rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 03:24 PM
Original message |
Campaign Allocation by Region |
|
Suppose you had a campaign budget of $100 (for math sake) for the General Election. How would you allocate it, percentagewise, by region?
Here's Mine:
New England: 5% East Coast: 20% South: 25% Midwest/Great Lakes: 30% Mountain States: 5% West Coast: 15%
I suppose it depends on the nominee, but that's my catch-all formula.
New England - not enough electoral votes to matter. States are solid red/blue.
East Coast - Important - heavy urban/blue areas. Concentrate on NY & PA.
South - Least bang for our buck, but important to spend what we can here, so GW has to drain as much of his war chest in his "gimme" region as possible.
Midwest: OH, MI, IL, WI - mostly battleground states. IMO, by far the most important region for this race.
Mountain States: Who needs 'em.
West Coast: No slam dunks here, but all the money's going to the other regions. Keeping fingers crossed. If it gets tight, take from the Southern budget.
|
THUNDER HANDS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 03:27 PM
Response to Original message |
|
New England (mostly in New Hampshire): 10% East Coast: 20% South: 10% (try to get West Virginia and Florida) Midwest/Great Lakes: 50% Mountain States: 0% (do we win any of these states?) West Coast: 10%
|
SPAZtazticman
(314 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 03:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
how about: New england- 10% east coast-20% south-10% midwest/great lakes-30% mountain states-15% west coast-15% may i remind you that if al gore had won new hampshire, he would be president right now. and the same goes for quite a few other states as well (i cant remeber exactly, but i seem to recall that bush won either new mexico or nevada by about 4 votes).
|
tedoll78
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
|
New England - 10% East Coast - 23% South - 4% Midwest/Great Lakes - 45% Mountain States - 1% West Coast - 17%
The only reason I give the South and Mountain States some money is so that our nominee can FAKE an effort in certain states: 1) Token TV advertising would be purchased. 2) Staged videos of volunteers canvassing the state would be produced and distributed. 3) Fake state-by-state internal polling numbers would be "leaked" to the media anonymously while the campaign talks-up a really good game about turnout operations. * I'm sure that other actions giving the impression that the state needs to be defended would be devised.
|
rockymountaindem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 03:40 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Let's respect some of the mountain states. In Colorado we had a Democratic Senate in 2000 and we almost elected a Dem. Senator in 2002. Don't write us off!
|
tedoll78
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. If it's of any consolation, |
|
Nevada and Colorado are the two mountain states I'd have the 1% split betwixt.. :)
|
Dob Bole
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 03:44 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Midwest 40%...these are the crucial swing areas at the moment. And I could win in the south, because I have held office here before.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 25th 2024, 07:36 AM
Response to Original message |