FairVote Feed: Presidential Tracker

Tracking Presidential Campaign Field Operations

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:11:18 -0800

The most visible way that Democratic and Republican presidential candidates show favoritism for swing states is through public campaign events and ad spending. However, tracking where candidates open field offices is another useful method of measuring candidate attention. Field office statistics show a similarly strong bias towards swing states, although there tend to be more offices in noncompetitive states than ad spending or campaign visits.

While Barack Obama's campaign opened about three times as many campaign offices as Mitt Romney's campaign*, both showed a clear preference for swing states. Field operations are a crucial component of political campaigns: volunteers and staff on the ground persuade and track potential voters, making personalized appeals for why they should vote and for whom. For both campaigns, the voters to persuade were the voters in swing states, and they set up their offices accordingly.

Target: Swing State Voters

President Obama's field operation was immense, with about 790 campaign offices across the country, and at least one in every state. However, in 25 states, there was just one Obama office. Conversely, the campaign opened 104 offices in Florida and 131 in Ohio. Indeed, 55% of all Obama campaign offices were in just five states: Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado. 87% were in just twelve states: the twelve states in which either President Obama, Vice President Biden, Governor Romney, or Congressman Ryan held a public campaign event during peak campaign season (the end of the Democratic National Convention on September 7 to Election Day on November 6). 68% were in the eight states in which either Obama or Romney held public events during peak campaign season.

Obama field offices in "event-holding states" ** (states in which Obama and/or Biden held events bolded)

States	Number of Field Offices	Events held by either Obama or Biden during peak campaign season
Colorado	62	8
Florida	104	17
Iowa	67	11
Michigan	28	0
Minnesota	12	0
Nevada	26	6
New Hampshire	22	8
North Carolina	54	2
Ohio	131	28
Pennsylvania	54	0
Virginia	61	10
Wisconsin	69	11
Total	690	101

Interestingly, even though Obama did not visit four of the 12 states listed, he had rather hefty field operations in each. Although according to the Washington Post his campaign spent less than $400,000 on advertising in Michigan between April 10 and Election Day (he spent $327 million nationwide on advertising during that period), he kept 28 field offices open in the state throughout the campaign. In Minnesota, he spent less than a million dollars on advertising, but did open 12 offices there. (It should be noted that although neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden held a campaign event in Minnesota or Michigan during peak campaign season, both President Bill Clinton and Dr. Jill Biden attended public campaign events in Minnesota and Jill Biden attended a few in Michigan during that period).

In addition, the Obama campaign opened 54 offices each in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, widely considered to be two of the least competitive "swing states." This level of attention is somewhat surprising considering that both Obama and Biden failed to hold events there during peak campaign season. However, as we can see from the number of offices in the two states, as well as the amount of money spent on advertising -- $8.4 and 20.5 million respectively - clearly the Obama campaign considered those states to be somewhat competitive.

Romney's placement of his 284 campaign offices was equally biased toward swing states. Indeed, romney did not even open an office in every state; he only opened them in 16.

Romney field offices in "event holding states"

States	Number of Field Offices	Events held by either Romney or Ryan during peak campaign season
Colorado	13	15
Florida	48	23
Iowa	14	16
Michigan	24	1
Minnesota	0	1
Nevada	12	7
New Hampshire	9	5
North Carolina	24	1
Ohio	40	45
Pennsylvania	25	5
Virginia	29	26
Wisconsin	24	7
Total	262	152

As we can see, Romney heavily prioritized the three largest, truly competitive states: Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, in which he opened about 41% of all his field offices. However, it is also evident that the Romney campaign saw opportunity in some of the states that many thought were heavily leaning towards Obama's column. Pennsylvania and Michigan, states which received few visits (five and one, respectively) or ad money ($1.74 million and zero, respectively) from his campaign, both had as many campaign offices as the slightly more competitive Wisconsin, and nearly as many as the very competitive Virginia. The Romney campaign may have been stingy with the money it spent on television advertising in those states, but clearly, it thought that those states were in play enough to allocate a good portion of their ground resources there.

Safe State Offices

While both campaigns did place the lion's share of their field offices in the most competitive swing states, each did have some offices in safe states--states about whose vote outcome there was little doubt, and that therefore received neither a campaign visit nor any ad money. For example, the Obama campaign opened 14 field offices in solidly blue California and the Romney campaign opened four offices in solidly red Utah. However, both states, along with New York and Texas, were important fundraising states.

Apart from fundraising states, field offices could be found in former battlegrounds, like New Mexico, Oregon, and Nebraska's 2^nd congressional district. This may have been because these states still contained the remnants of their past political activity, such as field organizers and local volunteers who had worked in previous presidential elections. Another explanation is that these states, despite their solidly red or blue status, have slightly more balanced partisanships than other safe states. Obama only won New Mexico by ten points, and Oregon by eleven. Mitt Romney won Georgia and South Carolina, in both of which Obama opened three field offices, by only eight and eleven points respectively.

Whatever the reason for the placement of field offices in these states, we can see that people in safe states are indeed eager to get involved in political activity and to campaign for the candidate of their choice. While they cannot control where the candidates chose to visit or where their campaigns spend money, they can volunteer if the opportunity is given to them, be it in their home state or a neighboring swing state. The residents of current safe states should be given more opportunities to volunteer for their preferred candidates in their own communities, rather than being forced to travel to swing states to make a difference. With the passage of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, those opportunities could soon become a reality.

