I depends, if they follow political consultant focus-group research they'll probably just be hitting up the same voters as last time, with the usual safe party topics.

Which is why I believe Trump (and Sanders) was able to hit up a very cynical voter base, and cross typical party lines, by going totally off the mainstream script. Which may have played a big role in why all of the standard projection models missed their mark so badly. While Clinton was the polar opposite. Which also attracted the 'fuck you' votes against Clinton, even from people indifferent to Trump.

As someone totally disinterested in voting I saw appeal in that, although I'm too much of a logic/rational person to toy with stuff like that.

But there's definitely something deeper there, a deep seated dissatisfaction with the entire system and a voter base not being addressed by standard messaging. Sadly, we're all back to ignoring that fact, blaming Nazis and obsessing over the daily Trump gossip, like celebrity Entertainment Tonight.

Trump got no extra votes, Hillary simply drummed up less support. Voter turnout actually declined signficantly.

"he got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012, fewer votes than John McCain in 2008, and fewer votes than George W. Bush in 2004." This despite the growing US population.

Republican candidate got: 2004 62 million votes, 2008 60.0 million votes, 2012 60.9 million votes, 2016 59.7 million votes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/10...

"She got 6 million fewer votes than Barack Obama did in 2012, and nearly 10 million fewer than he did in 2008"

I was referring to a poll I read showing a notable portion of Trump voters either didn't vote last time or if they did vote it was for Obama in 2012 or 2008. That's all I meant by my comment... not that he had some new big number of voters?

It's been well covered in the press Trump got less votes than a number of presidents in the past, which only contributes to my general point.