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

[Skye]

I think this is a fantastic strategy for her. Unless the election is close, then she might regret having spent money in Georgia when she could have done it in Ohio.

Either way, it looks nicer on your record if you put up a better fight than Obama did in some states.

[Nym90]

Money has diminishing returns when concentrated to large degrees. The swing states are already over-saturated and getting slightly outspent on tv ads (if that's what it takes....reality is Hillary almost certainly will have enough money to do both) there is worth establishing a small presence in an otherwise overlooked state.

[Ebsy]

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.

Wins in those two seats would probably require open seats in wave Democratic years, which I really don't see on the horizon in Missouri. Wagner is pretty popular, and the only way her seat will come open is if she challenges McCaskill in 2018, a contest she could possibly win. Wagner didn't even really campaign for reelection last year, and still won in a landslide. Democratic investment in Missouri should focus on holding the Governor's mansion(which seems pretty likely at the moment) and attempting to regain enough seats to sustain a veto in the state House and Senate. And of course Clinton's campaign, because who knows, she might pull off an upset. But money spent on the congressional seats would probably be a waste.

[Likely Voter]

Guys, read the article. This is not about the general.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Team Clinton is just insuring that they avoid the same problems of 2008.

And presidential campaigns don't really care about down ballot. That is what the DSCC and DCCC are for.

[King]

She can't say it's about the general. That would feed the critics. It's about the general.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Yes.  She probably figures (not without reason) that the electoral college edge will save her in a national tie situation.  This is about maximizing the odds of getting Congress back if she wins by say 5%.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

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.

Besides 23, what could possibly be flipped in Texas?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

Besides 23, what could possibly be flipped in Texas?

Districts that might flip in a 1964-style wave include: TX-6 (R+11), TX-7 (R+13), TX-14 (R+12), TX-17 (R+13), TX-21 (R+12), TX-24 (R+13), TX-25 (R+12), TX-27 (R+13), TX-31 (R+12) and TX-32 (R+10). But 2016 is not going to be like 1964.

[Mister Mets]

But TX-23 is the only district in the state with a Republican incumbent, where the party's registration is less than double digits.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Besides 23, what could possibly be flipped in Texas?

Districts that might flip in a 1964-style wave include: TX-6 (R+11), TX-7 (R+13), TX-14 (R+12), TX-17 (R+13), TX-21 (R+12), TX-24 (R+13), TX-25 (R+12), TX-27 (R+13), TX-31 (R+12) and TX-32 (R+10). But 2016 is not going to be like 1964.

Isn't there a reasonable argument that some of those R+10-15 districts in TX and GA would basically be even with Upper Midwest style turnout?  A 50 state strategy only makes sense if you have reason to believe that it's not a zero-sum game.

[Likely Voter]

She can't say it's about the general. That would feed the critics. It's about the general.

so you think that team clinton is going to spend significant time, money and resources in all 50 states in the general? To what end? Any $ spent in Idaho or Hawaii is a $ not spent in FL/OH/VA and the other core battlegrounds.

[King]

She can't say it's about the general. That would feed the critics. It's about the general.

so you think that team clinton is going to spend significant time, money and resources in all 50 states in the general? To what end? Any $ spent in Idaho or Hawaii is a $ not spent in FL/OH/VA and the other core battlegrounds.

There's going to be so much money spent in this election that there will be no such thing as a dollar that could have been spent in FL/OH/VA. Every TV ad in October is going to be a political ad. No more space left to buy.

[Skill and Chance]

She can't say it's about the general. That would feed the critics. It's about the general.

so you think that team clinton is going to spend significant time, money and resources in all 50 states in the general? To what end? Any $ spent in Idaho or Hawaii is a $ not spent in FL/OH/VA and the other core battlegrounds.

We are clearly at the point where spending X vs. 1.5X in a given state doesn't have a marginal return.  Kerry outraised Bush and Romney outraised Obama. What does matter is spending 10X vs. spending your opponent taking the state/CD for granted and spending X, particularly if you are looking for the next VA or CO.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Guys, read the article. This is not about the general.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Team Clinton is just insuring that they avoid the same problems of 2008.