For the full list of campaign offices by state, as well as a list of the number of eligible voters per campaign office, see our spreadsheet here.

*It should be noted that comparing the number of Obama offices to the number of Romney offices may not be an instructive method of comparing the ground strength of the two campaigns. While Romney had fewer offices in each state than Obama, the number of offices does not necessarily measure the number of volunteers working in each office, nor does it measure how much contact each office made with potential voters. In addition, several of the Obama offices were actually the offices of their state's Democratic Party (for example, in Mississippi and Rhode Island). However, we can gauge from the large discrepancies in the numbers of offices that each campaign had in swing vs. safe states that the ground efforts in one swing state trumped nearly all the ground efforts in safe states combined.

**Numbers found on the websites of the Obama and Romney campaigns. The Obama offices can be found on each state's page under the "find your office" feature, but the Romney page is no longer active.

Presidential Campaign Attention: Why Most States Aren’t Worth Any Despite Their Generosity

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:05:03 -0700

Presidential Tracker Update: FairVote has been tracking all the major party nominees for president and vice-president closely since the party conventions. See our latest summary here, which shows that the candidates have yet to hold a single public campaign event in 40 states. We will issue a final campaign tracker on November 7th, 2012, and later issue a comprehensive analysis including details on campaign spending in 2012 and past elections.

How much is a state worth in a presidential election?

The two major presidential campaigns have been answering that question for months by deciding where to hold campaign events and where to spend ad money. As of Halloween, the candidates had held two-thirds of their public events since September 7 in just three states - Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. They and their allied groups have also spent 55% of their ad money in those same three states, according to the Washington Post. At the same time, our Presidential Tracker shows that the candidates have failed to hold a public event in 40 states thus far.

But candidates don't only visit states to court voters with public rallies and speeches; they travel to raise money as well. The candidates have traveled far and wide to raise money for their campaigns, from Utah to Minnesota to Louisiana. Indeed, candidates travel for fundraisers proportionally to a state's population: big states have more fundraising visits and small states have fewer, particularly before the fall campaign. Safe or swing, as long as a state has enough potential donors, the candidates will have been there. However, that does not mean that the candidates have done anything to try to win votes in those states. Unless you live in a swing state (of whatever size), your only chance of interacting with a presidential candidate in-person is to donate hundreds or thousands of dollars to his campaign.

Last week, for example, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan appeared at fundraisers in solidly Republican Southern states, but only held rallies and public events in familiar swing states: Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. On October 24, Ryan attended a fundraiser in Atlanta, Georgia. The cheapest ticket was $500. $10,000 bought a picture with Ryan, and $25,000 bought a chance to speak with him.

Joked Ryan about his brief trip into safe-state territory, "You probably don't see all the ads, do you?" He continued, "There is so much clutter out there. If you come into one of these battleground states, you can't run away from it. The reason I'm thanking you for your generosity is because it helps us cut through this clutter."

On the 26th, before a three-day tour of Ohio, Ryan attended two more Southern fundraisers, one in Greenville, South Carolina, and one in Huntsville, Alabama. The prices tags for both events were equally steep.

Ryan did not interact with non-donors during any of these visits.

Ryan's trip to the South is only the most recent example of an unfortunate trend: candidates heading to safe states to raise large sums of money while ignoring potential voters who can't afford to donate $500-$1,000 to their campaigns. In September, Mitt Romney visited Utah to fundraise, but did not make any public appearances. He has done the same thing in Georgia and Texas, even venturing into blue states like New York and California to collect money from supporters there. Indeed, donating money or canvassing and phone banking out of state is the only way that Romney supporters in New York can help to elect their candidate of choice: under winner-take-all method of allocating electors, none of the millions of Republican votes in New York will go into the final Electoral College tally.

President Obama and Vice President Biden have been equally discriminating in their fundraising and vote courting efforts. Throughout this hectic fall campaign, both candidates have found time to fundraise in New York, California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, but have yet to find the time to hold a public event in any of these states. If there is money to be collected, in Louisiana or Missouri for instance, the candidates will make an appearance. But if there are no electoral votes up for grabs, they will head straight from their planes into the fundraisers, speaking nary a word to anyone who isn't donating.

Below is a chart of the top ten donor states, comparing donation-courting attention to vote-courting attention.

	Money Donated to Obama and Romney Campaigns as of 10/17/12	Fundraisers attended in the state since June by a major ticket candidate	Ad Money Spent since April	Visits by major ticket candidates (9/7-10/31)
California	$119,400,000	31	$0	0
New York	$68,700,000	23	$52,000	0
Texas	$43,600,000	12	$0	0
Florida	$48,600,000	16	$147,000,000	37
Illinois	$34,500,000	8	$15,600,000*	0
Massachusetts	$31,400,000	13	$19,000,000 *	0
Virginia	$27,200,000	4	$131,000,000	25
Pennsylvania	$23,600,000	6	$16,000,000	2
Washington	$20,400,000	5	$0	0
Georgia	$18,200,000	5	$0	0

*Boston media market overlaps with southern New Hampshire, whose votes those ads are meant to sway; Eastern Illinois overlaps with the Davenport, Iowa media market

As we can see, eight out of the ten top donor states are receiving virtually no attention from the campaigns. The millions of dollars donated to the campaigns drew candidates to a select few wealthy voters in each state, while those states' middle and lower-income voters received no attention at all. While voters in Ohio of all economic situations have had 55 opportunities to see the presidential candidates in person and hear their speeches about issues important to them, the only chance an non-wealthy Alabama voter would have of catching a glimpse of a candidate in person would be to stand near the entrance of a fundraiser.

