Reporters, and hopefully politicos, are waking up to the fact that 2004 will be won or lost with very little consideration as to how the popular vote pans out. Here's some more analysis. The swing state to watch: Ohio.
The following story (see below) was posted on MSNBC this morning. To summarize it appears that Kerry can pull off a win without the South. Does that mean he should ignore a Southern strategy and focus his efforts on key swing states like Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, and New Mexico? I would say no, but the campaign is $5 million in the red. The purpose of a Southern strategy would be to draw Bush's fire, forcing him to spend money in states that should be safe. However, JFK may never pull together enough cash to run in key places like Arkansas and Tennessee.
In reality, the electoral map doesn't favor Democrats. Even though, as I pointed out in my diary yesterday, Kerry has an early lead. If he fails to pick up any swing states then he's already maxed out. So a lot of Kerry's electioneering is going to come down to his VP choice. I really think Kerry is planning on dissing the South and running where he feels more comfortable. So I really don't expect to see a Southerner on the ticket. In short, I expect to see Gephardt, as much as I don't want that to happen.
No diehard conservative is going to switch to the Demos no matter how much economic pain they might be feeling. This election is going to be partisan as hell, no matter how miserable the Bush failure has been, and in the end it is all going to boil down to swing voters...voters who tend to be quite conservative. We've got an uphill fight on our hands to be sure.
The story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4415235/