That random followers of politics have strong opinions about how much campaigns should spend on digital just baffles me. Like based on what exactly.

Actual politicians and people who have run campaigns, sure. But look I follow politics more than most and have no idea and no basis for one.

David said something like, it's like if everyone had a strong opinion about your office's IT vendor selection plan.

Somehow it's been CW for I don't know, 25 years that "Democrats spend too much on consultants". Almost never in those 25 years has this been accompanied by an FEC filing showing how much they were spending on "consultants".

Anyway I try to stick to what I have looked into. EG AOC is very committed to this idea that swing states flip based on turnout in her friends' districts. This is a pretty tough sell empirically but I mean, she's a politician, spin is her job and she's good at it, that's fine.

Like if you ask the organizers of the Twin Cities Harvest Festival why Biden won Minnesota by 7 points, they'll say it was because millennials moved in to enjoy Minnesota's Largest Corn Maze. That's their job. Doesn't make it the best analysis.

(There's not usually any one "reason" any election went the way it did, so you can pick and choose among valid "reasons" and still have some integrity.)

Like if Biden wins Arizona you might be able to attribute it to both Cindy McCain's endorsement and Biden's over-performance with Native Americans, and a million other things. Of course different people will emphasize one or the other.