Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Axxon
Do you honestly feel that a party would feel that spending their limited campaign funds would be better served by focusing on a hot state with a relatively negligible eligible voter count?
Why on earth wouldn't they still focus on the hot states but focus even more on the ones with the larger voter pool?
This is what I'm missing. In either case they are chasing the voters, right? Isn't it far more cost effective to chase them in a smaller geographic area assuming every vote counts exactly the same?
|
You seem to be operating under the premise that it costs the same amount of money to run an advertisement in a huge market like New York City as it does to run one in a small market like, say, Montgomery Alabama. You raise the matter of "cost effective" without even considering the matter of cost in even a simple way. Without resorting to your tone. I'd simply disagree.
You idea of "still focus [on one thing]" but then "focus even more [on another]" also suggests to me that your use of the term "focus" isn't the same as mine. So it goes, I guess.