Therefore, that term is a useful propaganda term, and it is so used.

If you live in Mississippi and you're a democrat, your vote means nothing because you don't live in a swing state.

If you live in Virginia and you're a democrat, you might want to vote this election because your state is actually in play (thus, a swing state).

I wish "swing state" was just some made-up concept because then everyone's vote might actually matter.

Someone should do a longitudinal study on how often "swing states" don't.

Colorado (2004 presidential winner: Bush)
Florida (2004 presidential winner: Bush)
Indiana (2004 presidential winner: Bush)
Missouri (2004 presidential winner: Bush)
Nevada (2004 presidential winner: Kerry)
New Hampshire (2004 presidential winner: Kerry)
North Carolina (2004 presidential winner: Bush)
Ohio (2004 presidential winner: Bush)
Pennsylvania (2004 presidential winner: Kerry)
Virginia (2004 presidential winner: Bush)

After the 2008 election, those states voted as follows:
Colorado (Obama)
Florida (Obama)
Indiana (Obama)
Missouri (McCain)
Nevada (Obama)
New Hampshire (Obama)
North Carolina (Obama)
Ohio (Obama)
Pennsylvania (Obama)
Virginia (Obama)

In 2004, Bush won 7 out of 10 swing states.
In 2008, Obama won 9 out of 10 swing states.

They swung in those four years...

The question is were they the critical states in the particular election or not, and how would you know that in a falsifiable way? Especially before the election has happened yet?

All I see is people making more-or-less educated guesses about what is going to happen.

then for senate and congressional seats.

Swing states are states which switch back and forth between R and D depending on the election. There are only 8-12 of those. That is why neither campaign is going to waste resources in states like CA, NY, TX, etc. It was known 3 years ago how they will vote.

suggesting that Indiana, Missouri,Tennessee, Montana, Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina are not more of an uphill battle for the President than Iowa, Nevada, Virginia, and Wisconsin are an uphill battle for Romney.

If we expand the fight into those states, we may win some and we may lose some, but we should expand the battlefield both to engage more of the nation in the campaign (so that we have more of the nation on-board for the legislative fights we want to win in the second term) and to boost the down-ballot candidates in a larger number of down-ballot races.

Six months ago Obama told Democrats in Congress that they were "on their own" and could expect no help from him. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73600.html

that is is clear we are winning the debate, we should capitalize on that momentum by expanding the scope of the battle.

I believe it's possible Obama could win SC, not likely, but possible if Romney blows the debates.

However, any election where SC went blue would be a landslide such that Obama would not need those electoral votes.

Swing states are where the election is decided, so that's where the money gets spent.

I do think there's an opportunity in house races in many places, particularly if Mitt collapses.

the House is still held captive by the Tea Party.

Second, those states matter with respect to the size of the President's mandate -- it will be harder for a Repub House to bottleneck legislation or the Senate to filibuster depending on the size of the presidential mandate as decided by the voters in all states.

Third, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and restricted access to the ballot are very real concerns. Presumably, any victory that included SC would be a big win that also included PA, OH, FL, and CO. But what if the voter suppression efforts in some combination of those states is successful? In any fair election, SC would be electoral college gravy, but we cannot simply assume that the election will be fair.

or in the states that would be the next easiest for the president to win, like Indiana (though the Missouri senate seat is one race that it would be good to see presidential support in). It's better to concentrate on the margins involved in each seat, not the Electoral College.

I don't think congressional Republicans will consider Obama's margin in the EC for a second. A 'mandate' was just what they wanted to claim for Bush. Remember, they have no honour or shame.

There may be something about the voter fraud/intimidation concerns, but it's probably still easier to prevent that making a difference in the nominated swing states rather than ones where Romney is genuinely ahead.

and NV; plus House races in AZCD-1, AZCD-9, INCD-2, INCD-8, KYCD-6, and MT-Statewide.

or Georgia could truly be in play. Obama has a certain amount of money to spend and will spend it on the states he really needs to win. I think other money by the Democratic party can be spent in the Senate races that are close. But putting money into that many states is very hard to maintain, which is why the money goes into the closest contests and the ones that are the most viable.

49% instead of 45% could have significant down-ballot effects.