Obama launches first general-election ad, expands battleground to GOP states as Georgia poll confirms fluidiy of electoral map

More than two weeks after clinching the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama launched his first general election ad today, a 60-second biographical spot meant to introduce himself to voters:


What: Speaking directly to the camera, Barack Obama mentions his maternal family, his being raised according to Kansas values and his choice to help devastated neighborhoods (Obama has long ceased calling his days in Chicago 'community organizing') rather than take a Wall Street job. He goes on to tout his record in providing health care to wounded troops, cut taxes and move people from welfare to work. These are all issues that could just as easily be featured in the ad of a Republican candidate, which goes along with the non-threatening heartland imagery and non(or anti)-partisan message the ad is meant to convey.

Politico's Jonathan Martin dubs this a "task in reassurance" and there is little doubt that this is exactly the ad's goal. This election is first and foremost a referendum on the Republican Party and the Administration. That means Barack Obama will be elected President in November unless the GOP convinces Americans that Obama is an entirely unacceptable choice -- whether because of his alleged inexperience or because of whatever smears are circulating online and are foolishly repeated on Fox. In 2004, the Bush campaign managed to survive an election that was a referendum on the incumbent by convincing enough voters that Kerry was too risky (read: unpatriotic) a choice. In 2008, McCain will need to drive up negativity even more given how much the Republican brand has sank just in the past four years.

Obama will have achieved a large part of what he needs to do by simply preventing Republicans from demonizing him. Given his massive financial advantage, he will have plenty of resources to do just that by airing this type of positive ad that emphasize the parts of Obama's story that make him look like just any other American politician while also being able to attack McCain.

Where: As interesting as the ad's content is the list of 18 states the commercial will be air in (the size of the media buy is still unknown): Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

This list is the who's who of battleground states, and it gives us a good sense of which states Obama expects to contest in the coming months. Compared to my latest least of competitive states, are noticeable the absence of Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington (and perhaps also California) and the inclusion of Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota.

Obama's confidence in carrying the first set of states is due to a series of polls finding the Illinois Senator improving in what I have been calling the "Dukakis 5." WA, OR and MN appear to be returning to their longtime Democratic roots after flirting with take-overs these past two cycles. As for New Jersey, Bush considerably improved his score in 2004 and McCain believes that his support among independents makes the state a worthy target. But New Jersey is an expansive state since running an ad requires investing in both the Philly and NYC markets and Obama is unlikely to accept such investments without further indication that the state might be competitive. (A similar argument could be made about expensive California.)

As for the more unconventional states that are included in the list, they are truly fascinating: Obama has long argued that Georgia is competitive but now that push is coming to shove and the time has come for the first media buy, it is noteworthy that Obama is actually following through and spending money here. It suggests that this is no longer just spin but that the Democrat's campaign actually believes that its registration drive and the increase in black turnout will make the Southern state Bush won by 17% truly competitive. And don't forget that the Bob Barr factor could play in Georgia more than in other times. Just in time to give us an idea of where Obama is coming from, Insider Advantage released a poll from Georgia finding... a toss-up:

• McCain gets 44% to Obama's 43%, with Bob Barr coming in at a high 6%. (A Rasmussen poll taken 10 days ago had McCain leading by 10%).
  

This is obviously stunning and we eagerly await more polls from this state -- particularly more surveys that include Bob Barr, as he could really influence this election if he draws more from McCain than Obama. The Democrat's targeting Indiana can be described in the same way as Georgia: McCain's lead is narrowing there, just as it is in Georgia, but for Obama to actually take the jump in a state that has a more-expansive-than-most media market (Indianapolis) is remarkable.

As for Alaska, Montana and North Dakota, those are the real stunners of Obama's list, states George Bush won by 25%, 20% and 27% respectively! And DailyKos notes that running ads in Iowa probably enables Obama to reach the Omaha network, where one or two of Nebraska's EVs could potentially be contested. Each of these 3 states represents 3 electoral votes, but Obama is here striking at the core of the Republican base, states that never wavered in its support of Bush in the past two presidential elections. Yet, polls have shown Obama within striking distance in Alaska (there have been less public polls from MT and ND) and the candidate is less affected by racial polarization patterns in these Western states than he is in the Southern red bastions. Boosted by the fact that all three of these states are relatively cheap to advertise in, Obama looks determined to test McCain's vulnerabilities.