This is not to say that the states that donate the most money deserve to get the most campaign attention. But they do deserve to get more than none. Any attention, let alone attention proportional to their large population sizes, would be a vast improvement. It is wrong for candidates to travel all the way to these states and ignore all but their wealthiest citizens. States like New York and California may have seemingly endless donation coffers in places like the Manhattan and Malibu, and are therefore understandably fundraising targets, but the cruel logic of states' winner-take-all laws allows for candidates to ignore voters in Poughkeepsie (NY) and Compton (CA) without any fear of how it might affect their electoral prospects, and this is a problem. Voters in all states, of all economic backgrounds, deserve attention from presidential candidates; they shouldn't have to buy it. That's why FairVote expects more states to adopt the National Popular Vote plan in the coming years and hopes the new rule will govern the 2016 presidential election.

Yet Again, Just Three States Draw The Majority of Campaign Attention: Presidential Tracker Update, October 17, 2012

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:31:00 -0700

Facts in Focus:

Two states matter most: Florida and Ohio are among the three states that hosted about half of all presidential campaign events with major party ticket nominees in the fall campaigns of 2004, 2008, and 2012.
Jilted swing state: Pennsylvania hosted 13.4% of campaign events in the fall of 2008; it has hosted just 0.1% of events in the fall of 2012.
Spectator states of America: Nearly two-thirds of all states did not see a major party presidential or vice-presidential nominee even once in the peak seasons of the 2008 or 2012 campaigns.
Small states get no boost: During the 2012 general election campaign, Ohio has hosted the same number campaign events, 34, with the presidential and vice-presidential nominees as the 30 smallest states combined.

This election cycle, the three largest battleground states - Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, together representing about 12.5% of the nation - are receiving the majority of campaign attention as measured by both ad spending and campaign events with presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Florida and Ohio were among the three states in the same position in 2004 and 2008, but Virginia has displaced Pennsylvania as the third most coveted state.

From the end of the Democratic National Convention on September 7 until October 17, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Governor Romney, and Congressmen Ryan have held 61.3% of their campaign events in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. In addition, as reported by the Washington Post, these three states drew 54.3% of the $544 million in ad money spent by the Obama and Romney campaigns and their allies since April 11.

Focusing on just three large swing states is nothing new. During the 2004 election, the Gore and Bush campaigns held 62.5% of campaign events and spent 45.4% of their ad money in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. In 2008, the Obama and McCain campaigns held 49.5% of campaign events and spent 44.8% of their ad money in the same three states.

Below is a chart with the percentages of all ad money spent and percentages of all campaign events held in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania in the peak seasons of the 2004 and 2008, as well as the percentages received by those states from the end of this year's Democratic National Convention to the present.

	% visits to state (9/26/04-11/2/04)	% ad spending in state (9/26/04-11/2/04)	% campaign events held in state (9/5/08-11/4/08)	% ad spending in state (9/24/08-11/4/08)	% campaign events held in state (9/7/12-10/17/12)	% ad spending in state (4/11/12-10/7/12)
Florida	21.0%	27.1%	15.6%	17.6%	16.0%	19.1%
Ohio	16.5%	19.9%	20.5%	12.0%	28.6%	17.1%
Virginia	0.0%	0.0%	7.5%	11.0%	16.8%	17.6%
Pennsylvania	7.9%	15.5%	13.4%	15.2%	0.1%	11.9%

As we can see, Pennsylvania has experienced a sharp drop in campaign attention. While in 2008, the candidates held 41 campaign events in Pennsylvania between September 5 and November 4, in 2012 the candidates have only held one event there since September 7, one with Governor Mitt Romney. If the candidates keep campaigning the way they are now, it is unlikely that Pennsylvania will see any of them more than a couple of times in the three weeks leading up to the election.

On the other hand, while Pennsylvania is still receiving a good chunk of ad money (11.9% of the money spent since April 11), the candidates are clearly prioritizing Virginia, which has received 17.6% of ad money and twenty campaign events, or 16.8% of events held this fall. This is in stark contrast to the election of 2004, during which Virginia did not receive a single campaign visit or dollar of advertising money.

This switch is not surprising, considering that according to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog, poll aggregates give Obama a 4.7% lead in Pennsylvania, even after the national shift towards Romney following his energetic debate performance on October 3. In Virginia, on the other hand, Romney leads Obama by 0.2%, making the state a toss up.

While Pennsylvanians may be disappointed that their state is no longer a primary target of the campaigns, what should really shock American voters is just how much attention is being showered on the three largest competitive states. If 61.3% of the 119 campaign events have been held in three states, that means that only 38.7% were held in the remaining 48 states (including DC). However, the other 38.7% of events were actually focused on in just eight states, meaning the candidates have not held a single campaign event in 40 states in the past six weeks.

What's more, all of the swing states this year were also swing states in 2008 - the only difference is that now there are fewer of them. This has meant that 32 states have not been host to a single campaign event in either the 2008 or 2012 fall campaigns. Putting it even more dramatically, this election season, the state of Ohio (with a total of 18 electoral votes) has hosted the same number campaign events as the 30 smallest states combined (with a total of 158 electoral votes). Every indication is that this will be the geographically narrowest campaign in modern American history.

For reformers, these developments highlight the problems with state statutes establishing a winner-take-all rule for allocating electoral votes - that is, awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state. This rule makes it so that candidates have no reason to campaign in any state where they are clearly ahead or hopelessly behind. With today's degree of partisan polarization, it has become increasingly predictable which states will be swing states - and there are fewer of them now than ever before.

