Political Animal
Blog
It almost got lost in the brouhaha over the Democratic Convention, but the Romney campaign’s decision to pull ads from Michigan and Pennsylvania while launching a massive ad campaign in eight states (omitting not just MI and PA, but also Wisconsin among the usually-cited battleground states) is pretty important, unless it’s a feint. Jon Chait does the math:
The reason this looks worrisome for Romney is that he’s pursuing an electoral-college strategy that requires him nearly to run the table of competitive states. The states where Romney is not competing (and which aren’t obviously Republican, either) add up to 247 electoral votes. The eight states where Romney is competing add up to a neat 100 electoral votes, of which Romney needs 79 and Obama just 23. If you play with the electoral possibilities, you can see that this would mean Obama could win with Florida alone or Ohio plus a small state or Virginia plus a couple small states, and so on. Unless I’m missing something badly here, Romney needs either a significant national shift his way — possibly from the debates or some other news event — or else to hope that his advertising advantage is potent enough to move the dial in almost every swing state in which he’s competing.
We’ve all adjusted so quickly to the new electoral map that it’s easy to forget that Virginia went Republican in every single presidential election from 1968 through 2004, with North Carolina only going Democratic in that stretch once, in 1976. That these two states are still up in the air in a close election is a sign that for all the earlier talk about MN, WI, MI and PA moving towards Republicans, the only difference between the landscape in 2004 and 2012 (aside from EV shifts) is that Obama’s still competitive in two southern states that Kerry basically wrote off, even though his running-mate was from NC. Romney certainly has the money to “carpet-bomb” the battleground states, but he still has little margin for error, and some of these states will likely be close enough that national trends may not dictate their results.
Facebook
Twitter
Tom Q on September 07, 2012 5:29 PM:
What the Romney people appear to be aiming at (right now; it could change) is vaguely reminiscent of Dukakis' strategy, which was either 14 or 17 states (don't have an '88 map to do the math) they hoped to carry and fashion a narrow Electoral College margin. Needless to say, they didn't get close. This is a loser's scenario, and would appear to indicate they know they're fighting uphill.
bigtuna on September 07, 2012 5:35 PM:
Did the Romney campaign decide to yank ads, or was it Crossroads GPS and fellow travelers ? [I know, they are an extension of the repubs, but still, who made the call?]. If it is a feint, how many days would they have to not air ads before there is an impact? Seems a pretty risky option if it a feint.
And - - it is interesting to play the state by state game, but a more fun exercise is to plot it a cartogram, rather than a map. The red state blue state thing is so skewed visually by the 57 EVs in the 11-state arc around NM and CO, + TX. Sure looks impressive, but the 9 EV between MT and the Dakotas doesn't do much for the arithmetic.
If Romney isn't competitive in Wi, MI, and PA, he has a very very small need to thread. I do recall that in Sept 2008 the polls were drifting to McCain, but then ...
longwalkdownlyndale on September 07, 2012 5:43 PM:
Yeah, and it seems like a big mistake by mitt not to go after a lot of states to spread Obama's resources that much thinner. This was a strategy that Obama employed to great effect against McCain and to a lesser degree HRC late in the nomination battle. The classic historical analogy is for a more powerful country to open up "multiple fronts" against a numerically smaller opponents. Much how the North didn't just try to take Richmond in the Civil War, it also blockaded the South, slowly gained control of the Mississippi and invaded Tennessee to be able to strike at the heart of the Confederacy (Sherman's march to the sea). It's strange you they aren't doing this, I mean the whole point of "carpet bombing" is you bomb everywhere right?
Matt on September 07, 2012 6:10 PM:
Don't forget Colorado and Nevada -- two states in which Kerry had no chance, that seem like certain Obama states. And Romney has written off New Mexico, which Bush-Cheney '04 won.
Doug on September 07, 2012 6:28 PM:
I really don't think such tactics ("carpet bombing" with ads) will do Romney much good in ANY state.
If Romney has a decent lead, he's wasting his money on votes he already has. If Romney trails, as he does in those states mentioned, he's again wasting his money, this time on a (probably) lost cause.
As for those "battleground" states, if the Romney people try such a campaign, they run the risk of turning off as many voters as they might ensnare. While political advertising CAN be effective, bombarding voters with negative ads on the scale apparently contemplated by the various PACs, SuperPacs and the Romney campaign itself would, it seems to me, run the very great risk of alienating too many of exactly those people such ads are SUPPOSED to attract.
But then, I've been a believer all along, that the vast majority of the Republican political advertising this year is solely dedicated to the base and ensuring it turns out, while hoping it attracts just enough others to win.
When your candidates are Romney and Ryan, that may the best that can be hoped for...
JCtx on September 07, 2012 6:31 PM:
For the paranoid among us, maybe this indicates that the fix is in for MI and PA. After all, didn't a state rep say that the voter id law would get PA for Romney?
Mitch on September 07, 2012 6:33 PM:
"... Romney needs 79 and Obama just 23."
This is why professional gamblers know to bet on Obama. He has such a clinch on the EC that Mitt really doesn't stand much of a chance. Romney's attempt to shore up the contestables will probably not affect this that much.
This is why Intrade gives Obama a 58.1% chance to win (as of right now) and it is also why all of the polls showing a closer race seem a bit specious to me. I'm no fan of the EC system, but it seems to be strongly favoring Obama this year. Of course, I think a straight out popular vote would be even more of a landslide for the President, but that's neither here nor there.
N.Wells on September 07, 2012 10:20 PM:
Ah, Michigan: where the Democratic majorities are apparently just the right size.
Sean Scallon on September 07, 2012 11:34 PM:
And what do these remaining battleground of these states have in common? There states Ron Paul got delegates in! And don't think his supporters haven't forgotten how well Mitt treated us at the RNC. And further handicap Romney, there's are viable LP and CP candidates on the ballot in these states as well.
It very well come to pass on election night, Romney will find himself muttering: "I should have let them have those Maine delegates."