This aligns with what we heard last week where Trump was pulling ad money out of OH (not needed, well up), Biden pulling money out of GA (no chance), etc. WHat this spending really shows is that the Biden camp doesnt see a blue wave. They are basically putting money on 3 democratic states (PA, MI, and WI), 1 purple state (FL) and 1 republican state (AZ) to try to flip enough of them out of that group to get to 270.

Exactly

Need to see the equivalent data for the Trump campaign to really gauge the significance.

New Hampshire was the closest state in 2016. Think it was only 1500 votes. Apparently Biden thinks it is still up for grabs (quick calculation and he is spending more per capita there than any state but Nevada).

While I thought it was a very strong liklihood for a Trump pickup some recent polls have made me doubt that.
One showed the Senate Sheehan (D) up 15, Governor Sununu ® up 25 and Biden up 12.
Another was 15 D-Sheehan, 24 R-Sununu and 10 Biden
Another was 15 D-Sheehan, 15 R-Sununu and 7 Biden.

That they show a Republican up so big for governor suggests its not a skewed poll. You only have the Trump stigma effect. And I doubt it is 10 points.

He must be low on money

(10-20-2020 03:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Need to see the equivalent data for the Trump campaign to really gauge the significance.

Yea, Id like to see where their spend is, although we know it was cut in OH last week.

Most surprising to me is GA. If Biden isnt spending there, then those two senate seats are likely safe for republicans as well. (Although there will almost certainly be a runoff in one. )

I'm actually surprised he is spending as much as he is in FL. There's a lot of info that shows thats fools gold for Biden this time. (Especially with republican gaining 200K new voters over democrats vs 2016, and the issue Biden has with Hispanics) It could simply be a case of where he doesnt have anywhere else good to spend it, and they may be trying to help down ballots there.

(10-20-2020 03:36 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  He must be low on money

The Democrats seem to have unlimited money.

Interesting he is spending virtually similar levels in NC and MN

(10-20-2020 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 03:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Need to see the equivalent data for the Trump campaign to really gauge the significance.

Yea, Id like to see where their spend is, although we know it was cut in OH last week.

Most surprising to me is GA. If Biden isnt spending there, then those two senate seats are likely safe for republicans as well. (Although there will almost certainly be a runoff in one. )

I'm actually surprised he is spending as much as he is in FL. There's a lot of info that shows thats fools gold for Biden this time. (Especially with republican gaining 200K new voters over democrats vs 2016, and the issue Biden has with Hispanics) It could simply be a case of where he doesnt have anywhere else good to spend it, and they may be trying to help down ballots there.

Osoff is heavily funded by NY and CA interests. There is dark money flooding into the Perdue-Osoff battle. They have united behind Warnock for the other seat. For a while it looked like a Loeffler-Collins runoff. They are mostly letting Loeffler and Collins attack each other, but I imagine the spending will be off the charts for the runoff.

(10-20-2020 03:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Interesting he is spending virtually similar levels in NC and MN

I'm surprised Biden isnt spending more in either NH or MN. Really surprised.

(10-20-2020 03:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

I’m just thankful I don’t have to sit through his boring commercials. I feel sorry for those on the list. Being forced to listen to Amy McGrath ( who is trying to unseat Mitch McConnell) drone on about being the most progressive person in Kentucky and in the next breath talk about her faith is enough.

I doubt she finishes with 20 points of Mitch. Everyone in the state recognizes a liar.

(10-20-2020 03:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Need to see the equivalent data for the Trump campaign to really gauge the significance.

Biden and PACs are outspending the right on such a grand scale I don’t know that it would tell you much.

Remember Hillary outspent Trump and PACs by $400 million dollars in 2016.

(10-20-2020 04:32 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 03:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

I’m just thankful I don’t have to sit through his boring commercials. I feel sorry for those on the list. Being forced to listen to Amy McGrath ( who is trying to unseat Mitch McConnell) drone on about being the most progressive person in Kentucky and in the next breath talk about her faith is enough.

I doubt she finishes with 20 points of Mitch. Everyone in the state recognizes a liar.

Living in Cincinnati we get those Amy McGrath commercials as well and I can’t wait till they are gone including every candidate left or right.

I find zero appeal for Amy McGrath whatsoever. Another “vote for me because I’m not him/her” type of candidate.

(10-20-2020 04:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 03:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Interesting he is spending virtually similar levels in NC and MN

I'm surprised Biden isnt spending more in either NH or MN. Really surprised.

He must think MN is safe. He can lose NH but still win the show if he gets the Big 10 states

Its highly unlikely it will come down to NH

NH will be a nice cherry on top for whomever wins but both can win without it

(10-20-2020 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Most surprising to me is GA. If Biden isnt spending there, then those two senate seats are likely safe for republicans as well. (Although there will almost certainly be a runoff in one. )

Not “almost.” Run-off for the Loeffler seat is as close to a 100% guarantee as any future-event can be in this life.

