Top Ten States

Cross-posted on OpenLeft.com

Although I am a big believer in the 50-state strategy and generally spreading the map, for many years now I have been consulting for some Democratic donors and progressive groups on how to maximize their political resources, so I have a tradition of creating a top 10 list of states for maximum investment in state parties, outside efforts, and campaigns in these states. I factor in the following things to my ratings:

• Presidential race importance (I factor this in even in the off-years, but obviously it gets maximum rating points in a Presidential election year)
• Competitive Senate races
• Competitive House races
• Competitive Governor races
• Competitiveness in terms of control in state legislative chambers
• Whether Secretary of State and other election administration officials are friendly, whether they are on the ballot
• Strength of state party
• Strength of outside organizational efforts I am aware of
• Relative costs of campaigning in the state (weighting inexpensive states a little higher because of the bang-for-the-buck factor)
• Ballot initiatives/referenda on the ballot in the cycle

Here's my top 10 list for this year:

1. Ohio. Like usual. I think I've rated Ohio 1, 2, or 3 every cycle I've done this, and it's at the top again. As much as Obama expands and jumbles the electoral map, Ohio remains at the heart of winning 270 votes. Even if he picks up states Kerry didn't have like Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado, he could still fall short by losing Pennsylvania and/or Michigan. But if he picks up Ohio and holds everything else, we've won. If he picks up Ohio and just one or two other new states, we've won even if we lose Pennsylvania. No matter how you cut it, Ohio is pretty damn important.

In addition to the Presidential, Ohio is the mother lode of potential for picking up new House seats; potentially as many as 5 or even 6 are in play. And the balance in the legislative chambers is very much in play. The good news is that with Strickland as Governor, the state party is stronger than it's been in a long time, maybe ever. And Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is actually trying to make it easy for poor and black (African American?) people to vote, rather than hard like her predecessor Mr. Blackwell. Between those last two factors alone, Obama could add 150,000 votes to Kerry's total.

2. New Mexico. Obviously, with a razor-tight Presidential race forecast, three open House seats, and an open Senate seat, this state has it all this year, politically. Add in the early jockeying for a Governor's race since everyone is assuming Bill Richardson will be a part of a new Obama administration, and you've got a lot of intense politics going on in NM. If the Senate race was closer, given my bias for inexpensive states, I might even rate it higher than Ohio.

The good news is that our candidates on the Federal side of the ballot are pretty strong, and Hispanic voters are moving in the Democratic direction. The bad news is that the state party and outside organizational efforts are pretty weak, and my sense is that the state party isn't one of the strongest in the country.

3. Colorado. An intensely competitive Presidential state, one of the best shots at a state not won by Kerry; a very competitive Senate race; at least one close House race; and relatively close margins in the state legislature. The Secretary of State here is awful, but the state party and outside group efforts are both extremely solid.

4. Minnesota. A competitive Presidential, maybe even more so if Pawlenty ends up as McCain's running mate; the most important, high-profile Senate race in the country; at least one House seat very much in play; and a recent history of knockdown, drag out fights for control of the MN House. The good news is that MN has the best secretary of state in the country in Mark Ritchie, and some good outside organization efforts.

5. Pennsylvania. As usual, PA will be hotly coveted in the Presidential race, but I rate it slightly lower than in many years because there is not Senate race in play, and because there aren't as many hot Congressional races--maybe only a couple compared to PA's usual half-dozen. The State House, though, is incredibly closely divided, and will be a huge prize regarding redistricting.

The state party here is relatively weak, but I think outside efforts will be reasonably strong.

6. Michigan. The Presidential race is going to be very competitive here; probably one of the closest margins in the country, and those electoral votes could definitely come in handy. There are also at least a couple of interesting House races, and state legislative chambers are very much in play.

The state party here is strong, one of the best in the country, and outside efforts are likely to be pretty strong as well.

7. Nevada. No Senate seat, but the Presidential race is likely to be down to the wire here, and the Jon Porter/Dina Titus race is one of the most interesting in the country because Titus has the potential to be a real progressive leader. The legislature is also closely divided.

