• cordlesslamp@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • P00ptart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • cordlesslamp@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • P00ptart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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…

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.