How would a NPV realistically affect presidential election campaigning?

[OBD]

It's pretty obvious that implementing an NPV will bring major change to how candidates approach the general election, but what exactly will these changes be? Clearly, more focus will be put on more populous states and areas, but will California and Texas actually get stormed by both campaigns?

[libertpaulian]

The GOP would shift to the left on some issues, and the Dems would likely shift to the right on quite a few as well.

[brucejoel99]

For one thing, candidates would actually campaign in states they wouldn't otherwise win (Democrats in Nebraska, Republicans along the coasts), as every extra vote that you could possibly get would have value. For example, losing California 35-65 because they made a couple campaign stops there would be way better for a Republican nominee than otherwise losing it 30-70 by default.

[Del Tachi]

Ideally, candidates would spend more time articulating grand themes and policy ideas to attract votes from across the country rather than just relying on motivating foot soldiers to GOTV in a few, key states. 

[Del Tachi]

Ideally, candidates would spend more time articulating grand themes and policy ideas to attract votes from across the country rather than just relying on motivating foot soldiers to GOTV in a few, key states. 

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Large states like CA and TX would be focused on heavily by both sides.

[The Mikado]

TBH a lot more would be the same than people like to imagine. Florida, for example, would still be critically important. Vast number of people in relatively cramped area is a goldmine under both systems.

There'd be a lot more GOTV focus in previously uncompetitive areas, of course. Voter turnout nationally would likely be significantly higher.

[catographer]

General elections are already nationwide campaigns; they’ve lost their regional focus long ago. Rally locations and organizing will shift to larger and safer states, but the focus on metropolitan areas will stay the same. Messaging won’t change much either, aside from losing any remaining regional or local angles it had.

[It’s so Joever]

States with competitive senate or house races would get trampled the most. Still expect more campaigning in California by the GOP and Democrats in places like Indiana/Tennessee.

[StateBoiler]

How would NPV count Maine Ranked Choice Voting numbers. Would they use the first result or the second result?

[Intell]

Elastic regions would get campaigned towards to, this even happens in parliamentary constituencies. For example in Britain it was (previously) the consensus the prioritise two sets of voters;

1. Essex Man (Man from your a lower-middle class/upper working classs background who held a hard-work individualistic identity as well as being more socially conservative but had labour roots, and some populist economic views).

2. Socially Liberal centrist (People from a middle class white collar background who most likely went to university, and holds broadly socially liberal views and has mixed views on economics and prioritises good economic management.

Now however there is much more rhetoric aimed at the northern industrial working classes as they have moved from being a loyal labour voting base to being a swing constituency.

Similarly- Canada is a perfect representation of this, in Canada, Quebec is the god entitled province for politicians, because the Quebec people are very flexible politically, and majorities are won and lost in Quebec.

So which would be the most elastic region in the US- New England? If so it would affect them having the most attention.