Targeting means to zero in on and focus on a specific group with a specific message. You can't target three ideologically distinct groups (conservatives, progressives, and libertarians) with the same message. And trying to promote multiple messages at the same time severely dilutes your brand. This is Marketing 201. It may sound good, but it never works - it just wastes a lot of money.

One of the reasons the Democrats have done so well in the past 50 years is because they have focused on the specific message of Progressivism. They took this up a notch when they ditched all the Blue Dog Democrats after Reagan. Their core supporters are hard-core. Then they add in some hand-outs to attract a few more. They don't try to cater to libertarians or attract Republicans at all. No mixed messages. That's a lesson the Republicans should learn, because it's (IMO) one of the primary reasons they fail in so many big elections. They try to appeal to everyone the Democrats don't. And as a result, they turn off a lot of people. It's also the reason why you don't see infighting in the Democratic Party that you see amongst Republicans. There's a huge difference between a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Republican. Among the Democrats, there really isn't that much difference.

Look at this years election results. Trump won, yes, but he did so with a voter turnout that was decidedly down from the 2012 election despite population growth. Yes, Democrats turned out far less than Republicans, but both groups were down in comparison to 2012. Trump wasn't winning over Democrats - they were disgusted with the shenanigans in the Democratic Party and with Hillary as the nominee so they just stayed home or voted third party. Trump attracted independents, but a lot of core conservatives who normally vote Republican voted third party instead. If the same voter demographics as 2012 had voted this year, we'd be staring at President-Elect Hillary Clinton.

If Trump had campaigned in California in a nationwide popular-vote election, he would have been targeting independents and Democrats in addition to Republicans. Same with New York. Campaign strategies would have been entirely different for both camps. I think that Trump left more popular votes on the table than Clinton did, which turned out to be a smart strategy given the electoral college rules.

Marketing is all about targeting those people who are willing to listen to your message. If you can spend $50 million in California and only get 1 million voters but spend that same $50 million in a dozen other states and net 5 million voters, which one is the savvy person going to do?

What you really run into is a combination of the law of diminishing returns with the minimum necessary investment to enter the market. I think it would be interesting to investigate, but I suspect that the initial required investment for a non-Democrat is very high in California and that one hits a diminishing return rather rapidly, whereas the initial requirement for Utah would be very low for a non-Democrat and the diminishing return point very high. That's why you have ground games in each state (which Trump didn't have prior to Reince Preibus) - to help assess the financial costs of getting buy-in from voters. I found this interesting (http://adage.com/article/campaign-tra...) though I would like to see an end-game analysis.

Under a popular vote system, it would make sense to spend money in California to reduce the opponent's margin. It''s likely that many would-be Trump voters in California and New York didn't bother to vote because it was a foregone conclusion that their state would go to Hillary. The national polls were much closer, and votes in "blue" states would have counted as much as votes in "red" states.

Not necessarily. You spend money where it makes sense. California and New York are so full of Progressives that they are pretty much lost causes at this point. And they continue to structure their laws so as to impel their opponents to leave. What I hope is that their own economic problems bite them harder than a San Andreas boogie. Let their own actions and policies come back to be their own demise.

And so, the dynasty continues.
Who knows, we may hear about the Clintons in perpetuity.

What about Ivanka! (lol)

I have heard some who want Chelsea to run for Congress. I can't even...

I would bet that it's Bill that's behind it.

Will it ever end? No, and I'm sure they'll come up with some more pure nonsense. Last night (Saturday) on Justice that psycho, “Coocoo” (?? looks and acts like Rosie O with as big a mouth) shows specifically what’s wrong with their DNA. They just can’t admit to any truth and have always tried to flip the lies and truths about everything negative. Last night she blamed the Trump Supporters for the demonstrations and riots going on. There is something in their DNA that makes them actually believe whatever spews from their mouths. I just hope that most of them actually do leave the country.

Trump took Michigan by about 13,000 votes and New Hampshire by 2,700. Not enough to dent Hillary's lead of about 400,000, last I heard.

What makes you think that they have selves? I would hope that the cult of selflessness would finally be driven out, that the 'me-ism' of the more recent past has been finally crushed and an era of rational selfishness will arise.

YOU LOST DUMMY.
Try again to wreck the economy and the military in 4 years from now. Bet you won't win then either.

TARD?! LOL!
Loved the video too.

Very interesting.

Immaturity + progressive indoctrination.

Me dino has an idea. Let California be a separate country and let Clinton run what's left of its economy into the ground as its president.
Buh-bye. Have fun with that.

As long as there is one collectivist remaining, it will not end.

Yes, this is what removes all doubt that federalism is the way to go. If we were a mob-ocracy, excuse me, democracy, Clinton's cheat machine would have worked. In an electoral vote, it is much harder to cheat.

Trumps final margin approx. 600,000. https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/...

My theory is that the people who support this petition are completely selfish. They want what they want and the consequences be damned.

In all the protests and crying by the Hillary voters, I detect great immaturity.

There would be a lot more, but they're busy rioting and burning American flags.

Has anyone heard Hillary condemn the burning of our flag, yet?

Hildebeast's life was a waste

As Obama said, "elections have consequences, and I won". Trump should just get on with doing what he promised and ignore this nonsense. Its time to just get on with life and let him have his chance to help us all to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

yes, you cant have one set of rules before the election, and then switch to another set of rules after the votes are cast.