Should "expanding the map" be a priority for Democrats?

[pppolitics]

Democrats have lost 3 Obama states (IA, OH, and FL) that together make up 53 electoral votes.

Yes, Democrats gained 2 "Biden" states (AZ and GA), but those only have 27 electoral votes.

That makes winning that much harder.

Do Democrats need to "expand the map"?

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

No; the map is balanced now. It used to be much harder for Republicans, with the Democrats having paths to 350 EV but the Republican ceiling being around 320 EV.

The more interesting part is Senate, where they are in serious trouble next cycle. Democrats probably need some depolarization to happen, with more ticket splitting going their way.

[TML]

Yes, and the immediate place to start is by contesting Texas, which showed signs of significant leftward movement over the past two election cycles (similar to how CO & VA moved left in the late 2000s/early 2010s and how AZ & GA moved left in the mid-to-late 2010s).

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

If parties aren’t thinking about “expanding the map”, then they’re not planning ahead. Even if Texas isn’t doable in 2024, it would be foolish for Democrats not to build up infrastructure there for the future.

[pppolitics]

Yes, and the immediate place to start is by contesting Texas, which showed signs of significant leftward movement over the past two election cycles (similar to how CO & VA moved left in the late 2000s/early 2010s and how AZ & GA moved left in the mid-to-late 2010s).

I think that TX is the only obvious target.

Note: Democrats have already been targeting NC, so that doesn't count.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

If parties aren’t thinking about “expanding the map”, then they’re not planning ahead. Even if Texas isn’t doable in 2024, it would be foolish for Democrats not to build up infrastructure there for the future.

Where do you think Republicans should expand the map, beyond AZ/GA/NV/WI/MI/PA/NC?

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

If parties aren’t thinking about “expanding the map”, then they’re not planning ahead. Even if Texas isn’t doable in 2024, it would be foolish for Democrats not to build up infrastructure there for the future.

Where do you think Republicans should expand the map, beyond AZ/GA/NV/WI/MI/PA/NC?

New England imo

[Darthpi - Crush the Oligarchy]

NC, TX, AK. Long-term I'm intrigued by KS, but that's not happening in 2024.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

NC, TX, AK. Long-term I'm intrigued by KS, but that's not happening in 2024.

NC is already well on the battleground map and has been since 2008. Biden isn't considering TX/AK at the moment.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

If parties aren’t thinking about “expanding the map”, then they’re not planning ahead. Even if Texas isn’t doable in 2024, it would be foolish for Democrats not to build up infrastructure there for the future.

Where do you think Republicans should expand the map, beyond AZ/GA/NV/WI/MI/PA/NC?

If they were interested in expanding the map, they would at least look at ME/MN/NH/NM.

[The Mikado]

Part of the problem is there really isn't a cheap small GOP state in even longshot range so the party could go "Well, even if this doesn't pan out, it wasn't a big investment."

Trump 2020 made a pretty serious push at New Mexico only for Biden to win it by 11. Was this a mistake? I'd say no, not really. NM is a dirt cheap state to target and you might as well throw it on the pile.

Dems are already committed to the narrowest Trump state, NC, but beyond that?

The Dems' two states that would be sort of longshot winnable ones if you squint and pretend? The second and third closest Trump states? FL and TX. Two of the most expensive, populated, and difficult to campaign effectively in states in the country.

Even the one small population-wise Trump state that's close-ish and could be theoretically winnable is Alaska which may be sparsely populated but isn't cheap. It's remote, spread out intensely, has a weird local set of issues, and many people in hard to reach "media markets" in the middle of nowhere. AK would not be a cheap state to make a big push in. It's not comparable to NM on that front.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Part of the problem is there really isn't a cheap small GOP state in even longshot range so the party could go "Well, even if this doesn't pan out, it wasn't a big investment."

Trump 2020 made a pretty serious push at New Mexico only for Biden to win it by 11. Was this a mistake? I'd say no, not really. NM is a dirt cheap state to target and you might as well throw it on the pile.

Dems are already committed to the narrowest Trump state, NC, but beyond that?

The Dems' two states that would be sort of longshot winnable ones if you squint and pretend? The second and third closest Trump states? FL and TX. Two of the most expensive, populated, and difficult to campaign effectively in states in the country.

Even the one small population-wise Trump state that's close-ish and could be theoretically winnable is Alaska which may be sparsely populated but isn't cheap. It's remote, spread out intensely, has a weird local set of issues, and many people in hard to reach "media markets" in the middle of nowhere. AK would not be a cheap state to make a big push in. It's not comparable to NM on that front.

Kansas is not impossible in the medium-term.

[pppolitics]

Part of the problem is there really isn't a cheap small GOP state in even longshot range so the party could go "Well, even if this doesn't pan out, it wasn't a big investment."

Trump 2020 made a pretty serious push at New Mexico only for Biden to win it by 11. Was this a mistake? I'd say no, not really. NM is a dirt cheap state to target and you might as well throw it on the pile.

Dems are already committed to the narrowest Trump state, NC, but beyond that?

The Dems' two states that would be sort of longshot winnable ones if you squint and pretend? The second and third closest Trump states? FL and TX. Two of the most expensive, populated, and difficult to campaign effectively in states in the country.