At the very least, this expansion of the electoral map will put McCain on the defensive, forcing his campaign to calculate whether it should play defense in Indiana and Alaska or whether it should invest that money in Minnesota and Oregon, states Obama is not even bothering to defend. Remember that the Republican's campaign will only have $85 million to spend once voters start paying the most attention in the fall and there is only so many states that he can spread that money on.

Update: Further provoking Republicans, Obama is assigning the former political director of its Iowa caucus effort to... Indiana, a state that has not voted Democratic since 1964. And the campaign is pledging paid staffers to... Texas!

Week-end polls: In case anyone had illusions about Clinton's June 3rd chances

The first poll of the Montana primary -- not a contest that was expected to ever be surveyed -- suggests that June 3rd should not allow Hillary Clinton to close the primary season on a high note. Mason-Dixon shows Barack Obama leading 52% to 35%, and there is every reason to believe that Clinton's road is as tough in South Dakota.

Naturally, these two primaries award very few delegates (31 combined, versus 55 in Puerto Rico two days earlier). But since Clinton's goal seems to be to find an argument to stay in the race as long as possible, there is no doubt that two harsh defeats on the last Election Night will not bode well for her campaign's rationale in the days following June 3rd, days in which the remaining uncommitted superdelegates are expected to pick their side at an increasing speed. DemCon Watch details this week's updates, and finds that Obama picked up 3 supers to Clinton's one (all were add-on, and Clinton's surprisingly came from Georgia).

Meanwhile, a list of general election polls were released today:

• First, Gallup's national tracking poll is noteworthy for it shows one of the largest differentials between Clinton and Obama's performance that it has recorded since the tracking started a while ago. Today, Obama trails 49% to 44% while Clinton leads 47% to 45%.

• Meanwhile, Mason-Dixon's Montana poll shows possibly tight races, though McCain is predictably starting ahead. He leads Clinton 50% to 39% and Obama 47% to 39%. Bush won 59% to 39% four years ago.

• In neighboring Nebraska, however, Research 2000 crushes Democratic hopes of picking up a few electoral votes with Obama's candidacy. McCain trounces Obama 57% to 29% (leading by wide margins in all congressional districts) and leads Clinton 58% to 28%. A Rasmussen poll and a SUSA poll released in the past few months showed much tighter results.

• Meanwhile, in California, an LA Times poll should send shills down Democrats' spine, as McCain is very close to both Democrats: 47% to 40% against Obama, 43% to 40% against Clinton. Two polls released Friday showed both Dems up double-digits.

• Finally, a North Carolina poll by Civitas has a tight race between McCain and Obama, with the Republican leading 44% to 39%.
  

The California numbers are significant, for if a series of polls in the next few weeks show the potential of a single-digit race, the Democratic nominee will be forced to spend resources to defend this large state with expensive media markets even if the GOP campaign does not attempt anything. Democrats can take no risk in California, as the loss of its 55 electoral votes would leave no road to the White House.

The Western states are also interesting, for it is a central part of Obama's argument of a different electoral map that states that have traditionally not been receptive to Democrats -- places like North Dakota, some congressional districts in Nebraska, Montana -- could warm up to him. Polls are telling a conflicting picture about this, as Obama has polled very strongly in some polls (in Alaska, Nebraska) but more poorly in some. All these states have very few electoral votes, so the loss/gain of one would not necessarily determine the election (though it could, as Al Gore learned in 2000).

In one last polling note, Research 2000 also conducted a survey of the Nebraska Senate race and found Mike Johanns leading Scott Kleeb by a wide 58% to 31%. A Rasmussen poll released last week found Johanns ahead 55% to 40%, a more promising picture for the Democrats. But this merely confirms what we already know: What was a very promising race at some point in the fall is now among the most difficult for Democrats, as Johanns is a very popular and well-known politician of a very Republican state. This is a rare congressional open seat in which the GOP looks to have saved itself through recruiting.

General election: How much will the electoral map change?

