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.