Even the one small population-wise Trump state that's close-ish and could be theoretically winnable is Alaska which may be sparsely populated but isn't cheap. It's remote, spread out intensely, has a weird local set of issues, and many people in hard to reach "media markets" in the middle of nowhere. AK would not be a cheap state to make a big push in. It's not comparable to NM on that front.

Let's say that the Democrats spend $350 million on trying to win Texas. On the surface, that seems insane, but if Republicans also spend ~$350 million to defend the state, then it evens out financially. Democrats also get to develop grassroots in the state even if they lost the state.

[Epaminondas]

If Texas flips and Michigan holds, that's the whole ball game. Even if Republicans won back PA, WI, NE, AZ, GA, NH, ME-AL and NE-2, they'd still be short 6 seats.

Losing Texas would mean the GOP is locked out of the presidency for a few cycles.

[Banana Republican]

Yes. There are 2 real reasons:

1) Money has sharply diminishing returns in Presidential elections. The first $x million you spend on states like Pennsylvania is vital. The next $x million you spend on it helps. By the time you get to $200 million spent on Pennsylvania and you are considering spending an extra $50 million, that extra $50 million starts to have no measurable impact. At a certain point, you may even reach a point where excessive over-saturation starts to have negative returns.

Dems will have more money than can realistically be spent in a useful way on just the obvious states.

2) There is really only limited value of winning the Presidency if you don't also have the Senate and the House. Yes, there is some purely negative value to winning the Presidency and blocking a Republican trifecta (especially with the unique danger of Trumpist dictatorship at play here). But if all you have is the Presidency, you cannot do anything of real longer term significance.


This doesn't mean that Dems should necessarily decide in advance to go all out in a state like Texas, but they should be prepared to do so. What should be done is to do the early investment to create the infrastructure for a full large scale field campaign in Texas in particular. Register and turn out as many voters as possible. Sometimes, unexpectedly good results can be achieved when you invest in a place that has not been truly contested for decades and where people have become complacent.

You can do that, and then by the time you get to September-October 2024 you can decide if at that point if it is also worthwhile to spend 100s of millions on late ads on top of it. Perhaps it won't be, but you want to put yourself in a situation where you *can* make that choice when the time comes.

I would say Texas, Alaska, and Kansas are all sufficiently worthwhile targets for that sort of investment. In addition it makes sense to invest in Montana and Ohio partly for Senate reasons and, though I hate to say it, even to make sure Florida has proper statewide infrastructure running.

[Kevin Graham]

Anything beyond NC and TX would be a waste of time.

[Duke of York]

Yes. Democrats should have a 50 state strategy.

[Ferguson97]

Yes of course. There's no reason to put yourself in the box of making your previous performance your ceiling.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Yes of course. There's no reason to put yourself in the box of making your previous performance your ceiling.

It's hard to see Biden gaining more than NC, unless he's already winning comfortably (and thus doesn't need TX or FL anyway).

On the other hand, coming close enough on TX/FL/OH could carry the Senate candidates over the line and help Democrats maintain control of the Senate.

[ProudModerate2]

Not really.
The only state I would push-on if I were Biden, would be NC.

[Mr. Smith]

2016 didn't work out so well when this was tried.

[MARGINS6729]

Yes- Democrats have a much narrower path now and they need to expand those paths. TX, FL, OH, AK, etc.

[pbrower2a]

The direction of expanding the map may not be obvious, but the political calamity that is Donald Trump may create unforeseen oppoortunities. Note well that 306 electoral votes is a marginal win, and only three states separate a D win of the Presidency and an R win of the President.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Yes- Democrats have a much narrower path now and they need to expand those paths. TX, FL, OH, AK, etc.

They're unlikely to win any of these states for President, but doing well can help downballot. Even then though, Biden is best to stay as far away from the states as possible, because he's only a drag. Ie if Biden tries to campaign in AK, the most likely outcome if anything changes is that he drags Peltola down.

In the long run, I don't think the Democrats are moving in the direction necessary to win any of these states. Kansas might be well a more feasible target than any of the 4 in the medium run.

I think trends are slightly overrated and candidates are slightly underrated when evaluating long-term shifts. If Trump died tomorrow and Youngkin were nominated, we'd see massive suburban reversion. If Democrats ran more people like DMP and less people like Biden, FL might start voting left of the tipping point state.

[MARGINS6729]

Yes- Democrats have a much narrower path now and they need to expand those paths. TX, FL, OH, AK, etc.

They're unlikely to win any of these states for President, but doing well can help downballot. Even then though, Biden is best to stay as far away from the states as possible, because he's only a drag. Ie if Biden tries to campaign in AK, the most likely outcome if anything changes is that he drags Peltola down.

In the long run, I don't think the Democrats are moving in the direction necessary to win any of these states. Kansas might be well a more feasible target than any of the 4 in the medium run.

I think trends are slightly overrated and candidates are slightly underrated when evaluating long-term shifts. If Trump died tomorrow and Youngkin were nominated, we'd see massive suburban reversion. If Democrats ran more people like DMP and less people like Biden, FL might start voting left of the tipping point state.

We have to think longterm here.