Hillary to place field staff in all 50 states

[dspNY]

Going for the landslide...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-democratic-party_us_57645313e4b015db1bc95fd3

Important points:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unusual in this polarized climate during a general election. Usually all the field staff goes to the swing states. I think Hillary's electoral map strategy is to lock down the swing states with her TV ad campaign by the end of the conventions and then see where the local organizing and voter registrations drives start to move her baselines in red states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's likely that she will pull some of this staff back from the reddest states to reddish-purple states or swing states as we move into the fall. If there was one silver lining to Sanders pushing Clinton hard, it allowed Clinton to ramp up her battleground apparatus well before any of the Repubs and gives her an opportunity to organize better in red states

[Lyin' Steve]

Yussss
Pump it all up.  Take that sweet money and spread it around so the Dems can try to coattail in some house seats in Arkansas and Louisiana.

[MT Treasurer]

Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is making at least some progress on adding its own staff in key swing states, but there will be no wide-ranging national operation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/jun/18/trump-plans-rely-on-swing-state-aid-201/

[Virginiá]

So confirms that Hillary does indeed plan to build up the party downballot and not selfishly hoard money for her campaign, like her Victory Fund detractors suggested?

If so, KUDOS! I am so excited to see how badly the Republican party suffers at the polls this November. I don't think I have ever been as interested in an election as I have been this year. Not even close.

*"landslide" meaning something really yuge, beyond even '08ama.

A 10+ point win with similar ticket splitting as in 2012 would utterly decimate Republicans downballot. They could lose Congress and a dozen or more state legislature chambers.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Even if there's just a 10% chance that the floodgates open and give way to a Democratic landslide*, I think she's got to prepare for it. If she can win back the House and strengthen the majority in the Senate, she'll have the potential to become one of the most consequential presidents of her time. She's not going to want to squander the opportunity to make those conditions happen.

*"landslide" meaning something really yuge, beyond even '08ama.

[Kingpoleon]

Yussss
Pump it all up.  Take that sweet money and spread it around so the Dems can try to coattail in some house seats in Arkansas and Louisiana.

Arkansas only has one Democratic nominee in any of its four districts. The rest are R v. L, so hopefully Johnson will campaign here.

[YaBoyNY]

Money isn't an issue for a major party like the Democrats. They can afford to do this, and if like Hagrid said the chance of the floodgates opening is only 10%, that's 10% more than if they spend no money at all.

[RaphaelDLG]

Excellent!

[Dr. Arch]

Definitely donating to her campaign then.

[IceSpear]

Even if there's just a 10% chance that the floodgates open and give way to a Democratic landslide*, I think she's got to prepare for it. If she can win back the House and strengthen the majority in the Senate, she'll have the potential to become one of the most consequential presidents of her time. She's not going to want to squander the opportunity to make those conditions happen.

*"landslide" meaning something really yuge, beyond even '08ama.

It would've been nice if we got Hillary in 2008 and Obama in 2016. She would not have squandered many months of a massive Democratic majority in Congress by playing footsie with McConnell. Too bad.

[Higgs]

Yes, go ahead and waste money on non swing states.

[Virginiá]

Yes, go ahead and waste money on non swing states.

It's really not that silly when you think about it. If Hillary really does end up with a huge cash advantage and a constant polling lead, which is looking highly likely, then she can spread the money around to bump her margins elsewhere while also supporting downballot candidates. Eventually your investments in various states reach a state of diminishing returns, so if you have 270+ locked down, then move money around to help elect more Senators/House Reps so you can have a chance at implementing your agenda. Clinton just performing better in various states can help downballot candidates, if her bump is big enough. That's not including the extra money spent on the local party/other candidates.

I think she would stupid not to do this if she has enough spare cash.

[heatcharger]

Good move, though I'm interested in what the WV/AR/OK for Hillary staffs will actually do, Trump could lose by 20 but Dems would still not pick up seats in those states.

[Ebsy]

Good move, though I'm interested in what the WV/AR/OK for Hillary staffs will actually do, Trump could lose by 20 but Dems would still not pick up seats in those states.

There are apparently a lot of potentially competitive state house races in Oklahoma this year due to a teacher uprising.

[Dr. Arch]

I wonder if this is part of the concessions she has agreed to with Bernie. Bernie has been stressing the 50-state rhetoric for a while now.

[DINGO Joe]

Field staff really isn't all that expensive (compared to advertising) it is a party building exercise, and she's managed her money well, so why not.

[Xing]

Great move. There are races Democrats can win even in states where Trump is heavily favored. This can also lay the groundwork for making some lean R states more competitive in the future.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think voters and donors need to, generally speaking. transform their political consciousness from a superficial (cult of) personality-oriented one to an issues, ideology, and outcomes based-one.

