Let’s take a look at the swing states for 2008 by analyzing the Partisan Index. This index measures the difference in how a state voted compared to the rest of the nation. The reason for this is to provide an estimate on how much of the popular is needed in order to capture and win a given state. As this information begins to build up over many election cycles, patterns begin to develop and help the nation focus on which states are most likely to be swing/battleground areas in the next election.

(Source: MyDD)

From this list we could then look at the states lost in the 2004 Presidential election and gauge which ones the Democrats should target in regards to allocation of time, money, people, and various additional resources. These are states that John Kerry lost in 2004, but are very much considered “in play” for 2008. I have come up with the following list by looking at the net gain in the partisan index figures above. The easiest targets are outlined in top to bottom fashion with electoral votes shown:

• Iowa (7)
• New Mexico (5)
• Ohio (20)
• Nevada (5)
• Florida (27) – shifted towards Republicans in 2004
• Colorado (9)
• Missouri (11) – shifted towards Republicans in 2004
• Virginia (13)
• Arizona (10) – I would consider this state out of play

Now, let’s assume that the next presidential nominee from the Democratic Party can perform at minimum level comparable to the 252 electoral votes that Kerry won in 2000. In order to capture the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency, the Democratic candidate will need to net +18 electoral votes.

From here it should be relatively easy to map out a direct path to the White House. This campaign does not include a panzer-like strike at the heart of the Republican base, but instead a plucking of peripheral territories that are most likely to hear the Democratic Party’s message. If you were looking to make an investment would you go with an investment vehicle that provides a low rate of return such as in the South, or a high rate of return that can be found in the Midwest and Southwest? The answer seems fairly obvious.

According to the book titled, “Whistling Past Dixie,” author Thomas F. Schaller states that in the Midwest Democrats should run on a protectionist platform. In the Southwest, a campaign for vigorous enforcement of immigration laws would “put the region up for grabs.” Out West, muscular environmentalism and a program of land and water conservation would woo libertarians and the new transplants from the coastal blue states. Add universal health care and higher taxes on the rich” and voila: an electoral majority. (Source:Bloomberg)

From looking at this list of vulnerable states it should be clear where the growth areas can be found:

• Midwestern – Iowa, Ohio, Missouri (38 Electoral Votes = WIN)
• Southwestern – New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado (19 Electoral Votes = WIN)
• Southern – Virginia, Florida (40 Electoral Votes = WIN)

Of course there can be many combinations, but this is just to prove that other regions besides the south can award the Democratic ticket a push over the electoral top of 270. As touted in the media, an Ohio or Florida win individually would also be enough to win.