Is Barack Obama President of the Swing States of America?

The Washington Posttoday has a telling front page news story: "Obama's travel mixes policy, politics: States with close electoral results getting most of his visits." The article is a stomach-churning revelation about why our current Electoral College system is such a disaster for upholding the principle of political equality -- and disturbing for showing how President Obama and his political team seem far more interested in turning the Electoral College to their advantage than reforming it.

The numbers are crystal clear. The President famously has said that there aren't red states or blue states, but only the United States. His travel choices suggest an amendment, however: there aren't red states or blue states, but only swing states. Here's how the Post reports it: "Of the 16 states the president has visited since taking office, nine shifted from the Republican to Democratic column in 2008. Five of the states are among the six that posted the narrowest margins of victory for either Obama or Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and are likely to remain the most closely divided through the coming campaign cycles."

Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, told the Post, "As the president said famously, people aren't looking for red, blue or purple solutions, only those that will improve their daily lives." But Ari Fleischer, former president George W. Bush's first press secretary, was more straightforward. He said: ""A smart White House is a savvy mix of policy and politics, and in our democracy there's nothing wrong with it. If you're all substance and no politics, you lose support on Capitol Hill. If you're all politics and no substance, you lose support among the people." Fleischer fliply added, "If people don't like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state and see their president more."

Right. It may come as news to some inside-the-Beltway types, but not every "spectator state" American has a second house in a swing state or can blithely pick up stakes to ensure their interests are given weight with the White House. The fact is that Americans are in great economic pain in all states and need to believe their president cares.

One might think that a Democratic president would highlight New Orleans' ongoing struggle to recover in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but Louisiana isn't a swing state - and neither are any of the four adjoining states. None have seen a presidential visit. Small Rocky Mountain states like the Dakotas, Montana Wyoming, Utah and Idaho are supposed to be getting something out of the Electoral College -- but because John McCain won them all even while Obama won the nation by more than 7%, they're not swing states going into 2012. None have received a visit this year. The same is true of Democratic strongholds among small states like Vermont, Maine, Delaware and Rhode Island.

The White House's near entire focus on swing states will not hold throughout the rest of the president's term in office, I suspect, but it's a lock that it will in the heat of the general election in his likely re-election bid. As I summarized in a lengthy commentary in the San Diego Union Tribune last month, more than 99% of campaign visits by major party presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the last two months of the 2008 campaign were in swing states representing barely a third of the country's population -- nearly completely overlapping with the swing states of focus in 2004 and projected swing states in 2012.*

The irony is that President Obama's home state of Illinois is one of five states that have adopted the National Popular Vote plan for president. His former colleagues in the Illinois state senate enthusiastically supported the principle that every vote should carry equal weight in presidential races. Who knows, perhaps the president himself supports presidential election equality. But you sure wouldn't know it by where his political team is sending him this year.

*Stay turned for our release of an updated Presidential Election Inequality report next month for full details on just how problematic the current Electoral College system is for our representative democracy.

Follow Rob Richie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FairVote

Comments

[hhscarletgray]

I think, personally, that all of Obama's wonderful speaches during the campaign made me lose sight of what he really is. At the end of the day he is just a politician. To become the first black president he had to be more than just an average one at that. He plays the game better than most and sounds a whole lot better than most doing it. I am not saying I am sorry that I voted for him, but I do think I fell for his charm. Im disappointed that he is not much different than any other politician, but I understand. He did not get to where he is by ever forgetting about what he needs to do to get elected.

[Disuberence]

He seems to think he is.

[rockyb26]

i'd love to see the president in Texas, but i know that there are plenty of states around the country that are in worse shape right now who need to hear directly from him. coincidentally, the swing states in the midwest have been hard hit by the recession, i understand why he's visiting them.

[kathy001]

What a load. Yes, I am 100% in favor of the popular vote. The electoral college is a dinosaur that is no longer needed. But trying to paint Obama's trips over the past 5 months as an indication that he's only looking to win future elections is ridiculous. You've lost all credibility with this kind of skewing.

[Rob Richie - Huffpost Blogger]

It's far from a leap... Indeed, it's the entire thrust of the analysis in the Washington Post article, supported by the remarks of Ari Fleischer. His travel schedule (and that of John McCain and their running mates) during the last two months of the campaign was very much the same.

[Connolly1916]

It really annoys me that any presidential candidate's fate is in the hands of Florida and Ohio voters.