(10-20-2020 03:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Democrats seem to have unlimited money.

Why wouldn’t they? They are the party of globalism.

(10-20-2020 04:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Biden and PACs are outspending the right on such a grand scale I don’t know that it would tell you much. Remember Hillary outspent Trump and PACs by $400 million dollars in 2016.

It’s not easy to get precise data on these things. But from all the information I’ve seen in the past 4 years, I believe the Clinton campaign (+ proxies) outspent the Trump campaign (+ proxies) by an approximate ratio of 70/30 in the 2016 general election campaign.

For this year’s campaign, I think the ratio is approx. 60/40, again in the Democrats’ favor. Still an edge, but not as lopsided as 2016.

(10-20-2020 04:39 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 04:32 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 03:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

I’m just thankful I don’t have to sit through his boring commercials. I feel sorry for those on the list. Being forced to listen to Amy McGrath ( who is trying to unseat Mitch McConnell) drone on about being the most progressive person in Kentucky and in the next breath talk about her faith is enough.

I doubt she finishes with 20 points of Mitch. Everyone in the state recognizes a liar.

Living in Cincinnati we get those Amy McGrath commercials as well and I can’t wait till they are gone including every candidate left or right.

I find zero appeal for Amy McGrath whatsoever. Another “vote for me because I’m not him/her” type of candidate.

That would suck to be forced to watch those commercials from another state. Especially from a candidate like McGrath.

I don't know, guys.....

This is a week old but seems to conflict a bit with the original post (especially concerning North Carolina and Georgia). It's from NPR

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/923427969...key-states

More than $1 billion has now been spent on TV ads for the 2020 presidential election in just 13 states, an NPR analysis of the latest ad spending data from the tracking firm Advertising Analytics finds.

Most of that money has been spent by Democrat Joe Biden's campaign and groups supporting him. Biden and allies have spent more than $600 million, while President Trump's campaign and groups supporting him have spent a little over $400 million.

The money is concentrated in just six states. Almost $9 out of every $10 spent on TV in the presidential race — $882 million — is being invested in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Arizona.

Here's a state-by-state breakdown of where the campaigns and outside groups are on the airwaves:

Florida: $257.5 million
Biden and allies: $154.1 million ($82.3 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $103.4 million ($67.7 million from campaign)

Pennsylvania: $195.7 million
Biden and allies: $121.5 million ($59.2 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $74.2 million ($26.6 million from campaign)

Michigan: $120.1 million
Biden and allies: $98.6 million ($33.8 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $21.5 million ($15 million from campaign)

North Carolina: $110.8 million
Trump and allies: $65.4 million ($32.3 million from campaign)
Biden and allies: $45.4 million ($42.5 million from campaign)

Wisconsin: $101.5 million
Biden and allies: $62.7 million ($30.1 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $38.8 million ($10.1 million from campaign)

Arizona: $97.4 million
Biden and allies: $59 million ($40.1 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $38.4 million ($20.1 million from campaign)

Georgia: $28.6 million
Trump and allies: $24.5 million ($14.2 million from campaign)
Biden and allies: $4 million ($4 million from campaign)

(10-20-2020 04:52 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 04:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 03:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Interesting he is spending virtually similar levels in NC and MN

I'm surprised Biden isnt spending more in either NH or MN. Really surprised.

He must think MN is safe. He can lose NH but still win the show if he gets the Big 10 states

Its highly unlikely it will come down to NH

NH will be a nice cherry on top for whomever wins but both can win without it

Trump takes FL, NC, AZ, NV and NH and its 270 votes. I thought Trump would take NV and NH and not win PA, MI and WI in 2016.

(10-20-2020 04:59 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Most surprising to me is GA. If Biden isnt spending there, then those two senate seats are likely safe for republicans as well. (Although there will almost certainly be a runoff in one. )

Not “almost.” Run-off for the Loeffler seat is as close to a 100% guarantee as any future-event can be in this life.

(10-20-2020 03:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Democrats seem to have unlimited money.

Why wouldn’t they? They are the party of globalism.

(10-20-2020 04:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Biden and PACs are outspending the right on such a grand scale I don’t know that it would tell you much. Remember Hillary outspent Trump and PACs by $400 million dollars in 2016.

It’s not easy to get precise data on these things. But from all the information I’ve seen in the past 4 years, I believe the Clinton campaign (+ proxies) outspent the Trump campaign (+ proxies) by an approximate ratio of 70/30 in the 2016 general election campaign.

For this year’s campaign, I think the ratio is approx. 60/40, again in the Democrats’ favor. Still an edge, but not as lopsided as 2016.

I saw that numbers that said the Clinton campaign spent 1.2 billion. Trump spent 500 million. I don't know if those were all funds or just the campaigns themselves.