Hillary Clinton to fulfill the Atlas Forum's dreams with 50 state strategy.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:38:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Hillary Clinton to fulfill the Atlas Forum's dreams with 50 state strategy.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Hillary Clinton to fulfill the Atlas Forum's dreams with 50 state strategy.  (Read 6773 times)
retromike22
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,433
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 23, 2015, 01:11:31 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/hillary-clinton-grassroots_n_7117884.html

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is launching a major grassroots organizing effort Wednesday, sending staffers to every single state to start building an infrastructure of volunteers ready to pound the pavement.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/rampup/
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,577
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2015, 01:36:12 AM »

Congratulations, GOP. Hillary's devoted significant amounts of her campaign funds to TX, UT, WY, WV, ND, LA, and KY, among other solidly republican states.

Oh my god this strategy is dumb.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2015, 01:40:36 AM »

Maybe ramping up with a new logo and/or issues page on her site? In all seriousness though, this is good but the focus on OH, VA, CO, and FL. Anything else is a waste of resources and Mook should know this.

But is this for the general election or the primaries?  Maybe her goal is to win every primary by a 90% margin?
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2015, 01:41:08 AM »

If well played, this could work.

Like in 2006/2008.

Also downballot.

Of course assuming that Hillary does not end up as a wreck on election day, because then not even a 50-state strategy will help her.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2015, 01:41:14 AM »

I'm sure she will have more than enough money to oversaturate every remotely competitive state. So spending a couple of millions helping downballot Democrats (like Obama did in 2008) is good strategy.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,577
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2015, 01:45:20 AM »

I'm sure she will have more than enough money to oversaturate every remotely competitive state. So spending a couple of millions helping downballot Democrats (like Obama did in 2008) is good strategy.
This is a 50 state strategy though. So, she'll be helping senate/house candidates in ..... KS? LA? UT? OK? AL?...This is ridiculous and should be abandoned today.
Logged
Anti Democrat Democrat Club
SawxDem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,092
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2015, 01:45:41 AM »

Congratulations, GOP. Hillary's devoted significant amounts of her campaign funds to TX, UT, WY, WV, ND, LA, and KY, among other solidly republican states.

Oh my god this strategy is dumb.

>implying downballot races don't exist
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2015, 01:47:49 AM »

I'm sure she will have more than enough money to oversaturate every remotely competitive state. So spending a couple of millions helping downballot Democrats (like Obama did in 2008) is good strategy.
This is a 50 state strategy though. So, she'll be helping senate/house candidates in ..... KS? LA? UT? OK? AL?...This is ridiculous and should be abandoned today.

I'm sure you must have been one of those who laughed at Obama in 2008 when he started spending money on Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina.
Logged
retromike22
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,433
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2015, 01:55:51 AM »

Also, spending money in places like AZ, GA, and NC forces the GOP to spend money and effort there as well.
Logged
badgate
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2015, 02:05:43 AM »

Texas 4 Hillary
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2015, 02:08:24 AM »
« Edited: April 23, 2015, 02:19:18 AM by Likely Voter »

the Hillary campaign has been talking up how they are not taking the primary for granted. Obama beat her in 08 by out organizing, especially in small states and caucuses. So this time they will go all out for every delegate.  Obviously by summer 2016 they will be focusing on general and a handful of battlegrounds. Probably same set as Obama 2012 plus one or two to show they are expanding the map
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2015, 02:19:42 AM »

Likely: they'll build it out, assess where their volunteer support is strongest and most unified, and take that into account as the general election heats up to determine which potential expansion states actually get some of the attention (in combination with polling).

Potentially: we might actually see concerted volunteer efforts (not media) in all 50 states and an attempt to invest in diluting the GOP's strength in House races, and maybe also in state legislatures as part of having the resources to invest in the future (which will have a say in how the final two years of her potential second term goes). Campaigns usually don't worry about this stuff.

Either way, this is excellent news. There is no way you can spin putting the organizational pieces of the puzzle together this early as bad.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2015, 02:31:24 AM »

the Hillary campaign has been talking up how they are not taking the primary for granted. Obama beat her in 08 by out organizing, especially in small states and caucuses. So this time they will go all out for every delegate.  Obviously by summer 2016 they will be focusing on general and a handful of battlegrounds. Probably same set as Oboma 2012 plus one or two to show they are expandithe map

This is the map: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bKRb The expand the map thing is DWS DNC bs. Dear Robby, you are not working with McAuliffe anymore nor running against the Cooch in an off-year. Realism, realism, realism, realism.

Including IN on your map is expanding the map. Obama didn't target IN in 2012, even though he won it in 2008. 

