Biden and Democrats will have more money in 2024. How should they leverage it?

[ProgressiveModerate]

This is the likely reality at this point, and is a combination of Democrats increasingly becoming the party of college graduates, "the establishment", and Trump's legal problems sucking a lot of money.

The question is what do you do when you have the monetary advantage? Just throwing money at the same few things will eventually lead to marginal returns.

I think the best thing the Democrats can do it take advantage of the fact the Senate battleground looks so different from the Pres battleground. Democrats can spend money on all the Pres battleground states plus potentially decisive Senate seats like MT, OH, and TX. Republicans will either have to spread their money thin or choose to bail on certain states/races.

I've said this elsewhere but I think TX is a really strategic place for Democrats to spend money. Not only is TX their best Senate pickup, but because it's a state Democrats have largely ignored for the past 2 decades, the marginal return on their investment there is likely way higher than the GOP. We saw this in 2018 for instance - the one-time Dems took Texas remotely seriously we saw them increase their vote total by well over 100k votes from the 2016 Pres election which is insane, especially when the GOP still outspent them and lost votes. Spending in TX forces the GOP into a bad situation where they either have to spends tens of million of dollars just trying to defend TX and cancel out any Dem gains, or ignore TX, risk losing the Senate race, and allow Democrats and opening into a state they can't win the Presidency without. Even if Democrats lose the TX at the Pres and Senate levels, at least they've built up infrastructure in a state with increasingly favorable demographics it becomes very hard for the GOP to win elections without.

Nevada I'd argue is also a really important place to spend money. It's a state with a relatively low population, cheap media markets, and still a ton of non-voters who Demographically should be favorable to Democrats (although this isn't guarenteed as we've seen in some situations). While Nevada has been competitive for a while, it was sort of put on the "back-burner" in 2020 so I think there's room for both sides to squeeze more out of the state.

Finally, I think ground campaign is really important, especially in heavily non-white communities. I made a thread about this the other day, but basically some of the few parts of the Country to see a turnout decline from 2016-->2020 were urban non-white communities, especially black communities. The one major swing state city that didn't see declines in the urban black communities was Atlanta, GA, which I think is in large part because it was the one state where Democrats actually had some sort of ground campaign. I think there are many reasons why Dems have struggled with non-white turnout in recent years, and lack of ground campaign during COVID is one.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Keep in mind, this is the party that spend over 400 million on Jamie Harrison and Amy McGrath in 2020. Their financial intuitions are far worse than you might be hoping for.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Keep in mind, this is the party that spend over 400 million on Jamie Harrison and Amy McGrath in 2020. Their financial intuitions are far worse than you might be hoping for.

They certainly were, not so much anymore, especially after 2022.

And when it comes to the Senate this year, I expect the party will focus on defense and not get as ambitious.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Probably the best thing to do would be to set up a lottery with the following rules.

1) A lottery will be held in every swing state which votes for Biden. If Biden doesn't win the state, no lottery will be held.

2) All registered voters who voted will be automatically entered into the lottery (though, again, only if Joe Biden wins their state).

3) The amount of prize money shall be equal to the population of the state in the 2020 census. So, for example, there would be a prize of $12,972,008 for Pennsylvania, since it had a population of 12,972,008 people.


This would not be bribery because no individual voters would be paid to vote for Biden and also because when the lottery is held the winner could have voted for anyone. So it could be a Trump voter that wins. Although, of course... since lotteries are only held in states that Biden wins, there should always be a > 50% chance that the winner will be a Biden voter (not considering 3rd party votes for simplicity).

So it would all be 100% guaranteed perfectly fine.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Probably the best thing to do would be to set up a lottery with the following rules.

1) A lottery will be held in every swing state which votes for Biden. If Biden doesn't win the state, no lottery will be held.

2) All registered voters who voted will be automatically entered into the lottery (though, again, only if Joe Biden wins their state).

3) The amount of prize money shall be equal to the population of the state in the 2020 census. So, for example, there would be a prize of $12,972,008 for Pennsylvania, since it had a population of 12,972,008 people.


This would not be bribery because no individual voters would be paid to vote for Biden and also because when the lottery is held the winner could have voted for anyone. So it could be a Trump voter that wins. Although, of course... since lotteries are only held in states that Biden wins, there should always be a > 50% chance that the winner will be a Biden voter (not considering 3rd party votes for simplicity).

So it would all be 100% guaranteed perfectly fine.

This still sounds like it would be legally controversial and also possibly backfire in media if the narrative becomes Biden is trying to bribe/pay for votes.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think the Dems will have a lot more money because a good chunk of the donations given to Trump will go to fight his legal battles.

