I’ve gotten a lot of inquiries over the last couple weeks about why the Biden campaign is doing something in X state and not Y, or entreaties for the campaign to invest in Z place (usually TX). I have no control or input on any of it, but it inspired a quick thread: 1/?

I’ll start with this: there are a LOT of good non-presidential-electoral reasons to invest in places: Senate/House races, state leg chamber flips, party building, etc. In no way is this thread minimizing that, and BFP is doing a LOT to support others, financially and otherwise.

HOWEVER, the *purpose* of the existence of Biden for President campaign is to win the presidential election. Which means to win enough states to produce 270 electoral votes.

Along those same lines — Article 1, Section 1 of the charter of rhe Democratic Party of the United States says that its purpose is to “nominate and assist in the election of Democratic candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States.”

Article 3, Section 1 lists the DNC’s responsibilities, first among them to “issue the Call to the National Convention” and “conduct the Party's Presidential campaign.” Again, there are other things listed, of significant import, but I’m making a point here...

...and that is that every decision that BFP and the DNC make for the next two months will, first and foremost, be in service of winning 270 electoral votes. And ultimately, that is about math.

It requires some very hard decisions, which is 2016 I saw first hand as a member of HFA’s senior staff. Thankfully, because of many of you, BFP and the DNC are in better financial shape now than we were in 2016, which means they can do more.

But more doesn’t mean everything. And ultimately, Jen’s job and Mary Beth Cahill’s job is to allocate limited resources in service of the primary (not exclusive!) goal: 270.

So I’ll conclude by saying as you see decisions made about where to spend ad $, send candidates/surrogates, etc., one thing I can PROMISE you (without direct knowledge, just experience) is that they are made with a combination of data and gut about the path to 270 at that moment.

That calculus can change with the news, acts of God, and poorly timed and unnecessarily released communications from government officials. But the mission itself does not.

And finally, those decisions are NOT a reflection of the campaign’s commitment to the other important missions, or about the winnability of a state in the abstract. They are about the resources available in the moment and where a state‘s electoral votes fit into the path to 270.