Hillary Clinton to fulfill the Atlas Forum's dreams with 50 state strategy.

[bobloblaw]

If well played, this could work.

Like in 2006/2008.

Also downballot.

Of course assuming that Hillary does not end up as a wreck on election day, because then not even a 50-state strategy will help her.

It isnt going to be 2006 or 2008 because there isnt a GOPer incumbent President.

[DS0816]

Congratulations, GOP. Hillary's devoted significant amounts of her campaign funds to TX, UT, WY, WV, ND, LA, and KY, among other solidly republican states.

Oh my god this strategy is dumb.

Even if it doesn't mean winning, say, a 40-state landside [general] election…the country needs to get back to having presidential elections where a major consensus of states (80 percent) carry for winning candidates.

During the 20th century, it happened eleven times: 1912, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988. The historical average of percentage of carried states is between 69 and 70 percent. (Franklin Roosevelt, in his last two elections, 1940 and 1944, carried in the 70s percentile range.)

So, we have been, since after the 1980s, been underperforming historical average where the most reaped was the 64 percent (from 32 states) carried in 1992 by Bill Clinton.

I'm more than ready to get beyond this "20 States Republican/20 States Democratic/10 States Decide" composite of these recent presidential election cycles.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I suspect this strategy is far more about drawing in volunteers and funds from marginal areas to be used in more competitive areas.  So long as the effort draws in at least sufficient new fundraising to pay for itself, it's a net positive

[Simfan34]

If Hillary can do what Adam described on a county-by-county basis, then this has the potential to produce some truly immense returns at modest costs. The challenge is getting the managers at the top to ensure that such an effort is organised properly at the local level.