To follow up on Sean's post, Sean Reagan at The Back Forty (not our Sean) tracked down a list of 17 states in which the Obama campaign is focusing its Organizing Fellows program. We can contrast these against the 16 states that McCain identified as toss-ups in its strategy briefing, and the 17 states that appear on one of the two versions of our Swing State Analysis:
One needs to be careful when pruning through these lists, because they may have as much to do with branding as the realities of what the campaign will ultimately do (particularly McCain's list, which was couched in what amounted to a donor pitch). Nevertheless, the contrasts are interesting. Obama sees North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey and Georgia as competitive whereas McCain does not. McCain sees Connecticut, Maine and Minnesota as competitive whereas Obama does not. Both candidates claim to want to focus on Washington and Oregon, even though the 538 list does not see them as competitive. Neither candidate claims to be focusing on Indiana, Montana or North Dakota, although our lists consider those states to competitive.
The states on McCain's list went to John Kerry by an average of 1 point. The states on Obama's list went to George W. Bush by an average of 2 points. The states on the 538 list went to Bush by an average of 6 points. McCain's list is ridiculously aggressive in a climate where the partisan advantage is shifting to the Democrats. One can understand that he does not want to lock into a defensive posture this early in the campaign, but he dawdles in organizing Virginia and North Carolina, he may find it impossible to regain the lead in the former, and difficult to shake Obama in the latter.
My critique of Obama's list would be the inclusion of Georgia rather than Indiana. This may be a reflection of the Obama campaign's belief that it can improve registration and turnout among traditionally low-turnout groups, like the African-Americans and young voters that are plentiful in Georgia. I think I like Indiana better, however, from the standpoint of portfolio theory. It's still very difficult to imagine Obama winning Georgia without winning North Carolina, and if he's won North Carolina, he almost certainly won't need Georgia. Indiana, on the other hand, offers a relatively unique set of circumstances. Obama is the first Midwestern Democrat to have received his party's nomination in years (and hails from Chicago, almost literally in Indiana's back yard). The Democrats devoted attention to Indiana for the first time in years as a result of the state's important primary. And Indiana is an extremely manufacturing-heavy state at a time of recession. I don't quite trust the couple of polls that showed Obama ahead in Indiana, but I can more easily see it being a surprise state that actually makes the difference between winning and losing the election.
46 comments
Nate,
Given (a) that the last IN poll was 4/29 and (b) that we're talking about a universe of only 4 polls total, how confident are you that IN is really in play?
I have to imagine the inclusion of Georgia is taking into account a factor not listed in your projections: Bob Barr as Libertarian candidate. It's another x factor, Barr could possibly add to the 6% he's polling at in his home state.
The thing about GA is that you don't have to have super extensive field ops - the places where Obama wants to run up turnout are fairly geographically small.
Also, Barr is from GA, and I think Obama is hoping that they can win over some evangelicals, which are not going to instantly swing for McCain, who isn't particularly religious according to the CW.
Right now, I think Obama wants to make a play everywhere he can. The inclusion of WA is interesting, but a first hand account form a fellow there said they wouldn't have many resources, so I'd caution against using this list to show the Obama camp's full/equal priorities.
The choice to disregard IN may be due to the lack of success Obama had there in the primary - the campaign may not feel is has a good strategy for that state yet, given that she won despite his money advantege/proximity to IL.
Nate,
I really like the portfolio theory idea. Could you make this more quantitative?
You say:
It's still very difficult to imagine Obama winning Georgia without winning North Carolina
but you don't have to imagine, do you?
I understand that right now you run your simulations using independent random fluctuations. However, you could also add a random Gaussian component to each of the regression coefficients. The appropriate width of the Gaussian can be extracted from standard linear least squares analysis.
The result would be more consistent with your portfolio theory intuition, in that states with similar demographics will be correlated in your simulations. For example, if black turnout is unexpectedly large on election day, this would show up in your simulations as a positive fluctuation of the coefficient for the variable representing the proportion of black people in each state.
You could then look at your simulations and determine exactly how many times Obama needed Georgia to win, and how many times he really did manage to win Georgia without winning North Carolina. Finally, you could apply this to all states, and highlight the battlegrounds that really matter.
That would be very cool.