[Roll Roons]

Keep in mind, this is the party that spend over 400 million on Jamie Harrison and Amy McGrath in 2020. Their financial intuitions are far worse than you might be hoping for.

McGrath didn't really get any money from national Democrats. They were smart enough to know the race was a pipe dream. It was the #resistance liberals who dumped millions of dollars into her campaign.

[Beet]

I think they need to spend a lot of money on yard signs and bumper stickers. It shows that there is enthusiasm for Biden, which has incalculable intangible effects. Plus, they are cheap. I remember in 2016 (since 2020 with the pandemic wasnt a normal campaign) the Clinton campaign refused to spend any money on those things, so you would have no idea that a certain neighborhood was like 90% behind her. It felt awful.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Are yard signs and bumper stickers still a thing? I feel like I saw signs all the time in 08 and 2012, but from 2016 onward I rarely see them. My guess is because Trump has made politics so toxic no one wants to broadcast who they support.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think they need to spend a lot of money on yard signs and bumper stickers. It shows that there is enthusiasm for Biden, which has incalculable intangible effects. Plus, they are cheap. I remember in 2016 (since 2020 with the pandemic wasnt a normal campaign) the Clinton campaign refused to spend any money on those things, so you would have no idea that a certain neighborhood was like 90% behind her. It felt awful.

Serious question, do you think it would be more worth it to try and spread Dark Brandon merch or normal Biden merch?

[Florida Man for Crime]

This still sounds like it would be legally controversial and also possibly backfire in media if the narrative becomes Biden is trying to bribe/pay for votes.

It would definitely be controversial, but that would be a plus.

The controversy would draw voter attention, which would make voters aware of the lottery. This would subtly and indirectly encourage them to vote and to vote for Biden (without actually directly bribing them to vote for Biden or in any way violating the secret ballot).

In addition, Dems/Biden campaign could have a ready response when Trump predictably attacks the lottery for being bribery. The response could be something like, "Why don't you do a lottery too, Trump? Trump is too poor to do a lottery. He pretends to be rich, but in reality has no money and can't even afford to do a lottery. What a poor destitute guy who is not on the Forbes 400 list. No money, and lost the 2020 election (and cost the Republican party defeats in 2018, 2022, 2023, and the 2022 Georgia runoffs as well - what a pathetic loser."

This would send Trump into an infantile rage and make him say all sorts of stupid stuff.

It would fit 100% into the strategy Biden has already adopted of trying to get under Trump's skin to provoke Trump to say stupid things that will hurt him and help Biden.

After sending Trump into his embarrassing rage, Dems could even say that they are canceling the lottery just in case it could be considered bribery, and because Dems don't want to make poor widdle Donald embarrassed that he is too poor to be able to aafford to hold a lottery too, whereas the Biden campaign is overflowing with cash and wealth. So it does not even require actually holding the lottery to be beneficial.

[Beet]

I think they need to spend a lot of money on yard signs and bumper stickers. It shows that there is enthusiasm for Biden, which has incalculable intangible effects. Plus, they are cheap. I remember in 2016 (since 2020 with the pandemic wasnt a normal campaign) the Clinton campaign refused to spend any money on those things, so you would have no idea that a certain neighborhood was like 90% behind her. It felt awful.

Serious question, do you think it would be more worth it to try and spread Dark Brandon merch or normal Biden merch?

Normal.

[Pres Mike]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Tester is DOA. America is too polarized. If he could only win by 3 during depolarized Obama-era politics (when dems were winning seats in IN, MO, and ND during a Presidential year), what hope does he have now?

[xavier110]

Taylor Swift’s Biden Eras Tour, featuring bangers like Vigilante Sh*t (crime bill), You Need to Calm Down (plagiarism scandals), Don’t Blame Me (supporting the forever wars), the Last Great American Dynasty (Obama presidency), Tolerate It (being first major national figure coming out for gay marriage), and Ready for It (2020). I wonder if 2024 will be more We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together or Karma.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Not spending on FL or TX is a bad idea imo because it means you have no backup if partisanship wins out in OH/MT or something goes wrong elsewhere even if Biden is doing well nationally. I agree FL isn’t a great investment but TX I believe is, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

[Pres Mike]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Not spending on FL or TX is a bad idea imo because it means you have no backup if partisanship wins out in OH/MT or something goes wrong elsewhere even if Biden is doing well nationally. I agree FL isn’t a great investment but TX I believe is, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

FL and TX are 7-8 points to the right of the nation. I do think Texas is winnable for Democrats in the future, but I don't see Democrats making up a 630k vote deficit in 2024

