Over at dKos there’s a somewhat pessimistic thread about Democratic chances for Florida this election cycle. I’m not all that interested in discussing that, partially because it’s way too early to say that one state or another is or isn’t in play (shoot, Caesar’s latest map has Florida going blue and the election going to the Democrats), but mostly because I wanted to note something that I would have thought was obvious: to wit, that the only winning strategy is a fifty-state strategy.
As I said, this seems obvious to me, but a bunch of Kos’ readers seem to think otherwise, so I’ll explain. In this election both sides will have a fixed amount of cash available, and both sides have particular states deemed likely to vote their way, no matter what. It would thus seem logical to concentrate on states where cash would do the most good, correct?
Well, it would be, as long as you don’t telegraph it. Conceding a state means that you not only free up your resources, but your opponents’ as well… and if your opponents have more money than you do anyway, you may not want to do that. For example, if it’s obvious that the Democrats are going to spend little on the South, then the Republicans will likewise cut back their war chest for those states… and spend the freed-up money everywhere, not just the battleground states. Why not? Maybe they can shake something loose: certainly they can take a shot at bleeding the opposition’s bank accounts dry. The money’s there to be spent, after all.
Do you see how this is going? Anything that isn’t a fifty-state strategy is going to be both inherently defensive (which isn’t so bad) and a strategy that gives the initiative to one’s opponent (which is). The Democrats are going to be operating in too many Republican-held districts and states to be able to afford to play it safe: if they want to win big, they’ll have to play big. No President is undefeatable, but standing pat won’t do it this time.
But then, I’m openly a Bush supporter, so what do I know?
UPDATE: Minor stylistic fiddlings.
Half-baked indeed.
Remind me never to hire you if I run for President.
Clearly the Democrats are going to be at a huge spending disadvantage, so they hafta pick their battles.
In 1992, the Clinton campaign used GIS technology to optimize their spending, using a very sophisticated linking of geographic, demographic, local television market-reach, and travel cost data. All of this feinting stuff is nonsense. It’s all about the data.
“In 1992, the Clinton campaign used GIS technology to optimize their spending, using a very sophisticated linking of geographic, demographic, local television market-reach, and travel cost data. All of this feinting stuff is nonsense. It’s all about the data.”
1992 was a three-man race, and the third guy was sucking those votes mostly from Bush I. IOW, I would argue* that Clinton’s strategy worked because he didn’t have to fight everywhere and still win a given state. Kerry will not have that luxury, so he had better come out swinging.
But I make no claims to prophecy. 🙂
Moe
*In the “while we order another pitcher of beer and scarf down some more peanuts at the bar” sense of the term, mind you.
I think the real problem is that openly saying you’re not running a 50-state strategy is that it can easily lead to feelings that instead of being pragmatic, you’re being dismissive. Yes, it wouldn’t be a good idea to dump a bunch of money into, say, Georgia, but openly saying you’re not going to fight for the state doesn’t do wonders for the enfranchisement of Georgia Democrats on any level.
1992 was a three-man race, and the third guy was sucking those votes mostly from Bush I.
I always thought this too, but one of the guys I play Aces High with is a political science doctoral student (or maybe a doctor) who swears that Perot sucked off equal numbers from each camp.
Why is it “clear” that the D’s will be at a spending disadvantage? George Soros alone could easily outspend the R’s through 527’s and other legal ways to get around the BCFRA.
Um, my comment above reads a little differently than I intended. My apologies to you and your coke or coffee splashed monitors.
“Um, my comment above reads a little differently than I intended.”
The funny part is, I didn’t even see that until you pointed it out. Thanks ever so much for sending me to my Bad Place, Phillip. 🙂
Moe
PS: As for Soros bankrolling Kerry… I think that’s one of those ‘sounds good in theory, won’t work in practice’ things, Fredrik. It’d look bad if done openly and God help him if he tried to cover it up, because he’d fail.
I get sent off to the bad place by practically everything, so I didn’t even notice that it was out-of-the-ordinary phrasing.
Well, if it’ll make you guys feel better, I *wrote* the damn thing, and didn’t notice till the next day when I was looking to see if the central theme of the post (that Perot, contrary to popular belief, actually did equal damage to Clinton and Bush) had drawn comment or counterexample.