Here are two scenarios:
1) The Democrats nominate someone who is a hard-core laborite, but very conservative on social issues. He personally opposes gay marriage, but says it is the "law of the land," and attends church more than once a week. He talks about America losing it's "Judeo-Christian" ideal as the main reason to grow government programs and help the poor. Kind of an American version of Pope Francis, but with strong union backing and with a louder dog whistle.
Meanwhile, the Republicans nominate a moderate libertarian in the Gary Johnson mold. It would help if this person were a minority or a woman. They support full legalization of marijuana, the dismantling of the current prison system, and push for cutting the deficit by shrinking the government's relationship with the so-called "military industrial complex." The Republicans generally put social issues to the side for the election, except to call out the Democrat for some particularly nasty jabs at non-Christians. Realizing they might put the Northwest in play, they also call for some modest environmental reforms.
Final map:
Senator Frank Wallace (D-KY) 327 EVGovernor Olympia Sandoval (R-OR) 199 EVScenario 2)
Hillary Clinton gets elected in 2016 and has a terrible first term. The economy crashes, the US suffers the worst terrorist attack since 9/11, and race relations are at the worst level since the 60s. An up-and-coming progressive challenges her in the primary, and loses narrowly. Claiming the party rigged the election against him (and with some evidence to prove that they did) he decides not to drop out, and eventually becomes the main challenger, as Hillary's approval ratings hover in the mid-20s. Garnering the endorsements of many elected Democrats, he runs as a TR/La Follette-style populist progressive. In the end, The Republicans win in a 1912-style landslide, with Clinton taking about 20% of the vote.
Final map:
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) 392 EVCongressman Theodore La Follette (P-ME) 117 EVPresident Hillary Clinton (D-NY) 17 EV
