Isn’t it make more sense to spend more money where you’re behind?
Like, if you’re so sure you would win at Cali anyway then why even try anymore? On the other hand, you might want to spend extra time and money in places like Idaho to convince and convert more people to vote for you?
You want to spend money in states that could go either way. Swing states they’re called. There’s no real point in spending a ton of money in a place you can’t possibly win, either. Idaho would be a waste of money.
ah yes, swing states, that makes much more sense. thanks.
one more question if it’s not too much trouble. Is it mandatory for a president candidate to do a campaign in every single state? Or just the one they feel like it?
No, it’s not mandatory at all. That being said all states generally get a bare minimum (radio/tv ads) from local groups or pacs, but not generally the visits with crowds and all that. This was one of the issues that people had with Hillary’s campaign is that she only visited certain states, and completely ignored too many swing states that easily could have gone her way.
I don’t think you understand how deeply racist the jello belt is. It’s a lost cause, mostly the democrats have to find the states close to tipping and organize in a hurry to make sure people actually show up and vote. The so called flip states are the battleground and there are states that have actually tried to change their election process to game the system so they ARE a flip state, so that the President who wins the state will feel more obligated to pay attention to the states needs, I know NV did this to some success Obama and Romney both spent a fair amount of money and time, with multiple stops in Reno and Vegas. It’s a strange thing, honestly I like the legislators who try and create very neck and neck districts to make politicians much more suseptible to their populaces opinions and therefore well being, but I also like living in a state where crazy doesn’t get to sit at the big kids table.
Yes but you only spend the money where you are behind by a small enough amount that you might change the result. So if a state is polling 51% / 49% it’s a great state to spend in because it might change the electoral college votes.
Isn’t it make more sense to spend more money where you’re behind?
Like, if you’re so sure you would win at Cali anyway then why even try anymore? On the other hand, you might want to spend extra time and money in places like Idaho to convince and convert more people to vote for you?
You want to spend money in states that could go either way. Swing states they’re called. There’s no real point in spending a ton of money in a place you can’t possibly win, either. Idaho would be a waste of money.
ah yes, swing states, that makes much more sense. thanks.
one more question if it’s not too much trouble. Is it mandatory for a president candidate to do a campaign in every single state? Or just the one they feel like it?
No, it’s not mandatory at all. That being said all states generally get a bare minimum (radio/tv ads) from local groups or pacs, but not generally the visits with crowds and all that. This was one of the issues that people had with Hillary’s campaign is that she only visited certain states, and completely ignored too many swing states that easily could have gone her way.
They don’t have to go anywhere if they don’t want to. It’s just about outreach and exposure.
Ask Hillary how ignoring “safe” states went for her though… She was too arrogant and underestimated Trump to all of our dismay…
I don’t think you understand how deeply racist the jello belt is. It’s a lost cause, mostly the democrats have to find the states close to tipping and organize in a hurry to make sure people actually show up and vote. The so called flip states are the battleground and there are states that have actually tried to change their election process to game the system so they ARE a flip state, so that the President who wins the state will feel more obligated to pay attention to the states needs, I know NV did this to some success Obama and Romney both spent a fair amount of money and time, with multiple stops in Reno and Vegas. It’s a strange thing, honestly I like the legislators who try and create very neck and neck districts to make politicians much more suseptible to their populaces opinions and therefore well being, but I also like living in a state where crazy doesn’t get to sit at the big kids table.
Yes but you only spend the money where you are behind by a small enough amount that you might change the result. So if a state is polling 51% / 49% it’s a great state to spend in because it might change the electoral college votes.