http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/ Click on certain states, and note the difference between McCain-leaning states and Obama-leaning states. Pennsylvania has Obama leading by 13.8 percent, yet that is a "battleground state". Oregon is Obama by 9 percent, and that also is a "battleground state". Indiana has McCain by 3.8%, and West Virginia has McCain by 2.2%. Those should be "battleground states", since if Oregon and Pennsylvania are, so should these two, since McCain's lead in Indiana and WV is smaller than Obama's in Pennsylvania and Oregon. But click on Indiana and West Virginia. To the Washington Post, these are "Leaning Republican." It's not just those two. Click on ND and GA--same thing. Click on MN, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, too. Seems like Obama can't cut a break over on the so-called liberal Washington Post. Heck, the Post even has McCain as having more electoral votes in the bag, even though all national polls in the last week or two have been favoring Obama. Liberal media bias? Not in this case, obviously.
Good questions although I doubt it's "bias" at work. What I think Synic is that those states were designated at the onset and independent of polling numbers. IOW's Pa, Fl ect would still be listed as "battleground" even if Obama were leading by 50. As an aside I read the Post almost daily and compared to the rest of the MSM it's only bit left of center. They certainly play to a more sophisticated, policy nuanced audience than the NYT or other similar rags.
That is a good explanation, but the Post really ought to update their labels. Those states might have been designated at the onset, but much has changed since. Perhaps the Post is just lazy.