If Obama's campaign is going to devote resources to Georgia, then I truly do not understand why (given the chances of winning in Georgia) they do not likewise devote resources to organizing in Alaska, Montana, Louisana, Mississippi, and Indiana. It is better to over organize early (especially when you have a large money advantage) then to have to do so late (say for instance if polls start showing those states as becoming possibilities late in October). If you had set the ground forces there already you could captialize on such late shifts in the electorate. I say go for broke; fortune favors the bold.
Heh Nate. your bf skinner style of posting is turning me into a bird in a cage with a button! posts at 11:45 pm! when are you giving us an rss feed?
I imagine that the Obama campaign has done enough internal polling of all the states and have calculated enough random statistics (like 500k unregistered blacks in GA) to figure out which places are in play and have room for growth.
We're working off months old polls and we're not looking closely at the very local demographics.
Perhaps it also has to do with geography-- IN is so close to headquarters, they could send people there if it started to heat up, and GA is a natural hub if you're already in NC and FL.
The polls for Alaska, Mississippi, Louisana, and Montana are all within the last 3 weeks, and all show Obama within 9 points of McCain. Another added bonus of heavily organizing in these states is that there are high profile Senate races taking place there. Organizing early in Alaska, Mississippi, Montana and Louisana could well put the Dems over the top in each of them.
Don't underestimate the value of making Mccain defend a state. Obama has a lot more money. If he can shave 5% off the polls in GA and make Mccain spend money there to defend it , those are dollars he can't spend in other states.
The problem is that all of the states listed --- Montana, Alaska, Louisana, and Mississippi --- Obama is polling better than he is in Georgia (the last poll put him down by 10 pts there). Two of these states (Louisana and Mississippi) also contain the same demographics that his campaign sees as an potential plus factor for Georgia being a swing state --- a large number of unregistered African Americans. Just saying that I don't understand how, if Obama's campaign thinks Georgia is in play, why do not think the same way about the four states I have mentioned.
Something to keep in mind about Obama's list is that the Organizing Fellows launched there this last weekend, which means that the states must have been picked some time ago in order to have time to organize and prepare. I expect that the list is more accurate as a reflection of the time when the states were picked than now.
My understanding is that there are more Organizing Fellows who will be sent to other states in July. If it turns out that some states (such as Washington) do not need the extra resources, they could probably be shifted to other states at that time while continuing to keep people in the real battleground states.
Anything that involves the logistics of getting people on the ground campaigning is going to be relatively slow to react to changes, it's the nature of the beast.
By the way, the 17 target states match very closely with this analysis from mid-May - the only difference is that Minnesota is not included and Georgia is. I wouldn't be surprised if the campaign had been looking at something very like this analysis.
With respect to concerns about Obama sending organizing fellows to Georgia versus other states I'd make a couple of points based on my own experience with the campaign:
1. These folks know what they're doing.
2. Voter registration is a HUGE part of what these organizing fellows will be doing. In some of these states I guarantee you they're looking at where it's feasible to register a ton of new voters that are likely Obama voters.
3. The organizing fellows are unpaid and the majority will be staying in "supporter housing" for free. So in GA you may not need too many actual paid staff people on the ground.
4. As for Indiana, I suspect we may have already laid a lot of the ground work during the primary or our polling is telling us there are better places to work.
The inclusion of Georgia could be a sort of preview or feeler to see what would happen in that area if Obama put Nunn on the ticket. Nunn's not my preferred VP candidate, but he is getting a lot of press as a possibility. From the perspective of the Obama campaign, Virginia could be the same thing. Perhaps what we're seeing elsewhere from omissions is an indication that Obama isn't intending to put someone from Montana on the ticket?
I would like to know which brand of tea you recommend - you must be drinking something goood to come up with such nice Obama projections!
It will be interesting to see if Al Gore's endorsement and fiery speech have an effect on the polls in Florida. His speech stirred up old resentment about 2000 and Florida in my wife, and we live in North Dakota!
I've lived in Indiana all of my life, and I just don't see much excitement for McCain. I believe Obama will do better in Marion County than any other recent Democrat (Kerry only won it by 2 percent, which was actually the first time it has been Dem since 1964). Obama's the perfect Dem for rapidly growing Hamilton County, where he dominated in the Primary. I don't think he'll win there, but he won't get destroyed.
I believe the key will be Allen County, my former home. It's always been a Republican stronghold in national elections, but Fort Wayne keeps electing Democratic mayors. Obama won pretty easily there, much to my surprise. It has the 3rd largest population of any county in the state.
I don't want to get my hopes up too much for an Obama victory here. Southern Indiana (outside of Bloomington) will be brutal for him. We may see some