[ProgressiveModerate]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Not spending on FL or TX is a bad idea imo because it means you have no backup if partisanship wins out in OH/MT or something goes wrong elsewhere even if Biden is doing well nationally. I agree FL isn’t a great investment but TX I believe is, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

FL and TX are 7-8 points to the right of the nation. I do think Texas is winnable for Democrats in the future, but I don't see Democrats making up a 630k vote deficit in 2024

Biden 2020 literally got 1.4 million votes more than Clinton 2016 despite virtually no investment; 630k defecit isn't that large. Especially if you go County by County, you can start to see a path; make Tarrant County go from even to a 50k vote net, get Collin and Denton Counties to collectively vote even, getting rid of Trump's 50k Trump vote net from them in 2020, net 30k out of Williamson, 10k out of Hays, ect, ect.

And even if Dems lose Texas in 2024 (realistically the more likely outcome), investment now will put them in a much better position to win going forwards.

Also your argument doesn't really make sense because MT and maybe OH vote to the right of FL and TX in 2024.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Not spending on FL or TX is a bad idea imo because it means you have no backup if partisanship wins out in OH/MT or something goes wrong elsewhere even if Biden is doing well nationally. I agree FL isn’t a great investment but TX I believe is, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

FL and TX are 7-8 points to the right of the nation. I do think Texas is winnable for Democrats in the future, but I don't see Democrats making up a 630k vote deficit in 2024

Biden 2020 literally got 1.4 million votes more than Clinton 2016 despite virtually no investment; 630k defecit isn't that large. Especially if you go County by County, you can start to see a path; make Tarrant County go from even to a 50k vote net, get Collin and Denton Counties to collectively vote even, getting rid of Trump's 50k Trump vote net from them in 2020, net 30k out of Williamson, 10k out of Hays, ect, ect.

And even if Dems lose Texas in 2024 (realistically the more likely outcome), investment now will put them in a much better position to win going forwards.

Also your argument doesn't really make sense because MT and maybe OH vote to the right of FL and TX in 2024.

And Trump got 1.2 million more votes than his 2016 result. Despite record turnout and major swings Biden was only able to cut an 800ishk deficit to 650k. With him being more unpopular than 2020, and trends somewhat stagnating for incumbents (NoVA Atlanta 2012 and Ohio Iowa 2020), likely lower turnout, and the hispanic shifts, it seems incredibly unlikely Biden will win the state, and it looks like Trumps margin will expand from 2020.

[Pres Mike]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Not spending on FL or TX is a bad idea imo because it means you have no backup if partisanship wins out in OH/MT or something goes wrong elsewhere even if Biden is doing well nationally. I agree FL isn’t a great investment but TX I believe is, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

FL and TX are 7-8 points to the right of the nation. I do think Texas is winnable for Democrats in the future, but I don't see Democrats making up a 630k vote deficit in 2024

Biden 2020 literally got 1.4 million votes more than Clinton 2016 despite virtually no investment; 630k defecit isn't that large. Especially if you go County by County, you can start to see a path; make Tarrant County go from even to a 50k vote net, get Collin and Denton Counties to collectively vote even, getting rid of Trump's 50k Trump vote net from them in 2020, net 30k out of Williamson, 10k out of Hays, ect, ect.

And even if Dems lose Texas in 2024 (realistically the more likely outcome), investment now will put them in a much better position to win going forwards.

Also your argument doesn't really make sense because MT and maybe OH vote to the right of FL and TX in 2024.

MT and OH will vote towards the right in the presidential race, not senate race

I do think Texas will be close in 2024, but I doubt President Biden gets more than 46-47%

The huge increase for Democrats in 2020 came mostly from increase turnout. It went from 59.4% in 2016 to 66.7% in 2020

[ProgressiveModerate]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Not spending on FL or TX is a bad idea imo because it means you have no backup if partisanship wins out in OH/MT or something goes wrong elsewhere even if Biden is doing well nationally. I agree FL isn’t a great investment but TX I believe is, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

FL and TX are 7-8 points to the right of the nation. I do think Texas is winnable for Democrats in the future, but I don't see Democrats making up a 630k vote deficit in 2024

Biden 2020 literally got 1.4 million votes more than Clinton 2016 despite virtually no investment; 630k defecit isn't that large. Especially if you go County by County, you can start to see a path; make Tarrant County go from even to a 50k vote net, get Collin and Denton Counties to collectively vote even, getting rid of Trump's 50k Trump vote net from them in 2020, net 30k out of Williamson, 10k out of Hays, ect, ect.

