I read the New Republic article followed by the NYTimes article on which it is based and that it links to.

From the Times article this is what they are all basing their opinion on:

Our analysis shows that while 9 percent of Obama 2012 voters went for Mr. Trump in 2016, 7 percent — that’s more than four million missing voters — stayed home. Three percent voted for a third-party candidate.

Doesn't sound like much of a slam dunk, sounds pretty iffy to rely on this alone in the crucial swing states. And as you say There are limited resources in GOTV.

Myself, I suspect a lot of these stayed home precisely because they were mightily disappointed by the charismatic dream boy they envisioned in Obama. Those that probably wouldn't have got up off the couch to vote for Obama for a third term much less Hillary Clinton for her first. They don't want moderation, they want and expect visionary "change" of some kind and see that voting hasn't worked out that way for them. Meanwhile a majority would like to see change relegated to a few certain things (i.e., health care, immigration) and moderation and slowing of change for most everything else (i.e. taxes, economy, nanny state, political correctness related issues.)

Can you get them to the voting booth in sufficient numbers to count and to vote for the Dem instead of third party? Sure, you can bribe the already cynical about politics with cash money, that's what's probably required to make this work. Do they hate Trump enough to vote for anybody else? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe like A Guy Called Lulu, they think he is not much worse in effect than a lot of mainstream guys. Maybe they think he's bad on race issues but they at least knows where he stands, while they are eager to buy smears about Hillary Clinton and Biden types as crooked white priviledge folks who don't give a damn and hide their racial preferences, or see Corey Booker as sold out to elite educated privilege, or see Kamala Harris likewise plus a sell-out to the police state.

Cynical is the word. Some cheery bright-eyed passionate partisan volunteer at their door is not going to get a lot of them off the couch to the voting booth.

I really don't see what's so hard, what's rocket science, about winning the district in this story, for one example, back away from Trump:

SUBURBAN/RURAL SWING WOMEN

By artappraiser on Sat, 10/12/2019 - 4:16pm |

After all, it has already been done in 2018 by their new House Rep by. casting herself as a moderate who wanted to solve problems

All I see you advocate instead is GOTV in already blue inner city areas by dragging people off their couches to vote for some pie in the sky lefty promises. Where it won't make a difference because those who already vote already vote blue. Meanwhile your exciting politically correct candidate, politically correct outrageously enough to get cynical leftist couch potatoes interested in voting, could turn off enough surburban/moderate voters in purple states to turn more of them red next time!

If they couldn't come out to vote for Hillary in a red or purple state, they are a problem, not a solution. They either are too far left or they listened to too much Russian agitprop. In a blue state, and then like it or not, it didn't matter. It is likely that what they like and want now will turn off purple state people. If they can't come out for a moderate, they are no help but a hindrance.