I add one other future-oriented item as to why I think NV is so important: Harry Reid's 2010 Senate race. While we don't know for sure that Reid will be the Majority Leader next year, it's more likely than not, and when a top legislative leader is in electoral trouble, it makes the entire party more cautious (see Tom Daschle). The more we can register voters and win victories this year, the stronger and more confident Reid goes into next year, and that's good for both him and the Democratic Party.

I put both outside efforts and the state party into the same category: solid but not spectacular.

8. New Hampshire. With four electoral votes up for grabs, a swing Senate race, and at least one and maybe both House seats competitive (with strong progressive Carol Shea-Porter in need of help), I normally would have rated this higher. The reason it slipped to #7 is that the Boston media market makes it incredibly expensive for such a small state, and Shaheen is a fairly conservative Democrat.

The state party here is pretty solid, and outside efforts will be decent but not great. Long term, it would be nice to solidify the big Democratic gains from the last couple of cycles, and make New England solidly blue.

9. Missouri. This was the one working-class border state Obama won in the primaries, and his team is investing heavily there early, so the Presidential race here should be a barn burner. There's also a really important Congressional race in the northwest corner of the state. The open seat Governor race leans Democratic right now, but could tighten up. The legislative chambers are reasonably closely divided. Finally, it's important to keep Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, one of the best in the country, in office.

I would rate both the state party and outside groups overall as solid but not outstanding.

10. Virginia. No legislative races on the ballot, and the Senate race looks like a lock for Mark Warner, but there's still reason to put Virginia in the top 10. Its 13 electoral votes look to be in range for Obama, which would be a hugely important prize, and there are some very interesting Congressional races bubbling in northern Virginia. Finally, I would add that continuing to move Virginia Democratic is a really important long-term goal.

The state party here is pretty good, outside efforts more middling.

Some notes on the states that didn't make it:

• It is a rather big deal to leave perennial favorite Florida off the list. Who knows, a couple of months from now, it may be dead even in the polls (it is dead even in the polls now), and it would jump close to the top of my list. But Obama is, at least for now, relatively weak with older voters, Jewish voters, white working-class voters, Hispanic voters, and Southern whites. Um, isn't that mostly a description of Florida? Throw in the delegate controversy fiasco, a weak state party, Republican election administration officials, weak outside organizations, state legislative chambers we have no way of winning back, and you'll understand my lack of enthusiasm here.

• The Obama people are putting real resources in Florida, and there are a few potentially competitive House races (although the Democratic candidates are mostly pretty uninspiring in my view). So I would understand if people want to target FL, but it is way too expensive for too little chance of doing good for me to rate it highly.

• North Carolina is the state that missed the top 10 that came closest. Obama is targeting it, a competitive Senate race, and at least a couple of competitive House races. But it just missed the cut for me because it's an expensive state which is pretty uphill for Obama, and the Democratic candidates there are generally pretty conservative.

• You'll notice that my overwhelming focus is the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions. The South still seems mostly gone for us in spite of the Obama campaign targeting a few states there, and Democratic Senate and House candidates in that region obviously tend to be pretty conservative. I'm also feeling pretty confident that past swing states Oregon and Washington in the Northwest will go our way pretty easily because of the creative class love affair with Obama.

• Iowa has made my top 10 states list every cycle since I've been doing this, but I can't give my old home state the nod this time. Usually, Iowa has some House races that are really competitive, but with Dems winning two seats in lean-Democratic districts long held by Republicans, that doesn't seem to be the case this time. The legislative chambers have also been much closer in terms of partisan control in recent years, but seem fairly securely held by Dems this year. And with Obama's great Iowa field of organization leftover from the caucuses, and no McCain presence to speak of, it seems more secure for us than in the last couple of tightly contested races.

So what do y'all think? Any states I'm missing that ought to be on my list? Any states you think I'm over-hyping? I'd love to know.

Comments

[mvy]

A promising approach to electoral reform, that would encourage a 50-state strategy, is the National Popular Vote.

Candidates shouldn't be compelled by winner-take-all awarding of electoral college votes, to focus their attention on the handful of closely divided "battleground" states -- with recent realities of two-thirds of their visits and money focused in six states; 88% on 9 states; and 99% of their money to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The bill would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote equal.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 19 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

see www.NationalPopularVote.com