Just last night, the delightful Rachel Maddow…she of the swan’s neck, girlish giggle and steel-trap mind…had an interesting note about the possibility that money is losing its raw power. About how Jeb! spent a metric buttload of money on TV advertising and got diddly-squat in return. And there is quite a bit of evidence about that small donation politics is the wave.
From her lips to the Ears…
Pennsylvania always looks tantalizing to the GOP, but it’s always out of reach. My take is that if the Republicans win PA, they’ve won big. Kinda like the Dems winning NC in 2008: losing NC didn’t cost the GOP the election, it was already lost by then.
Florida and Ohio, OTOH, are eminently winnable for the GOP, if things come down to the wire. That gets them to 253, so they need 16 more. (269 is a win for the GOP, since they’d surely win in the House if the election went there.) There are a number of ways they could get there - flipping Virginia and any other potentially flippable state would do it, for instance.
Two things.
Elucidator, what’s being lost is the marginal utility of extra money during specific types of elections. There’s only so much that money can do. It’s a lot, but after a while spending another million won’t move the needle. Thinking that small donor movement will somehow replace deep pockets is silly. It may help compete with deep pockets but it’s never going to knock it out of the way.
I do wish people would stop saying that PA is somehow ‘in play’. It’s been more than 28 years since a republican won it - Bush in 1988 - and he only won it with 50.7% of the vote. Hell, Reagan in the worst slaughter in more than 100 years - 1984 - only won PA with 53.4%. Six D winners in a row is a trend. Casually saying it’s ‘in play’ without providing some serious back up isn’t really moving the needle. So figure the R candidates, whichever might emerge victorious, can take OH and FLA is reasonable. Both are true swing states. Including PA in there is just something talking heads make up to make themselves appear erudite.
The talking heads also need to be able to claim there’s an actual race. By putting PA in the comfortably-blue column where it belongs, they have to concede that a Republican can *only *win by a blowout.
Can we get the talking heads to play “Burning Down the House” when they’re discussing the GOP’s inability to decide who the next Speaker will be? 
Bad Moon Rising from Creedance.
I’m talking maybes here. Just a few data points that suggest things that have not come to pass. Shit happens, true, but good stuff happens too, just not as often. If that sort of thing is not to your taste, here’s your hat.
But the suggestion offered is that television/radio advertising ain’t the gold standard any more, and rather suddenly. Always was, sure, but always will be is another question.
And the thing about small donors isn’t so much whether or not they could overwhelm the Koch Brothers with a massive wave of cash. But whether massive waves of cash are the political equivalent of the #10 Enhanced Hammer of Thor as they always used to be. Its what a mass of small donors signify rather than how much actual money they can offer.
Anyway, if what we are seeing is a growing segment of the people who are committed enough to contribute and not as amenable to advertising…well, tell me that wouldn’t be something! Something good.
I assume Sanders entered the race primarily to push his ideas, and is probably surprised to see his own strength. I think he’ll happily support Hillary by the time her nomination is inevitable.
Won’t happen. I can understand the snetiment that Hillary isn’t progressive enough, but the frequent message-board meme that Clinton, Cruz and Bozo the Clown are equivalent to each other is ignorant.
Pennsylvania is surely “in play.” If the GOP can win it somehow, they win the White House. If they lose Pennsylvania, along with every state that had a smaller GOP percentage vote in 2012 than Pennsylvania had, they lose the White House. Just like its nickname implies, Pennsylvania is the Key stone for this election.
That’s not to say GOP victory is impossible without Pennsylvania. If the election is close, you may assume that GOP will take North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida. Given those states and Virginia, they’d only need one more swing state; it wouldn’t have to be the Keystone State. Tiny New Hampshire would push them over, as would any of Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota, or Wisconsin. (With neither Pennsylvania nor Virginia, the GOP would probably have to win at least three other swing states.)
TL;DR: Don’t let your guard down. November 2016 still looks like a coin-toss. Complacency in Pennsylvania would be a huge mistake.
Seconded. There’s a huge gap in between even a centrist Dem like Hillary and the most liberal elected Republican. Just think of the difference in the Supreme Court Justices they’d appoint. Or whether Obamacare would continue to be in place, or would be defunded.
[quote=“septimus, post:49, topic:723875”]
Just like its nickname implies, Pennsylvania is the Key stone for this election.
[QUOTE]
I disagree. There are demographic changes that explain why states like Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada have changed their voting habits as much as they have in recent years. What demographic changes would be moving Pennsylvania to the right? Also, as I’ve said elsewhere, it’s easier for a smaller group to change rapidly than a larger group. Pennsylvania’s size and relative consistency in demographic terms make it unlikely that Pennsylvania is winnable for the Republicans in anything less than a pretty substantial GOP win.
