Is having a geographically concentrated base an advantage for statewide campaigning?

[ProgressiveModerate]

The states I have in mind are Nevada and Georgia, where it seems like 75% of Dems job is hammering Las Vegas and Atlanta. On the reverse side though, large chunks of Republican votes come from everywhere in the state, which all have unique economies and cultures.

I could see a geographically concentrated base being beneficial because not only does it mean less time needs to be spent physically traveling, but also you can mass-appeal to the needs of the community in question at once. Sure, not all Las Vegans or Atlantans share the same policy concerns, but they're more likely to have more in common than say a Republican from Henderson and a Republican from Elko.

[Skill and Chance]

On balance, probably yes, but it's become less of an advantage since the internet took hold.

[lfromnj]

This was a fun debate back in early 2012 IIRC. The PA GOP was thinking of implementing a rule that would do the electoral vote by CD's. In the end one factor against it was under the current method of winner take all, Democrats would get more bang for their buck in just juicing up Philly turnout. However if they switched to the Nebraska rule they would have to compete in PA07/PA06 , the Lehigh county seat(which had the blue parts of Northampton removed) and lastly the Bucks seat.

[Del Tachi]

In states that are overwhelmingly dominated by a single metro (i.e., AZ/GA/NV/etc.) it is also normally the case that Republicans also get the bulk of their votes from the urban center.

Case in point, Biden's vote was very concentrated in Metro Atlanta (~67%) but Trump's Trump's was pretty concentrated there too (49%).