I don't share much in common with many of them in terms of values, education, or beliefs, and the rift is getting wider all the time. I may have come from the same part of the country as Joe Wurzelbacher, but I have little else in common with him. I don't feel that someone like me-an urban, educated progressive-has any voice in our so-called democracy. Our elections are still all about what angry suburban white guys and their Stepford wives want.

[longislandlol]

gotta do what ya gotta do to win

[Rob Richie - Huffpost Blogger]

And also invest some energy in changing the rules -- there's a roadmap for reform with the National Popular Vote plan.,

[pfrogger]

I understand the post. It is in favor of the National Popular Vote Plan.
I don't feel that the writer was able to logically argue that his choice of which states to visit is connected to a National Popular Vote Plan.

You say he visits the swing states. They hold less than 1/3 of the voting population. So if he believed in the National Popular Vote Plan than he would visit all states. I see the logic in this progression.

But, the National Popular Vote Plan is NOT law. And the electoral college is. Therefore why would he visit random states against good political strategy versus his current strategy, which is appropriate to the system now in place, and more than likely still in place in 2012?

I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with the National Popular Vote Plan. I haven't studies it, nor the pros or cons enough. But I don't think the logical connection was firmly established. Why would the president use a strategy for a vote plan that may or may not become reality in the near future? That's a bit foolish.
Better to argue for the vote plan. And after it becomes law, than a change in strategy would be appropriate.

No insult meant, just sharing an observation.

[Rob Richie - Huffpost Blogger]

Fair comment, but my post is based on a few that the current system is bad for the country -- and that the Washington Post analysis is fresh evidence of the problem. We have the power to change the rules... so time to make it happen!

[Chernynkaya]

The title of this post clarifies so much for me. I keep wondering why Obama is abandoning his progressive base.

I think it's smart to try to keep those swing state voters in the fold, but not at the expense of those of us who fought hard for him getting out the vote, donating what little I had.

Does he really calculate that his base is too small to worry about in the next election? Doesn't he realize how frustrated and disappointed progressives are, or does he figure we'll vote for him anyway? In truth, I'd never vote for a Repub, but if he caves on a strong public option (at MINIMUM) I'll stay home.

[Sumocat]

I love how progressives think they got Obama elected. Those fools can't even get gay marriage legalized in California, and now cry out for the President to save them from their failure. Across the nation, progressives can't convince West Virginians to not destroy their own state for coal and call on the President to step in to tell people how to manage their own land. And remember how they toppled Bush in '04 or rallied to keep the Supreme Court from overturning the popular vote in 2000? Oh wait, they didn't. Yeah, those progressives are real effective. Progressives haven't had an impact in the past eight years. But you know who saved us from Vice President Palin? Level-headed voters in the swing states. You're welcome.

[Connolly1916]

Level headed? Scared of their own shadows, maybe. Clinging to an unsustainable, unjust suburban America, definitely.

Swing state voters need to start confronting real problems head on, and vote for candidates who will try to solve them in ways that benefit the majority of us, not just property-owning suburbanites.

[Chernynkaya]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Do you think that WITHOUT progressives Obama could have gotten elected? Because I don't, nor do I think he would have without swing states. Do you think progressives prevented gay marriage, or prevented the coal disaster? Did swing state voters rally against the 2000 decision? And, by the way, thanks for finally waking up and joining us to end Republican tyranny. We needed you.

[benjaminblue]

The states that did not give him the election must feel encouraged to see that the President does not hold their decision against them.

But the states that gave the President his victory must not be forgotten, or taken for granted.

The Presidency was won on the basis of promises made -- and if those promises are not kept, the states that worked hard for the President's win in 2008 may not feel so inclined in 2012. If, for instance, the President does not hold the prior administration accountable for its vast inane, immoral, illegal and sometimes treasonous acts, there will be no forgiveness, and there will be no second win.

[Rob Richie - Huffpost Blogger]

Just to be clear, here's the summary of categories of states that have been visited that we issued in our more polished version of this blogpost here:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=27&pressmode=showspecific&showarticle=254

Percentage of the 9 states won by George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 that have been visited by President Obama this year: 100% (all 9 states).

Percentage of 19 states won by Democratic presidential candidates in both 2004 and 2008 that have earned a presidential visit: 26% (5 states).

Percentage of 22 states won by Republican presidential candidates in both 2004 and 2008 that have earned a presidential visit: 9% (2 states).