Over at the Megablog, Mori looks at some of the 50-state match ups and notes, "In the tossup column, Obama and Clinton have six states in common (IA, MI, NM, NH, OH and PA), which leaves FL (27 EVs) for Clinton but not Obama to contest and CO, MO, NV and VA (38 EVs) for Obama but not Clinton." I forgot who it was who first made this point (maybe Yglesias?), but it actually matters which set of states the nominee focuses on. If you're really worried about the Rust Belt, for instance, you're going to promise a bunch of economic policies meant to save dying industries. If you're really worried about Florida, by contrast, you'll continue pandering to anti-Castroites even as policy towards a post-Fidel Cuba should really be thawing. The Interior West will require more emphasis on land conservation and gas prices. Now, to some degree, everyone may just end up pandering equally, as Obama won't believe Florida is out of reach and Clinton might still try and contest Colorado. But where the candidates place their emphasis, and which panders they really lash themselves to, will have substantive impacts.