Wouldn't it be sweet if people started giving money to the Democratic Party rather than Obama/Hillary, or the Progressive Caucus rather than Bernie/Warren, etc?  Then perhaps the result would be that there would be more coherent strategy in the democratic party, rather than the current system with its weird American Idol and lone wolf tendencies.

[cwt]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unusual in this polarized climate during a general election. Usually all the field staff goes to the swing states.

Obama did the same thing in 2008.

[Adam Griffin]

I'll believe it when I see it. For starters, Obama's campaign did the same in 2008...only to dismantle any staff operations in a majority of the days by Labor Day.

Let's also put this into perspective:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This will probably be the reality in a lot of those states if there is truly a "50 state effort". Any allocated resources can help, but it's important to keep grounded regarding the amount of potential benefit. Georgia has had one paid Hillary staffer on the ground for around a year now. The Democratic Party of Georgia has the better part of 20 paid staffers working right now on top of that. How much do you think all of this - combined with volunteer efforts - is going to move the needle in a state like Georgia? What do you think one person is going to be able to provide in a different state?

So I'm just saying...spending $20,000 or so to put one paid staffer in a state and have them coordinate whatever unpaid and inexperienced volunteers that might step forward isn't really what constitutes rebuilding state parties from the perspective of presidential campaigns/the national party. It can be helpful, sure, but it's not these workers are going to be around for years; we'll be lucky if they're there in most of these states through September. When you add to that the fact that these staffers are likely to be exclusively focused on Clinton, it doesn't actually do much to rebuild party infrastructure over the long-term.

If a targeted area for Clinton in a given state has a legislative or countywide race that would otherwise see the Democrat lose by half a point, then maybe it helps there. Otherwise, the only tangible long-term benefit I could see coming from this for a state party is if the Clinton campaign agrees to turn over their VAN data to them so that their records are more up-to-date for future efforts (spoiler alert: many campaigns do not do this; Obama 2012 was the first one to do so in modern times if I recall correctly).

[Lincoln Republican]

While Democrats are organized in all 50 states, Republicans are still arguing over Trump's racist speeches.

[Lyin' Steve]

If there's any time for the Democrats to do this it's now.  This is the weakest the Republicans have been since 2008 and possibly even before that, with Trump at their head and making no effort to lead a state-by-state effort or unify the party.  Meanwhile the dems have Hillary, probably the party expert on electing Democrats, with the exception of her husband.  Dems have a huge money advantage, and the Senate is at peak vulnerability due to it being six years after #TheShellacking.

Hope they focus on gubernatorial races too.  There's only four R seats up but if the dems hit those hard as part of a unified push in those red states, they could have a chance of taking them back.

[politicallefty]

I excited by this (although it would be moreso if they reinstalled Howard Dean in a position of power within the DNC). Even so, I think it's vitally important that the Clinton campaign branch out right now to see what might work for the fall. It's good to have at least a basic groundwork ready for a bigger campaign investment. Firstly, we don't know what's going to be competitive in the fall in terms of the presidential vote. On top of that, I think Hillary wants to make sure she elects as many Democrats to Congress as possible, including taking back the Senate and possibly even the House.

Forcing an expansion of the map works at the top and bottom. If Democrats can contest Utah at the presidential level, we'll surely be taking UT-04 as well. Ads only go so far. You can only spend so much money. The cost-benefit to spending in potential battlegrounds with down-ballot candidates is quite good. Spending money to life the entire Democratic ticket is worthwhile. If Democrats can get at least a high single-digit win nationally, the Presidency will be locked up and both Houses of Congress will be under Democratic control.

[Desroko]

Yes, go ahead and waste money on non swing states.

If she has a huge cash/staff advantage over Trump, then the swing states will hit diminishing returns hard. At that point the marginal value of each dollar spent elsewhere becomes higher.

[Wiz in Wis]

Yes, go ahead and waste money on non swing states.

If she has a huge cash/staff advantage over Trump, then the swing states will hit diminishing returns hard. At that point the marginal value of each dollar spent elsewhere becomes higher.

Also, if Trump is spending $0 in swing states, both on ads and staff, why would you dump all your dollars into 5 or 6 states when you can force Trump to play defense literally everywhere. The idiot is campaigning in Texas and Georgia and talking about winning Connecticut and New Jersey. She puts what, 1 staffer and 10k in ads in Georgia... he'll bite and go back their to campaign, wasting his time and money. This is a tactical decision to goad Trump by reassuring him his bullsh**t strategy is correct.