For more information on where the candidates are campaigning, see our Presidential Tracker page. For information on President Obama's travels from his inauguration to the end of the Democratic National Convention and for Governor Romney's travels from the time he effectively secured the Republican nomination on April 24, 2012 to the end of the Democratic National Convention, see the spreadsheets linked on our Presidential Tracker page.

Methodology and definitions:

* FairVote classifies campaign events has events held to sway voters in the areas in which the events are held. For example, a rally or town hall is considered a campaign event for that state, but a fundraiser or a national television appearance does not count as an event for the state in which is was held or filmed.

* At this point in the election cycle, the amount of money spent in each state and in total is not clear, as the various organizations tallying ad spending are using different methodologies. As of now, FairVote is using the Washington Post's ad spending aggregator 'Mad Money', which derives its data from Kantar Media. Kantar does not count ads bought on local cable stations in its tally.

Swing States and Swing Media Markets: Presidential Tracker Update, October 3, 2012

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 07:35:33 -0700

There are 34 days left before Election Day, and the candidates have yet to campaign in 40 states since the end of the Democratic National Convention, which ended September 7. But don't take that to mean that the candidates are sitting on their laurels. They're just being strategic, focusing on the only states where campaigning might earn them more electoral votes under to the "winner-take-all" rule. Since the end of the conventions, the candidates have held events in the following states.

	Obama	Biden	Romney	Ryan	Total
Colorado	1	0	4	2	7
Florida	6	3	4	2	15
Iowa	1	3	1	5	10
Nevada	2	0	1	1	4
New Hampshire	1	3	1	2	7
North Carolina	0	2	0	0	2
Ohio	4	4	6	5	19
Pennsylvania	0	1	1	0	2
Virginia	2	1	4	2	9
Wisconsin	1	1	0	1	3

As we can see, the candidates are clearly prioritizing Ohio, Florida, and Iowa, while also spending a great deal of attention on Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia. The states receiving some visits, but not many, are states that are trending toward one candidate or the other - according to FiveThirtyEight's polling aggregates, Obama is leading pretty handily in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, by about 6.3% and 8.2% respectively - and North Carolina is currently leaning towards Romney by about 1.5%. In addition, the candidates are still visiting states from which they can fundraise or appear on national television (namely, New York, California, and Texas).

It's also instructive to look at how candidates are spending their money by media market, as in some cases, it shows how much a candidate is willing to spend to reach voters in a small pocket of a swing state.

According to the Washington Post's 'Mad Money' Tracker, the media markets that have received the most money so far this year are as follows.

	Obama campaign	Romney Campaign	Total
Washington, DC	$12.5 million	6.2	18.7
Cleveland, OH	11.9	5.3	17.2
Charlotte, NC	10.0	6.9	16.9
Las Vegas, NV	11.6	4.7	16.3
Tampa, FL	8.2	6.9	15.1
Denver, CO	9.8	4.4	14.2
Orlando, FL	8.6	5.4	14.0
Miami, FL	6.3	4.8	11.1
Columbus, OH	5.9	3.4	9.3
Boston, MA	5.7	2.1	7.8

Most of the cities on this list are not surprising; all but two are the biggest cities in the most competitive swing states. The two outliers, Boston and D.C., are not competitive cities by any stretch of the imagination. They do however border the swing states of New Hampshire and Virginia. Although Boston's media market covers all of eastern Massachusetts, the fact that it also covers about a third New Hampshire means that the candidates are willing to shell out millions of dollars to reach that third. The same goes for the D.C. market, which covers all of Maryland - a safe state - but also covers the northernmost tip of Virginia, which is a swing state.

There is a clear willingness to spend money in other media markets that might affect electoral votes, even if those markets cover stretches of safe state territory. For example, because the Omaha, Nebraska market covers part of southwestern Iowa, and also because there is a small chance that Omaha's one electoral vote, which is allocated on a congressional district basis, could swing to Obama, his campaign has spent $1.2 million there. Another example is Charleston, West Virginia, the capital of a state which heavily favors Romney, but whose media market covers a small section of southern Ohio.

While it is nice for residents in some safe states to experience being wooed by the presidential campaigns (or not nice, if they hate political ads), they are among a select few. The candidates have not aired a single ad in such media markets as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Houston, nor are they likely do so for the rest of the year. Unfortunately, none of the states in which these media markets are located are expected to become battleground in 2016, so residents in those cities are out of political luck for the foreseeable future.

Stay tuned for our analysis of trends in state partisanship in 2012 and what that might mean for the 2016 election.

FairVote’s Presidential Campaign Tracker: Past, Present, and Future

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:08:56 -0700

Politico

The presidential campaign has entered its final weeks, when presidential candidates travel and campaign across the country almost every day (in swing states), advertise on television hundreds of times a day (in swing states), and thousands of volunteers devote their weekends and evenings to getting out the vote (in swing states). This election cycle, FairVote is continuing our efforts to track the candidates’ travel and television ad spending, just as we did in the 2004 and 2008 campaigns and throughout President Barack Obama’s time in office.

