Where should GOP spend their money in 2016?

[Likely Voter]

This thread follows on from the GOP Electoral map issue thread to talk about the realities of spending. Here is a breakdown of GOP (Romney + party + outside groups) ad spending for 2012, sorted by total spend per state (also included $millions/EV).

        %         ($M/EV)
FL   18.8%   3.2
VA   16.4%   6.4
OH   15.4%   4.3
NC   11.3%   3.8
CO   7.3%   4.1
IA   5.9%   5.0
NV   5.7%   4.8
WI   5.3%   2.7
MI    4.8%   1.5
PA   4.0%   1.0
NH   3.2%   4.0
MN   1.6%   0.8
NM   0.2%   0.2

As you can see they spent 61% on core of NC+FL+OH+VA with the rest chasing the 'plus one state' (from CO, IA, WI, MI, PA, NH, MN, or NM).

So assuming they are going up against Hillary, how would you allocate your money (assuming for sake of this exercise that the Dems dont go after any additional Romney states). Feel free to add/remove Obama states.

[Orser67]

Depends on a number of factors of course, but this is what I would set as the starting goal, with adjustments made depending on how states look:

FL: 15%
OH: 15%
VA: 12%
CO: 10%
PA: 10%
WI: 9%
NC: 9%
IA: 8%
NH: 5%
NV: 3%
MI: 2%
NM: 2%

I used this tool from the NY Times to think about the possible paths.

[KCDem]

Hillary is going to win. They're better off saving their money.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Hillary is going to win. They're better off saving their money.

Ugh, go back on vacation.

You're the type of hack that if tomorrow the Democratic Party just randomly put a pro-life plank in the platform, you'd be pro-life all of a sudden, haha.

[Mehmentum]

Hillary is going to win. They're better off saving their money.

Even if it were a complete and absolute certainty that Hillary wins, it would be stupid to not even try to compete.  That would essentially be forfeiting a slew of downballot races.

[Likely Voter]

I would say the GOP has two primary strategies

1. FOCUS
Basically hold the line in NC, up the FL/OH/VA core spend to 60% from 50%, divert most of the 'plus one' spend into CO, IA and NH while dabbling a little bit in PA, WI, MI, and NV just to see if there is any traction and if so then move all 5% of the 'dabble' budget into that state. You can get even more focused and just forget the dabbling and put that 5% back into the core and plus one states

FL   20%   ↑
VA   20%   ↑
OH   20%  ↑
NC   11%   -
CO   11%   ↑
IA   8%   ↑
NH   4%   ↑
NV   1%    ↓
PA   2%    ↓
WI   1%    ↓
MI    1%    ↓
MN   0%    ↓
NM   0%    ↓

2. GO FOR IT IN PENNSYLVANIA
Bring PA fully into the core states, add little bits to some of the others and abandon NM, MN, MI, WI and NV.
 
FL   19%   ↑
PA   18%   ↑↑
VA   17%   ↑
OH   17%  ↑
NC   11%   -
CO   8%   ↑
IA   6%   ↑
NH   4%   ↑
NV   0%    ↓
WI   0%    ↓
MI    0%    ↓
MN   0%    ↓
NM   0%    ↓

[New_Conservative]

Florida - 18%
Ohio - 16%
Colorado - 12%
Pennsylvania - 11%
North Carolina - 10%
Virginia - 10%
Iowa - 7%
Wisconsin - 7%
Nevada - 4%
New Hampshire - 3%
New Mexico - 2%

Thoughts?

[IceSpear]

Florida is gonna be a huge one, for sure. It's a must win for the GOP but not for Dems.

[Mehmentum]

Florida is gonna be a huge one, for sure. It's a must win for the GOP but not for Dems.

Not to mention, Hillary is very strong in Florida.

[Ljube]

Only spend in FL, OH, NC, VA, CO and IA. Ignore the rest. If Walker is on the ticket, expand the map to include WI. Ignore NH.

[Ljube]

Florida is gonna be a huge one, for sure. It's a must win for the GOP but not for Dems.

Not to mention, Hillary is very strong in Florida.

Once again I expect Hillary to try to win the election by winning Ohio. And once again it may fail.

[Mister Mets]

There's going to be a lot of spending in Florida because it's worth so many electoral points. We don't know what the environment is in 2016. If it's a bit more favorable for Republicans, they could win Florida by spending less money there.

Ohio's another state the Republicans need to swing in order to win an election, so I don't see the percentage changing.

In terms of million dollars per electoral vote, Pennsylvania seems like a state they should focus on more. It had similar results to Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire. It's also slightly more conservative than Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan, all of which saw more total spending with smaller populations.

I'm conflicted on Virginia. It's been close to the national margin, and the high African-American population suggests a reduction in turnout and the black vote in 2016, which would help Republicans. But it seems like a state where Hillary Clinton is likely to do pretty well, and it was the most expensive state per electoral vote. I'd spend less there.

North Carolina's is Hillary's best chance for a pick-up, so Republicans still have to defend there.

I wouldn't focus as much on Wisconsin, Nevada or Michigan. In a more favorable environment for Republicans, those states might all be in play, and it would be different if there's a local candidate on the ticket.

My suggestion in the current environment...
FL- 21%
VA- 15%
OH- 16%
NC- 12%
CO- 8%
IA- 6%
NH- 4%
PA- 19%
MN- 8%

[Ljube]

I'm conflicted on Virginia. It's been close to the national margin, and the high African-American population suggests a reduction in turnout and the black vote in 2016, which would help Republicans. But it seems like a state where Hillary Clinton is likely to do pretty well, and it was the most expensive state per electoral vote. I'd spend less there.

