Scoping Ohio (and Indiana)

Since I made my last analysis of battleground states, it still looks like Ohio is the most important of these targets. And a new state can be added to the list -- Indiana.

Indiana is sandwiched between Ohio and Obama's home state of Illinois, and it would be relatively easy to reach both Ohio and Indiana from the main campaign headquarters.

The race in Ohio still looks very tight and I think the campaign has a better chance there than in Florida, although that could change. The Democratic governor in Ohio compared to Florida's Republican governor is very helpful. Both states had some significant voting irregularities in the last two presidential elections.

Ohio is close enough to Illinois for road trips by dedicated Obama volunteers as well as paid staff.

Northwest Indiana is part of the Chicago Metropolitan Area. People regularly commute between both places especially from Indiana into Chicago for work. Given that Obama's ground support is likely strongest in his home state of Illinois, it is very practical to spill over into Indiana and make a run at this usually Republican-leaning state.

In both states, Obama will have to reach out to very similar populations consisting of working class people who have been hit hard by recent economic woes. Evan Bayh is a good possible VP choice for targeting Indiana, while Gov. Ted Strickland would be logical for Ohio. Hillary Clinton and her husband are very popular with the swing voting segment in these states.





o

Targeted States: Ohio

One can't revisit the importance of focusing on key swing states enough. The Obama campaign will work in all states to help build the campaign and the party -- registering voters, raising money, recruiting volunteers -- but it will focus a lot of its persuasion and get out the vote efforts on battleground states.

There are times when no matter how many millions one spends on TV ads, and despite the thousands of dedicated volunteers one fields, that you will still come up short in the end. You can work on these people over the long haul, but for any particular election cycle it pays to target voters who are more open and persuadable.

They identify these 'soft targets' by professional polling and reports from ground workers.

Ohio is one of the swing states with the most available electoral votes. In this primary season, the state had a much larger turnout among Democrats as compared to Republicans.

Primary Turnout in Ohio (2008)
2,233,156 (D)
1,018,865 (R)
3,450,893 (Total)

In the 2006 election, the Democrats romped to victory winning the governorship and seats in the Senate and the House. The local economy has been spiraling down for years now and there is a general dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, which is blamed for the state's woes.

The Real Clear Politics polling average shows Obama slightly ahead in recent polls.

Poll	Date	Sample	Obama (D)	McCain (R)	Spread
RCP Average	05/13 - 05/20	--	44.0	42.7	Obama +1.3
SurveyUSA	05/16 - 05/18	600 RV	48	39	Obama +9.0
Quinnipiac	05/13 - 05/20	1244 RV	40	44	McCain +4.0
Rasmussen	05/15 - 05/15	500 LV	44	45	McCain +1.0

We should note that these polls were taken before Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race.

An Akron Buckeye Poll taken in March 2008 showed that Ohioans largely believe that the Democratic nominee will win the general election.

The major issues: "Nearly one-half of all Ohioans said that economic issues (such as jobs and prices) would be most important to their vote for president (47.5%). Another one-quarter said foreign policy issues (like the Iraq war and terrorism) would be most important (24.8%). Roughly one-sixth (16.8%) chose other domestic issues (such as public services and taxes) and one-in-ten respondents said social issues (such as abortion and same-sex marriage) would be most important to their presidential vote (10.9%)."

Obviously, Republicans are very vulnerable when the campaign if focused on the economy, so don't be surprised to see that strategy taken in the Buckeye State.

Obama and the Swing States

There's been a lot of discussion recently about swing state strategy in the general election.

A couple of things to note. It is often difficult if not impossible to predict which state will actually "swing" in any election. Historical analysis shows that the swing state map tends to change dramatically in cycles of about every three presidential elections.

Also, in election cycles in which there is a general "kick the bums out" mentality among the electorate, it is doubly hard to predict swing states. This is a time when the out of favor party can often lose even in traditional strongholds. It is a very good opportunity to make inroads, in this case, for the Democratic Party to make inroads in states that have been voting Republican.

Most of the analysis that I've seen tends to discount the importance of the African American and Latino vote and concentrate mostly on "white working class" voters. I think this is a big mistake.

African American turnout has historically been important for Democratic success in presidential elections for some time now. States like Florida and Michigan often hinge on the turnout out of African Americans.

Two states not often mentioned as swing state possibilities are Louisiana and North Carolina, both potential Democratic wins depending on African American voter registration and mobilization.

We also cannot forget the anti-war crowd when studying voter demographics. This group could also benefit Democrats in states like Oregon, Virginia and North Carolina. Remember Jim Webb won in Virgina on a platform that opposed the Iraq War.

Then there are those states are traditionally Republican but have Democratic governors and/or senators. Many of these are totally ignored in swing state discussions. They include Kansas, Nebraska and even John McCain's home state of Arizona. Obviously there are burgeoning Democratic or Democratic-Independent movements in these states or no Democrat could win in a statewide election. Even if the nominee can not win in these states, I think it is necessary to campaign hard in them.

By fighting in these states, not only do you grow the movement, but you keep the Republicans on the defensive. The latter will definitely recognize the potential dangers of losing old strongholds. In the end, also there are always a certain percentage of people who only get motivated when they see things getting done on a local level. They will not buy into the idea that they're states do not count and that they should contribute money only to help in the national effort. This is no problem with the Obama campaign as Barack Obama has roots in community organizing. In the end, this development at the local level ends up netting more also at the national level as I think is demonstrated by Barack's record-smashing fundraising efforts mostly collected from small and first-time donors.