Should Kerry run a 50 state campaign?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

I've seen criticism of the Kerry campaign for 'wasting' ad money in CO and LA, and for sending Cleland and Clark to campaign in AL..

What do you think?

Should Kerry run a 50 state campaign? Or should he focus on the 'battleground' states?

[boxster]

1. There is no point in spending one cent trying to win...

NE, ND, UT, ID, WY, or MT.

Gore lost by 25-40 points in those states. No amount of money is going to make anywhere near enough of a difference to even bother.

Hell, Bill Clinton didn't even set foot in Nebraska until his LAST year of his second term in office.

I purposely left SD off the list, because Daschle is going to need all the help he can get to combat the tens of millions of dollars that the Republican Party is going to throw into that race.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. It also doesn't make sense spending money in states he surely will win

such as Califorinia, Massachusettes, and New York.

[boxster]

13. Agreed. Though, California scares me after Arnold won....

That would be incentive enough for me to make a few campaign trips there.

[ronnykmarshall]

29. Arnold won't help Bush one bit.

Kerry can come to our state and rake in some cash when he needs too.

But my state is true blue and will help carry Kerry through!

[SEpatriot]

2. Other...

He should focus on battleground states now and see where he stands in August/September. If he's up enough by then (especially in the key states), he can run a 50 state as much finances will allow.

"So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat." - Sun Tzu

[sybylla]

4. Agreed

Look what happened to Gore in the last election. He lost in his homestate, a place he most likely thought he was sure to win.

If you want to be president, you can't afford to take anything for granted. You don't have to spend money equally everywhere, but you sure don't want to totally ignore any part of the US.

[mastein]

3. TN anyone

Who is to say that some states (not and especially not places like UT and IN) won't come into play. Look at what happened in TN in 00 for the Shrubbery. They went hard into TN and stole it (and therefore the race, FL not withstanding) with some hard last minute campaigning. There is no reason to limit the strategy based on 4 year old results.

[workforpower]

5. This is what sank Dean.

Oh the hubris. Wactch out for that scream.

[Frodo]

6. Neither. He should run in "Battleground Plus" states.

There's no telling exactly which issues will be the heart of the October/November deabte. There are "battleground" states that everyone knows will be close to tossups, but there are also half a dozen states on either side of that "tossup" category that could come in to play depending on the issue environment/debates/etc.

He need to run adds in ALL of those states (but not NY, CA, VT, etc) until the election gets closer and he can drop states that he clearly can't lose/can't win. To write one off now is premature.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. I agree. Too soon to write any state off yet.

[Frodo]

8. Well.... I wouldn't say "any" state. But...

This shouldn't be limited to just the dozen or so "battleground" states. But there are probably only 25-30 states that he can possibly benefit from running adds.

If he needs to run adds in CA, for instance, this race is already over.

[belle]

33. Right. Run in all (or most) of them except the solid blues.

There's no point him wasting money here in NY, for example; he's got it locked.

But as long as a state looks even remotely in play...yeah, probably, he should go for it.

[RogueTrooper]

9. Yes

He should still run with his "key state" ( and feed it with lots of $$$ ) but he should also be running in every state. At the very least it will put the Bush campaign on the back foot and into the defensive; a place where they have already shown themselves to be less than sure-footed.

[pscot]

11. Given: George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had.

It's hard to believe there is a state in which he is not vulnerable. The only thing the Bush team does well is smear the opposition. Governance is their weakest suit. War fighting is not far behind. Defend your base and carry the fight to the enemy. Attack, attack, attack. Make 'em defend their home ground, starting with Texas and Wyoming.

[sandnsea]

12. Just a smart campaign

Colorado is great because Kerry was born there and that always gives people a sense of state pride, enough to at least make them listen. And Louisiana is enough in play to give Bush some agitation. And most importantly, make them spend money they hadn't planned on. And it doesn't hurt to send Max & Wes to some of those southern states, if nothing more than to just leave the impression that Kerry is an acceptable alternative, even if he'll never be preferable to Alabamans. So as long as it's done without sacrificing battleground states, I think some of these ventures into various states is good.

[ulysses]

14. yes.

Should he spend equal amounts of money and time in every state? Of course not, but he should be visible in every state and, where he can, make the Pugs work for it.

[MAlibdem]

15. Running a 50 State campaign does NOT mean spending proportional funds

in each state. It just means having offices everywhere and allowing everyone who wants to volunteer to get a chance to.

We need to get pumped up everywhere.

Edit: I posted this elsewhere, but it's sort of a work-in-progress statement...

We will not win every state in the Union in the election. But to simply concede almost 50% of the electoral votes creates two problems. The first is that we will make no headways for next time, which means we will ALWAYS lose these states. The second is that if the Republicans can COUNT on ALWAYS winning a state, then they don't have to fight for it and can use THEIR resources in solid blue states.

This year we have an advantage that's not monetary (like we ever have that): it's veteran outreach and the fact there is so much dissatisfaction with Bush. We play up both of these and we can lay the foundations for future elections in areas we SHOULD be winning based on our economic policies. And we build those foundations real cheap, because of the ideological and circumstantial momentum we have.

We need to win this election, but we need to win EVERY election after it. If we don't start thinking like that, we're going to lose some of the elections we think we should win. (like the present state of affairs where repugs control Prez, House, Senate).

The Democratic economic philosophy is biased. Biased towards the middle and working classes. In the past, cultural issues have been effectively manipulated to sway some of these voters, especially in the South. We need to hammer back, and put SOME of these issues on the back burner.