And even if Dems lose Texas in 2024 (realistically the more likely outcome), investment now will put them in a much better position to win going forwards.

Also your argument doesn't really make sense because MT and maybe OH vote to the right of FL and TX in 2024.

And Trump got 1.2 million more votes than his 2016 result. Despite record turnout and major swings Biden was only able to cut an 800ishk deficit to 650k. With him being more unpopular than 2020, and trends somewhat stagnating for incumbents (NoVA Atlanta 2012 and Ohio Iowa 2020), likely lower turnout, and the hispanic shifts, it seems incredibly unlikely Biden will win the state, and it looks like Trumps margin will expand from 2020.

Yes, but the bad part is that the GOP heavily outspent Dems in TX yet still Dems saw a larger raw vote increase in the R-leaning state.

Also 2022 results would suggest that at worst, Biden matches his 2020 performance in most of the major TX metros - Beto basically got the same precinct map as Biden despite 0 investment - but low nonwhite turnout and collapsing in rurals killed him to lose by double digits.

Yes, a disproportionate decline in nonwhite turnout and Hispanics shifting right can definitely be problems for Dems in TX, but not insurmountable problems. In 2020, TX Hispanics shifted right in pretty large magnitudes and the biggest turnout increases tended to be in heavily white areas, yet TX still swung and trended left.

Overall my point is that in 2020 TX Rs had a lot going for them but it still wasn't enough to prevent a leftwards trend.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Not spending on FL or TX is a bad idea imo because it means you have no backup if partisanship wins out in OH/MT or something goes wrong elsewhere even if Biden is doing well nationally. I agree FL isn’t a great investment but TX I believe is, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

FL and TX are 7-8 points to the right of the nation. I do think Texas is winnable for Democrats in the future, but I don't see Democrats making up a 630k vote deficit in 2024

Biden 2020 literally got 1.4 million votes more than Clinton 2016 despite virtually no investment; 630k defecit isn't that large. Especially if you go County by County, you can start to see a path; make Tarrant County go from even to a 50k vote net, get Collin and Denton Counties to collectively vote even, getting rid of Trump's 50k Trump vote net from them in 2020, net 30k out of Williamson, 10k out of Hays, ect, ect.

And even if Dems lose Texas in 2024 (realistically the more likely outcome), investment now will put them in a much better position to win going forwards.

Also your argument doesn't really make sense because MT and maybe OH vote to the right of FL and TX in 2024.

MT and OH will vote towards the right in the presidential race, not senate race

I do think Texas will be close in 2024, but I doubt President Biden gets more than 46-47%

The huge increase for Democrats in 2020 came mostly from increase turnout. It went from 59.4% in 2016 to 66.7% in 2020

That's my whole point though. Even in 2020, Texas still had some of the worst turnout in the nation - there are so many non-voters both sides could activate, especially Dems.

[Pres Mike]

Don't be ambitious. Don't waste money on FL or TX

1. Focus everything on the core six states of WI/MI/PA/AZ/GA/NV

2. Focus on senate races in MT, AZ and OH

3. Focus on house races


I do think a Democratic trifecta is possible. Without Manchin or Sinema, we could finally pass Build Back Better

Not spending on FL or TX is a bad idea imo because it means you have no backup if partisanship wins out in OH/MT or something goes wrong elsewhere even if Biden is doing well nationally. I agree FL isn’t a great investment but TX I believe is, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

FL and TX are 7-8 points to the right of the nation. I do think Texas is winnable for Democrats in the future, but I don't see Democrats making up a 630k vote deficit in 2024

Biden 2020 literally got 1.4 million votes more than Clinton 2016 despite virtually no investment; 630k defecit isn't that large. Especially if you go County by County, you can start to see a path; make Tarrant County go from even to a 50k vote net, get Collin and Denton Counties to collectively vote even, getting rid of Trump's 50k Trump vote net from them in 2020, net 30k out of Williamson, 10k out of Hays, ect, ect.

And even if Dems lose Texas in 2024 (realistically the more likely outcome), investment now will put them in a much better position to win going forwards.

Also your argument doesn't really make sense because MT and maybe OH vote to the right of FL and TX in 2024.

MT and OH will vote towards the right in the presidential race, not senate race

I do think Texas will be close in 2024, but I doubt President Biden gets more than 46-47%

The huge increase for Democrats in 2020 came mostly from increase turnout. It went from 59.4% in 2016 to 66.7% in 2020

That's my whole point though. Even in 2020, Texas still had some of the worst turnout in the nation - there are so many non-voters both sides could activate, especially Dems.

Yeah, Texas went from the 5th worst to 7th worst lol