How would presidential campaigns change if there was a national popular vote?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

We all know how presidential campaigns nowadays rely on flooding swing state markets with ads and GOTV campaigns. How would the campaigns change if the EC was abolished and there was a simple popular vote for POTUS? What would be the target areas? Would the cost of campaigning increase even more astronomically? Etc

[Ebsy]

No one would waste any time in Iowa that's for sure.

[IceSpear]

No one would waste any time in Iowa that's for sure.

Except for the caucus.

[retromike22]

Democrats would visit cities in Republican states more, like Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, and San Antonio. At the same time, Republicans would make an effort in suburbs of Chicago, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and others.

[Mr. Smith]

California becomes the big target.

[ElectionsGuy]

Candidates would actually campaign all around the country instead of 7 states.

[kohler]

We all know how presidential campaigns nowadays rely on flooding swing state markets with ads and GOTV campaigns. How would the campaigns change if the EC was abolished and there was a simple popular vote for POTUS? What would be the target areas? . . .

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012
None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.
About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.   
         
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.
      
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

When presidential campaigns  polled, organized, visited, and appealed to more than the current 20% of Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently conceded by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party  in the states, and  ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
         
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
               
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
               
NationalPopularVote.com

[kohler]

Would the cost of campaigning increase even more astronomically?

Presidential candidates currently do everything within their power to raise as much money as they possibly can from donors throughout the country. They then allocate their time and the money that they raise nationally to places where it will do the most good toward their goal of winning the election.

Money doesn't grow on trees. The fact that candidates would spend their money more broadly (that is, in all 50 states and DC) would not, in itself, loosen up the wallet of a single donor anywhere in the country. Candidates will continue to try to raise as much money as economic considerations permit. Economic considerations by donors determines how much money will be available, not the existence of an increases number of places where the money might be spent.

When every voter mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate their time and the money they raise.

[kohler]

California becomes the big target.

In terms of recent presidential elections, for example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 
                                                                                                   
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
      
To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

[bobloblaw]

I actually think the GOP would get a slightly higher percentage of the black and hispanic vote. They would be forced to campaign in cities and places where the GOP message is never heard.

[bobloblaw]

Campaigns would be even MORE expensive and subject to more outside influence.

[Skill and Chance]

I actually think the GOP would get a slightly higher percentage of the black and hispanic vote. They would be forced to campaign in cities and places where the GOP message is never heard.

I'm not sure about that.  I think it quickly turns into an urban vs. rural/outer suburbs turnout battle and both parties get more extreme.  California and Texas would quickly be driven into Vermont and Oklahoma territory.

[andrew_c]

Voter turnout in previously noncompetitive states would increase.

[bobloblaw]

I actually think the GOP would get a slightly higher percentage of the black and hispanic vote. They would be forced to campaign in cities and places where the GOP message is never heard.

I'm not sure about that.  I think it quickly turns into an urban vs. rural/outer suburbs turnout battle and both parties get more extreme.  California and Texas would quickly be driven into Vermont and Oklahoma territory.

I can see that too.

[Mister Mets]

Voter turnout in previously noncompetitive states would increase.

Nonprofit Vote has some figures that back you up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/12/the-states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-turnout-in-2012-in-2-charts/

Swing states tend to have high turnout, although there are exceptions and interesting further details (Minnesota has the highest turnout, New Mexico's in the bottom ten, Conservative southern states had low turnout possibly due to dissatisfaction with both tickets.)

[Bojack Horseman]

If you thought you were seeing a lot of political TV ads now, wait until every vote in every state has equal importance...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bulk of campaigning will be done in Latino enriched communities in AZ;NV;CA;NM; CO and FL. Only matter of time FL becomes one of the Democratic trending states along with CO and NV; especially since Julian Castro will most likely be the VP nominee. FL, by the way has enriched Puerto Rican and Cuban communities.

By 2020, I hope that there is enough states to ratify the popular vote referendum and allow it to be a national vote election, not electoral college, since the popular vote is the most democratic thing to do and won't be affected by the electoral college, like it did in 2000, where the process became undemocratic.

I hope Democrats, shouldn't be afraid of this since, they were robbed in 2000, and the change will have to take time to adjust. Even if Democrats win the W.H this year.

[bobloblaw]

Campaigns would cost more and there would be more PAC money