Considerations on the electoral map, given Obama's consistent weakness in Ohio

The question of what to do with Florida and Ohio will be a very important strategic decision for Democrats if (and when) Obama becomes the nominee. It is true that Obama could change the electoral map by putting new states in play like Colorado and Virginia and securing Washington and Oregon more than Clinton could, but that is not a luxury as much as a necessity given Obama's relative weakness in the usual (big) battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida where the past two presidential elections played out.

Today, Rasmussen found mixed news for Obama in the state that sank Kerry four years ago. The Democrat progresses since last month but he gets 44% to McCain's 45%. Clinton, meanwhile, leads McCain 50% to 43%. Clinton has the highest "very favorable" rating. This actually confirms the past two major polls released from the Buckeye state:

• The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama trailing McCain by 1% while Clinton leads by 10%.
  
• The latest SUSA poll shows Obama trailing McCain by 2% while Clinton leads by 11%.

The same situation exSo should Democrats keep Ohio as a priority if Obama is the nominee? Or should they concentrate on another path to 270 electoral votes, a path that goes through Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and perhaps even other red states like Nebraska, Alaska and North Dakota? The two strategies are not mutually exclusive, of course, and neither would guarantee victory. But they also suggest two different approaches to the general election.

Proponents of concentrating on Ohio and Florida argue that it would be a huge gift to McCain to consider those states as lost; after all, they represent 47 electoral votes and would allow McCain to move the battlegrounds as well away from what Bush has had to defend in the past two elections and towards states that he interested in contesting like Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Oregon.

Proponents of a new electoral map respond that Democrats have created too narrow a field of possibilities for themselves, putting themselves in the difficult position where a tight loss in the one contested state amounts to losing the entire election -- just like it happened to Al Gore and John Kerry. Also, they consider that too much resources is spent on Ohio and Florida, hindering a broader strategy that would allow more Democrats to proper in down-the-ballot races as well.

Recent polls from Ohio and Florida suggest that Obama would be better served by not relying that much on Ohio and Florida. His relative weakness among blue collar voters, Hispanics and old voters (and some say Jewish voters though that remains to be demonstrated) make these two states less fruitful to him than to other Democrats.

But -- and this is the key promise of the Obama candidacy for Democrats -- the Illinois Senator will have a lot of funds. Even if he looks elsewhere than Ohio and Florida and spends less time in those states than Gore and Kerry did, he will be able to spread his forces and run ads in those states and be ready to pounce if McCain shows any sort of vulnerability.