In 2004, FairVote analysis underscored just how unequally different states were treated by George W. Bush and John Kerry’s campaigns. For example, CNN’s data showed that 52% of all ad money spent during the peak season of September 26, 2004 to November 2, 2004 was used in the country’s three largest swing states - Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, while the country’s three largest states - California, New York, and Texas - received only seven ads combined. In contrast, of the 18 states with the smallest populations, 11 received neither a single visit nor ad dollar. In addition, while the campaigns spent more than $10 per voter in New Mexico and Nevada, and more than $1 per voter in 12 additional states, they spent a nickel or less per voter in 28 states, and less than a penny per voter in 25 of those 28 states.

The 11 states with the closest electoral margins in 2004 – Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Oregon, Colorado, and Florida – accounted for 92% of all candidate visits during peak election season, even though these states only contained 27% of the country’s population. In contrast, the lowest ranking 25 states on the list, home to 51% of the country’s population, received only three candidate visits combined. Those three visits were in New York and Texas. That means that the candidates did not visit 23 states at all.

The 2008 election was no better for most states. The fourteen closest states – with about one-third of the US population -- received 99% of the visits and 95.1% of all ad money spent in the peak season. New York, California, Texas, and Illinois, which also contain close to a third of the country’s population, had no campaign events by either party’s presidential or vice-presidential nominee and about 0.89% of ad money. The four largest swing states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia), representing fewer than one in six Americans, received 53.33% of ad money and 55.7% of all visits. 32 states received zero campaign visits and six did not get a single ad dollar.

Relying on Washington Post data, our Presidential Tracker recorded and categorized President Obama’s visits to states throughout his presidency and Romney’s since he became the presumptive Republican nominee in late April. Before the Republican National Convention at the end of August, Obama’s most visited states were a mix of states with his top donors in 2008, mostly larger swing states and White House neighbor Maryland.

New York had 71 visits, 35 of them fundraisers; California had 56 visits, 32 of them fundraisers; Illinois had 32 visits, 16 of them fundraisers; and Texas had 21 visits, 12 of them fundraisers. Maryland has had 31 events, two of which were fundraisers, and none of which were after the month of June. It can reasonably be assumed that these visits were due more to Maryland’s proximity to Washington, D.C. than to any role Maryland might have in the 2012 election – Obama won it in 2008 by a margin of over 25% and the state donated only about 3.37% of his campaign money in 2008.

Of the swing states, Virginia has had 46 events, four of them fundraisers; Florida also has had 46 events, 18 of them fundraisers; Ohio has had 44 events, four of them fundraisers; Iowa has had 30 events, none of them fundraisers; and Pennsylvania had 28 events, six of them fundraisers. As I reported last week, perhaps the starkest example was the 15 events in swing state North Carolina, compared to the zero events in neighboring South Carolina, where Obama’s 45% of the vote in 2008 was just low enough to make it an unlikely target in 2012.

Mitt Romney’s visits between April 24, when he became the presumptive Republican nominee, and the Republican National Convention, also showed a clear preference for donor and swing states. California received a total of 10 events, eight of them fundraisers; New York received seven events, six of them fundraisers; and Texas received six events, three of them fundraisers. Of potential swing states from this summer, Colorado and Michigan each had seven events, two of them fundraisers; Iowa had six, one of them a fundraiser; New Hampshire had seven, one of them a fundraiser; Ohio had eight, none of them fundraisers; Pennsylvania had four, one of them a fundraiser; and Virginia had five events, none of them fundraisers. Michigan has only had one Romney campaign event since June, while Pennsylvania has only had one since late May.

Post-conventions, we are categorizing the travel of all four major party presidential and vice-presidential nominees, using CNN’s ‘On The Trail’ reporting. The candidates are already heavily favoring swing states. President Obama has had eleven campaign events in the past ten days, all of them in the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio; five of the eleven events were in Florida and two were in Ohio. Vice-president Biden has had nine events, three in Iowa, four in Ohio, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Wisconsin.

On the Republican side, Governor Romney has had nine campaign events, one each in Colorado, Iowa, Florida, and New Hampshire, two in Ohio, and three in Virginia. Congressman Ryan has had eight campaign events so far, one each in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Wisconsin, and two in Virginia.

For ad spending in 2012, we will be looking at spending by the individual campaigns and their allied interest groups, relying on the Washington Post’s ‘Mad Money’. Between April 24, when Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee, and the beginning of the Republican National Convention, Obama’s campaign spent $123.6 million in media markets in the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, and their surrounding counties (for example, parts of Wyoming share media markets with Colorado). Romney’s campaign has spent $55.8 million on television ads between April 24 and the Republican National Convention, all of which was spent in the same nine states Obama targeted.

Supplementing Romney’s campaign are the three largest pro-Romney Super PACs, American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS, Restore Our Future, and Americans for Prosperity, which have spent a total of $61.8 million combined since Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee. Their spending was less targeted than the campaigns’, with former swing states such as Minnesota and New Mexico, and several Southern states also experiencing a barrage of pro-Romney ads. New York, California, and Texas have yet to experience any ads from any organization, campaign and Super PAC alike.

Making headlines in the past few weeks are the campaigns’ decisions to pull ad money from several former swing states. In the beginning of September, Romney’s campaign and several of his allied Super PACs pulled its ads from Pennsylvania and Michigan airwaves, though Romney’s campaign claims that this does not mean that they have given up on those two states, pointing to their continued robust ground efforts – and just this week, the-Romney Restore our Future is buying ad time in Michigan.

Likewise, Obama’s campaign has not spent any ad money in Pennsylvania in over a month, and one of the president’s allied Super PACs, Priorities USA Action, pulled its ad money from the state in early September. It seems that both Pennsylvania and Michigan, which are currently leaning towards Obama, may be heading to join the other 42 spectator states this campaign season.

