Clinton allies quietly shape general-election map

[MT Treasurer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-allies-general-election-222052

So they consider this to be the battleground map:

Green: Top-tier swing states
>30%: Tier Two/Leaning towards one party, not competitive right now
>40%: Tier Three/Likely, would only be potentially competitive with Trump and/or in a wave

LOL@NH being a Top-tier swing state.

[hurricanehink]

IMO, they're probably investing in New Hampshire to help Senate and Governor races, and perhaps NH-1. Investing a bit into that state (which they do every four years like clockwork) helps guarantee some down ballot races.

[This account no longer in use.]

New Mexico and Michigan as likely to flip as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

[Figueira]

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this article is.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Surprised they didn't put Utah, Texas, or Missouri in the 'Tier Three' list.

[madelka]

If she's running against Trump, she needs to contest GA, AZ, AK, IN, MO, MT, SC, MS, NC and most importantly TX.

[Holmes]

It's a fair map. Even with North Carolina moving towards becoming a purple state, seriously investing in it from the offset would probably be money better spent in neighbouring Virginia or in Ohio.

[Virginiá]

Surprised they didn't put Utah, Texas, or Missouri in the 'Tier Three' list.

Texas would require a very large investment, and right now it's just not seen as a viable because frankly, it isn't. Georgia and Arizona in particular would be better for this cycle.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this article is.

It's just strategy. Personally I find these articles very interesting because they give me an idea of what the map will be like in November, and also potential House/Senate scenarios as a presidential candidate's investments benefit downballot races as well.

[Xing]

I'm not sure why they're so worried about NV. Winning there against Trump or Cruz will be a cakewalk. And there's no way MI and NM are at all competitive.

[Nyvin]

Nevada, New Mexico, and Michigan are all safe D...it's not like there is any viable way for Cruz or Trump to win there,  especially Trump in Nevada and New Mexico.

[Holmes]

Investing in some of these states also has the added benefit of helping the downticket in those states too, as hurricanehink said. There are some House districts to win in Nevada and Colorado, and their Democratic Senators are technically the most vulnerable (with Nevada being an open seat), even if everyone agrees that there's no danger for them if Trump or Cruz is the nominee.

[Higgs]

If she's running against Trump, she needs to contest GA, AZ, AK, IN, MO, MT, SC, MS, NC and most importantly TX.

No. Her only pickup against Trump will be NC, if anything. She has no chance in the states you listed.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If she's running against Trump, she needs to contest GA, AZ, AK, IN, MO, MT, SC, MS, NC and most importantly TX.

No. Her only pickup against Trump will be NC, if anything. She has no chance in the states you listed.

Obama won Indiana and lost Missouri by less than 1%. If TRUMP is even half the electoral disaster polls show then why Clinton can't do the same if not better?

[This account no longer in use.]

If she's running against Trump, she needs to contest GA, AZ, AK, IN, MO, MT, SC, MS, NC and most importantly TX.

No. Her only pickup against Trump will be NC, if anything. She has no chance in the states you listed.

Obama won Indiana and lost Missouri by less than 1%. If TRUMP is even half the electoral disaster polls show then why Clinton can't do the same if not better?

Mainly polarization.

[madelka]

What polarization? The country has always been polarized. If Trump totally implodes and talks about legitimate rape or something like that, 2016 will make 2008 look like a squeaker. Not to mention that most of the states I mentioned are trending heavily Democratic. Clinton has nothing to lose if she contests them.

[This account no longer in use.]

What polarization? The country has always been polarized. If Trump totally implodes and talks about legitimate rape or something like that, 2016 will make 2008 look like a squeaker. Not to mention that most of the states I mentioned are trending heavily Democratic. Clinton has nothing to lose if she contests them.

I agree with you on some of the states, but some are ridiculous. And let's not forget that there was no Tea Party movement in 2008, and Bernie Sanders was an unknown outside of his home state.

[Joe Republic]

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this article is.

It's an election year.  Political journalism is mainly just running on inertia.