The 2012 states were FL, OH, VA, CO, IA, NV, NH, WI, NC, and PA.  Hillary will spend effort in the same list, but for NV, PA, WI and NH they will spend only as much as needed to counter GOP spend And if GOP ignores any of them so will Hillary.  But I bet team Hillary will dabble in one or two Romney states (in addition to NC) to at least test it out and maybe troll enough to get GOP to spend even more defending them.
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,289
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2015, 03:12:12 AM »

Short term, this is probably a waste, but long term this is fantastic for democrats. Especially if the national popular vote initiative ever succeeds, which I think is absolutely a possibility a little longer down the line. Also, this stuff is gonna be very popular with democratic grassroots people everywhere, making her even more inevitable for the primary win (not that she doesn't have it in the bag already).
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2015, 06:58:46 AM »

Wulfric, money is not a finite resource in politics anymore. Obama did a 50 state in 2008 and that was even before Citizens United opened the floodgates.  Stop. She's not wasting anything.

Also, by not really having to dog fight a primary,  establishing this is exactly the kind of move she should be making.  She has a year long head start on the Republican nominee to start GE campaigning, or at least laying the foundation.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,621
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2015, 07:17:46 AM »

Wise move. There's no good winning the Presidency without Congress (or getting close to flipping them). The post-Dean Democratic party has hurt Obama's attempts at governing.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2015, 07:42:38 AM »

The expensive portion of a campaign is the advertising and fundraising.

How much is the rent for a dingy office space in Wyoming or South Dakota?  A few signs, some glossy brochures, some recent college grads, some interns working for free, we're not talking a gigantic expenditure.  It's makes sense to put at least one office in every state. 
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2015, 08:03:23 AM »

The 50 states strategy did help Democrats to win in 2006 and Obama in 2008. Of course it's not without its risks, but if the Democratic nominee can at least force GOP to waste money where they wouldn't normally spend, that would be a success.

Because the 50 states strategy isn't really about seriously targetting every state.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2015, 08:53:10 AM »

This is great news! I was seriously concerned she would just focus on swing states, like Obama did in 2012 (which is why he won by a smaller margin than in 2008). Ideally, she'll force her GOP rival to spend money where they normally wouldn't, and she'll keep them out of Wisconsin and Nevada and other states on the fringe of competitiveness.

I know this doesn't mean she's targeting every single state, but I'm sure she'll want to expand the map and not limit herself to a 2012 repeat. If I were her, I'd try to expand into Georgia, Missouri, Arizona, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Indiana. It's a bit of a pipe dream to see her expand the map that much, but she shouldn't just not try. Okay, Arkansas is probably lost. And Indiana was probably a one-time thing. The rest are feasible though.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2015, 12:14:16 PM »

The problem with the strategy is that it won't change the results in a favorable election (if Missouri is potentially competitive, Hillary Clinton probably wins) but that it might be a waste of resources in a tough election. If it's 2016 and the election is close, the resources used in Georgia could have just as well been used in Virginia or Colorado.

There is an element of diminishing returns, and it's possible that the Clinton campaign will have so much money it doesn't matter how they spend it.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2015, 12:19:47 PM »

I seem to remember Senator Arny Vinick trying a similar strategy.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2015, 12:21:20 PM »
« Edited: April 23, 2015, 12:23:24 PM by Monarch »

The problem with the strategy is that it won't change the results in a favorable election (if Missouri is potentially competitive, Hillary Clinton probably wins) but that it might be a waste of resources in a tough election. If it's 2016 and the election is close, the resources used in Georgia could have just as well been used in Virginia or Colorado.

There is an element of diminishing returns, and it's possible that the Clinton campaign will have so much money it doesn't matter how they spend it.

It might not flip a state but it could flip a Congressional district. If the Democrats want to have an effective Presidency, they have to do better in Congress. We don't know where these fifty state offices will be located, but I doubt Louie Gohmert's district will be where the Texas office is. Getting Democrat voters whose votes don't really matter for the EC "Ready for Hillary" could flip seats.

Besides, resources aren't really finite anymore. Both the Democrats and Republicans have enough money to fill every TV commercial spot in all fifty states. They could run SuperBowl Ads if they wanted. I'd like to think the GOP nominee will respond with their own fifty state strategy.

As you said, Clinton campaign will have so much money it doesn't matter. And again, the GOP nominee likely won't be settled until April 2016. She's already in the bag in April 2015. She needs to use this year time advantage to build a general election organization.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2015, 12:22:15 PM »

There are no Congressional Districts in Missouri capable of being flipped. They've been gerrymandered to hell.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2015, 12:33:51 PM »

There are no Congressional Districts in Missouri capable of being flipped. They've been gerrymandered to hell.

But there are some in Texas, for example, where if Hispanics registered and voted then many would be surprised by the results.
Frankly, I don't see why some Democrats whine about something like that.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2015, 12:35:48 PM »

There are no Congressional Districts in Missouri capable of being flipped. They've been gerrymandered to hell.

The whole nation is gerrymandered to hell. A Democratic House would be not be easy obviously. Roy Blunt's Senate seat and R+7 districts like MO-2 and MO-6 (which McCaskill did win over Akin, as little as that means) would have be the type of places you'd make a run at, even as improbable (even impossible) as those would be to win.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 14 queries.