This is the map from the McCain website's "strategy briefing":
This is pretty interesting viewing. What's tricky about it is that it at once seems to be an exercise in expectations-setting (i.e. lowering them) and an effort to reassure potential donors about McCain's electability (i.e. raising expectations). This produces a map that isn't particularly internally consistent. Arizona is described as a "Lean GOP" state while Virginia is described as "Solid GOP". Florida is described as a "Toss-Up" -- and so is Connecticut.
However, I don't know that this can entirely be dismissed as an exercise in spin, because so far McCain's travel schedule has pretty closely matched this map. For example, McCain made four campaign appearances in Florida over the past month, but none in Virginia or Indiana. He's visited both Kentucky and Tennessee in the past month, two states that might be competitive against another Democrat, but are gimmes against Barack Obama. McCain has made four appearances in California, two in Washington, and one in Oregon, none of which look like they'll be especially close.
Of course, choosing to campaign in a particular state is not purely about getting the locals to vote for you. Early in the campaign, it can also be an exercise in branding. McCain wants to set some low hurdles for himself in states like Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana where he should continue to maintain strong leads in the polling. He's supposed to be strong in the Western states and strong among independents, so he makes pretenses about competing in California, which is Western and has a lot of independents. But he seems to think it dangerous to concede, for instance, that Virginia is a swing state, since Virginia is a state that Republicans are supposed to win, and McCain is supposed to be an above-average Republican.
57 comments
How come the numbers don't add up? I only see New Jersey as light blue, but there are 66 lean DEM electoral votes.
That's a question for Rick Davis.
Obama should counter this strategy by going after McCain's home state of Arizona. The recent polls have McCain leading by around 10 points there.
McCain is vulnerable in AZ because he has moved to the right of his normal positions in order to secure the nomination. Remember that McCain received less than 50% of the primary vote in AZ on Super Tuesday.
Arizona has a long history of being very libertarian within the Republican Party. I would be interested what the polls would say if Bob Barr was added to the choices. My guess is that McCain's lead would shrink to 6-8 points.
If McCain still won AZ in the general election, but was forced to defend it with money and on the ground resources, he would look very weak to voters in the other 49 states. This is the same strategy that Bush used on Gore to secure the southern states in 2000. Obama can use the same strategy to sweep all of the western states in play this year.
Nate - Those California appearances were probably fundraisers. McCain is doing a lot of fundraising right now and not very much actual campaigning. Check out his schedule and you'll see what I mean.
And yeah, that map is screwy. The numbers don't match the states they've colored in.
That scenario analysis is really cool. Are you saving that data? I would love to see how it changes come November. In pretty graph form.
I watched the whole plan from Rick Davis and I was underwhelmed. Also, there are key weaknesses in this strategy for resource allocation. For example, in North Carolina he shows that as a solid "red state," yet the latest PPP poll has him only up 3 points over Obama and as you note the 538 regression model fits him at just under 8 points. Very much in play, especially with the strong GOTV efforts by Obama there just last month.
The map is partly over-confident, partly under-confident? Partly spin, partly genuine projections?
Nahhh. No need to over-analyze here. The map is wrong; the McCain team hasn't done their homework; and their campaign is proceeding accordingly.
I'm guessing there are more leans democratic states that are colored as toss-up. As have been pointed out above, the numbers don't add up. Throw Oregon, Washington, Minnesota and maybe Pennsylvania into light blue and the numbers get a lot closer to adding up.
Colorado is not a tossup state.
1. Governor is popular and a Democrat.
2. State House is solidly Democrat. It will remain that way after November.
3. State Senate is Democrat. It will be after November.
4. 4/7 of US Reps are Dems. CD4 is the only district where a party change is even remotely possible. It could change from Republican to Democrat.
5. The next US Senator will likely be Mark Udall (Dem) who will beat Bob Schaffer (Repub) and replace the current Republican (Wayne Allard).
6. The voter registration advantage is shifting away from the Repubs. http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1786
In short, Obama will beat McCain in Colorado.
Dave...you are dead on with your analysis of CO. Unless Obama totally screws up in the GE, Colorado is pretty much in the bag.
I don't see a relistic scenario where Obama can lose if he wins 2 out of 3 between OH, PA, and MI along with winning in CO, NM, and NV.
If ME and WA count as tossups, we've got this in the bag.
Is this internal polling? When they showed the regional breakdown, and it had McCain at 49% in the Pacific Northwest, I almost spat out my drink. Maybe that explains why he made an "eco-tour" up here. I don't buy it though, not for one instant.
I like how they assume that all money raised by the Republican National Committee will be spent on McCain and not on any Senate or Congressional seats.
If that was the case the Democratic Senate and Congressional committees would have $82,839,394 to spend on the coming Senate and Congressional elections, whereas the Republicans would have $26,104,610.
Actually the map only have 537 electoral votes.
I wouldn't label this a branding exercise unless his map gets picked up untouched by the media. And that would just be sad, because the numbers don't even add up.
I definitely think they are trying to appear confident (more so than they really are) by showing states like Virginia as solid red. It's got to be about fundraising.
I tried to assign leaning states to Obama and McCain based on the numbers on the map (75 Toss-ups). The most plausible I could figure out was NJ, CT, ME, RI, PA, MN and NM for Obama, FL, WI, NV, MO and the pink ones for McCain.
This is not how I read this map after listening to the presentation. I think the indication was that Red/Blue states are states that one candidate has already taken off the map, and the Pink/Pastelblue states are states that the campaign thinks will be taken off the map over the course of the campaign.
This reading makes the map make slightly more sense and makes it a lot more interesting. McCain expects that not only are Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana not battleground states, they won't become battleground states. They expect (probably correctly) that McCain's home state and the Appalachian states will be effectively taken off the map for Republicans, and only Jersey will be co-opted by the Democrats. The gray states aren't where there's currently a battle, but where they see a battle in, say, October. The fact that they expect Oregon to be a battleground is flabbergasting, but whatever. I think they took a "traditional battleground map from 2004" and didn't consider that both Obama and McCain can change the "safe" states, not just the leaning/tossup states.
On the other hand, the numbers seem completely disconnected from the map - I think they represent some other concept (like current polling).
And isn't it strange to put this much strategy just out there on the web? Do they not realize that there are Democrats on the web too, or did they fall for the classic "if we don't link to this no one can find it" fallacy?
I would correct the map to say the folloing...
Solid Dem: WA, MN, NJ, CT
Lean Dem: OR, NM, CO, IA, WI, PA, ME
Toss UP: NV, MI, OH, NH
Lean Rep: MT, ND, MO, VA, NC, FL
The rest of the map seems to be accurate for the most part. McCain is dreaming if he really believes the analysis of his advisors.