Obama’s Playing Small Ball
(cross-posted at The Next Right)
Last week the Obama campaign released a list of states where it was going up with advertising – Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
An odd grouping of states, no doubt. I saw a couple of posts that could explain most of those choices, but te authors always had trouble with Alaska, North Dakota and other outliers. Most posts simply suggested this was a combination of three things; trying to expand the map, normal targeting choices, and pipe dreams.
I disagree and I’d like to propose a new theory – one that I believe explains every choice very clearly.
At about the same time this list was released, I was listening to a presentation regarding state legislative bodies and places where the partisan control of chambers was razor thin. What surprised me was the striking similarity between the two lists.
| State | Democrats Need | To Gain | Democrats Hold | Target State? |
| Alaska | +3, +1 | House, Senate | Neither | N |
| Colorado | Both | Y | ||
| Florida | +6 | Senate | Neither | Y |
| Georgia | +6 | Senate | Neither | N |
| Iowa | Both | Y | ||
| Indiana | House (+1, trying to hold) | N | ||
| Michigan | +2 | Senate | House (+3) | Y |
| Missouri | +3 | Senate | Neither | Y |
| Montana | +1 | House | Senate (+2) | N |
| Nevada | +1 | Senate | House (+6) | N |
| New Hampshire | Both | Y | ||
| New Mexico | Both | Y | ||
| North Carolina | Both | N | ||
| North Dakota | +3 | Senate | Neither | N |
| Ohio | +4, +5 | House, Senate | Neither | Y |
| Pennsylvania | +5 | Senate | House (+1) | Y |
| Wisconsin | +3 | House | Senate | Y |
| Virginia | +6 | House | Senate (+1) | N |
The states that would not normally be target states, but in which he is spending money have one of two common characteristics. They are either states in which the Democrats are exceptionally close to controlling one or both houses, or states where they control one or both houses by slim margins.
Essentially, Obama (a former state legislator himself) is playing small ball. He’s using the vast sum of money he’s going to raise to set up the rest of the team for scoring runs. He understands the role of state legislatures and is helping them increase their numbers.
Why? Because Obama and his team are looking to pull a Tom Delay. By setting up the Democrats to win these legislative bodies, he’ll be able to stymie (or dominate) the redistricting process and be able to not only elect more Democrats, but use it to put even larger majorities in place after 2010.
Will the Democrats have enough money to compete in 2010 and win the seats then? Maybe. Maybe not. However, it’s generally harder to raise the funds to compete in state legislative races, reagrdless of the top of the ticket.
In 2008, however, if Obama can actually raise and spend $500 million, that allows for a huge amount of leeway. By spending money on uplifting ads like his first, in states where he’s not likely to win statewide, he can still move numbers on a district by district basis. He can use vast sums of money to help them now, and focus next year on the few remaining seats necessary to seize power
What this all means for Republicans is scary.
Whether John McCain wins or not is almost irrelevant. If Obama does what I think he’s doing, even if the Republicans are successful at challenging Democrats in 2010 and win back some seats (I’m working under the assumption that 2008 is a wash at best for us), the legislatures the Democrats control after November can erase those gains in redistricting. We could be looking at a minority for a long time to come.
While we fret about the chances of J-Mac or our ability to reclaim congressional districts, we should be looking a lot closer at state legislative races and how to make a difference in these states. We should be looking for ways to beat back Team Obama and prevent them from relegating the GOP to a long time in the wilderness.
Update: Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico and Obama’s Deputy campaign manager for confirming my hypothesis in today’s Politico.
But winning the White House won’t be his only goal, deputy campaign manager Hildebrand told Politico: In an unusual move, Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places like Texas and Wyoming.
“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”
Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.
Share Tags