They learned their lesson after Obama f**ked them with his 50 states startegy, while Hillary was prepeared to compete in a couple of early states, assuming it would be all over after that.

[Likely Voter]

Even with a ton more money, that just means more for the 10 or so battlegrounds. In 2012 50% of the ad money was spent on just 3 states (FL, OH, VA). If there was a ton of extra money they can just spread it to the 7 other battlegrounds so they end up getting as much spend/EV (plus maybe expand the map a bit). There is a lot of room to go maxing out states like NC and PA before they start buying ads in Texas and California. Just look for yourself.

Again this 50 state thing is all part of the Clinton 2012 obsession with fixing all their 2008 mistakes. Just look at the campaign so far, it is all about being different than last time. This is why they are doing it...(from USA Today article "Obama's political team out-organized Clinton" from 2008)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Free Bird]

This could get her the PV MAYBE, but anemic spending in swing states will cost her. Part of Obama 2012 was that he focused it all on those states.

[Flake]

Now our friends in Alaska to our friends in Massachusetts can be #ready.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

This could get her the PV MAYBE, but anemic spending in swing states will cost her. Part of Obama 2012 was that he focused it all on those states.

Anemic spending in swing states?!

Hillary's spending outside of swing states will be the leftover fortunes that physically cannot be spent in the swing states because the airwaves are so inundated with ads. And those leftover fortunes are after she outspends Obama in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia.

[Lincoln Republican]

The only way this is fulfilling my dreams is because it will be wasting a lot of Dem money on a great many states.

[Mechaman]

The only way this is fulfilling my dreams is because it will be wasting a lot of Dem money on a great many states.

No no no no no, my dear Bush**te.  We all know the real truth here.

No one proceeds with a 50 state strategy unless they got the gravitas and air to do so.  It is the sign of a great and dynamic candidate, as well as a show of their utter power and dominance over the field, when they can command upon the political landscape a domineering omnipotent 50 state crusade all across the country the likes of which has never been seen.

Nobody can do it like Hillary can.  She will roll out the carpet out all over the GOP, state after state, pounding them in their own backyard.  The Democratic onslaught awaiting the GOP in 2016 will be merciless.  Once and for all the Roverian Kochite agenda of the GOP will be exposed before all the world and all the nation to see as Hillary brings Democratic performance to a peak not seen since Johnson, possibly winning over 450 electoral votes in states from the Pacific Northwest to Appalchia.  She will bring back poor rural whites as the GOP will be shamed everywhere except that Morman place, Oklahoma, and the Deep South.

And then, not even your little fluke elections like 2010 and 2012 can save you.

So keep dreaming Bush**te.  I would say prepare for some of the worst nightmares of your life, but you are clearly living it.  Just surrender to the fact that the Clinton machine is unstoppable and to stop casting desperate asperations onto what is clearly a curb stomp.

Pathetic.

[Lincoln Republican]

Thank you for setting me straight.

I should have known better.

I now freely admit for all to hear that the Hillary juggernaut, combined with the Hillary charisma, will steamroll its way across America, from coast to coast, leaving no stone unturned, and leaving a decimated GOP in its wake.
 
It will take the GOP a generation to recover from the devastation that will befall it in 2016.

I humbly and tearfully beg forgiveness for my doubt and pledge that from this day forward that I too will worship at the alter of Hillaryism.   

[Nichlemn]

I think "50 state strategies" in general are mostly for show and bluster, but I do agree that we've probably reached heavily diminishing returns in swing states so it's probably not obviously bad.

It is a tad ironic that Democrats here are enthusiastically endorsing what amounts to "trickle down electioneering", that is the idea that it'd be good for Hillary to spend money because "muh coattails". Surely it would be more efficient to target those resources specifically into helping viable downballot candidates than just blindly firing everywhere in the hope that campaigning for Hillary will maybe turn out some crucial extra Democratic voters in a tight race somewhere.

[pbrower2a]

At this point she can put out the feelers for Republican weaknesses -- maybe where Republicans are entrenched but unpopular. Such could flip a seemingly-unlikely Senate or House seat here or there. If there are no such places, then maybe she shores up Democratic vulnerabilities.

