pawlenty or Lieberman for McCain. If anyone other than these four were selected, I'd be surprised.

McCain Will Do Better Than Bush Among Latinos

Here's a prediction nobody else is making about this election....Barack Obama's alleged 3-1 advantage over Latino voters will not materialize come November. I'm pretty sure memory serves me right that John Kerry was also clobbering Bush among Latino voters in polling throughout the 2004 cycle. On election night, however, Latinos turned out to give Bush more than 40% of the vote, an all-time record for the Republican candidate in Presidential elections. It simply doesn't make sense demographically that the most Latino-friendly Republican in Congress would be losing so badly to an African-American given the tensions between the black and Latino communities. With all that in mind, I'll go out on a limb and predict Obama wins the Latino vote by no better than a 55-45 margin this fall.

Why the disconnect between weak poll numbers for Republicans among Latinos and the ultimate election night returns? Simply put, many of the Latino poll respondents cannot or simply do not vote come election night. Working-class Hispanics have incredibly low rates of citizenship and thus wield next to no might in elections. Nonetheless, when phoned for an opinion poll on Presidential preference, they may be inclined to participate and thus give Democrats artificial strength in the Latino community. Come election night, the actual Latino electorate is disproportionately Cuban and middle class, and thus far stronger in support of Republicans than what polling throughout the campaign would suggest.

The same thing is likely to happen in 2008. For all of the hype about the Latino vote and its growing prominence, expect the share of the Latino vote to increase from 8% to 9% at best. And if Obama's candidacy provokes improved African-American turnout, I would not be at all surprised to see Latino turnout proportionally decline in 2008, despite their blistering population growth.

It's the same story every two years. Massive quantities of ink are used in stories promoting the idea of the surging Latino vote having the potential to swing elections with their millions of new voters, but ultimately the "new voters" do not exist...and the Latino vote that does show up at the polls gets more and more conservative. The overarching lesson to be learned from this trend is that both the media and pro-immigration liberals are clueless in regard to how disenfranchised the Latino vote in America is proportionate to their population and their contribution to the nuts and bolts of our economy. Most working-class Latinos can't and don't vote. End of story.

All My Rowdy Friends Have Settled Down

At this time in 2004, my entire life revolved around the Presidential campaign, and I was not alone. Although I was yet to delve into Daily Kos, there was an assortment of other election blogs I visited multiple times daily, including the conservative blog JayReding.com where I always offered a counterpoint. I also regularly visited Swing State Project (back when it was a Presidential election blog) and the Election Projection site. In the 2006 midterms, I was a regular on the same sites and also posted election thoughts on this blog, and connected with a number of people from both sides of the political aisle who shared my passion for the respective contests. And I just got to thinking this past week that the majority of the election junkies I talked to back then are either absentee or considerably less engaged this cycle.

Perhaps the conventions in the weeks to come with lift me out of my Election '08 lethargy, but I've been predicting the turning of that corner for quite some time now. The campaign has gone on way too long and even most of us who love the horse race can't seem to find the energy to spend multiple hours per day obsessing about it like we used to. With that in mind, I hope the next election follows a more traditional course, with the entire campaign playing out over the course of less than 12 months rather than the nearly 24 months of this contest.

The Electoral Map Is Likely to Change A Lot...Yet Still Not That Much

For months now, we've been hearing about the Obama campaign's wishes to redraw the playing field and mix up the red state-blue state divide of the last few election cycles. At first I was skeptical that much terrain outside of the usual litany of "battleground states" would ultimately be in play, but I've seen enough state polls to where I'm convinced that we are indeed looking at an entirely different political map in 2008. As someone who has been obsessed with political demography since I was 11 years old, that premise has me fascinated with checking out the elections results map on the morning of November 5, so much so that I was actually dreaming last night about studying said maps. Nonetheless, I can't help but expect the county-by-county results maps are gonna look far more different from 2000 and 2004 than will the state-by-state maps.

There is a disconnect between the tight national polls and the media perception that little has changed since 2004. Scores of state polls provide overwhelming imperial evidence that the map ALREADY HAS changed in a substantial manner, only in a way that produces little net benefit for Obama on a national level. Obama has closed 20-point gaps to statistical dead heats in states like Indiana, North Dakota, and Montana. That is absolutely huge in terms of realignment. And even if Obama doesn't win these three states, as I suspect he will not, closing a chasm of that stature is no small feat and will give Obama license to declare success in his efforts to expand the political map, even in narrow defeat.

