I know they SAY they’re running 50-state campaigns, and I know they put up a semblence of a campaign in states they’re not competitive in, but what’s the calculus on such a strategy?
IOW, take Obama in South Carolina, or Gingrich in Massachusetts–what’s the downside of doing too little in such opposition strongholds? They weaken the party downticket, I’m sure, if they blow the state off completely, but so what? Does pouring money into a state where they’re down by 20 points in every poll make sense if there are states (and there always are) where they’re competitive in a tight race? Is there typically a token budget in such states, or a more than token budget for some reason?
You’ve got it. The National Committees allocate money for both the presidential ticket and the lesser races. Only the swing states get the full blast of money. But they do want to protect House and Senate seats, so if those are tough races the candidate will get more. There is never enough to do an all-out campaign everywhere, and the locals always scream and yell for more money in every campaign year.
Right, the “big swing states” like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania will always get the most money by far. But even in states like Massachusetts, Texas, South Carolina, or California where their electoral votes aren’t really in play there are still lots of Republican Congressman from California and vulnerable Democrat Congressmen from California so the RNC is going to put some money in California. Additionally the GOP Presidential candidate is going to visit California to help those local candidates, because if you win the Presidency you want a majority in both Houses, too.
Texas is the same way (with parties reversed), which is why money will go to Texas from the DNC and Texas will get visits from Obama and Biden.
The smaller non-swing states are probably more de-emphasized though. South Carolina for example has 6 Congressmen, 5 of whom are Republicans and all 5 of those seats probably are going to stay Republican. The 6th is a “black district” with a black representative and thus it’s a pretty safe seat, so Obama and Biden don’t really need to campaign to help James Clyburn out, and they probably don’t need to campaign to help whatever sacrificial lambs go up against the GOP in the other 5 districts. Some money will still be spent, though, and a visit or two will still happen just for the sake of appearances.
A big part of Obama’s 50-state strategy in 2008 was that he had significantly more money than McCain, and was leveraging that fact. Even if a state is “safe” for a party, that doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed, and by spending even in “safe” states, Obama forced the Republicans to spend there, too, to defend against him. But every dollar the Republicans were forced to spend in a “safe” state was one they didn’t have to spend in one of the real battlegrounds, where it matters most.
Of course, there’s also rhetoric value to it, too. By campaigning in all 50 states, you’re implicitly saying that you represent the interests of all Americans, and that might impress even an Ohioan or Floridan who’d be getting plenty of attention anyway.
'Splain this logic? If I’m McCain, and may the good Lord save me from that fate, I’m “Fucked if I’m going to spend a nickel in Massachusetts. Don’t care what his advisors tell him.”
McCain’s advisors tell him “No, Senator, you gotta, because…” why?
I think to some degree you “just have to.” You don’t want to piss off the national party. However through dirty fundraising Obama was able to massively outspend McCain to such a degree that you did actually see the McCain campaign not even spend token amounts in some states.
In 2008 it says Obama spent $50,000 in Massachusetts and McCain spent $0.
I’m sure some groups supporting Obama/McCain spent more than that, but it appears that is the amount spent by the actual campaigns themselves.
In California Obama spent $5.5m for over 2,000 commercials, McCain spent $50k for 18.
No, Senator, you gotta because when you become President, you want someone from those states to work with, right? Otherwise, you’ve got holes where you have no influence.
Not quite. Obama and Biden will still be there for Clyburn, and also to get out the vote. Safe districts in otherwise unsafe states mean you squeeze every last vote you can out of those safe areas to make up for the areas where you’re not as strong.
Why? Obama’s going to lose S. Carolina for sure (say) and Clyburn’s going to win his district big. So why waste time and energy squeezing every last vote in Clyburn’s district?
As to the people you need to work with, THEY need to work with you as well. Tell 'em “Make a competitive race in your state, and I’ll show up and I’ll raise money. Until then, I’m going to spend time and money where it might do some good.”
The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee exist to pay attention to all races run by members of their parties. They have entirely separate pots of money to spend from the actual presidential campaigns. Unlike Super-PACs they can coordinate with the presidential campaigns and actively do so. But they don’t allow the presidential campaigns to completely determine how they spend money.
Nor are their concerns limited to this year’s race. If they have any sense they are working for the long term, investing now in races, places, and candidates that might go their way in the future.
Whatever the presidential campaign does or doesn’t do is only one piece of a larger financial picture. To properly see that picture, you need to look at the National Committee, the various State Committees, County and City Committees, PACs, Super-PACs, Unions, Corporations, Candidates, Interest Groups, Rich Guys, and Wild Cards. It’s a game of n-dimensional chess. A pawn may be sacrificed or kept alive to be promoted in 20 moves. That’s why they pay attention to every piece.
But they can’t tell a sitting President, or even a nominee, to go into such and such a district and campaign for such and sch a candidate, can they? I mean, they can, but he can just tell them to go hang.
They can, they do, and he tries to arrange it whenever possible. It’s not always possible, of course, but the President is the head of his party and he didn’t get to be President by not playing the game.
Because they’re there. Clyburn’s district is pretty urban and reliable. Squeeze enough votes out and you can overcome the different votes from the remainder of the state. If Obama is hypothetically underperforming in Clyburn’s district where Clyburn is kicking ass, then Clyburn can provide the coattails for Hypothetical President Obama.
I was referring more to Obama spending in McCain’s strong states. Ordinarily, McCain would have needed to pay only a token amount of attention to, say, Arizona, because he was heavily favored there. But if Obama starts spending money there, and starts swinging the state his way, well, that could have serious repercussions for McCain: Even if Obama doesn’t actually win the state, just the fact that he’s even making any progress on McCain’s home turf makes for bad headlines, so McCain then has to spend enough to prevent even that appearance.
Meanwhile, Obama would have paid attention to someplace like Massachusetts not so much to draw votes (he’s getting those anyway) or to force McCain to defend (he won’t), as to drum up more donations.
I think what Chronos meant that Obama had the money to spend in safe Republican states, even if he didn’t have much chance of winning the state. That would force the McCain campaign to spend money in that state as well, to keep it in the “R” column. Even though that didn’t result in that safe state switching, it had the effect of stretching the McCain campaign thin, so they couldn’t spend as much on true battleground states as they would have wanted to - and that increased Obama’s chance in the battleground states.
ETA: Oops - i see Chronos already responded - missed that somehow.
