The Democratic case for expanding the map against Trump

[Adam Griffin]

I'm just thinking out loud a bit here, but it's a phenomenon that has been tickling my brain quite a bit for the past few days. For argument's sake, let's assume Clinton is the nominee - otherwise, this narrative wouldn't flow in the same way.

In a scenario in which Trump is the nominee, I personally do not believe that we would see an electoral blow-out a la LBJ or Reagan. Why some still feel this way is beyond me, but unless the GOP descends into an all-out civil war in which something like this happens, he's all but guaranteed at least 45% of the vote. The real question is: from where will that vote come, how will it be distributed, and where exactly will Trump naturally under/over-perform?

Looking at exit polling, trends and analyzing some pretty subjective cultural phenomena across various regions in the country, I feel that a Trump nomination would produce significant under-performance for the GOP in two distinct areas: among Latinos and in the Midwest. This would open up the possibility for Clinton to spend vast sums of money expanding the map along the Atlantic.

I've made the claim on here before and stand by it: practically any Democrat gets 80% of the Latino vote in a Trump scenario. Frankly, the most offensive thing Romney said regarding Latinos was that he'd make them self-deport, which was enough to increase Democratic performance among Latinos by 5 points and push it to a historic high in 2012. A candidate who constantly rails on about border security and who has called them rapists is all but guaranteed to put the group on the same path as the GOP did to blacks several decades ago.

Trump's personality is also in complete contrast with a better swing group of whites - Midwesterners. I don't think Trump will resonate well with most on the West Coast for that matter, but Trump's bombastic, abrasive and self-aggrandizing style is anathema to most Midwesterner way of life. He seems like a salt of the earth type of guy to Southerners, but only because he utters the opinions they have and does it in an equally angry fashion. This isn't the right style for the Midwest, regardless of whether you're running a positive or negative campaign.

If you look at 2012, the Obama campaign alone spent $64 million on TV ads in these specific media markets, covering all or parts of NV, CA, NE, IA, IL, MN & WI. In contrast, the Romney campaign spent $85 million in the same media markets, yet in any of the primary states being targeted by these efforts, Romney came no closer than 5 points to winning one of them. I'm of the persuasion that despite Romney's flaws (being a richie rich, being out-of-touch, etc), his personality was rather spot-on for a politician being elected in these markets. Now, obviously TV ads are not very effective in and of themselves (mainly, candidates run them because of hive-mind theory: they know the other side will; you don't get much benefit from running them in the end, but you can be hurt to a greater degree if your message is absent).

So...my theory is that Clinton could completely forgo TV ads in MI, MN, IA, WI & NV (while of course maintaining an epic ground-game) and instead, invest this in more field ops in VA, NC, GA, FL & hell, maybe even SC just for kicks. Particularly in GA & SC (where presidential campaigns really haven't had ground games since Obama's half-effort in 2008 that was aborted around Labor Day), the swings that could be generated from a dedicated effort would be substantial. A good field operation can yield 5 points or more in a jurisdiction when you're talking about investing in an area that has had no prior competition of any sort. In the case of FL, VA & NC, it would merely be a matter of padding the margins and enhancing likely existing efforts, improving any down-ballot races and ensuring a viable pathway to victory in the Electoral College via Virginia & Florida in particular (win those 2, and you don't even need MI, IA, WI, NV & MN).

Something has to give sooner or later if Clinton doesn't want to a lame-duck President from Day One with a party that is in such a deep minority that it can literally do nothing for her. Making presidential elections - which are the highest interest & highest turnout affairs in the game - solely about strategizing one's minimum pathway to the presidency through a selection of a half-dozen swing states is part of the reason we're in such terrible shape right now, anyway. There has been no real long-term investment made. The onus is going to fall on Hillary to do this to some degree - again, if she doesn't want to be a lame-duck.

Blasting a new pathway to victory down the Atlantic seaboard is probably the most viable expansion strategy in terms of opening up new possibilities with redistricting coming up soon. Especially when you consider that Trump will likely be at a disadvantage cash-wise (his "net worth" largely consists of property with tons of mortgage debt attached to it; he has very little liquid capital and something tells me a lot of people won't give to him because he's been bragging so much about how he can finance his own campaign), he's not going to be able to compete in as many places. Considering recent demographic shifts in VA, NC, GA, FL and to a lesser degree, SC (which only tracks about 1 point behind GA in presidential elections), there really isn't a more malleable region in which to create new possibilities for picking up House seats, making headways in state legislatures, electing Governors, and so on.

[Ebsy]

Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida together represent 75 electoral votes that the GOP has to win to win the White House. Seeing if these states trend Democratic, along with watching the if Upper Midwest (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan) trend Republican will be the most important things in 2016. It is important to note that the Upper Midwest only accounts for 42 votes though, and there is a lot more for Democrats to win the the South than for Republicans to win in the Midwest.

[Mehmentum]

SC, GA, and MS are fools gold.  There are very few persuadable voters in these states, there's just too much racial polarization right now.

Trump's strengths will be in Appalachia (won't matter, except perhaps in Virginia), the Rust Belt (will matter a lot), and New England (won't matter, except for NH).

His weaknesses are in the upper Midwest, and anywhere with Hispanics (matters a lot, FL alone could ruin the Republican's chances.).

Democrats need to hold the line in PA.  They also need to be very aggressive in FL.  VA is also key, but they Dems will have the advantage there.  NC will be interesting, but if the Democrats win there, they'll have already won the election.

They really need to focus on turnout.  Identify, register, and involve hispanics.  Its about more than just winning the election, its about winning people who will vote again in the mid-terms and beyond.

[Kingpoleon]

270: Businessman Donald Trump(R-NY)/CEO Meg Whitman(R-CA) - 48.3%
268: Sen. Bernie Sanders(D-VT)/Mayor Bill DeBlasio(D-NY) - 47.6

Trump's best-case scenario involves eviscerating Sanders in the debates and picking up female voters against Sanders by picking Fiorina's successor who has repeatedly attacked Fiorina.

378: Fmr. SoS Hillary Clinton(D-NY)/Gov. Steve Bullock(D-MT) - 52.1%
150: Businessman Donald Trump(R-NY)/Commentator Michael Savage(R-CA) - 45.3%

Trump's worst case scenario involves a 59-41 Democratic Majority in the Senate.

Dem pick ups in IA, MO, OH, NC, GA, MO, and AZ besides the obvious other five

[Orser67]

Most of the House seats that Democrats could plausibly pick up are in swing and blue states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and California. If Clinton wants to take back the House, she might have to consider putting more resources in those states rather than expanding the map.

If she does try to expand the map, I hope she goes after Texas and Georgia, in hopes of building momentum towards winning those states in the 2020s. Unfortunately, there's really only one House seat in either state that Dems could pick up (TX-23). South Carolina, North Carolina, and Mississippi don't have any plausible Dem pick-ups.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Carolina may be fools gold, but a large amount of the state is served  by media markets that overlap with Georgia and North Carolina.  Adding a modest ad buy in the Columbia and Charleston markets to cover all of South Carolina wouldn't be a major expense and might make sense if the intent is to generate volunteers and donations to be used in Georgia and North Carolina.

[Crumpets]

Why are people thinking that Clinton would win Georgia against Trump, but not Arizona? Georgia is much more inelastic, and if anything a worse match for Clinton than Obama. Arizona, meanwhile, may be a great match for Trump on the Republican side, but has a large non-voting, but eligible Hispanic population that would come out in droves against Trump. Not to mention, in terms of raw vote, Clinton would need to gain about 100,000 more votes in Georgia than in Arizona in order to make the state flip.

[MK]

Shes not winning GA if Trump runs a decent campagain.   

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why are people thinking that Clinton would win Georgia against Trump, but not Arizona? Georgia is much more inelastic, and if anything a worse match for Clinton than Obama. Arizona, meanwhile, may be a great match for Trump on the Republican side, but has a large non-voting, but eligible Hispanic population that would come out in droves against Trump. Not to mention, in terms of raw vote, Clinton would need to gain about 100,000 more votes in Georgia than in Arizona in order to make the state flip.

Arizona is by far the most inelastic ...

[Sir Mohamed]

In the worst case, Hillary wins with the 272 map, in the best with 2012 map + NC and maybe AZ, MO and MT.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Shes not winning GA if Trump runs a decent campagain.   

Trump may run an effective campaign, but to date he has reveled in being indecent.

[Adam Griffin]

Why are people thinking that Clinton would win Georgia against Trump, but not Arizona? Georgia is much more inelastic, and if anything a worse match for Clinton than Obama. Arizona, meanwhile, may be a great match for Trump on the Republican side, but has a large non-voting, but eligible Hispanic population that would come out in droves against Trump. Not to mention, in terms of raw vote, Clinton would need to gain about 100,000 more votes in Georgia than in Arizona in order to make the state flip.

Arizona's elasticity is overrated; most people don't understand how many Latinos it really takes when combined with their voting habits to make them relevant in such a state, CD or county

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I've all always thoughtvit would be easier to target mountain and plaims states -/Montana, the Dakotas, Alaska etc. They have an over sized influence on congress, a fairly populiat tradition, less black/white polarisation and I assume TV advertising is cheaper than in coastal areas.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I've all always thoughtvit would be easier to target mountain and plaims states -/Montana, the Dakotas, Alaska etc. They have an over sized influence on congress, a fairly populiat tradition, less black/white polarisation and I assume TV advertising is cheaper than in coastal areas.

This is  just my personal anecdotal observations as someone with relatives and friends throughout the region in question, but.... I think targeting the Mountains and Plains states would be very difficult if not impossible in the near future. Years and years of FOX News and its ilk, plus the much-disliked Obama, have led to strong hostility to the national Democratic brand. Local Democrats can and do win, but "Washington D.C." is viewed as evil, making winning electoral votes in those states extremely difficult. 

[dudeabides]

Let's say it is Clinton Vs. Trump.

If Hillary Clinton sits at home from May until November of 2016 eating Dove bars and watching The View, she would win all of the states President Obama won in 2008, plus Missouri. If she campaigns every so often, she could then win Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Arizona, West Virginia, and Montana. Pretty soon, Kentucky and maybe, just maybe, Texas become winnable for her.

Trump is a self-destructive person, a dumb person, and while he is popular with the less engaged, less informed elements within the GOP, the electorate as a whole will reject his statist views and unprincipled pandering.

[Skye]

Probably the Obama '08 landslide map +2/4 states.

[RI]

In the worst case, Hillary wins with the 272 map, in the best with 2012 map + NC and maybe AZ, MO and MT.

Clinton won't come within 10 points in Montana.

[Ebsy]

Obviously, if Clinton won Georgia or North Carolina, she would have already won the election handily, but I do think losing Georgia would trigger absolute chaos for the Republicans.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Would a Trump candidacy not mobilise the low-information Latino voters the Democrats have been trying to get to vote for ages?

[tallguy23]

Trump would only win the staunch red states. Independents (and even some Republicans) will cross over to Hillary.

I also think a lot of the GOP would stay home or maybe vote Libertarian.