In this era of fiercely contested campaigns between two major parties with fewer and fewer true swing voters working within “winner-take-all” state rules for allocating electoral votes, presidential candidates are giving preferential treatment to states they believe that have a chance of winning, but whose electoral outcomes are not certain. This campaign season is shaping up to potentially be focused on fewer states than ever. This should be troubling to those who believe that all Americans’ votes should be equally valued, and that voters should not be disregarded simply because of the partisanship of his or her state. It also creates further incentives for backers of the National Popular Vote plan to work for change for 2016.

Stay tuned as FairVote continues to track where the campaigns and their allied groups spend their resources and send their candidates in the next two months.

Presidential Inequality, Barack Obama, and a Tale of Two Carolinas

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:38:38 -0700

President Barack Obama owes a lot to the Democrats of South Carolina. After his breakthrough win in the Iowa caucuses in January 2008, he lost to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and broke even in the Nevada caucuses. South Carolina represented the last sanctioned primary before 22 states voted on February 5^th. With Clinton’s greater name recognition and national connections, Obama needed to reverse his momentum to avoid falling hopelessly behind. South Carolina Democrats voted for him by a landslide, with Obama securing 55% of the vote to Clinton’s 27%.

In his efforts to secure this victory, Obama campaigned vigorously in South Carolina prior to its primary, holding more than 40 events across the state. But after his landslide win, he hasn’t been back.

Not once.

While Obama has made numerous trips to North Carolina -- including five events in the last two months of the 2008 general election and 15 public events and three private events as president -- he has not visited its southern neighbor. He is unlikely to return this week, even though he will accept the Democratic nomination tonight in Charlotte, just ten miles from the South Carolina border. The president has visited South Korea more than South Carolina.

The issue takes on an added poignancy given Obama’s status as the first African American president. South Carolina ranks third among states in its percentage of African Americans. But as in several other states in that list’s top ten, including Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, Obama lost to John McCain in 2008.

In South Carolina, for example, McCain won 54% to 45%. The president did only 4% better in North Carolina – increasing his percentage from 45% to 49% -- but that increase was enough to deliver him a narrow win and all of the state’s electoral votes.

The vastly differing ways Obama’s political team treats North Carolina and South Carolina helps to highlight how state laws governing the Electoral College hurt most states. As with 46 other states (all except Nebraska and Maine), the Carolinas have passed “winner take all” laws to allocate all their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner in their state – an approach to allocating electoral votes that was criticized by early American leaders like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but which allows a state’s majority party to maximize its partisan advantage.

Once a state has a winner take all rule, major party campaigns will focus resources on that state only if their candidate is not comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. States must be within a “tipping point” range of about 46-54% in order for a campaign to decide to spend tens of millions of dollars of ad money and send their candidate there. Once a state is categorized as outside that competitive zone, resources devoted to that state will plunge – voters go from being wooed with intensive polling, field organizing, and campaign ads to hearing absolutely nothing except requests for donations to be spent in other states.

North Carolina has 15 electoral votes compared to South Carolina’s 9, but that’s not what matters to campaigns. What matters is that in 2008 Obama won North Carolina, but fell 9% short in South Carolina. Given that few expect Obama this year to exceed his 2008 advantage in the national popular vote, his vote percentages are likely to decline in most states. That makes it easy to give up on winning over South Carolina’s undecided voters, or to encourage more turnout on Election Day.

South Carolina Republicans have also been ignored after their primaries, of course. John McCain’s victory in 2008 was critically important to his securing the nomination, but he didn’t visit the state in the general election either. South Carolina voters in November 2008 were as politically irrelevant as voters in the 40 states that have been written off this year because of the cold political calculus that comes with the winner take all rule. This inequality leads to lower turnout and less civic engagement.

The National Popular Vote plan, an interstate agreement that has already be passed into law in states representing nearly a quarter of Americans, would end the kind of gross inequality among states we see in current presidential elections. Once the law is passed by states controlling at least 270 electoral votes, participating states would award all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the individual state’s winner. Under this system, South Carolina voters would be as valued as voters from North Carolina – as they should be in a nation that prizes accountability and the democratic principle of “one person, one vote.”

Convening in the Swing States: Why the parties are meeting in Florida and North Carolina

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:27:38 -0700

Was it the hope of swing state victories that led the Republican and Democratic parties to decide to host their conventions in Charlotte, North Carolina and Tampa, Florida? Evidence suggests that it was, even if that may not mean much in terms of either campaign’s ability to win those states.

In 2010, Republicans were teetering between three choices: Tampa, Phoenix (AZ), and Salt Lake City (UH). While looking back, one might imagine that now-candidate Mitt Romney would have relished the opportunity to return to Salt Lake City, where he ran the 2002 Winter Olympics, of the three choices, a major Florida city, with its large media market and already robust tourism infrastructure, was clearly the most expedient choice.

Indeed Republicans were quite candid about the logic of their choice. A New York Times story at the time reported “Salt Lake City was seen as doing little to build the party, officials said, considering that Utah is solidly Republican.” Even though no small state has ever hosted a convention, that wasn’t nearly as important a factor as how closely that state might be contested.

Democrats, on the other hand, narrowed their choice to cities only in three major potential battleground states: Charlotte (NC), Philadelphia (PA), and St. Louis (MO). North Carolina, one of the states that Obama won in 2008 but will have to fight the hardest to keep in 2012, apparently was seen as a good place to officially kick off his campaign.

