HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — So much for Mitt Romney's plans to compete for Democratic-trending Michigan or Pennsylvania. And what about President Barack Obama's early hopes of fighting it out for Republican-tilting Arizona, Georgia or Texas? Forget them.
The presidential battleground map is as compact as it's been in decades, with just nine states seeing the bulk of candidate visits, campaign ads and get-out-the-vote efforts in the hunt for the 270 Electoral College votes needed for victory. That means just a fraction of Americans will determine the outcome of the race for the White House.
"It's difficult if not impossible to pull new states into that kind of competition," said Tad Devine, a Democrat who long has helped his party's presidential nominees craft state-by-state strategies to reach the magic number.
A month before Election Day, that means both candidates are concentrating their precious time and money in the handful of states that still seem to be competitive: Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.
Obama succeeded in expanding the map in 2008 by winning the traditionally Republican states of Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. But it took a Democratic tidal wave to do so, and he was the exception in a nation that's grown increasingly polarized, with demographic shifts heralding Democratic victories in the Northeast and on the West Coast and Republican dominance in the West and South.
"Politics in the country has become homogenized regionally and culturally," said Steve Schmidt, a veteran of Republican presidential campaigns. So, he added: "You're left with the only states that have the population and demographic mix where it's in question who is going to be on top at the finish line."
TV ad money — the best measure of whether a campaign is competing in a state — shows that 93 percent of the $746 million spent so far, or $697 million — has poured into the nine battleground states. Less than a quarter of the nation's voters live in those states.
The trend is clear. Over the past 20 years, markedly fewer states have been competitive in presidential elections. In 1992, there were 33 decided by fewer than 10 percentage points. In 2008, just 15.
Despite seemingly having the money to compete on a bigger playing field, neither Romney nor Obama is going after some states that long had been perennial swing-voting battlegrounds.
Romney hasn't given any love to New Mexico, which now tilts Democratic because of an influx of Hispanics. And the GOP didn't even consider competing in other traditionally Democratic states where the GOP had spent money in past presidential elections, including Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and Maine.
Obama, for his part, opted against competing in Indiana, a traditionally Republican state that's only grown more conservative after Obama's surprise victory there four years ago. The president also ceded Missouri; it was a presidential bellwether for years before it voted for Republican John McCain over Obama in 2008. And, unlike four years ago, there's been no talk about trying for North Dakota or Montana.
Aides to both men had mused about waging fights on the opponent's turf. But it hasn't happened.
Flash back to four years ago.
With a month to go in the 2008 election, Obama and McCain were advertising and campaigning in 21 states. Obama was either trying to win — or force McCain to spend money — in GOP strongholds of Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, Montana and North Dakota. McCain was running ads in Democrat-leaning Minnesota and Pennsylvania.