The last couple of presidential elections have followed certain patterns, not the least of which is the geographic\/electoral-college driven nature of the contest. Dems and Republicans draw up their maps, Dems ignore safe “red” states, the GOP ignores safe “blue” states, and everybody spends a lot of money in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n
There’s reason to believe this year’s going to be a little different. And Barack Obama’s ability to raise money has a whole lot to do with it.<\/p>\n
Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod<\/a>, told the Huffington Post, “I think that we are going to have a larger battlefield in 2008… I think we are going to stretch the Republicans I don’t think they can take for granted nearly as many states as they have in the past. And I think we are going to add several to the Democratic column this year and so our coalition is going to be broader.”<\/p>\n I think Axelrod’s completely right, but it’s worth taking a moment to consider why<\/i> the “battlefield” will be larger and Dems are going to be able to “stretch” the Republicans. Part of it is Obama’s appeal and message, but as Ben Smith explained<\/a> very well, a major part is because Obama can afford to do what Dem candidates never do.<\/p>\n [T]he widened battlefield may also force McCain to spend scarce resources defending turf he could otherwise take for granted. Obama can, for instance, run a real campaign in places like Texas and Arizona \u2014 states that an occasional poll suggests he could win but where few observers give him much of a shot. Then McCain has to decide whether to simply ignore it, and risk an upset; or to spend money on television and organization keeping up, money that then can’t be spent in Ohio.<\/p>\n A smart colleague pointed out to me yesterday that Obama will try to do to McCain what he did to Clinton in Pennsylvania: Even as he lost the state, he ruined her by forcing her to keep up with his massive spending.<\/p>\n Think of this as Star Wars and the Reagan defense buildup: As the story goes, the military applications turned out to be secondary to the sheer, crushing expense, with which the Soviet Union couldn’t keep up.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don’t doubt that Republicans won’t care for the comparison between the McCain campaign and the USSR, but the analogy is apt. McCain may be looking at the map and think a state like North Carolina is an easy win. And maybe it will be. But when the polls show the state competitive, and Obama starts pumping quite a bit of money into the state, will McCain keep up? Will he gamble? If he decides he can’t take the risk, which state will suddenly get less money?<\/p>\n
\n
\nBattleground states with lots of electoral votes will continue to draw enormous attention and resources from both sides. This much won’t change. But Obama will have the money to compete in key “purple” states and<\/i> traditionally “red” states Dems would otherwise be inclined to ignore.<\/p>\n