LBJ said after the Voting Rights Act that we'd lose the South for a generation. And we did. But that generation is almost over, and it's time to head back down to Dixie.

We can shift our resources slightly, and make up for them in new momentum created and new donors tapped in regions we've previously ignored, these states just need a little push.

[Kathleen04]

17. I'd also

like to see Kerry campaign offices in every state (I wonder how much the cost of maintaining an office is..?)..or at least get existing local Democratic offices to reach out more to potential volunteers.

As far as ad spending and events, I think Kerry should focus on the battleground states the most. But, I think that he should also spend time campaigning and solidify support in the states that are "blue". We don't want to mistakenly ignore any states thinking that they're going to go our way automatically.

[LiberalFighter]

16. Battleground states and other key states

that force gw* to expend time, energy and money that he otherwise wouldn't. That is if feasible.

If nader was sincer he would help better by focusing on states like texas, alaska, montana, and others that are not likely to go Democrat.

[cosmik debris]

19. Regardless of Nader and Kerry

Texas Democrats plan to run a concerted Kerry campaign on the theory that we can make him defend his base and that we can embarrass him in his home town. What else can we do, give up and play dead?

[LiberalFighter]

21. If you have the right resources and people...

to cause gw* and his people doubt about their campaign... so much the better.

I would love gw* to lose Texas.

I would love at least for Indiana to cause concern for the campaign and other states to take notice on election day if their announcement of the winner was delayed substantially. Indiana polls close at 6PM and is the first to declare... what would happen if the results were too close and they didn't announce until other states announced first?

[cosmik debris]

26. I'm just trying to make him lose his home county

One county at a time. I'll let others worry about the state.

[LiberalFighter]

31. That will work...

we had a repug Congressman run for Gov a few years ago. He lost the state... but he also lost his own congressional district.

2 years ago we won the County office for the first time in about 30 years. This in what is supposedly the 3rd most repug congressional district in the country. And despite the repug county chair's hard work.

[VOX]

18. He should appear in all 50 states, but spend the most time and $$$...

In the so-called battleground or key states.

Just a smart campaign.

[Exgeneral]

20. Let me know when he starts his campaign

and then we'll talk.
thus far:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[jsw_81]

22. Focus on battleground states

Namely Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Arizona. Kerry shouldn't spend a single dime in solid red states like Utah or Alabama.

[fujiyama]

23. Hmmm

I don't see the point of spending money in the following:

Utah, Alabama, Idaho, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Mississipi...Basically any state where Bush got over 60% of the vote last time isn't swinging around.

However, Kerry has to spend time in some safe states for fundraising purposes. Much of the money raised will come from NY, IL and CA.

I would rather have seen Cleland and Clark stumping for Kerry in AR or AZ. Obviously AR would make sense, cuz Clark's from that state.

I also don't see the point of spending much time in non battleground states, unless it's for fundraising purposes.

The campaign has limited resources, and it should be targetted where it's most needed.

[bklyncowgirl]

24. Spend most time and money in battleground but have presence in others

The name of the game is electoral votes but ordinary democrats in the rest of the country need to feel a part of the campeign. Nothing should be taken for granted.

Let's assume that the Republicans try some dirty tricks and the results get thrown into the Supreme Court or we get an electoraltie and it ends up in the House. A huge popular vote for Kerry could help swing the balance.

[On the Road]

25. Gore Focused on the Battleground States after the Convention

and won all the close ones. Kery should do the same.

Bush wasted his resouces in places like CA and NJ.

[Nicholas_J]

27. Kerry has been carefully solidifying regional leads

Kerry now has large double digit leads in the entire northeast ecxept for New Hampshire:

Maine

Bush 38% Kerry 51% Nader 4% Strategic Marketing Services 2/28-3/3 5%

Vermont

Bush 36% Kerry 51% Nader 4% Research 2000 4/28-30/04 5%

Massachussetts

Bush 31.5% Kerry 54.2% Nader 2.2% UMass 3/29-4/5/04 5%

Connecticut

Bush 33% Kerry 51% Nader 4% U. Conn. 4/21-27/04 4%

Rhode Island

Bush 31% Kerry 53% Brown University 2/7-9/04 5%

New York

Bush 32% Kerry 51% other Siena Research Institute 4/19-22/04 3.9%

New Jersey

Bush 39% Kerry 51% other 3% Rasmussen Research 4/20/04 4.5


These, with California give Kerry a total of 141 electoral votes and they have been solidly behind Kerry from nearly the beginnning.

Kerry now is moving to solidify the midwest, where the vote is too close to call, but where Kerry has his largest leads.

[elperromagico]

28. No, more like a 40 state campaign.

There are some states where Kerry simply does not have a chance unless he sweeps in on a landslide - in which case, it won't matter if he campaigns there or not.

[TheatricalDeception]

30. I couldn't vote

because I wasn't registered before the poll was posted.

He does not need to run a 50 state campaign. It would be a waste for him to spend more than nominal dollars in Mass, DC, and others that are "in the bag" for lack of a better term. And also a waste to try and win Texas. Not going to happen.

[amazona]

32. focus is good but the money isn't wasted in Louisiana

He can win this one. Clinton did. And he has the advantage of a wife who speaks Creole and has proven willing to visit here. I see no reason why a good effort can't take this state.

On Edit -- don't see much TV but last night I saw his TV ad where his former Vietnam buddies tell about his heroism (as well as other parts of his biography) -- great stuff -- this is the kind of message he needs to keep sending.