It hasn’t always been the case that parties decide to host their conventions in competitive states -- cities in less competitive states have in the past received the attention and tourism money that the conventions can pump into a host city.

While in 2008, the parties also chose two swing state cities for their conventions – Denver (CO) for the Democrats and St. Paul (MN) for the Republicans – in the four preceding elections, the Democrats held their conventions in Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, all major cities in states that predictably voted heavily Democratic in those elections. The Republicans decided to hold their recent conventions in New York, Philadelphia, San Diego, and Houston, of which Philadelphia was the only swing-state city.

But in today’s closely pitched political battleground, every decision seems to be geared more and more to swing states – and those swing states can be more reliably predicted.

Whether these strategic picks will have any effect on residents’ vote choice remains to be seen. According to Professor David Schultz of Hamlin University, of the 32 party conventions that have been held since 1948, only five occurred in states where the candidate was lagging before the convention, but eventually went on to win the state. One such example is Colorado in 2008, though this arguably was more because Obama’s campaign infrastructure was so strong in Colorado than because the DNC decided to host its convention in Denver. Conversely, there are five cases of candidates leading a state before the convention but ultimately losing it in the general election.

In short, one should not place too much value on where Republicans and Democrats decided to hold their conventions in 2012. While it may seen unjust to critics of the winner-take-all system of the Electoral College that these two states are receiving an influx of money and attention because of their competitive status, evidence is at best mixed on its impact despite the obvious political calculations at play this year. Obama and Romney, who are both narrowly behind in their two host states, will have to rely on strategic campaigning more than glitzy convention events, to win over North Carolinians and Floridians.

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, August 17

Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:05:11 -0700

Swing State Economics: Unemployment / Miami Herald

Candidate Tracker:

Barack Obama: President Obama spent most of this week campaigning in Iowa. He hosted campaign events in the battleground state from Monday through Wednesday, before returning to Washington, DC on Thursday.

Mitt Romney: Romney completed his four-day swing state bus tour early this week with rallies and fundraisers in Florida and Ohio. On Wednesday, Romney held a fundraiser in Alabama, and was in South Carolina on Thursday for a press conference.

See our tracker summary for Barack Obama since he became president and Mitt Romney since he effectively earned the Republican nomination.

Recent Stories on the Candidates' State Strategies:

Election 2012 battleground shrinks as states fall in line

Los Angeles Times / August 6, 2012

The number of states that are likely to be competitive has shrunk over the course of the summer. States like Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have dropped out of the swing state category. Both candidates recently pulled tv ads out of Pennsylvania, for instance. In the eight swing states that remain, meanwhile, advertising has reached "near saturation levels."

Romney's 'Wind Tax' Position Thrills Tea Party; Draws Ire Of Swing-State GOP Lawmakers

Jackson Free Press / August 7, 2012

Republicans in swing states such as Iowa and Colorado are concerned with Romney's position against tax credits for green energy sources, as those states have a particularly high number of jobs in green sectors. He is facing pressure to moderate his position on energy in order to win votes in those states, though Tea Party organizations are encouraging him to maintain his current stance.

Party poopers: Conventions rarely woo voters in host states

The Tampa Bay Tribune / August 12, 2012

Republicans hope that holding their convention in Florida could give Mitt Romney a small boost in the state, potentially making the difference in what promises to be a very close race. The historical evidence that this might occur is scant, however. Though Obama may have received a small boon in Colorado from his 2008 Denver convention, studies show that there is generally little benefit to holding a convention in a swing state.

Could Ryan Tip Wisconsin Toward Romney?

FiveThirtyEight / August 13, 2012

Paul Ryan is likely to provide a 2% boost to Romney in Wisconsin, based on the average amount that vice presidential candidates have helped the ticket in their home state since 1920. Such a shift could put a state that was previously leaning heavily towards Obama in play.

Most swing state economies faring better than U.S.

Miami Herald / August 15, 2012

The Electoral College system is benefiting President Obama because the economy in swing states like Virginia and Iowa is relatively better than the economy nationwide. Of the 14 states where polls are closest, 10 have unemployment rates lower than the national average. The major exceptions are Florida and Nevada, which are lagging behind the national recovery in most indicators.

Voter-Rules Fights Unfold in Presidential Battleground States

Bloomberg / August 16, 2012

Voting rights issues have been salient in several swing states. In Ohio, the Democratic Party successfully convinced the secretary of state to institute uniform early voting hours throughout the state. In Pennsylvania, a court upheld strict voting ID laws in the face of an American Civil Liberties Union suit. The judge disagreed with the contention that the law "unfairly burdens minorities."

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, August 6

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:04:44 -0700

President Obama campaigns in Florida / Time Magazine

Candidate Tracker:

Barack Obama: the President spent last week primarily in the swing states, campaigning in Ohio on Wednesday and Florida and Virginia on Thursday. He also attended a fundraiser in New York last Monday and is speaking at a campaign event in Connecticut today.

Mitt Romney: Governor Romney returned from his international tour to Britain, Israel, and Poland last week. On his arrival back in the US, he hosted a campaign event and a fundraiser in Colorado on Thursday and did the same in Nevada the following day.

See our tracker summary for Barack Obama since he became president and Mitt Romney since he effectively earned the Republican nomination.

Recent Stories on the Candidates' State Strategies:

Jewish Democrats Push Back in Swing States

Jewish Daily Forward / July 27, 2012

Jewish Republicans like Sheldon Adelson have contributed enormous amounts of money to pro-Romney Super PACs in swing states, but the National Jewish Democratic Council is responding with its own swing state-focused advertising blitz.