How are you planning to win the election without Virginia? If we don't push hard for Virginia we might as well suspend the campaign right now and go full Gillespie.

[New_Conservative]

I'm conflicted on Virginia. It's been close to the national margin, and the high African-American population suggests a reduction in turnout and the black vote in 2016, which would help Republicans. But it seems like a state where Hillary Clinton is likely to do pretty well, and it was the most expensive state per electoral vote. I'd spend less there.

How are you planning to win the election without Virginia? If we don't push hard for Virginia we might as well suspend the campaign right now and go full Gillespie.

Virginia is probably going the Democrat's direction faster than any swing state, except for maybe Nevada.

That is a tough map, as the electoral college victory comes out to 272-268. I firmly believe Virginia is moving out of the Republicans' hands quickly.

[Ljube]

I'm conflicted on Virginia. It's been close to the national margin, and the high African-American population suggests a reduction in turnout and the black vote in 2016, which would help Republicans. But it seems like a state where Hillary Clinton is likely to do pretty well, and it was the most expensive state per electoral vote. I'd spend less there.

How are you planning to win the election without Virginia? If we don't push hard for Virginia we might as well suspend the campaign right now and go full Gillespie.

Virginia is probably going the Democrat's direction faster than any swing state, except for maybe Nevada.

That is a tough map, as the electoral college victory comes out to 272-268. I firmly believe Virginia is moving out of the Republicans' hands quickly.

You know what this map looks like? It looks a lot like my final prediction for the 2012 presidential election. Not because I predicted Romney would win the same states. In fact I didn't. But because, when faced with realities of early voting results, I had to dismiss one after another states I felt confident would go Romney. I was left with one most improbable map in the end just because I didn't want to concede election defeat.

Now, we aren't going to win NH without winning VA. That never happened in recent history. The reason why VA went Obama is because he turned out all blacks there and evangelicals didn't turn out for Mormon bishop Romney.

New Hampshire is a mirage. If we can't win NH in off years, how are we going to win there in presidential years, with same day registration, when dems turn out in force?

Therefore, if Virginia is out of reach, so is the election.

[Likely Voter]

Virginia is probably going the Democrat's direction faster than any swing state, except for maybe Nevada.

That is a tough map, as the electoral college victory comes out to 272-268. I firmly believe Virginia is moving out of the Republicans' hands quickly.

If NV is going the way of NM and WI was only in play due to Ryan, then the loss of VA requires the GOP to win the tipple play of the only three remaining 'battlegrounds' of CO, IA and NH. The danger is that doesn't leave any wiggle room. It would be great if there were one or two little states they could go after, or even a medium sized state. OR, WA and ME were on the GOP battleground in recent elections but they also seem out of reach, as does MN.

That leaves them PA, which is why I proposed the 'all in on PA' path option. If the GOP are serious about PA they should really go for it and spend as much there (on a $/EV basis) as they do other core states like OH and CO.

[Mehmentum]

I agree.  The GOP needs to expand the battleground, like how Democrats did in 2008.

[TJ in Oregon]

If... WI was only in play due to Ryan

That doesn't seem to be consistent with the swing map from 2008-2012. If WI was only in play in 2012 because of Ryan than we would expect the improvement to be concentrated around the areas where Ryan would have a favorite-son effect. If anything, the trend map shows the opposite:


In my opinion 2012 was a reversion to the mean from 2008. I expect WI will be sort of in play once again 2016, in play to whatever extent it was in play in 2012. The Republicans can win it if they win the national popular vote by about 2%.

[New_Conservative]

I agree.  The GOP needs to expand the battleground, like how Democrats did in 2008.

If their going to expand the battleground, more resources need to be spent in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Maine, and maybe Connecticut and New Jersey in a wave year (2008 type of environment for Republicans).

I still think courting the millennial and the Latino vote is incredibly important, which if they happen to successfully court Latinos, could open up New Mexico and Nevada again.

[5280]

Go after Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and the rest should fall into place.  Expand the Latino base and millennial, every bit helps.

[Mister Mets]

I agree.  The GOP needs to expand the battleground, like how Democrats did in 2008.

How much of the Democrat's showing in '08 was strategy, and how much of it was the political environment?

I'm conflicted on Virginia. It's been close to the national margin, and the high African-American population suggests a reduction in turnout and the black vote in 2016, which would help Republicans. But it seems like a state where Hillary Clinton is likely to do pretty well, and it was the most expensive state per electoral vote. I'd spend less there.

How are you planning to win the election without Virginia? If we don't push hard for Virginia we might as well suspend the campaign right now and go full Gillespie.

Romney states + Florida + Ohio + Pennsylvania

They should still go for Viginia, but I don't think they should spend as much on the state.

[New_Conservative]

I agree.  The GOP needs to expand the battleground, like how Democrats did in 2008.

How much of the Democrat's showing in '08 was strategy, and how much of it was the political environment?

I'm conflicted on Virginia. It's been close to the national margin, and the high African-American population suggests a reduction in turnout and the black vote in 2016, which would help Republicans. But it seems like a state where Hillary Clinton is likely to do pretty well, and it was the most expensive state per electoral vote. I'd spend less there.

How are you planning to win the election without Virginia? If we don't push hard for Virginia we might as well suspend the campaign right now and go full Gillespie.

Romney states + Florida + Ohio + Pennsylvania

They should still go for Viginia, but I don't think they should spend as much on the state.

The Republicans need to capitalize on Pittsburgh's trend towards the Republicans, it is probably the largest urban area in the country that is trending in our direction. Lowering the insane margins Democrats run up in urban areas would go a long way in a lot of states, and would totally change the current political map.