Jay Cost looks at Obama’s television advertising buys, and notes that the campaign has so far opted not to advertise in several states that Clinton won in ’96 (and in ’92 for that matter):

Compare the ad buys to the 1996 results, and you’ll notice that there are six states Clinton won that Obama, who is flush with cash and could spend anywhere, has chosen to leave off his list. Obviously, Arizona is easily explained, as it is McCain’s home state. However, there are five other states not included in the buys: Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Arkansas. We can make three points about them.

First, they have been more supportive of successful Democratic presidential candidates than North Dakota et al. Bill Clinton won all five in 1996 and 1992. Jimmy Carter won them all in 1976. Until recently, West Virginia was solidly Democratic – voting for Carter in 1980 and Dukakis in 1988.

Second, with the exception of Kentucky, all of them were more supportive of Kerry in 2004 than North Dakota et al.

Third, they generally remain Democratic in their partisanship.

As Cost notes, the campaign has not been running ads in these states because these were states where Obama was particularly weak in the primaries.  Three of them are in Appalachia, and four of them belong to what I once dubbed “the Casey belt,” because of the prevalence of so-called “Casey Democrats” in these states.  The phrase refers to states that still tilt towards the Democrats in many local and state elections and continue to have greater Democratic than Republican registration, while their Democratic voters tend to be socially conservative.  So it was no accident that Obama fared quite badly with white Democrats in all of these states and lost the primaries in four of them.  There is tremendous resistance to his candidacy among many of these Democrats similar to the resistance Kerry faced, but as Cost observes the states where Obama is making unconventional ad buys demonstrated even greater resistance to Kerry.  

Except for Indiana, which is a natural target for an Illinois candidate, most of the “map-expanding” moves that Obama is making right now make little sense.  I know that the Montana, North Dakota and Alaska polls show a very close race, and at least one has shown Obama leading in Montana, but there are structural reasons that these states almost never vote Democratic in the presidential race, just as there are structural reasons why “the Casey belt” states are more likely to vote that way.  Many of the latter would be reverting to previous voting patterns, while the newly targeted states will have to break with long-established patterns.  Put another way, if these states even voted for Bob Dole, odds are they will still end up voting for Dole Mk II McCain. 

What makes this strategy even more odd is that Georgia, North Dakota, Alaska, Montana, and Indiana add up to 33 electoral votes, while Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Arkansas add up to 39 electoral votes, and the first five are much less likely to flip to the Democratic side.  Winning the latter five may not be easy for Obama, but it should by all rights be easier than winning the others, and even if he is entirely successful in winning the traditionally “red” states the payoff is not as great.  What is still more puzzling about the strategy is that it is unnecessary.  Colorado and New Mexico are much more likely to vote Democratic this year than these others, and so long as Obama holds all the Kerry states and wins these along with Iowa he will narrowly win the election.