Here are a few thoughts about the tightrope between the 50-state "campaign everywhere" strategy, and the need to make sure we keep enough resources to compete in must-win states.
We need to expand the map, but competing EFFECTIVELY in a "solid red" state like South Dakota would mean a LOT of time and money spent on 3 EVs that the odds are we wouldn't get anyhow. And that money might better be spent shoring up Ohio? Does that mean we should give up on all the small red states? Not necessarily...
(this diary was originally a comment on a MYDD post about Obama and the 50-state strategy)
If I were in Obama's shoes, I would campaign as though 26 states were MUST-WINs, and go to the mat, doing whatever it takes to take them. Those are the 19 states Kerry won, plus NM, IA, MO, OH, VA, CO and NV. (I think it's odd that MO is mentioned as an example of Obama's boldness--he won the primary, is polling ahead right now, and MO is a bellweather that has gone for the declared winner in every election I can remember. It's winnable by either party, and ANY national candidate who ignores it is a fool. Not the same category as the deep south or Big Sky regions at all).
He doesn't need all of those 26 to win (they add up to 322 EVs), but he should campaign as though he does.
Note that that doesn't mean he has to spend a lot in all of them--the deep blue states are gimmes. But he should give the most attention to those on that list that Kerry or Gore did not win.
THEN he should compete in Florida, North Carolina, and Indiana, as a play to take McCain states away. If by September, he is not yet competitive, he can drop attention from those states, but he must not give McCain byes there.
I want to add Texas to that list, simply because it's too big to ignore. It would be tough, but would it be worthwhile? Some are saying McCain should try for California, which seems to me the same thing. What do you think?
That makes 30 states. NOW, it seems to me that, with the rest, Obama would be wisest to commit, really COMMIT to one or two of the following four regions:
Deep South: SC, GA, AL, MS, LA
Farm/prairie: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK
Appalachia/border south (his weakest region in the primaries): WV, KY, TN, AR
Libertarian West: MT, WY, ID, AK, AZ, UT
...with maybe a minor GOTV field operation in the regions he does not choose, but not much more than that. Seems to me, if he tries hard in ALL of those regions, he will lose all four. If he goes for broke in one or two, he has a decent chance.
Treating those clusters of states as regions makes it more justifiable to allocate resources. The herculean effort required to get North Dakota's 3 meager EVs is hard to justify, and a good part of the reason Democrats haven't bothered there in years. However, a comprehensive "farm belt" strategy, geared toward not only the four prairie states, but toward sealing down the entire midwest as a long term Democratic stronghold, might be very good strategy indeed.
Which of the four regions? That depends on what issues the Obama campaign wants most to emphasize. A campaign about "getting the government off our backs" would resonate better in the West; economic populism, more in the South; cooperation and character, in the midwest.
Think it over. I like the idea of competing everywhere. I also like the idea of measured, focused competition in key areas, not just swing states but taking the battle to key red states with a clear battle plan in mind.