Obama's 50-State Strategy: Its Goals and Limitations

Sen. Obama's 50-State Strategy represents easily the largest expansion of a major party presidential candidate's electoral map in decades. In order to put that bold pronouncement into proper perspective, consider that Al Gore carried 20 states (plus the District of Columbia) and John Kerry carried 19 states (plus D.C). In the Obama campaign's recent announcement that it will look to expand the electoral map, it listed 18 states where the Illinois Senator will look to compete in early: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. The campaign will air its first general election commercial, a 60-second biographical spot, in each of these states.

This is a fascinating list. Only four of the states were won by Sen. Kerry four years ago: Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Al Gore did not do much better among these states, himself winning just five of them, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

While some of the states on the list are not terribly surprising, such as Missouri, Nevada, and of course Ohio since they were reasonably close at times over the last cycles, others definitely raise eyebrows. Indiana and North Dakota have voted Democratic three times in presidential races since the absolutely thrilling Herbert Hoover-Al Smith match-up in 1928. Georgia has become a deep-red state since 2002 when Gov. Roy Barnes and Sen. Max Cleland were ousted from office, and in 2004, Bush carried the Peach State by nearly 20 points. Alaska has voted Democratic in a presidential election just once in its history -- in the 1964 LBJ landslide. In sum, many of these states seem like reaches, and perhaps even lost causes to any national Democrat seeking to win them.

What gives, then? Does Obama really believe he can compete in each of these states -- and perhaps even beyond, as Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager also mentioned Texas and Wyoming as states the campaign would wade into heavily? Yes and no. The campaign would not put serious money -- and early spots are serious -- into any market that it did not feel would have some positive impact. Various polls taken in recent days and weeks demonstrate that Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia are close, with Obama either within striking or actually holding a lead. In Florida, Obama is consistently down in the high single digits, but given its size (27 Electoral Votes), it is well worth attention and investment from the Democrat throughout nearly the entire election campaign. In a stunning poll -- at least to me -- released today, Rasmussen has contended that Obama holds a five-point lead in the traditionally Republican state of Montana. And surprisingly, while there has been no recently-released public polling from North Dakota, internal polls apparently show that Obama is not hopelessly off McCain's pace.

Even if many of these states end up in the McCain column in November, or fall of out contention for Obama way before then, at this moment, if the polls are to believed, the margins are close in nearly all of these states. Given the current financial disparity between the Obama and McCain campaign, Obama has a unique opportunity to see if he can solidify or perhaps even expand his slim leads in states like Alaska, Indiana, and Virginia. Obama may not well believe that he can and will win many of these states when all is said and done, but he can tip his toe into the proverbial pool by spending a little money in these states via an early TV spot. Maybe, if his efforts are successful, he can end up carrying a generally reliable GOP state like Indiana, and gain 11 Electoral Votes that the Republicans usually take for granted and absolutely need themselves in order to get to 270. And even if that does not happen, perhaps the RNC will have to pluck down a fair amount of money in the Indianapolis market in order to solidify McCain's standing in the Hoosier State.

What are the existing downsides? There is one large downside that could materialize. Namely, that by trying to win states that are unwinnable for him (as well as Democratic presidential candidates in general), Obama will spread himself -- and especially his finances -- too thin, and in doing so, neglect the key and winnable swing states which may fall from his grasp. For example, that he dumps a couple million dollars in Texas for TV ads in September, rather than putting that money in the Cincinnati television market, and ends winning neither the Lone Star State nor the Buckeye State. This a clear and real concern. Indeed, while Sen. Obama's fundraising has been nothing short of outstanding up to this point -- and McCain's nothing short of tepid, particularly for a Republican nominee -- his resources are not limitless. Like any other candidate, he has finite financial resources that must be spent wisely and for maximum intended impact. This was well apparent when it was announced that Obama had raised $22 million in the month of May, substantially less than he had raised in April, and a sharp decline from the amounts he was picking up earlier this year. Even if Obama rights the ship and continues to fundraising at record-setting clips, the May fundraising swoon shows the preciousness of financial resources in this contest. Taken together, therefore, Obama will not be able to put big money into every state in hopes of winning that state. He has to draw the line between having an unprecedented national strategy, and at the same time being shrewd in his spending.

Following this line of argument begs the question of whether Obama can truly implement a 50-State Strategy. He absolutely can, so long as his campaign is able make the distinction between spending precious resources on a state, and actually focusing on a state in other ways. In other words, spending money on advertisements in Fargo is one thing in the dog days of summer, but come the fall, if the state is no longer within five points or less, the campaign should cease all serious buys there, especially because there are no close down-ballot Federal races there. The same goes anywhere else, though, a place like Wyoming is different for reasons that will be delineated later.

Thankfully for Democrats, the Obama campaign seemingly grasps this idea. In rolling out the campaign's broad general election strategy, Obama Deputy Manager Steve Hildebrand made a telling statement to this affect: "Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it. It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country." Manager David Plouffe made a similarly interesting observation about Texas, noting that there are "tens of thousands of people who want to help" in some way, like working at phone banks. "The reality is we've got a lot of volunteers in these states and we want a productive way to use them."

Without reflecting on the 50-State Strategy's impact on down-ballot races -- which will be covered in the next post -- these two statements boil the strategy down to its essence. They demonstrate that the Obama plan of attack does not just cover spending money in order to hold blue states and win purple states, but is also interested in best using resources that are already present in these red states, most notably volunteers eager to work on behalf of the campaign at zero cost. As Obama's surrogates note, while the campaign may not win Texas in November, it would be foolish to not try to maximize the enthusiasm of supporters who just happen to live in a bright red state. The same goes for places like Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, and elsewhere. Obama may not pump money into any of these states at any point from here until November, but his campaign intends to build some sort of organization, with at least some staff, but at fairly minimal cost to the national campaign.

Additionally, it is important to note again that not all states are created equal, particularly when it comes to television advertising. Investing in significant ad buys in Cheyenne and Anchorage may end up creating benefits for Obama and down-ballot candidates and at very little cost. Of course, conversely, buying a lot of time in Houston and Phoenix is probably more of a stretch and a waste of money given their size and ultimate cost. Here is a valuable and interesting chart breaking down the largest (and thus most expensive television markets in the country).

For the sake of simplicity, Sen. Obama's 50-State Strategy can probably be boiled down to a single sentence that sounds something like this: Obama's ambitious strategy entails that the campaign will use its fundraising advantage to play hard in the traditional swing states, spend money early in states almost always ignored by Democratic presidential candidates to see if they are worth deeper spending later, and putting at least some staff in every single state to implement a plan for each of the states whereby existing resources, supporters, and volunteer enthusiasm are used to their maximum effect for both the presidential campaign and for Democratic candidates in other races down the ballot.