http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-09-29-income-gap-census_N.htm?obref=obnetwork
The above link is a very good article by USA Today featuring some recent census data. Among other things, it points out something very relevant to the next election:
"Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia had higher poverty rates than the national average, many of them in the South, such as Mississippi (21.2%), Kentucky, Arkansas and Louisiana (each with 17.3%). That's compared with 19 states and the District of Columbia that ranked above U.S. poverty in 2007."
These states were hit harder by the recession than others. Further, they're mostly southern states that tend not to vote Democrat anyway. So, we should expect a heavy Republican opposition in these states. However, these aren't particularly important or large states, electorally speaking. Because of this, it is my opinion that we should spend signifigantly less money on these states than on known battle ground states. In the last election, we didn't spend as much in California as other states, because we knew it was pretty safely Democrat. Likewise, we should spend less on these states knowing we're likely to face stronger opposition there.
