Washington Post on Georgia Turning Purple

[Frodo]

Michelle Nunn, Jason Carter hope to rechart the course of Georgia politics

By Karen Tumulty, Published: December 21

MACON, Ga. — The two major parties here don’t agree on many things. One of them is that it is only a matter of time before Georgia goes from being a Republican stronghold to a state that is up for grabs.

In next year’s elections, Democrats will be looking to speed that process along with a couple of candidates who bring fresh faces and familiar names.

They are Senate contender Michelle Nunn, an executive who is also the daughter of former senator Sam Nunn, and gubernatorial hopeful Jason Carter, a third-term state senator who is a grandson of former president Jimmy Carter.

Nunn and Carter face tough odds, given that Georgia has not elected a non-incumbent Democrat to any statewide office since the waning years of the last century. But recent demographic shifts suggest a new electoral equation could be forming — and probably more quickly than in much-talked-about Texas.

[The Free North]

If blacks continue to vote in higher levels than whites, yes Georgia will be purple as the great migration reverses itself.


Considering Obama will not be on the ballot in 2016, whether that happens or not remains to be seen...

[Kevin]

If blacks continue to vote in higher levels than whites, yes Georgia will be purple as the great migration reverses itself.


Considering Obama will not be on the ballot in 2016, whether that happens or not remains to be seen...

Personally I am skeptical minority turnout will be as high in 2016 as it was in 08/12.

So Georgia and Texas(at least for the foreseeable future) should remain safely in GOP hands imo.

[Sol]

If I recall, Black turnout in Georgia actually fell in 2012- probably due to voter ID. However, the demographic changes in Georgia aren't the kind that will be canceled out by any potentially decreased turnout- they'll make up for lowered turnout an then some.

That's assuming, as Mechaman has pointed out, that current trends will continue with no modification thanks to changes in the parties. However, I actually think the trends in Georgia are more likely to put the state in the D-column long term than those in NC and VA. That's simply because in the latter 2, the shift is more dependent on moderate white suburbanites.

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting.

[opebo]

If I recall, Black turnout in Georgia actually fell in 2012- probably due to voter ID. However, the demographic changes in Georgia aren't the kind that will be canceled out by any potentially decreased turnout- they'll make up for lowered turnout an then some.

Precisely.  These Republicans hoping to blunt the dying off of their whites with minorities non-voting (either voluntarily or through coercion) are missing the point - the demographic changes swamp minor differences in turnout over time.

I actually think the trends in Georgia are more likely to put the state in the D-column long term than those in NC and VA. That's simply because in the latter 2, the shift is more dependent on moderate white suburbanites.

You may have a point about NC, but VA is pretty much gone in the longer term for the GOP.

[Non Swing Voter]

If I recall, Black turnout in Georgia actually fell in 2012- probably due to voter ID. However, the demographic changes in Georgia aren't the kind that will be canceled out by any potentially decreased turnout- they'll make up for lowered turnout an then some.

That's assuming, as Mechaman has pointed out, that current trends will continue with no modification thanks to changes in the parties. However, I actually think the trends in Georgia are more likely to put the state in the D-column long term than those in NC and VA. That's simply because in the latter 2, the shift is more dependent on moderate white suburbanites.

I don't know about North Carolina but in Virginia the shift is equally dependent on increased diversity.  People don't realize that NOVA is only about 50% white.  While the white population is slightly increasing in NOVA, the minority population there is booming, account for almost all of its growth.  In some of the counties and cities (some cities have their votes tallied separate than the counties they are located in), minorities are almost two thirds of the population.

Right now the shift is helped by moderate white suburbanites in the DC suburbs.  But sooner or later, Democrats won't need those voters much as the voting pool will become 40-50% minority.  Of course, those white moderates in NOVA aren't voting GOP any time soon anyways.

[Adam Griffin]

If you haven't already, I highly suggest that you check out my Browning in America map that I made a couple of weeks ago. It clearly shows why Georgia is changing so rapidly. Four of the five most rapidly browning counties (since 1990) in the US are in this state and comprise roughly 15% of the state's population. Expand this to the top 25 counties and 7 of them are in Georgia, comprising close to one-quarter of the state's population.

I just have to say that it feels so good to be vindicated at least in part, even though we haven't seen the electoral consequences just yet. I am seeing a new article about Georgia's potential from a reputable journalist, demographer or other entity almost every day now. Even just a year ago, half of the forum would think you crazy if you discussed the real possibility of Georgia becoming a swing state in this decade. I have done a bunch of demographic analysis and contemplation on Georgia's potential, but it's scattered all about the forum in various posts. I'll try to find most/all of it and repost here for further consideration.