Electoral College Tie Possible in Obama-Romney Race

CNN / July 26, 2012

In the "not so farfetched" event of an Electoral College tie, the House of Representatives determines the Presidency--meaning the win would go to Romney, as Republicans dominate the House. CNN predicts this event could "would set off a wave of constitutional and political mayhem."

Missouri Slipping Away From Democrats

FiveThirtyEight / July 28, 2012

The number of swing states is further shrinking, as it seems Missouri is may be out of play. As a result, Obama and Romney are likely to decrease the amount of money and resources they devote to the state.

Obama And Bush's Shared First-Term Obsession: Battleground States

NPR / July 31, 2012

As U.S. Naval Academy political scientist Brendan Doherty argues, presidents of both parties tend to spend more time in swing states throughout their terms in office, not just in re-election years. Both George W. Bush and Obama have spent a disproportionate amount of time visiting swing states.

Texas on sidelines in fight for swing states

San Angelo Standard Times / August 1, 2012

Texas Republicans are feeling marginalized this election year. Unless the Republican presidential candidate has close ties to Texas, as both George W. Bush and his father did, the Electoral College renders the strongly-Republican Texas strategically unimportant. This neglect has manifested itself in Texas Republicans being given a hotel distant from the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay.

Inside Obama’s Swing State Charm Tour

Time Magazine / August 3, 2012

Obama's campaign strategy is focused almost exclusively on maintaining his popularity in swing states, encouraged by recent polls showing that he is performing disproportionately better in those battleground states. Obama has "blanketed swing states" with his campaign advertisements, while Romney has been more aloof.

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, July 24

Fri, 11 May 2012 08:34:13 -0700

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, July 24

Image courtesy of The Economist

Candidate Tracker:

Barack Obama: the President is making his way up the west coast for fundraising events. On Tuesday morning he will travel from San Francisco to Portland, and will then spend the night in Seattle after a fundraising at private homes. Meanwhile, First Lady Michelle Obama is covering ground in swing state Ohio, where she will be campaigning to grassroots supporters.

Mitt Romney: Governor Romney is spending Tuesday campaigning at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada.

See our tracker summary for Barack Obama since he became president and Mitt Romney since he effectively earned the Republican nomination.

Latest Stories on the Candidates' State Strategies:

States of Play

The Economist / July 24, 2012

According to the Economist's interactive map showing the latest polling data for the presidential election, there are only five true swing states: Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina.

The Incredible Shrinking - and Increasingly Valuable - Undecided Voter

The Washington Post / July 23, 2012

Candidates will spend more money on undecided voters than ever before, now that the pool of such voters has shrunk considerably since the past two elections. According to the Washington Post's calculations, "if $3 billion is spent on the election [...] and only 6 percent of the electorate is really willing to change its mind, that means roughly $400 will be spent trying to persuade each of those voters."

Number Of Unregistered Latino Voters Large Enough To Transform Red States Into Swing States

The Huffington Post / July 22, 2012

According to the Huffington Post's analysis, there are over twelve million unregistered Latino voters in ten swing states. If enough eligible Latinos register to vote, new swing states could emerge, red states could become blue states, and we can expect campaigns to respond accordingly.

In Swing States, Economic Picture a Little Brighter for Obama

The Washington Post / July 22, 2012

The Washington Post reports that five out of the eight "truest" swing states (Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin) have unemployment rates below the national average. This downward trend could convince undecided swing state voters to vote for Obama.

Can Maine Find Political Relevance Before the Presidential Election in November?

The Morning Sentinel / July 22, 2012

Maine doesn't usually get much campaign attention, but that could change, because unlike most states Maine can split its electors if the majority of voters in separate districts support different candidates. As a result, "national campaigns also consider how much proverbial bang for their buck they can get by buying TV airtime for ads in that district relative to other districts. Maine's 2nd District happens to be in an exceptionally cheap and easy media market [...] So the Romney and Obama campaigns may calculate that the relatively low investment is worth the opportunity to snag even just one electoral vote."

Unswinging, Oregon is a Presidential Election Afterthought

The Oregonian / July 20, 2012

Presidential candidates only visit Oregon--not a swing state--for fundraising purposes, not for campaigning. Given that "this isn't so much a national campaign as an Ohio-Virginia playoff," this story suggests a national popular vote as a solution to that unfairness.

FairVote Feed: Presidential Tracker

Tracking Presidential Campaign Field Operations

Presidential Campaign Attention: Why Most States Aren’t Worth Any Despite Their Generosity

Yet Again, Just Three States Draw The Majority of Campaign Attention: Presidential Tracker Update, October 17, 2012

Swing States and Swing Media Markets: Presidential Tracker Update, October 3, 2012

FairVote’s Presidential Campaign Tracker: Past, Present, and Future

Presidential Inequality, Barack Obama, and a Tale of Two Carolinas

Convening in the Swing States: Why the parties are meeting in Florida and North Carolina

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, August 17

Candidate Tracker:

Recent Stories on the Candidates' State Strategies:

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, August 6

Candidate Tracker:

Recent Stories on the Candidates' State Strategies:

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, July 24

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, July 24 Image courtesy of The Economist Candidate Tracker:

Latest Stories on the Candidates' State Strategies:

Swing States of America: Candidate Tracker and News, July 24

Image courtesy of The Economist

Candidate Tracker: