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

[Skill and Chance]

The problem with the strategy is that it won't change the results in a favorable election (if Missouri is potentially competitive, Hillary Clinton probably wins) but that it might be a waste of resources in a tough election. If it's 2016 and the election is close, the resources used in Georgia could have just as well been used in Virginia or Colorado.

There is an element of diminishing returns, and it's possible that the Clinton campaign will have so much money it doesn't matter how they spend it.

It might not flip a state but it could flip a Congressional district. If the Democrats want to have an effective Presidency, they have to do better in Congress. We don't know where these fifty state offices will be located, but I doubt Louie Gohmert's district will be where the Texas office is. Getting Democrat voters whose votes don't really matter for the EC "Ready for Hillary" could flip seats.

Besides, resources aren't really finite anymore. Both the Democrats and Republicans have enough money to fill every TV commercial spot in all fifty states. They could run SuperBowl Ads if they wanted. I'd like to think the GOP nominee will respond with their own fifty state strategy.

As you said, Clinton campaign will have so much money it doesn't matter. And again, the GOP nominee likely won't be settled until April 2016. She's already in the bag in April 2015. She needs to use this year time advantage to build a general election organization.

Yes.  She probably figures (not without reason) that the electoral college edge will save her in a national tie situation.  This is about maximizing the odds of getting Congress back if she wins by say 5%.

[Skill and Chance]

There are no Congressional Districts in Missouri capable of being flipped. They've been gerrymandered to hell.

But there are some in Texas, for example, where if Hispanics registered and voted then many would be surprised by the results.
Frankly, I don't see why some Democrats whine about something like that.

Besides 23, what could possibly be flipped in Texas?

Districts that might flip in a 1964-style wave include: TX-6 (R+11), TX-7 (R+13), TX-14 (R+12), TX-17 (R+13), TX-21 (R+12), TX-24 (R+13), TX-25 (R+12), TX-27 (R+13), TX-31 (R+12) and TX-32 (R+10). But 2016 is not going to be like 1964.

Isn't there a reasonable argument that some of those R+10-15 districts in TX and GA would basically be even with Upper Midwest style turnout?  A 50 state strategy only makes sense if you have reason to believe that it's not a zero-sum game.

[Skill and Chance]

She can't say it's about the general. That would feed the critics. It's about the general.

so you think that team clinton is going to spend significant time, money and resources in all 50 states in the general? To what end? Any $ spent in Idaho or Hawaii is a $ not spent in FL/OH/VA and the other core battlegrounds.

We are clearly at the point where spending X vs. 1.5X in a given state doesn't have a marginal return.  Kerry outraised Bush and Romney outraised Obama. What does matter is spending 10X vs. spending your opponent taking the state/CD for granted and spending X, particularly if you are looking for the next VA or CO.