Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

floriduck

(2,262 posts)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:15 PM Jun 2016

This is a bit concerning but gives good detail in the writer's logic.

Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead in the polls over Donald Trump, and has vastly more cash on hand. But when it comes to spending that cash, her campaign may be making a strategic miscalculation. The campaign and an allied super PAC have reserved $137 million of ads across eight states — yet they’ve conspicuously left out the state that might be likeliest to tip the 2016 election: Pennsylvania.

Michigan and Wisconsin were absent from the list, as well, but the Keystone State is the most curious Rust Belt omission. In May, we laid out the case for why the Keystone State could be on pace to decide a close national race. Evidently, Democratic ad strategists don’t share that view. Last week, former Obama advisor David Plouffe tweeted that the buy “shows real discipline” because “PA is not a true battleground.” That’s a bit of bravado, considering it was tied for Obama’s fourth-closest win in 2012.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-clinton-campaign-seems-to-think-pennsylvania-is-in-the-bag/

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)
2. Not too worrying
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:03 PM
Jun 2016

Tied for Obama's fourth closest win in 2012? Sure but a) he won by over 5 points b) he didn't win all swing states so it is pretty far down the lost of swingers he did win c) Job numbers, including in PA, have improved greatly since then benefitting Dems, d) PA hasn't actually swung in a generation, going D six consecutive times e) The black and Latino ratios of the population have both increased by 10-20% (of the original ratio, not by 10-20 pts). Both are reliably blue and even more so likely with Trump. I'm pretty sure serious internal polling goes into all close states and showed the campaign staff (the folks Trump either doesn't have or doesn't listen to, remember) that money is better spent elsewhere.

I've never lived in PA but I was close to the border of it for a few years and traveled extensively in the state. The vast swathes of it that are redder than Dixie in the North and West can give visitors a depressing view of the state until you realize just how much more densely populated, and how blue, the two big cities are.

 

floriduck

(2,262 posts)
4. Thanks. And for the life of me why did 73000 Democrats switch to GOP registered voters? What
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:06 PM
Jun 2016

have the Repubs done to earn that in PA? It just doesn't make sense.

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)
7. Interesting question. I suspect we'll never know but...
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jun 2016

Options include that they had, for non policy-wonks, a far more interesting primary race than ours; that people are inherently interested in and drawn to participation in reality show celebrity doings; that intentional ratfucking was a great temptation given Trump's lack of appeal as a GE candidate; that it's the movement of "generational" Kim Davis-type nominal Democrats, common throughout Appalachia, who would never vote for a Dem candidate for president, to their natural and long term party, or perhaps that it's a small but significant exodus of low-info parochial Reagan (Trump?) Democrats responding to the call of the white male authoritarian. Wouldn't have thought we had many of those left after 7 yrs of Obama but the people who cannot stomach a black President and can't stomach a female one are only similar in character, not identical.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
3. Of course, investing more in PA would require
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:12 PM
Jun 2016

shorting other regions and there'd be that to worry about. I'm going to be chewing my lip enough over the coming months without having responsibility for these decisions. These people are definitely tougher than I am.

bernie_FTW

(43 posts)
6. I trust Hillary. She can hit her key areas where vote is important with New York buys
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:17 PM
Jun 2016

and she can send surrogates to the state to whip up support. Many Pennsylvanians refused to vote for Obama in either election because they are slightly racist. They will be more likely to go for Hillary. Many of them are not unhinged radical racists who would vote for Trump.

She will put money in new battlegrounds like North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona and some key attempts to hit even redder states like Arkansas and Utah.

It will force the GOP to pump a lot of money in states they never though 12 years ago they'd be spending.

 

floriduck

(2,262 posts)
9. Thanks. I hadn't considered the racial and unhinged factor since I'm not familiar with PA.
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:55 PM
Jun 2016

I think their governor is a republican, if I recall. That says a lot too.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
8. I'd leave it to the seasoned experts managing Hillary's campaign
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:43 PM
Jun 2016

They have been flawless so far and they have the brains behind four successful democratic campaigns for POTUS.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»This is a bit concerning ...