The news service is reporting that President Obama intends to raise money and campaign next year in nine states that he carried in 2008 and again in 2012 where Republican governors are facing reelection.

Pennsylvania, of course, is one of those states. The others are Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico.

You can read Politico's story here.

The issue is a dicey one given the President's falling popularity and the uncertainty of where his polling numbers might be by next summer and fall.

Politico,for example, quotes Ed Rendell saying, "If it were right now, I don't know that any Democrat running for governor would like the president involved."

Gov. Corbett is widely reported as the most vulnerable of all governors facing reelection in 2014. This is a big part of the reason no fewer than eight Democrats are poised to compete in a May primary for the right to oppose him.

What's unclear is whether whoever emerges from that primary would benefit from Obama's involvement.

Certainly money would be welcome. And turn-out-the-vote efforts in Democratic-rich Philly and the southeast wouldn't hurt.

But a weakened president in a mid-term election is among Corbett's strongest assets. As I've written before, in PA's last 19 gubernatorial elections, state voters went with the candidate of the party NOT in the White House 18 times.

(The sole exception was Gov. Thornburgh's reelection in 1982 when Ronald Reagan was president.)

The latest Franklin & Marshall College poll  of PA voters (end of October) shows Obama's job approval rating at 39 percent. But I'd note that's higher that Sen. Casey (29 percent), Sen. Toomey (22 percent) and, of course, Corbett (19 percent). Plus, as mentioned, that was then; who knows what such ratings will show by mid-2014.

So it's too soon to say if an Obama presence helps PA Dems in 2014. But the history of PA voting suggests the president might want to focus on those other states that he carried.