Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 10/12 (afternoon edition) (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen

    you're logic is that the trendline is in her favor because she's made it a race by wildly outspending us... so we should continue to allow ourselves to be outspent at the same rate, because we're not losing -- yet -- in a state we should be wining in a blowout. That makes no logical sense. It's also not true that spending $1.2M in AZ is as effective use of resources as spending $600K in AZ and CT. The latter devision, assuming all else equal, will move more net voters. Because while at a certain point there's media saturation, yes, but there's a media saturation point for each party involved. You almost seem to be arguing that McMahon spending $10M is the same as her spending $5M, and Murphy spending $5M. It's a bizarre way to look at media saturation and is not accurate at all. So while McMahon may well have reached her saturation point -- it's possible, I just don't want to dick around so we can find out November 7 if she did -- we certainly haven't reached ours, and it's almost definitely a better use of resources than dumping another $600K into, say, ND, where all parties involved are well past the point of saturation. As a general rule, I'm usually in favor of putting down money for a certain basic level of saturation in almost any competitive or potentially competitive race. It's just the safe way to play, and the DSCC, by its very nature, will always play safe. As for AZ... the DSCC has enough resources to walk and chew gum. They can spend in more than one state.

    (-9.38, -7.49), Blood type "O", social anarchist, KY-01, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy." — Stanisław Lem

    by Setsuna Mudo on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 12:53:44 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site