No. The Victory Fund shenanigans are an indicator of how this is going to be handled. Using struggling state parties as a vehicle to legally launder 99% of the money into the national party while giving them virtually nothing in return is completely at odds with what the DNC, the Clinton campaign and Clinton herself have been saying. Supposedly,
Clinton plans to pursue a 50-state strategy. You can't do that without proper funding of state parties, and you certainly can't do it by pouring money into them a month or two before the election; too damn late. At first I thought they might redistribute some of the Victory Fund money back to select states in ways that made sense (since the way in which it is raised is uniform from state to state; Vermont doesn't need $1m to the same degree that Arizona does), but there is no evidence of that happening.
At best, she'll pump money into a few battleground states that won't necessarily need it but might be lagging her national poll numbers in internal polling. Coattails are not how you rebuild state parties and if things are as dire for the GOP as it is in this scenario, then there is going to be a large amount of redundancy in trying to max out
her margins. All of these states that might not seem to matter in Senate contests and for the Presidency...yeah, they don't matter if you don't care about both federal and party policy being viable nationally. Medicaid expansion, unions, abortions...the list goes on and on. The President is a literal figurehead with a state-level situation like the one we have today.
Poll