After Florida and Ohio, the GOP route to victory IMHO would run through states that are getting older and whiter, like Iowa, and states that are moving Demwards, but maybe aren’t solidly in the Dem column yet, like the aforementioned Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.
Nah, Burning Down the House because of ‘House’ and ‘talking heads.’ 
How much “favorite son” popularity would carry over from Ohio to neighboring Pennsylvania? Kasich seems to be a very popular Governor of Ohio. Would he be able to win Pennsylvania? How about if he’s just in the V.P. slot on the GOP ticket?
Democrats: Do not take Pennsylvania for granted. It could very well end up the Keystone to the 2016 election.
Indictment pending.
Regarding Kasich, probably not much of a boost as a “favorite son” candidate.
–Kasich did very well throughout Ohio in the most recent election (2014 governor), but won just a bit more than a majority in the counties closest to the PA border.
–He *is *originally from PA, but left to attend OSU and never came back.
On the whole it’s difficult to demonstrate all that much “bounce” even within a candidate’s home state (see Gore, 2000, or Romney with Massachusetts, 2012), still less for a VP (see Ryan, 2012, or Edwards, 2004). A bounce from a neighboring state is far from a given as well (see KY and MO, Obama, 2008, or NM, NV, and CA, McCain, 2008). So I find it hard to imagine that Kasich would get much of a benefit.
And it is fair to say, as mentioned above, that PA seems much less movable regarding voting results than most other states. Nate Silver’s got some kind of “elasticity” rating that measures the likelihood of a state’s voting profile changing, and PA ranks at or near the bottom–entrenched party preferences, stable population, etc. Anecdotally (I do not live in PA, never have, but have campaigned there the last few elections), I have met lots of Democrats who have been quite enthusiastic about the Democratic candidates, and hardly any registered Dems who favor the Republican candidates or seem to be inclined to just stay home–and a bunch of independents who have (in my experience) leaned Democratic. So my observations, for what it’s worth, match that notion.
Having said that, yes, it is always a mistake to take anything for granted, and I sure hope that the Democrats don’t do that this time around. But I doubt they will. The Obama campaign certainly never did, even (or perhaps especially) when the GOP declared toward the end of October 2012 that PA was suddenly in play (it wasn’t).
The only way they win it is if they benefit from a large enough *national *tide “somehow” that makes it irrelevant. PA is not in play except to the extent the *nation *is in play.
You’re right to point out that the Dems must not take it for granted, but only because they must not take *anywhere *for granted.
Expecting the Democrats to not take things for granted is like expecting Republicans to act intelligently. Even when Democrats lose, it’s based on assumptions. They are so into the science(even when there isn’t much in the way of a real science involved) that they lose elections because they think the “fundamentals” make trying hopeless. And when they are projected to win, they don’t try because “Demographics are with us! We can’t lose! Blue wall!”
Could you be a bit more specific than “the Democrats”? Are you talking about candidates? Their campaign staffs? Democratic voters? The DNC? At this point, your claim is vague enough that there’s really no way to tell if you’re right or wrong.
I’m guessing you’re completely and utterly ignoring Obama’s massive GOTV campaigns in both 2008 and 2012, both of which made the Republican campaigns those years look utterly incompetent and out-of-touch with any demographic other than older white males. In fact, I remember this being an issue particularly in 2012, when Romney’s Orca software became a minor scandal after the election and his GOTV efforts were seen as anywhere from anemic to non-existent.
All this despite the fact the handicap the GOP started with in the Electoral College was well-known, certainly by 2012. There was a blue wall but the Obama campaign didn’t take it for granted and certainly didn’t fail to run an active campaign.
Really, adaher. You’re saying these things during the term of a Democratic president who is known for his “fifty-state strategy” (thank you, Howard Dean) and who even Republicans call a “community organizer” (except they seem to think that’s somehow an insult… ). Really.
President Obama is an individual. Individual candidates always try very hard to win. What I’m referring more to is the DNC, with a big assist from lefty journalists like Josh Marshall, who spent the leadup of 2010 writing about how, “We’re going to lose a lot of seats due to fundamentals”, as if losing 63 seats is something that would have happened no matter what Democrats did.
I’m a big fan of Josh Marshall, and he was right about 2010. That doesn’t mean that the Democratic party couldn’t have and shouldn’t have done things differently to try and minimize their losses, but they were almost certainly going to lose the House at the time. And they did hold on to the Senate (until 2014, at least), so it wasn’t a total loss.
That would be Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be well-informed. Available here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/. But “with a big assist from lefty journalists like Josh Marshall”? Sadly, no.