If I were Kerry

[°Leprechaun]

YES -completely
yes - mostly
NO  - not at all
no  - mostly not
other -specify why you pick this option

There are three numbers after each state,
First is electoral votes
The second is % of 180 swing electoral votes for each state
rounded to whole number. The third is the % I would spend in each state if I were Kerry.


Fl         27         15% 14% LESS
Oh        20        11% 11%
Mo        11 6% 5% LESS
AZ         10        5% 5%
NV 5        3% 3%
WV        5        3% 3%
AR        6        3% 12% *MORE*        
NH        4        2% 1% LESS

PA        21 12% 12%
MI        17 9% 7% LESS
WA        11 6% 5% LESS
OR 7 4% 4%
NM        5 3% 3%
IO 7 4% 4%
WI 10 5% 5%
MN 10 5% 5%
ME 4 2% 1% LESS

What do you think of my strategy?
(46% defense 54% offense)

[??????????]

If I were Kerry I'd step aside and let a stronger nominee take over.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

If I were Kerry I'd step aside and let a stronger nominee take over.

True, get Edwards in there.  

[12th Doctor]

If I were Kerry I'd step aside and let a stronger nominee take over.

Solid stretegy.  Liebermann/Gepardt '04, the only Dem. presidential tickey that wouldn't scare the sh**t out of me, if they won.  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Your strategy is basically to spend a lot of money in Arkansas?  Why there and not Ohio or West Virginia or Louisiana?  Whether Kerry can win Arkansas or not, its not really worth enough EVs to base a strategy around.

[Gustaf]

That does seem a little weird...if Gore didn't AR will Kerry? I doubt that. Your general idea seems good, basing it on EVs, etc, but I'd focus more on the Mid-West, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in particular, with New Hampshire and Florida as side-kicks.

[??????????]

I wanted to see a good competition this year but I dont think Kerry will have it in him. He's going to get squashed in the long run.

[classical liberal]

AZ - 10 EV - 5.6% - 6% (Demographic shifts will reduce campaigning time requirements)
AR - 6 EV- 3.4% - 0% (His presence hurts Sen. Lincoln's reelection bid)
CO - 9 EV - 5.0% - 6%
FL - 27 EV - 15.1% - 18%
IN - 11 EV - 6.1% - 7% (The last poll I've seen had Bush-Kerry 51-45)
IA - 7 EV - 3.9% - 5%
LA - 9 EV - 5.0% - 0% (His presence hurts Rep. John's senate bid)
MN - 10 EV - 5.6% - 6.0% (Not in much danger, but some)
MO - 11 EV - 6.1% - 7% (Probably a lost cause, but worth a shot)
NV - 5 EV - 2.8% - 2.5% (Same as AZ)
NM - 5 EV - 2.8% - 2.5% (Same as NV)
OH - 20 EV - 11.2% - 13% (The crux of the fight)
PA - 21 EV - 11.7% - 11% (Not in severe danger, but in need of work to keep)
VA - 13 EV - 7.3% - 8% (Will swing to Dems in either '04 or '08, worth a kick-start)
WV - 5 EV - 2.8% - 3% (Probably a lost cause, but worth a shot)
WI - 10 EV - 5.6% - 5% (Not in much danger)

70.5-29.5 offense-defense

Kerry will need to really go after Bush in the borderline states, especially the ones where the job market is not so good.  He wins New England and the Liberal West Coast hands down.  If he's competent he can win enough of the Midwest and Southwest fairly easily, if not he's screwed.  I'm predicting that he's screwed.

[elcorazon]

Your strategy is basically to spend a lot of money in Arkansas?  Why there and not Ohio or West Virginia or Louisiana?  Whether Kerry can win Arkansas or not, its not really worth enough EVs to base a strategy around.

The big problem with your strategy is that it fails if Bush wins NM or IA or WI, even if he carries AR.  The advantage to going after OH or FL is that those states could carry Kerry to victory even if a couple of Gore states go for Bush (unless they are too big).  I think you have to focus on a few states and not leave out any that are in play for as long as you can.  I don't disagree with not focusing on CO for example, if it looks to be too much of a longshot, but if, for example, IA is close, you have to give some effort there.  

