Obama’s Strange Electoral Map

Cillizza has an interesting post about an Obama campaign memo using an electoral map to argue in favor of his electability. There’s nothing odd about using maps in campaign memos — the McCain camp and the Giuliani camp both leaned on maps to push narratives of electability.

What is strange is the map itself.

The Obama camp identified three tiers: “Big States,” “Traditional Battlegrounds” and “New States.” The “Big States” are pretty standard, but I have some questions about the “Traditional Battlegrounds” and the “New States.”

• North Dakota and Montana? Really? There’s a potentially potent mix of fierce independents and civic-minded voters of Northern European descent that might like Obama’s post-partisan appeals, but these states are pretty red in presidential elections.
• Texas? It’s clear that the Obama camp relied too heavily on that bizarre series of Survey USA 50 state polls about a month back. They should know better.
• The mid-Atlantic: Is North Carolina more competitive than Virginia? I would say North Carolina is trending in the same ways that Virginia did in the last decade if anything.
• Washington State: Is the Obama camp just assuming this is a lay-up?
• And last but certainly not least: Where are Ohio and Florida? These two states are Clinton‘s best arguments for electability. Does the Obama camp have a coherent strategy on these two behemoths?

Obama’s Strange Electoral Map — Dark blue is the “Big States,” royal blue is the “Traditional Battlegrounds,” and light blue is the “New States”