from my blog, Basie!
There has been some discussion of late among pundits and around the blogosphere whether it is more important to follow the national race or focus on several "swing states" in gauging the status of the presidential election. While I believe each position has credence, and have at times leaned to either side, I tend to believe that watching the states is more important.
The national race is of course important. Aside from the fact that in all but four elections the winner of the popular vote has also emerged victorious in the Electoral College, there is indeed a "national mood" that can swing the election either way. In June, I even wrote of this in a post claiming that the 44-44 divide across the nation at the time implied a Kerry win of 56-44 rather than a 50-50 split of the electorate, thus rendering the electoral college and the state races moot. What is more, a few key events (the conventions, the debates, the last week, etc.) and issues (Iraq, the national economy, etc.) are likely to affect the electorate as a whole in the coming months rather than just individual states.
This all being said, I nonetheless believe that it is equally important (if not significantly more useful) to watch the race as a series of elections state by state. This view might seem obvious with a close reading of the Constitution, but not everyone agrees with it (for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, among others). One seemingly unimportant national issue could swing an individual state's electorate five or more points either way in November, and occurrences like this in enough states could shift the national election.
Yesterday's Washington Wrap from CBS News provides specifics to this theory (link no longer available). Steve Chaggaris reported on John Kerry's visit to Nevada in which the Senator stressed his opposition to the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, a key issue for the state that Bill Clinton won twice and Al Gore narrowly lost.
Chaggaris writes that the "campaign's mindset is to work for blocs of votes that are easily anti-Bush but, if not paid attention to, could slip through the Democrats' fingers. Aides have pointed to Al Gore's failure to win West Virginia's five electoral votes and barely winning New Mexico's four in 2000, both states that went easily for Clinton just four years earlier." This graf at least indicates that the Kerry campaign believes that it is incumbent on them to stress local issues as strongly as national issues on tours through swing states.
Kos has similarly interesting analysis in this post on the Kerry bounce in Florida, asking "Is there a single battleground state that isn't showing a Kerry surge the past few weeks?"
It is important to pay attention to the national race, and that's why many of us follow the news so closely. However, if Kerry does not end up with the 56% support I prophesized in early June but is instead closer to 50%, the races in each state will be infinitely more important than the national contest. Just remember that in 1960, John F. Kennedy's 119,450 vote lead in the popular vote gave him 84 more electoral votes than Richard Nixon, and I need not bring up the race four years ago...
check out my political blog, Basie!