So with Obama tying McCain in states that Bush won by 20 points, how is he no better off (or barely better off) than John Kerry was four years ago in national polls? The answer to that question can likely be answered with one word: Appalachia. The gains Obama has made in Montana, Indiana, and North Carolina would appear to be nearly completely offset by his underperforming of past losing Democrats in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas. And I would be incredibly surprised if this gap narrows in the next three months, and would actually bet on it getting worse. If Bush won West Virginia by 13 points, expect McCain will win it by 23 points. Bush won Kentucky by 20 points...and McCain will likely win it by 30 points. Bush won Tennessee by 14 points...McCain will likely win it by 24 points. My bet is that there are only about seven or eight states, all of which went Bush in 2004 with the possible exception of Michigan which is perhaps very close, that are single-handedly dragging Obama's national numbers down to the near-parity with Republicans that we saw in 2000 and 2004 races.

I suspect this Obama-centric realignment will be abundantly clear on the national county map. Instead of only four of North Dakota's 53 counties going blue as was the case in 2004, Obama may win 20 in 2008. Instead of 27 blue counties in Wisconsin, Obama might be able to pull off 40. Instead of only 15 blue counties in Illinois, Obama might win 50 or more. With that in mind, the 2008 national county map could look considerably better than in the last two national elections, but with little net gain for Obama nationally. For instance, Obama could win Grand Forks County, North Dakota, but is probably just as likely to lose the Kerry County of Beaver County, Pennsylvania. More specifically, I suspect Kerry's nine-county bounty from West Virginia in 2004 will dwindle to zero counties in 2008. Kentucky's 12 counties for Kerry will probably plummet to one county for Obama. Tennessee's 18 Kerry counties will probably become four Obama counties.

Even within traditional battleground states, I suspect there will be an internal realignment in 2008 compared to 2000 and 2004. In Michigan, we're probably like to see more Wisconsin-esque counties on the Upper Peninsula go blue while the suburbs of Detroit, influenced by the metro area's racial polarization and fear of Democratic-supported increases in CAFE standards for the auto industry, trend towards McCain. In Pennsylvania, Obama's victory is likely to be scored based on a handful of affluent counties in suburban Philadelphia running up supersized Obama margins, even as Allegheny and Erie Counties are the only two counties in the entire western two-thirds of Pennsylvania to follow suit for Obama. As for Ohio, an Obama victory (which I see as a longshot) is likely to require huge Democratic gains in affluent suburban counties near Cleveland (Lake County), Columbus (Delaware County), and smaller margins of defeat in metropolitan Cincinnati, given the likelihood that Obama will underperform Kerry by double digits in the Appalachain counties of southern Ohio.

Put in a broader context, I thoroughly applaud Obama's efforts to expand the map by targeting the seven solid red states that he has. Of the seven, only Georgia strikes me a miscalculation of resource investment. Most of the states involve cheap media markets (Alaska, Montana, North Dakota) that it would be stupid for a campaign as well-funded as Obama's to NOT invest resources there even if polls showed him behind by 15 points led alone tied. Of course, his campaign's already getting cynical feedback from the likes of Real Clear Politics and others about how the campaign will have much to answer for if it loses traditional battlegrounds like Michigan, Ohio, and Florida as a result of "wasting resources" in crimson red states that would never have gone for Obama in the first place.

In other words, long live the 18-state strategy. That logic strikes me as flawed at many levels. There comes a point of diminishing returns as it pertains to campaign advertising. If $20 million worth of advertising in Ohio isn't enough to swing Ohio to Obama, then why should anyone believe $25 million would be? Again, redirecting some of that money to dirt-cheap North Dakota seems painfully obvious even if McCain was ahead there by 15 points, not 2-3 points. Ultimately, I'm doubtful that any of the targeted red states will go Obama beyond Virginia, but I'm not prepared to make that a self-fulfilling prophesy by ignoring them the way Al Gore and John Kerry did with several winnable states, and I'm glad Obama isn't willing to accept it either.
.