Is the 50-State Strategy Optimal?

Dan Kovenock and Brian Roberson

Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2009, vol. 21, issue 2, 213-236

Abstract: In 2005, the Democratic National Committee adopted the 50-state strategy in lieu of the strategy of focusing solely on battleground states. The rationale given for this move is that campaign expenditures are durable outlays that impact both current and future campaigns. This article investigates the optimality of the 50-state strategy in a simple dynamic game of campaign resource allocation in which expenditures act as a form of investment. Neither the 50-state nor the battleground-states strategy is likely to arise in equilibrium. Instead, parties employ a hybrid strategy in which non-battleground states are stochastically targeted.

Keywords: all-pay auction; dynamic contests; elections; political campaigns; war of attrition (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (28)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629808100764 (text/html)

Related works:
Working Paper: Is the 50-State Strategy Optimal? (2008)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:21:y:2009:i:2:p:213-236

DOI: 10.1177/0951629808100764

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Theoretical Politics
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().