Also, I doubt AR is truly in play.  I think LA is more in play than AR.  If Kerry wins AR, he'll romp in the entire election, I think.
I came up with that strategy because if Kerry can win all the blue states plus NH which is a possibility that would give him 264 electoral votes and Arkansas is the only swing state with 6 electoral votes. It would put him over the top.

This strategy is based on a lot of assumption/factors which can and will change. It assumes Kerry will have less money than Bush; that the election will be razor thin close; and does not take into account the VP since he/she has yet to be chosen.

Kerry has to be careful not to put too much emphasis on Ohio and Florida (although they are extremely important) AZ and MO are also possibilities but Bush seems to have an advantage in those states. He also has an advantage in Arkansas, but since the population is small the spending there would be cost effective.

The point though is not so much to single out Arkansas, but to pick one state and spend a higher proportion than the rest, making a play for that state, hoping the gamble will pay off.
Is that a good strategy? I don't know. I am interested in hearing other ideas.

One could simply spend proportionally in all swing states based on population and hope that that would be enough.

Louisiana and Colorado are possible swing states. I left them out because they don't currently seem to be included in Kerry's or Bush's list and because you can't spread yourself too thin. Letting go of a few states allows the candidate to focus more heavily on key states.

[© tweed]

YES -completely
yes - mostly
NO  - not at all
no  - mostly not
other -specify why you pick this option

There are three numbers after each state,
First is electoral votes
The second is % of 180 swing electoral votes for each state
rounded to whole number. The third is the % I would spend in each state if I were Kerry.


Fl         27         15% 14% LESS
Oh        20        11% 11%
Mo        11 6% 5% LESS
AZ         10        5% 5%
NV 5        3% 3%
WV        5        3% 3%
AR        6        3% 12% *MORE*        
NH        4        2% 1% LESS

PA        21 12% 12%
MI        17 9% 7% LESS
WA        11 6% 5% LESS
OR 7 4% 4%
NM        5 3% 3%
IO 7 4% 4%
WI 10 5% 5%
MN 10 5% 5%
ME 4 2% 1% LESS

What do you think of my strategy?
(46% defense 54% offense)

I don't comprehend.

No comprendo.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Your strategy is basically to spend a lot of money in Arkansas?  Why there and not Ohio or West Virginia or Louisiana?  Whether Kerry can win Arkansas or not, its not really worth enough EVs to base a strategy around.

I came up with that strategy because if Kerry can win all the blue states plus NH which is a possibility that would give him 264 electoral votes and Arkansas is the only swing state with 6 electoral votes. It would put him over the top.

This strategy is based on a lot of assumption/factors which can and will change. It assumes Kerry will have less money than Bush; that the election will be razor thin close; and does not take into account the VP since he/she has yet to be chosen.

Kerry has to be careful not to put too much emphasis on Ohio and Florida (although they are extremely important) AZ and MO are also possibilities but Bush seems to have an advantage in those states. He also has an advantage in Arkansas, but since the population is small the spending there would be cost effective.

The point though is not so much to single out Arkansas, but to pick one state and spend a higher proportion than the rest, making a play for that state, hoping the gamble will pay off.
Is that a good strategy? I don't know. I am interested in hearing other ideas.

One could simply spend proportionally in all swing states based on population and hope that that would be enough.

Louisiana and Colorado are possible swing states. I left them out because they don't currently seem to be included in Kerry's or Bush's list and because you can't spread yourself too thin. Letting go of a few states allows the candidate to focus more heavily on key states.

When you are talking about how to spend broadcast media dollars, the considerations are little more complicated than focusing on single state vs. spreading money around equally.

What you want to do is spend your money EFFICIENTLY.  This means making sure each dollar reaches as many swing voters in swing states as possible.  Here's a good method that we used when I was working for political campaigns:

1.) By running some analysis of your polling internals, figure out how many undecided voters there are in each major media market of each swing state.

2.) Divide this number by cost to advertise in each media market.

3.) The higher this number is, the more efficient it is to advertise in the media market.  You want to concentrate your ad dollars in areas where you can cheaply reach the most swing voters.

