This really raises the question of how many "safe" states could be turned to be made competitive if the challenging party invested more in them.
I'm thinking 4? UT, AK, NM, HI.
Possibly a few more (the ND-to-KS stack?) if the Democrats go full populist (and if they do, that probably gives Republicans a chance to grab a bit of the northeast, maybe RI or something).
If Dems want to lose North Dakota by 20 rather than 40, they probably could do that rather easily. It's just going from that to actually winning that'd be the challenge. Most safe states are like that: if the other party put a LOT of effort in, it could cut the gap significantly, but it's not worth it because you're not going to win it anyway in the end.
