Ohio: The Heart Of It All

Until recently, Kentucky was thought to possess the worlds largest Ohio buckeye tree, much to the disgust of forestry majors everywhere. Turns out though, learned via the sharp eye of one of said students at The Ohio State University, the Kentucky champ is in fact a yellow buckeye, not an Ohio at all. Like the Greeks returning Helen, or Springfield taking back the lemon tree from Shelbyville, the rightness of nature was once again restored. Thus, the largest of the species (pictured) does in fact reside in the state called home by tree lovers like Dennis Kucinich, Dave Chappell, and Jerry Springer.

A recent issue of Business Week has handed Ohio another title, that of the most important state in the 2004 presidential election. Using a weighted scale to calculate the value of each state's electoral votes, the magazine has concluded that Ohio's 20 votes are in fact worth 60, more than those of any other state. Florida and Missouri, with 27 and 11 votes, were second and third with a weighted value of 52 and 43, respectfully. States like California and Texas with more than double Ohio's electors are worth less (Cali's 55 dropped to 31, Texas' 34 became 12) in the minds of the editors, but why?

Business Week weighed each vote based on factors like the states previous voting pattern. A state like New York, that consistently votes for one party, is considered in the bag for Kerry and therefore not as likely to be fought over. States like Ohio are less predictable, with no party holding a dominant majority. These are the “battleground” or “swing” states.

Battleground states are receiving massive influxes of advertising and other solicitations from the two parties, while the rest of the country is mostly ignored as a certainty for one candidate or another. For people in these select states it provides an engrossing atmosphere in which to learn about each candidate and observe the horse race. For the large number of states on the outside though, the feeling is one of exclusion.

Despite the near statistical tie in the 2000 election, a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas may feel their vote is futile. Nearly 75% of the electorate lives within a state that is considered out of play. Because the Electoral College does not decide upon popular vote or divvy out state electors based upon what percentage a candidate wins, voters in red and blue states may also feel taken for granted, even if they reside with the majority. Business Week believes swing voters “account for only 8% to 15% of an electorate of 130 million registered voters, a huge swath of America -- and its concerns -- is being ignored as the parties home in on about 17 competitive states.” But if California is “being ignored” by the Dems, why wouldn't they just vote for someone else? The Golden state has elected Pete Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and most recently Arnold Schwarzenegger all from the GOP. The first two are pure conservatives and Arnold is a moderate from the “compassionate” camp. Californians, are perhaps the most reactionary electorate in the country and liable of anything; certainly not a group to take for granted. Rather than being ignored, it is more likely that California's voters see themselves as better served by Gore and Kerry rather than Bush.

Does this mean that Kerry/Edwards can spend time in other states that are less likely go their way? Yes. But it doesn't mean their campaign can ignore NY, California, and other strongholds. If they lose their base then they have no chance and they know this. Therefore they will continue to speak to liberals, just as Bush will continue speaking to his base, while they simultaneously talk moderate policy to the swing states. In an race as close as the polls have this one, no states can be take for granted. Or come election night the certainty of victory may be revealed to be as fallacious as Kentucky's yellow buckeye.

2:32:32 PM     Comment [] TrackBack []