what it tells us that both campaigns are spending money in *texas*, of all places

[unblock]

one of the fairly bizarre consequences of the electoral college system, and particularly with the all-or-nothing allocation of electoral votes in all but 2 states, is that it really doesn't make sense for candidates to campaign in states that aren't "tipping point" states in some reasonable scenario.

that is, if there's a reasonable scenario where some particular state makes the difference between winning and losing the entire election, then it makes sense to campaign there and spend money there.

but if, in all reasonable scenarios, winning or losing that particular state doesn't change the overall outcome, then it doesn't make sense to spend money there. that's why candidates these days rarely spend money in solidly blue or solidly red states. if they go there, it's only to raise funds to spend elsewhere, or maybe to help out a congressional candidate (usually in exchange for an endorsement or something).


i can't see texas being a tipping point state in any reasonable scenario. if biden wins texas, he's won the election by more than the amount of texas's electoral votes. it's just really hard to imagine a scenario where he wins texas but fails to run the map of more traditional battleground states, or at least winning enough of them to win without texas.

so basically, biden spending money in texas is for something other than simply to win the general election:
1) help in winning the senate
2) help in ensuring a landslide/mandate
3) cause donnie to divert money and time defending texas instead of spending money and time in traditional battleground states


for donnie, meanwhile, spending money in texas is tantamount to surrender. similarly it's virtually impossible to imagine that he loses texas and loses the general election by a margin of victory of less than texas's electoral votes. if he can win enough electoral votes in other states to get within a stone's throw of victory without texas, then it's virtually impossible to think that texas wouldn't also vote for donnie.

so what are his reasons to put time and money into texas?
1) help keep the senate? this doesn't make much sense. chances are, in any scenario where we win the senate, we win the white house anyway. far more likely is we win the white house but not the senate. so if donnie is campaigning to keep the senate, he's working under a scenario where he's losing the general election and just trying to keep it from being a more embarrassing loss.
2) to prevent a landslide/mandate? i can't see donnie caring. any loss is a humiliating loss from his point of view. *we* might care about the magnitude of the victory, but donnie will see it in black and white terms. any loss is a catastrophe for him.
3) he's just foolishly diverting money from the states he should be spending money in from a campaign point of view. i don't see this as likely either, his electoral advisors are strategically pretty good.


so i don't get it. there's really no good reason for donnie to spend money in texas, unless he's already figured out he's losing.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. I get it. He's incompetent, period.

[unblock]

3. could be. but he wasn't his campaign in 2016 didn't do stuff like this.

his *politics* was always stupid as hell, but his electoral strategy in 2016 made sense. he spent time and money where it mattered, and he cheated where and when it mattered.

it's not clear to me how campaigning in texas makes sense for him.

[Scurrilous]

2. K&R