[illegaloperation]

Actually, I would argue that North Carolina is more similar to Virginia than to Georgia.

What's causing the state to move to the left is an influx of liberals into Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area (also known as the Research Triangle).

[ElectionsGuy]

If blacks continue to vote in higher levels than whites, yes Georgia will be purple as the great migration reverses itself.


Considering Obama will not be on the ballot in 2016, whether that happens or not remains to be seen...

Pretty much this, but I don't think Obama made too much of a difference besides slightly higher than usual turnout numbers for blacks.

[Adam Griffin]

Personally I am skeptical minority turnout will be as high in 2016 as it was in 08/12.

So Georgia and Texas(at least for the foreseeable future) should remain safely in GOP hands imo.

If blacks continue to vote in higher levels than whites, yes Georgia will be purple as the great migration reverses itself.


Considering Obama will not be on the ballot in 2016, whether that happens or not remains to be seen...

Pretty much this, but I don't think Obama made too much of a difference besides slightly higher than usual turnout numbers for blacks.

I've never understood the general argument that minority turnout in Deep South states will suddenly plummet once Obama is no longer in office and his supposed hex wears off of the electorate. That it will immediately disintegrate come 2016 is demonstrably false. I worry about something else, but I'll elaborate below. Let's consider Georgia's electorate over the past few cycles, using this nifty past and future chart I made:



In 2004, the black electorate comprised 25% of the voting population. It surged in 2008 - by five points - and was 30% of the electorate. Fast forward to 2012 and it remained the same - roughly 30% of the electorate. But what about in the mid-terms? Obama was not on the ballot then, yet blacks managed to comprise 28% of the electorate in 2010, an incredibly impressive number considering their share of the electorate in the 2004 election. Sure, it was the largest nominal drop between a presidential year and a midterm year for the black electorate in the past two decades, but it also followed the biggest surge in black registration and turnout since at least Reconstruction.

Just four years prior (2006), that number was 24%. I don't buy that a potential effect in turnout among blacks - especially in the midterms - was avoided just because Obama was sitting in the White House. We all saw the disorganization and terrible turnout nationally of Democrats, yet this wasn't nearly as big of a problem in Georgia in relative terms. The black voting bloc in Georgia has been activated and there has been a historical trend over the past few decades in Georgia that blacks who are registered to vote have a pretty strong tendency to actually vote - it's getting them registered that usually proves to be the issue.

My big worry does not pertain to whether or not blacks will turnout in 2014 & 2016 (they will), but rather to how much they will continue to support Democrats. The black electorate in Georgia gave Gore and Kerry 88% and 89% of their vote, respectively. In 2008, that number increased to 98% and was somewhere around 95% in 2012. If this number reverts from 95% to 89%, that's effectively a two-point reduction in statewide Democratic performance; under those conditions, Obama would have only received 43.5% of the vote in 2012.

If I recall, Black turnout in Georgia actually fell in 2012- probably due to voter ID. However, the demographic changes in Georgia aren't the kind that will be canceled out by any potentially decreased turnout- they'll make up for lowered turnout an then some.

That's assuming, as Mechaman has pointed out, that current trends will continue with no modification thanks to changes in the parties. However, I actually think the trends in Georgia are more likely to put the state in the D-column long term than those in NC and VA. That's simply because in the latter 2, the shift is more dependent on moderate white suburbanites.

It only fell by 0.2 points. Voter ID was passed in GA in 2004 and went into full effect in 2007. Again, the biggest surge in black turnout and registration in Georgia was done under the first full election cycle of photo ID. I hate to admit it, but the Republicans' best argument for voter ID laws is Georgia; it really has not prevented the black community as a whole from exercising their democratic rights. The black share of the electorate has been 93-97% representative of their share of the population in the past two presidential election cycles, far higher than it was prior to voter ID laws being implemented.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If all of this does actually happen I do so very much hope that the mostly black primary Dem voters of Georgia make sure to pick candidates such as themselves and not white lawyers and the like.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course most of you are just showing your age. Which is fine (I guess), but it isn't that long ago that we witnessed the final collapse of Eternal Democrat Rule in Georgia and its eclipse as even a possible swing state.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

People may talk about Georgia becoming a swing state, but I kind of doubt it.  It is, after all, one of the few states that has become more Republican over the past two decades.

[DS0816]

People may talk about Georgia becoming a swing state, but I kind of doubt it.  It is, after all, one of the few states that has become more Republican over the past two decades.

One thing I notice is that, since the 1950s, when numerous of the presidential winners whose base states did not come from the Old Confederacy managed to carry select states from that area … the ones in their column accounted for between 10 to 15 percent of their overall electoral-vote score.

