Over the next few days, I'm going to write quite a bit about the complexity facing Democratic campaign targeters over the next several days. It's akin to running 22 simultaneous presidential campaigns in 22 different counties where the winner is based not on the popular vote in the country but on the delegates selected by congressional districts.
So let's start by taking one such "country," like, say, California.
In some ways, it makes sense to concentrate resources in some areas and skip others.
Why?
Because some districts send an odd number of delegates to the national convention, campaigning there is more efficient than in districts allocating an even number of delegates.
Why?
Because even without campaigning or concentrated television ads, the split in most of the even districts is not likely to allocate more delegates to the winner than to the second place finisher, especially if the number of total delegates allocated is 4.
Each congressional district in California has between 3 and 7 delegates to give; a total of 241 pledged delegates. The popular vote statewide determines the allocation of an additional 81 delegates, and 48 more are PLEOs -- but forget about the PLEOs for now.
So it makes sense for each candidate to maximize turnout in the larger odd-delegate congressional districts, right?
Not necessarily.
In states like New York, where Hillary Clinton will almost certainly win, and Illinois, almost certainly an Obama state, it makes more sense for the candidates to target the smaller-delegate-allocating congressional districts because they can increase turnout to boost their statewide totals AND win extra delegates at the same time.
It's easier, in other words, to extract an additional delegate by winning a smaller, odd-delegate congressional district than by trying to winner a larger, odd-delegate congressional district.
A further layer of complication is demographic.
Even though some advisers concede that Hillary Clinton will probably win California, Barack Obama's campaign will heavily target a number of large-and-small, odd-and-even congressional districts in the Bay Area (think Oakland, Berkeley, Marin County) because Democrats there tend to be more educated and younger -- and black -- exactly the demographic profile Obama has used to success in earlier states. But wait -- if you're in charge of Obama's California spending, do you spent, say, $100,000 extra in the 6th Congressional District, which comprises Marin County and Somona County north of San Fransisco? It allocates an even number of delegates -- six. Unless there's a landslide, both Obama and Clinton will get 3, each.
Why not spend that money trying to beat Clinton in the 7th congressional district across the bay -- Solano County and parts of Contra Costa counties, where the congressman, George Miller, has already endorsed Obama? CD 7 allocated 5 delegates, an an extra effort there might give Obama one extra delegate.
| 
" . . . districts in the Bay Area (think Oakland, Berkeley, Marin County) because Democrats there tend to be more educated and younger -- and black -- exactly the demographic profile Obama has used to success in earlier states." Pointing out they are predominately black may get you labeled a racist in today's charged political climate. Better you than me or anyone else, I suppose.
Posted by LawSchoolDem | January 29, 2008 11:09 AM