2016 snip
Hillary Clinton: 277 (+45)
Donald J. T***p: 261 (-45)
I'm incredibly glad you decided to come back and bump this thread with the 2016 results. After reading through all your posts over the past few years for the other elections this was a fitting conclusion and raises a lot of interesting questions about whether, in your world, the "suburban"-type states like inland California would have completed the Romney-Clinton swing and changed the election or whether Trump would have brought his campaign there like he focused on swing states IRL. All in all an interesting conclusion to a hyuge undertaking, glad you came back for it.
Thank you very much!
Yeah, campaign strategy is the big question lurking behind all this, and it's even harder in an election as crazy as 2016. On the one hand, T***p has been a lot better at targeting swing States in general, which Hillary neglected mostly because she thought she had them in the bag and wanted to reach for longer shots like Arizona. On the other hand, (new) California is more like Arizona demographically and culturally than like, say, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, and it's a State Obama lost last time around, so it's not crazy to think Hillary would want to spend time and money there. Nevada is probably the best comparison here, and it's one of the few States Hillary did carry. Also, 2 points is a pretty solid margin and I don't think T***p campaigning marginally more there would move the needle all that much (although I guess this plus the possibility of a competitive Senate race just might). So, overall, yeah, I'd say Hillary probably would narrowly edge it out under this map.
To be honest, Hillary didn't neglect states she thought she had in the bag to reach for longer shots. She neglected them for typical swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida but her efforts there didn't pan out. The investment in Georgia and Arizona were marginal and came very late into the campaign.