A couple weeks ago I noted how Barack Obama was approaching the point at which he had campaigned in all 50 states during the primary elections, an indication of the type of map-changing campaign he intended to run in 2008. Now The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny have looked at Obama's organization and plans for the next few weeks and have come to see that he indeed intends to work to win states the Democrats haven't carried in decades, broadening the party's path to winning back the White House in November.

Senator Barack Obama's general election plan calls for broadening the electoral map by challenging Senator John McCain in typically Republican states -- from North Carolina to Missouri to Montana -- as Mr. Obama seeks to take advantage of voter turnout operations built in nearly 50 states in the long Democratic nomination battle, aides said.

On Monday, Mr. Obama will travel to North Carolina -- a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 32 years -- to start a two-week tour of speeches, town hall forums and other appearances intended to highlight differences with Mr. McCain on the economy. From there, he heads to Missouri, which last voted for a Democrat in 1996. His first campaign swing after securing the Democratic presidential nomination last week was to Virginia, which last voted Democratic in 1964.

[...]

Mr. Obama's aides said some states where they intend to campaign -- like Georgia, Missouri, Montana and North Carolina -- might ultimately be too red to turn blue. But the result of making an effort there could force Mr. McCain to spend money or send him to campaign in what should be safe ground, rather than using those resources in states like Ohio.

Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said that the primary contest had left the campaign with strong get-out-the-vote operations in Republican states that were small enough that better-than-usual turnout could make a difference in the general election. Among those he pointed to was Alaska, which last voted for a Democrat in 1964.

"Do we have to win any of those to get to 270?" Mr. Plouffe said, referring to the number of electoral votes needed to win the election. "No. Do we have reason to think we can be competitive there? Yes. Do we have organizations in those states to be competitive? Yes. This is where the primary was really helpful to us now."

[...]

A Republican strategist said that, according to party monitoring services, Mr. Obama's campaign had inquired about advertising rates in 25 states, including traditionally Republican states like Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina. That would constitute a very large purchase. President Bush, whose 2004 campaign had the most expensive advertising drive in presidential history, usually ran commercials in a maximum of 17 states.

Does this mean that Obama will be shirking his responsibility of putting forward a strenuous effort in the traditional swing states? Of course not. Indeed, Nagourney and Zeleny report that in Ohio, for instance, Obama is hiring Aaron Pickrell, Governor Ted Strickland's top strategist who also helped Hillary Clinton win the state's primary in March. Likewise, even if Obama does extend by nearly a half the record number of states to be advertised in this year, several of them (including Michigan and Pennsylvania) will be states that the Democrats have carried in years past, swing states that are key to getting to 270 electoral votes.

But putting the McCain camp on its heels and forcing Republicans to actually have to campaign in states like North Carolina, Mississippi, Alaska -- states they haven't seriously fought for in any recent presidential election (and states in which the presence of former Congressman Bob Barr on the ballot as the Libertarian Party nominee could help make Obama's task more than a bit easier) -- almost undoubtedly will make it easier for Obama to succeed this fall (just as Democrats campaigning across the country in 2006, even in very red corners of the nation, increased the possibility of retaking the House and the Senate).

There's more...

About two weeks ago, Barack Obama made a bit of a flub on the campaign trail in Oregon, saying that he had visited 57 states to that point while campaigning. Of course what he meant to say was that he had visited 47 states. Leaving aside Obama's mixup, I think there's something interesting there. Since making those comments, Obama has hit his 48th state -- South Dakota -- hitting each of the lower contiguous states, leaving just Hawaii, where he was born and grew up, and Alaska, where he has a reasonable shot of competing, to be visited. For reference, Obama has plans to visit bothstates, meaning that in not too long of a time he will have hit all 50 states in the union.

This is a fairly remarkable accomplishment. Obama has already announced a 50-state strategy, but actually campaigning in every state -- even if just for a day or two -- more than five months away from election day is nevertheless a notable and positive development. Does campaigning in every state mean that every state will be competitive in November? No. Does this mean that there's value in campaigning in non-competitive states to the detriment of hitting the more competitive ones? Of course not.

At the same time, there is little evidence that having campaigned in nearly every state has hurt Obama. Indeed, Obama holds a pledged delegate lead and an overall delegate lead -- just 53 delegates away from the magic number of 2,026 -- not only despite having hit the lower 48, but perhaps also, at least in part, because of having hit them.

Going forward, I don't think it would necessarily be a great idea for Obama to hit all 50 states again between the convention and election day. As Chris Dodd said in an interview with MyDD back in August at the Yearly Kos convention in Chicago, "I'd be careful about any candidate saying, 'I promise to campaign in all 50 states.' [...] I wouldn't want someone going off the last week in the campaign because they made a promise in Chicago to be in South Dakota, with all due respect to South Dakota, and, say, Mississippi, because there are three states they haven't gotten to and we need you."

Nevertheless, there is value in hitting states that haven't seen a serious presidential campaign in years past -- including, perhaps, Mississippi, where the Democrats seriously overperformed in a special election this month and which could be on the map if targeted in a strategic way. Putting new states on the map can stretch the GOP thin, making it more difficult for John McCain to win in November. This generally means campaigning in closer states like Virginia -- or New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, where Obama will campaign this week -- states that the GOP carried in recent Presidential elections but which appear to be trending noticeably towards the Democrats (and, more importantly, where Obama already polls close to McCain). Yet devoting even a few days between now and election day to hitting places like Omaha (where one or two electoral votes may be in play) and Anchorage (Obama is possibly within striking distance in Alaska, particularly if Bob Barr is on the ballot in the state) and even Mississippi would not necessarily be poor investment of time, either.

There's more...

Measuring Size of Obama's (Relative) Coattails on Congressional Races

This is a long diary to read so I will tell you upfront what my conclusion is after examining the recent SurveyUSA 50-state polling:  Yes, Barack Obama may indeed have huge coattails for Senate and Congressional races in the fall.  Now, to the long explanation --

The recent SurveyUSA polling indicated a relatively even match between Obama and Clinton re. who would have the most electoral votes when facing McCain.  Obama's total came to 280 EV, while Hillary's was 276 EV - a seemingly even match:

http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_50-State_re sults_030608_vs_Obama.html
http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_50-State_re sults_030608_vs_Clinton.html

There's more...

Calling all election geeks! As a former executive board member for the Democratic party of my county I would like to request that we organize a tally of all the local seats that switch from republican to Democrat - State house, senate, commisioners, attorneys general, etc. As important as national races are, many of the issues that most directly effect our day to day lives come from local races.  I think the full impact of the 50 stae strategy can only be assessed by including these numbers.  My argument below the fold.

There's more...

This is a cross post from a kos diary

I admit it - I'm a lazy blogger. I love it when other bloggers go to all the effort and bring me the data. Last week on MyDD, Benawu did a great job of posting an update on the 50 State strategy at the federal level. It was awesome - 425 of the 435 US Congressional seats had Dem candidates. Lot's of comments on the missing seats were there. My question is - what do the Kossacks know about the races for STATE houses? My reason for raising that - we are REALLY proud of Colorado this year.

There's more...