Battleground States

Marc Ambinder presents an interesting analysis of McCain's electoral strategy.

The McCain campaign possesses what one might call a waterline theory of the race. That is: the fundamental partisan orientation of the state matters a lot, is very sticky, and will, in the absence of an absolute tsunami, keep the relative range of the two-party vote roughly the same. In this view, if Obama can win Indiana, he'll definitely be able to win Missouri; if he can win Georgia, then he'll clearly have won Indiana. If he wins Missouri, he'll have won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The national background noise is louder -- more consequential -- for McCain than it is for Obama. We can some intuit some particular strategic insights: McCain will play more in some states than others. He doesn't have to worry about Obama winning Nevada and losing Ohio; in the McCain view, if Obama wins Ohio, he'll win Nevada, and the race is over.

What do you think? Is Obama spreading himself too thin?

My thoughts on the subject are all over the place. I'll try to make some sense of them here.

• By expanding the playing field, Obama forces McCain to play defense in states like North Carolina, North Dakota, Montana, and Indiana. McCain was indeed forced to respond in North Carolina, but so far he hasn't tried to counter Obama's advertising in the other three states. He is relying on their inherent "redness" to do the work. Polling has shown Montana and North Dakota to be very close, and Obama is competitive in Indiana and North Carolina.
  
• The expanded playing field has pushed McCain to advertise in Florida, Virginia, and Colorado but these aren't exactly new battleground states.
• On the other hand, McCain is advertising heavily in states like Minnesota, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. All three states are considered Obama territory. Will Obama have to play defense here and if so, will he have to pull resources out of other states?
• There is something to be said about not putting all your eggs in one basket. Obama has more routes to victory than he would have if he had focused on fewer states. If he wins all the Kerry states and Iowa, a number of different combinations can push him past 270. He can win even if he loses Florida and Ohio. (See some of the combinations below.)
• The expanded playing field helps down-ballot races even if it means greater expenditure in deep red states.

Kerry States (252) + Ohio (20) = 272 electoral votes

Kerry States (252) + Iowa (7) + New Mexico (5) + Colorado (9) = 273 electoral votes

Kerry States (252) + Iowa (7) + New Mexico (5) + Virginia (13) = 277 electoral votes

Kerry States (252) + Iowa (7) + New Mexico (5) + Nevada (5) + Montana (3) = 269 electoral votes (tie)