Some swing states will not see a lot of advertising in the general election, because advertising there is simply not efficient.  A good example of this is New Hampshire.  Most NH voters live in the Boston media market.  Any money spent adverting in the Boston MM will mostly be wasted on Massachusetts voters who are already committed to Kerry, so NH will probably miss out for the most part on the big ad wars.

Additionally, there may be some individual media markets in swing states that just don't have a lot of swing voters.  There may be MMs in Louisiana, for instance, that are overwhelmingly African-American.  If most of these voters have already decided for Kerry, it doesn't make sense to advertise there.

Basically, the Kerry campaign needs to make these decisions based on some specific polling data and knowledge of who lives in which media market and how much advertsing costs.  Since most of us don't have easy access to this kind of information, we can't really make credible strategy suggestions

[angus]

I voted small yes.  Take that big chunk of change out of florida and distribute it over states where Kerry has a shot.  Otherwise it's good advice.

[Brambila]

If I were kerry I'd either concede right now or shoot myself in the face.

[Gustaf]

If I were kerry I'd either concede right now or shoot myself in the face.

Really? I would never shoot myself in the face, especially not if I was rich and famous.

[opebo]

If I were Kerry - or we were to switch bodies ala Freaky Friday, I would switch to GOP and campaign for Bush.

Hmm.  would it be worth it to be so old  to be so rich?  I guess so.

[Gustaf]

If I were Kerry - or we were to switch bodies ala Freaky Friday, I would switch to GOP and campaign for Bush.

Hmm.  would it be worth it to be so old  to be so rich?  I guess so.

LOL!

[JNB]

 If I was Kerry, I would avoid the "culture war" issues as much as possible, further rail against job outsourcing and free trade, try to use the image of the working MAN as much as possible to cut into the GOP working class conservative base. This would cost Bush OH, MO and WVA, and going after Bush for being fiscally illresponsible will cost him NH.

   Bush though his idiocy on spending, his stands on illegal immigration and his stands on trade have left himself with many openings that Kerry could easily exploit.

[zachman]

Missouri will go for Bush.

JNB, if the election were held today, who would you vote for?

[JNB]

 I would either stay home, vote for the Constituional party or write in Pat Buchanan. In no way can I support Bush. In no way can I vote for a "man" who puts multi nationals and global ambitions above those of the American Citzens.

  For a different view of conservatism, despite what may many think of Pat Buchanan, take a look at his magazine. http://www.amconmag.com it certainly is not the Limbuagh style kiss GOP ass conservatism.

[??????????]

Kerry doesnt have the same flair that Clinton had. He's not as deadish as Al Gore though. Although, he does remind me of Mr. Ed. He says "Bring it on", he better be careful what he wishes for.

[zachman]

He's an effective medium between Clinton and Gore. His benefit is the comedy shows don't know how to play him, so he is a winner. Anyone could argue that in 2000 SNL turned the election.

[12th Doctor]

 I would either stay home, vote for the Constituional party or write in Pat Buchanan. In no way can I support Bush. In no way can I vote for a "man" who puts multi nationals and global ambitions above those of the American Citzens.

  For a different view of conservatism, despite what may many think of Pat Buchanan, take a look at his magazine. http://www.amconmag.com it certainly is not the Limbuagh style kiss GOP ass conservatism.

You wouldn't vote for Bush even to save the country from Kerry.  So basically, you won't vote for anyone who doesn't aggree with you on, what, 95%-100% of the issues?

[JNB]

    No one needs to agree 100% with mre, or even 75-80%, but on the issues of trade and immigration, I have had enough. I personally think the GOP would be far better served by having Bush lose and kick all the WSJ/Weekly standard  types out of the GOP and start fresh.  I am willing to take the risj of a Kerry presidency for long term gain, because I think Bush and his ilk are just as bad as liberals.

[agcatter]

President Kerry.  Oh God.  please just shoot me.

[zachman]

President Bush is on pace to wreck the nation. The man is so irresponsible.

I don't know what all your fear about Kerry is all about, but I don't want a rebuttle.