An Obama-McCain general election match-up would ensure that the electoral map we are accustomed to changes; both candidates appeal to states traditionally abandoned by their respective parties, but they are also both dangerously weak among groups previous nominees have carried more easily. Clinton could also transform the map, as she would put in play states that Kerry had given up while having to counter McCain's atypical appeal to blue-leaning independents.

In fact, the conventional wisdom of how the two candidates' strategies differ seems set for the time being: Obama would rely less on states like Ohio and Florida in which he looks to have more difficulty than Clinton and choose a less conventional path to the White House that goes through states like Colorado, Virginia and... the Mountain West, places in which Clinton is much less competitive.

This is of course just a rough sketch that the coming months will allow us to refine; but there is already plenty of evidence of how different the two electoral coalitions that Obama and Clinton are amassing are. Against McCain, Obama is typically stronger among independents and African-Americans, just as in the primaries. Meanwhile, Clinton's general election strength are derived from an edge among blue-collar voters, here again a repeat of her match-up against Obama. Gallup came out with a fascinating study today showing how Clinton and Obama's general election coalitions are almost unbelievably the opposite of one another:

• The aggregate of Gallup's tracking poll from March 31st and April 6th shows that McCain leads Obama among voters with no college education (46% to 40%). McCain's lead evaporates among voters with any college education, including a 52% to 42% lead for Obama among voters with a postgraduate education.

• Clinton, meanwhile, performs in exactly the opposite way: Clinton leads among voters with no college education (48% to 43%) but trails among voters with any college education, including a 10% deficit among four-year college graduates and a 3% deficit among voters with a postgraduate education.
  

Given these dramatic differences, it is hardly surprising that Obama and Clinton are working on different electoral maps, and that the 2008 general election could throw the Bush-Rove map of the past 2 cycles right out the window. Today's wave of general election polls confirms that we will have to pay attention to states that are generally forgotten in general elections:

• First, a Marist poll of New York shows John McCain not only competitive but actually edging out Obama 48% to 46%. Clinton leads 48% to 46%. In the poll's least interesting but most discussed follow-up, a McCain/Rice ticket would lead both a Clinton/Obama and an Obama/Clinton ticket.

It is hard to know what to make of this poll for the simple fact that it is a complete outlier relatively to all the New York polls we have seen this year. This is not to say that McCain will not make blue states competitive, as there is plenty of polls that suggest Connecticut and New Jersey will be very competitive with McCain on the ballot. But looking at the past few New York polls, there simply is no sign of much vulnerability on the part of either Democrat (Obama leads McCain by 13% and 21% in the past two polls), so we will have to wait for other polls to confirm Marist's finding.

We also got a wave of general election releases from Rasmussen:

• In Ohio, McCain is leading both Democrats comfortably, 47% to 40% against Obama and 47% to 42% against Clinton.


• In New Mexico, Obama leads McCain 45% to 42% while McCain is ahead of Clinton 46% to 43%. In late February, McCain tied Obama and led Clinton by 12%.


• The first surprising results come from Alaska, where McCain only leads Obama 48% to 43% while trouncing Clinton 57% to 32%. Clinton's favorability rating is just 35% far behind McCain (63) and Obama (55).


• Just as surprising are Montana's numbers: McCain here again only leads Obama 48% to 43%. He is further ahead of Clinton, 54% to 38%.

Both Alaska and Montana are staunchly Republican states where Obama is vastly overperforming the typical Democratic candidates. Note that these states are conservative in a very different manner than in the deep South and its history of racial conflict; the relative absense of racial polarization in the Mountain West makes this region the testing ground of Obama's attempt at changing the electoral map.

Note also that there is a precedent for such numbers in other polls: SUSA's 50-state poll project in early March tested McCain-Obama match-ups in both Alaksa and Montana and found McCain ahead by 5% and 9% respectively. Obama was competitive in many Western states -- and even led McCain in North Dakota! Most of these states are worth only 3 electoral votes, but the last thing McCain wants is to have to play defense in so many small states.

Relatively to the numbers from MT and AK, of course, Ohio's numbers have to be very disappointing for Democrats. This state was supposed to be a disaster zone for Republicans since 2004 and Democrats were confident that it would be much easier for them to pick it up this time. Democrats do not necessarily need Ohio to get to the White House, but the fact that McCain is consistently strong in the state has got to be a painful blow.