[Virginiá]

What polarization? The country has always been polarized. If Trump totally implodes and talks about legitimate rape or something like that, 2016 will make 2008 look like a squeaker. Not to mention that most of the states I mentioned are trending heavily Democratic. Clinton has nothing to lose if she contests them.

The nation itself is more polarized than any time since the early 20th century. You can tell by how low ticket splitting is, how dysfunctional Congress has become and how sharply the parties have sorted themselves in terms of ideology.

You're right in that there is always some polarization, but not like this. That being said, I don't think things are too polarized for some sort of landslide wins. A 55 - 56% PV win seems possible (probably even more if the candidate was just right), however even with that, there are a lot of individual states that have become so partisan that even such a landslide will not produce the kind of landslide maps we had prior to 1992.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems are gonna beat Trump and its not gonna beat that close and 271 map is all but assued

[Mike Thick]

Dems are gonna beat Trump and its not gonna beat that close and 271 map is all but assued

Mark it down, folks. The 272 Freiwall no longer exists. Long live The 271 Freiwall.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Dems are gonna beat Trump and its not gonna beat that close and 271 map is all but assued

Mark it down, folks. The 272 Freiwall no longer exists. Long live The 271 Freiwall.

Maine's 2nd District??

[Likely Voter]

It makes sense that the map will not radically change. I think the bigger issue here is, what will the Clinton Super PAC message be in June when they start this campaign in these 'core states'. Back in 2012 they were credited with defining Romney as an out of touch plutocrat before the Romney campaign and GOP could counter with their own spending later in the summer. Here is the key passage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice the contradiction there?


In 2012 it was easy, run anti-Romney ads. But what do they do in 2016? Do they run anti-Trump, anti-Cruz or combo anti-Trump/Cruz ads?  And what about Kasich? In a way, if there is uncertainty over the GOP candidate, it forces Team Clinton to diffuse the message and since voters wont know who the GOP nominee will be, it makes all the messages less salient. 

[The Free North]

Dems are gonna beat Trump and its not gonna beat that close and 271 map is all but assued

Mark it down, folks. The 272 Freiwall no longer exists. Long live The 271 Freiwall.

Maine's 2nd District??

All the angry dem women in Maine moved to NH.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice the contradiction there?


In 2012 it was easy, run anti-Romney ads. But what do they do in 2016? Do they run anti-Trump, anti-Cruz or combo anti-Trump/Cruz ads?  And what about Kasich? In a way, if there is uncertainty over the GOP candidate, it forces Team Clinton to diffuse the message and since voters wont know who the GOP nominee will be, it makes all the messages less salient.  

Lol.  They don't have to run the ads now.  They are buying ad time for the fall now before prices go up.  They'll make the ads during the summer.  It's not like you can only buy ad time for the same day.  It's not McDonalds.

[Virginiá]

It makes sense that the map will not radically change. I think the bigger issue here is, what will the Clinton Super PAC message be in June when they start this campaign in these 'core states'. Back in 2012 they were credited with defining Romney as an out of touch plutocrat before the Romney campaign and GOP could counter with their own spending later in the summer. Here is the key passage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice the contradiction there?


In 2012 it was easy, run anti-Romney ads. But what do they do in 2016? Do they run anti-Trump, anti-Cruz or combo anti-Trump/Cruz ads?  And what about Kasich? In a way, if there is uncertainty over the GOP candidate, it forces Team Clinton to diffuse the message and since voters wont know who the GOP nominee will be, it makes all the messages less salient.  

If I had to guess, they might launch a June-July campaign that ties the Republican party to Trump regardless if he is the nominee or not. That, I imagine, would be the smart thing to do without a clear idea of who will be their nominee. Spending 2 months redefining them as the Retrumplican party would help all races if they can really drive the message home.

Lol.  They don't have to run the ads now.  They are buying ad time for the fall now before prices go up.  They'll make the ads during the summer.  It's not like you can only buy ad time for the same day.  It's not McDonalds.

Nah, it says they are reserving time for ads to air between June - November, so they will begin in June.