If Clinton raises a lot more money than Trump, will she send cash downballot?

[Virginiá]

If Hillary really wanted to help down ballot candidates, wouldn't she be better off just trying to increase her own margins in more states?  Like say... Arizona.  Hillary probably isn't going to win there, but if she increases her turnout and makes it competitive, that would probably help people like Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema.

Yes, I was discussing ticket splitting in another thread actually. If 2016 is even remotely like 2012 in terms of ticket-splitting (which it seems to be, as polarization is arguably worse than in 2012), then Clinton's winning margins state-to-state will boost downballot Democratic candidates as well.

However, it has been shown that money is increasingly effective the further downballot you go. The reason is that people are less informed about other races. So extra money can help define your party's candidates better, or help define the opposition's. In a way, that is better than money spent on the presidential candidate in places where they are already so well defined that millions of dollars eventually fails to move the needle.

I just hope her campaign is smart about this and actually does work on rebuilding the party. Democrats really need to take back the state governments in the rust belt, among others.

[Adam Griffin]

No. The Victory Fund shenanigans are an indicator of how this is going to be handled. Using struggling state parties as a vehicle to legally launder 99% of the money into the national party while giving them virtually nothing in return is completely at odds with what the DNC, the Clinton campaign and Clinton herself have been saying. Supposedly, Clinton plans to pursue a 50-state strategy. You can't do that without proper funding of state parties, and you certainly can't do it by pouring money into them a month or two before the election; too damn late. At first I thought they might redistribute some of the Victory Fund money back to select states in ways that made sense (since the way in which it is raised is uniform from state to state; Vermont doesn't need $1m to the same degree that Arizona does), but there is no evidence of that happening.

At best, she'll pump money into a few battleground states that won't necessarily need it but might be lagging her national poll numbers in internal polling. Coattails are not how you rebuild state parties and if things are as dire for the GOP as it is in this scenario, then there is going to be a large amount of redundancy in trying to max out her margins. All of these states that might not seem to matter in Senate contests and for the Presidency...yeah, they don't matter if you don't care about both federal and party policy being viable nationally. Medicaid expansion, unions, abortions...the list goes on and on. The President is a literal figurehead with a state-level situation like the one we have today.

[Virginiá]

No. The Victory Fund shenanigans are an indicator of how this is going to be handled. Using struggling state parties as a vehicle to legally launder 99% of the money into the national party while giving them virtually nothing in return is completely at odds with what the DNC, the Clinton campaign and Clinton herself have been saying. Supposedly, Clinton plans to pursue a 50-state strategy. You can't do that without proper funding of state parties, and you certainly can't do it by pouring money into them a month or two before the election; too damn late. At first I thought they might redistribute some of the Victory Fund money back to select states in ways that made sense (since the way in which it is raised is uniform from state to state; Vermont doesn't need $1m to the same degree that Arizona does), but there is no evidence of that happening.

At best, she'll pump money into a few battleground states that won't necessarily need it but might be lagging her national poll numbers in internal polling. Coattails are not how you rebuild state parties and if things are as dire for the GOP as it is in this scenario, then there is going to be a large amount of redundancy in trying to max out her margins. All of these states that might not seem to matter in Senate contests and for the Presidency...yeah, they don't matter if you don't care about both federal and party policy being viable nationally. Medicaid expansion, unions, abortions...the list goes on and on. The President is a literal figurehead with a state-level situation like the one we have today.

This seems so incompetent of them, though. It's undeniable how badly Democrats have been blown out in the states, so how could they not be investing to increase their numbers? This is like a person getting into a car crash that totals their car, then having it towed home and never fixing it because they need money for a new big screen TV. It just doesn't make sense.

[RaphaelDLG]

No. The Victory Fund shenanigans are an indicator of how this is going to be handled. Using struggling state parties as a vehicle to legally launder 99% of the money into the national party while giving them virtually nothing in return is completely at odds with what the DNC, the Clinton campaign and Clinton herself have been saying. Supposedly, Clinton plans to pursue a 50-state strategy. You can't do that without proper funding of state parties, and you certainly can't do it by pouring money into them a month or two before the election; too damn late. At first I thought they might redistribute some of the Victory Fund money back to select states in ways that made sense (since the way in which it is raised is uniform from state to state; Vermont doesn't need $1m to the same degree that Arizona does), but there is no evidence of that happening.

At best, she'll pump money into a few battleground states that won't necessarily need it but might be lagging her national poll numbers in internal polling. Coattails are not how you rebuild state parties and if things are as dire for the GOP as it is in this scenario, then there is going to be a large amount of redundancy in trying to max out her margins. All of these states that might not seem to matter in Senate contests and for the Presidency...yeah, they don't matter if you don't care about both federal and party policy being viable nationally. Medicaid expansion, unions, abortions...the list goes on and on. The President is a literal figurehead with a state-level situation like the one we have today.

This seems so incompetent of them, though. It's undeniable how badly Democrats have been blown out in the states, so how could they not be investing to increase their numbers? This is like a person getting into a car crash that totals their car, then having it towed home and never fixing it because they need money for a new big screen TV. It just doesn't make sense.

Politicians are, predictably,  concerned with getting elected and reelected first, then being effective as a distant second.  It's like, an almost darwinian axiom.

[RaphaelDLG]

I understand the argument for redistributing campaign funds, but I feel it's somewhat sketchy.  The people who donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign, did that because they want her to use it to help become president, not so she could redistribute the cash to Jim Gray in Kentucky.  I don't have much spare cash to give right now, but I made a small donation to a candidate that I care about (who shall remain nameless!)  I'd be kinda pissed if I found out she gave my donation to Hillary.

Obviously campaign finance reform would fix this, but this is the system we have right now.

You have it the other way round.  The Hillary-controlled Victory Fund is something people donate to knowing that their donation will be split between Hillary and local democrats.

The scandal is that the directors were funneling the local half of the money back to Hillary.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Prior evidence suggests no.

Always rely on post Obama Dems to ignore the downballot.

[BuckeyeNut]

Prior evidence suggests no.

Always rely on post Obama Dems to ignore the downballot.

Current campaign suggests otherwise.

That said, Obama was surprisingly selfish. A damn shame.

[Sir Mohamed]

This is not an if-question.

[KingSweden]

If I started a petition to ban Jfern, would anyone else sign it? It's not like he actually contributes anything.

I actually might. I put him on ignore but still see his garbage when other people respond to him. Defeats the purpose of my safe space.

[Adam Griffin]

I understand the argument for redistributing campaign funds, but I feel it's somewhat sketchy.  The people who donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign, did that because they want her to use it to help become president, not so she could redistribute the cash to Jim Gray in Kentucky.  I don't have much spare cash to give right now, but I made a small donation to a candidate that I care about (who shall remain nameless!)  I'd be kinda pissed if I found out she gave my donation to Hillary.

Obviously campaign finance reform would fix this, but this is the system we have right now.

You have it the other way round.  The Hillary-controlled Victory Fund is something people donate to knowing that their donation will be split between Hillary and local democrats.

The scandal is that the directors were funneling the local half of the money back to Hillary.

In all honesty, it was probably one of those "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" things with these big donors giving up to $350,000...knowing it was going to be laundered back to the DNC/Clinton ("yeah, sure your money will be going to these state parties...").

[angus]

If Clinton ends up raising hundreds of millions more than Trump, as some are predicting, will she use a lot of that extra money to support downballot races, so as to form a strong governing coalition?

I wouldn't trust her to do any except pocket all that extra cash once she knows the election is in the bag.