[Adam Griffin]

You know...I just feel like posting again, since we have a lot of snarkiness in this thread with respect to the overall notion.

In campaigning, a good, large ground game/field operation in a "politically-developed" and/or competitive area is said to be able to produce three points for the candidate that he or she otherwise wouldn't receive. The reality is that when you are talking about areas that haven't been organized or campaigned in significantly in many cycles...there is potential for a lot more. Let's use my home county (Whitfield) and last year's gubernatorial results as an example.

I was responsible for my own county in the coordinated campaign, as well as providing some minimal assistance to other shabby volunteer groups scattered in nearby counties. I was able to put together a force of around two dozen people in my own county who gave at least an hour per week for six months. In the grand scheme of things, not a whole lot - or so it would seem. By and large, the remainder of the counties tucked in the far NW corner didn't do much at all. We made a few thousand phone calls, knocked on a few hundred doors, did various forms of media and in the end, spent about $4,000 in the county. Now look at the swing map - in the northwest corner - and notice that it was the hardest-swinging county to Carter in the state/the only red county. That was a swing of more than 11 points we managed to create - from 22.9% in 2010 to 28.6% in 2012. We added 800 net votes in the Governor's race compared to 2010 (despite overall turnout countywide dropping by 400 votes); $5 per net new vote.

Now imagine replicating such efforts across the majority of the counties in a given congressional district, or hell, in a state (or...the whole damn country). A more reasonable goal on a larger scale - while still being orchestrated by individual counties - might be an 8-point swing/4-point increase in Democratic performance. Fairly-organized, low-cost, county-level operations in areas that haven't been organized historically or are deemed non-competitive will generate more of a swing than in a competitive area or already contested area. It sounds positively bonkers, but if you can build sustaining volunteer organizations in a large number of counties, use data and effective techniques, and seed these counties with a few grand in tangible funds, then you can make a difference in plenty of worthwhile jurisdictions. They're doing the right thing.

More food for thought: there are 55 House Republicans currently elected in districts that have CPVIs of R+4 or less.

[Flake]

You know...I just feel like posting again, since we have a lot of snarkiness in this thread with respect to the overall notion.

In campaigning, a good, large ground game/field operation in a "politically-developed" and/or competitive area is said to be able to produce three points for the candidate that he or she otherwise wouldn't receive. The reality is that when you are talking about areas that haven't been organized or campaigned in significantly in many cycles...there is potential for a lot more. Let's use my home county (Whitfield) and last year's gubernatorial results as an example.

I was responsible for my own county in the coordinated campaign, as well as providing some minimal assistance to other shabby volunteer groups scattered in nearby counties. I was able to put together a force of around two dozen people in my own county who gave at least an hour per week for six months. In the grand scheme of things, not a whole lot - or so it would seem. By and large, the remainder of the counties tucked in the far NW corner didn't do much at all. We made a few thousand phone calls, knocked on a few hundred doors, did various forms of media and in the end, spent about $4,000 in the county. Now look at the swing map - in the northwest corner - and notice that it was the hardest-swinging county to Carter in the state/the only red county. That was a swing of more than 11 points we managed to create - from 22.9% in 2010 to 28.6% in 2012. We added 800 net votes in the Governor's race compared to 2010 (despite overall turnout countywide dropping by 400 votes); $5 per net new vote.

Now imagine replicating such efforts across the majority of the counties in a given congressional district, or hell, in a state (or...the whole damn country). A more reasonable goal on a larger scale - while still being orchestrated by individual counties - might be an 8-point swing/4-point increase in Democratic performance. Fairly-organized, low-cost, county-level operations in areas that haven't been organized historically or are deemed non-competitive will generate more of a swing than in a competitive area or already contested area. It sounds positively bonkers, but if you can build sustaining volunteer organizations in a large number of counties, use data and effective techniques, and seed these counties with a few grand in tangible funds, then you can make a difference in plenty of worthwhile jurisdictions. They're doing the right thing.

More food for thought: there are 55 House Republicans currently elected in districts that have CPVIs of R+4 or less.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Everything right here