Could this campaign strategy work?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2024, 08:19:00 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Could this campaign strategy work?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Could this campaign strategy work?  (Read 460 times)
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,288
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -4.70

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 24, 2017, 10:22:40 PM »

What if the Democratic nominee devoted all resources to just five states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida?

This candidate would effectively ignore all other states because this map is still a Democratic win.


Dem: 270
Trump: 268
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,288
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -4.70

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2017, 10:51:50 PM »

What if the Democratic nominee devoted all resources to just five states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida?

This candidate would effectively ignore all other states because this map is still a Democratic win.


Dem: 270
Trump: 268

Why are you including Virginia in that list?  It's a fairly easy win.

Clinton won it by 5 points, which is a good, but not a huge margin, so I don't think that it would be a good idea to completely ignore it. Democrats would still invest a lot more money in the other states that I mentioned than Virginia.
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,288
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -4.70

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2017, 10:53:04 PM »

They should just focus on Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. 

Virginia will go Dem and they don't need New Hampshire in particular...

one of NH, CO, NV will likely go Dem.

I guess that you could swap out New Hampshire for Nevada or Colorado. New Hampshire is all that they need in this scenario though, and it is a smaller state, thus requiring less money to invest in.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2017, 02:23:17 PM »

Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,687
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2017, 04:08:30 PM »

While they shouldn't do HRC's moronic "go for the landslide/spend more money on ads in LA than in Milwaukee" strategy, it would be foolish to spread their time and resources THAT thin.

They should focus the lion's share of their time and $ on those states you mentioned, though, with the exception that Minnesota is a much better target than New Hampshire, one because it is more Democratic and two because it is more EV-rich. 

Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan should be ground zero, though, with some time spent in VA to avoid a blue wall situation like in 2016, because it is after all a EV-rich, absolutely critical state even it is trending blue.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,173


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2017, 04:15:54 PM »

Focusing on a state doesn't guarantee that you'll win it, so I don't think this is a good strategy. Plus, run a bad enough campaign and we could see Oregon, New Mexico, and Delaware falling away.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.21 seconds with 11 queries.