This is something I was wondering about because I don't think it's right. These are Super Tuesday states.
Of them I don't think Alaska or West Virginia will need much in the way of ads and California, because of its set up, will be more about turnout, though having ads in the Northern and Western parts could be effective.
Several of these, I think, don't need to be plastered by official ads. I think Colorado and Alaska should be focused on for possible wins, but wouldn't need the same kind of exposure as other states. West Virginia is more about getting people reminded.
I think $23 million sounds great, but obviously it's about game plan and I don't think there really is a need for this much money. Without momentum before Super Tuesday it will be pointless and momentum will reduce the need for as much money. Romney spent millions trying to win Iowa and lost, it blew up in his face.
I also think that's exceeding expectations. Only a New Hampshire win could make this much possible.
However, I think Paul should start getting a focused fundraising. For instance, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are all in generally the same area so perhaps having things focused on raising money for ads there first, since I think that's where things are weakest for February 5th.
Having another time to focus on the Sunbelt is great. California is a whole other beast and I think the focus should be on looking at districts and regions. For instance, some of the more liberal districts shouldn't be pummeled with ads, but instead be focused on through grassroots organizing, which may be more crucial than ads. However, in the North and West there should be a focus on more ads.
In fact, focusing on local distribution will be cheaper and more cost-effective if it's only done in those areas or regions where it's majority Republican. San Diego is big on immigration so an immigration ad would be good locally.
So I really think the campaign may be overblowing the idea of a need for $23 million.