There is a new poll out today that shows Obama ahead by 5% in Alaska, 45%-40%. It is from a Democratic firm, and outlies a bit from other recent polls in the state. Despite those negatives against the poll, it does at least confirm that Alaska is indeed a swing state in this election. The most recent poll from the four polling organizations to survey Alaska in the past month now show an average of McCain 46.5%--43.0% Obama.
This got me to thinking--what about the other red states that Bush won by about 20% in 2004, but that seem competitive in 2008? These states include Georgia, Indiana, Montana, and North Dakota. The Obama campaign is targeting all of these states with paid media and staff, so they feel it might be competitive, too.
To answer this question, follow me to the extended entry for a quick round of mapchanging fact and fiction, deep red state edition.
Question: Like Alaska, Are These Deep Red State Actually Competitive?
Georgia: FICTION: Outside of Insider Advantage, a polling firm with a questionable track record, no polling firm has shown Georgia to be truly competitive. The talk of 600,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state also doesn't mean much, because you simply are not going to manage 100% turnout among that group. Fact is, the Obama campaign would be lucky to get 30% of that group to vote, given the wave of voter registration campaigns that already took place from 2004-2008, but somehow missed these voters. Obama won't win Georgia unless he wins nationally by more than 8%. As such, it is not a swing state.
Indiana: UNCLEAR: While I lean toward fiction, the truth is that there simply isn't enough recent evidence to know what is happening in Indiana. The polling is really strange--and old. Survey USA, which I trust, confirms Zogby in a close campaign, but both of those polls were taken in June. The trendline also favors Obama in the Downs Center polling, but their last effort was in late April. Other than that, two of the other three firms in the state, all with old polls, show McCain ahead by 8%. However, one shows Obama ahead by 8%, further muddling the picture. While I simply have a very, very hard time believing that Indiana will be competitive this year, there isn't enough evidence to preclude the possibility.
Montana: FACT: The simple truth is that there is no way to argue that McCain is ahead in this state. The last poll to show McCain ahead here was Rasmussen in April. However, since then, Rasmussen has released two Montana polls, one with Obama winning, and one with a dead heat. It makes sense, too. Democrats have been on a real roll in Montana for the past four years, and Obama is campaigning here (as recently as the 4th of July) entirely unopposed. Montana even voted for Clinton back in 1992, one of the few non-southern states that Clinton won but both Kerry and Gore lost.
Three key threads uniting the clear mapchanges in Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota, is that all three states have relatively small populations, inexpensive media markets, and were also key nomination contests for Obama that he basically contested unchallenged. With Obama being the only national candidate to campaign in these states for a couple of decades, and since you only need to flip about 50,000 voters in each state to win there, it isn't hard to see how Obama can be competitive in those states in a Democratic year. While it is possible that over the long term, Georgia and Indiana can become the new Virginia and North Carolina, I don't see it happening this cycle. In fact, I would actually put more money on Texas flipping long term than Montana and Indiana, given the huge and growing Latino population in the state. If that ever happened, Republicans would have a generational minority.
