Is There Really Such Thing As a 50 State Strategy?

By William Rabbe on 06/19/2008

By William Rabbe

The concept of a 50 State Campaign Strategy has attracted much praise and disdain throughout the last several election cycles. The concept is that a campaign should, in effect, be able to campaign nationwide in all 50 states, as opposed to disproportionately targeting specific states that might swing from red to blue or vice versa. The Democrats have touted this strategy in 2008 -- and Obama's team has stated that they plan to run everywhere, even where they have no chance of winning.

We all know that the elections of 2000 and 2004 boiled down to a handful of voters in Florida and Ohio, so it's difficult to imagine a Presidential election where these two states don't play a vital role -- it therefore makes sense to dedicate more resources to these swing states at the expense of, say, Oklahoma, which has voted Republican since 1964. So, in 2008 is the 50 State Strategy just a high-minded ideal? A lofty talking point? Or is it a strategic tactic?

Richard Nixon was the first candidates to implement a 50 State Strategy in 1960 and it may well have led to his defeat. Insisting to visit every state and take no vote for granted, he nearly fell short of his vow just 3 days before the November election. With the electoral-vote-heavy state of California essentially tied up, he needed another crucial state to seal the deal against John F. Kennedy -- either Michigan or Pennsylvania -- and where did he go? Alaska. Why? Because it was the last state in which he hadn't campaigned. Whoops.

In recent times, a candidate would be crazy to pay any attention to Alaska in the final stretch of the election (sorry Mike Gravel), but while Obama's strategy would never be so pig-headed, should Democrats fear that resources will be allocated in areas of the country where they will have no effect?

When you take a look at the political realities on the ground, it is unlikely that many red (Republican) or blue (Democratic) states will easily cross over -- but targeting states that your opponent believes to have "locked up" might serve to diminish their overall resources at the very least. In a year where the Democrats have out-fundraised the Republicans by double, this could help Obama immeasurably.

In fact, the spread between Obama and McCain in most states is dramatically closer now than in 2004 -- even in the reddest of states. Mississippi, Montana, Georgia, Texas -- all supposedly "safe" McCain states -- each show much smaller margins between Obama/McCain than in the Kerry/ Bush race. If these numbers closed to within 7 or 8 points, it would prove frustrating to the McCain camp, who would have to re-allocate his resources to keep several red-states red in 2008.

So while there may not be such thing as a "true" 50 State Strategy like Nixon had proposed, Obama's use of the concept as a strategic tactic may very well cause McCain to campaign in his own backyard, keeping him in a defensive posture.