Originally Posted by
vpbob
What even is your argument? Does her spending in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada look to be that of the candidate supposedly ahead? Trump is spending significantly less, and the media would have one believe that the current states most on the line for either candidate besides the obvious Pennsylvania are Georgia and North Carolina.
Ads target individuals, not electoral votes. Basing the ad spending on electoral votes is obviously a gross oversimplification. Wisconsin has a population of 5.9 million, Georgia has a population of 10.9 million, and North Carolina has 10.7 million. When you break this down by eligible voting population it gets crazier. WI 4.5 million, GA 7.8 million, NC 8.1 million.
Her campaign is spending $7.5 per eligible voter in Wisconsin, $5 per in GA, $3.70 per person in NC. Feel free to pull the eligible voter data yourself. This was based off the totals from the last election and rounded up.
Go back and look at the spending from the month before, Trump's campaign spent considerably less than this month. One candidate is in a countering and holding pattern, the other is in a desperation pattern. What's your explanation for her extreme spending in Nevada? Kamala's campaign has more money, but this doesn't mean they will just waste it.
Nevada is their hope to counter Trump winning Pennsylvania while planning for more Georgia shenanigans. They've been campaigning in North Carolina and testing the ad effectiveness to see if they can move the needle at all for this same scenario.
Though a less likely scenario, her winning Nevada guards against Trump losing every blue wall state and still winning. High quality public polls for New Hampshire would be interesting. RFK was doing better there than any state, and remember Kamala campaigned there after he dropped out while simultaneously forcing stories about the "pathetic", "sad", "sorry" state of Trump's NH campaign.
When you understand the desperation and that the mainstream media is essentially the propaganda arm of the DNC, how they've covered GA and NC makes much more sense. 
Reply With Quote
