NPR has a video and a set of slides titled:
A Campaign Map, Morphed By Money
You have probably seen those maps where the states are resized to reflect their population and electoral count. Here is one with the states resized to reflect how much advertising money was spent:
We looked at ad spending on the presidential race from April 10 to Oct. 10, based on data from Kantar Media. The millions of dollars spent by superPACs and other outside groups send a clear message: There are really only 12 states in this presidential election. It's no surprise that they are all pretty purple.
They also calculate the spending per voting-aged adult, and come up with values ranging from $1.12 per adult in Minnesota, to $5.35 per adult in New Hampshire. Despite the huge amount of money spent in the campaigns, the per-adult figures seem like chicken feed to me. Are votes really that cheap?
I got the feeling that the campaign, especially at the end, was mostly about union workers in Ohio and people on Medicare in Florida, while the rest of the nation just stood by, impatiently waiting for election day. Is it just me, or did the presidential campaigns used to have a national feel to them?
Sometimes I wonder if we will end up with campaigns that don't even bother with a whole state, and start targeting specific counties. The spreadsheets are great and everything, but it seems like the technology is driving toward such optimized use of campaign money that a handful of counties will soon be deciding all the elections.