I don't like how bernie brushes aside the south

[Lief 🗽]

The whole "those states are irrelevant" talking point (whether coming from the Sanders' camp regarding the South or from the Clinton's camp regarding the West) is absurd. It's not the GE we're talking about and votes of Democrats in Alabama and Wyoming should not be considered any less important than votes of Democrats from Vermont or Massachusetts.

Exactly. There's no such thing as red states and blue states in the primary. Every state is a blue state.

Also, and let's be clear here: without conservative DINOs, Sanders would have lost Oklahoma and probably not reached the threshold in the Deep South. If anyone is relying on "southern conservatives", it's Bernie.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The whole "those states are irrelevant" talking point (whether coming from the Sanders' camp regarding the South or from the Clinton's camp regarding the West) is absurd. It's not the GE we're talking about and votes of Democrats in Alabama and Wyoming should not be considered any less important than votes of Democrats from Vermont or Massachusetts.

Normatively, sure, I agree with you.

Logically, in the electoral college, it's not really one man one vote - the campaigns target battleground states and leaners exclusively and cater to those voters in varying degrees of importance

Hell, even if we elected purely by national popular vote, it still wouldn't change (by much) the way campaigns target specific states. Campaigns would still target areas where they get the most bang for their buck in terms of GOTV and other operations. So Wyoming, Utah, Vermont or Alabama still aren't going to get attention.

Not so sure. With a national popular vote system, I can see Republican campaigning, for example, in Upstate New York or a Democrat campaigning in certain parts of Utah.

[Virginiá]

Not so sure. With a national popular vote system, I can see Republican campaigning, for example, in Upstate New York or a Democrat campaigning in certain parts of Utah.

Sure. I didn't mean to imply that those two states would be the primary ones, but rather that anyone expecting 50-state strategies would be disappointed. Campaigns will go where the money is most effective, and proper GOTV efforts require sustained targeting. That puts limits on things.

However, I think one benefit may be that the areas which are targeted would frequently change with different candidates and different trends at the time. So there is that, but arguably not much  different than how swing states come and go (eg, Colorado/Virginia/North Carolina were not swing states until Obama). Cruz may put enormous resources into the South while Kasich would focus more up North in addition to the South. That sounds plausible, right?

[Mr. Morden]

The whole "those states are irrelevant" talking point (whether coming from the Sanders' camp regarding the South or from the Clinton's camp regarding the West) is absurd. It's not the GE we're talking about and votes of Democrats in Alabama and Wyoming should not be considered any less important than votes of Democrats from Vermont or Massachusetts.

Normatively, sure, I agree with you.

Logically, in the electoral college, it's not really one man one vote - the campaigns target battleground states and leaners exclusively and cater to those voters in varying degrees of importance

Right, but swing voters in primary elections are a completely different set of people from swing voters in general elections.  So why should "this state is competitive in a general election" mean anything when assessing whose votes count in a primary race?