I'm referring to Dwight Eisenhower (1952, 1956), Bill Clinton (1992, 1996), and Barack Obama (2008, 2012).

For the latest of Democratic presidential victories, being in the range of 332 to 379 electoral votes, this means between 33 and 56 electoral votes serve as to guide. Nowadays, for a Democrat to match that Clinton re-election score, 56 electoral votes would essentially come from the ones carried with the first election of Obama in 2008: longtime bellwether Florida (29), establishing bellwether Virginia (13), and future bellwether North Carolina (15).

For Georgia to flip, this suggests to me a prevailing Democrat would landslide his/her Republican opponent to the tune of an electoral-vote score north of 400.

[Smash255]

People may talk about Georgia becoming a swing state, but I kind of doubt it.  It is, after all, one of the few states that has become more Republican over the past two decades.

Similar to most of the south, after Clinton most of Georgia (minus the Atlanta metro) swung considerably Republican.  However, in many of those areas, it has become so heavily GOP that there simply isn't much room to swing further.  Meanwhile, in the Atlanta metro it has swung Democratic and there are still more room to move.  Suburban Gwinnett and Conn counties are still Republican, but nowhere near the levels they once were. 

Now, some of the more exurban areas such as Forsyth is rapidly growing and uber GOP.   However the gains from the growth there don't make up for the changes in areas such as Cobb and Gwinnett.  Not to mention other portions of Metro Atlanta well  and much of the rest of the state has pretty much maxed out how Republican in can get.  So the overall dynamics means the state is likely to move into swing state territory.  How long that takes is up for debate, but unless the GOP does better with groups they are doing very poorly with, the move towards becoming a swing state is inevitable. 

[Gass3268]

People may talk about Georgia becoming a swing state, but I kind of doubt it.  It is, after all, one of the few states that has become more Republican over the past two decades.

Did you even read Adam's post?

[eric82oslo]

It will happen one day, but Arizona will switch much sooner. Arizona (except for their current governor & police force) has always been politically moderate for as long as I can remember. Just think of John McCain and other recent senators they've had + being one of the least religious states in the US. They even have a majority Democrats in the House of Representatives currently. Georgia, on the other hand, has always been politically very conservative. Hadn't it been for the citizens out of state magnet that is Atlanta + their huge black population, Georgia wouldn't even have been remotely close in presidential elections. Even today, most of Atlanta's sizable suburbs continue to vote Republican. Certainly a bad sign for Democratic prospects. And Georgia, even with its influx of new citizens, continue to be one of the most religious states in the country, although slightly less so than their neighbours Alabama and South Carolina.

I believe Arizona might switch already in 2016. Georgia on the other hand, will probably have to wait till 2020 or 2024. However Hillary does have the X factor for being seen as a representative of the south or who at least understands the concerns of southerners. Thus, even Georgia could potentially switch in 2016. However, I believe Hillary will be much more tempted to apply a Latino Strategy rather than a New Southern Strategy. She might attempt to do both of course, and probably will to some extent, however I believe her Latino outreach will be much more substantial & sincere than her constant touring and campaigning in the southern states. Early on she might concentrate on the south, however, the closer we'll get to the election, the latino outreach and focus on the main swing states will consume almost all of her attention, money and staff, I believe.

[DS0816]

It will happen one day, but Arizona will switch much sooner. Arizona (except for their current governor & police force) has always been politically moderate for as long as I can remember. Just think of John McCain and other recent senators they've had + being one of the least religious states in the US. They even have a majority Democrats in the House of Representatives currently. Georgia, on the other hand, has always been politically very conservative. Hadn't it been for the citizens out of state magnet that is Atlanta + their huge black population, Georgia wouldn't even have been remotely close in presidential elections. Even today, most of Atlanta's sizable suburbs continue to vote Republican. Certainly a bad sign for Democratic prospects. And Georgia, even with its influx of new citizens, continue to be one of the most religious states in the country, although slightly less so than their neighbours Alabama and South Carolina.

I believe Arizona might switch already in 2016. Georgia on the other hand, will probably have to wait till 2020 or 2024. However Hillary does have the X factor for being seen as a representative of the south or who at least understands the concerns of southerners. Thus, even Georgia could potentially switch in 2016. However, I believe Hillary will be much more tempted to apply a Latino Strategy rather than a New Southern Strategy. She might attempt to do both of course, and probably will to some extent, however I believe her Latino outreach will be much more substantial & sincere than her constant touring and campaigning in the southern states. Early on she might concentrate on the south, however, the closer we'll get to the election, the latino outreach and focus on the main swing states will consume almost all of her attention, money and staff, I believe.

I noted it somewhere on this site. The last two decades' worth of presidential elections saw the statewide margins of Arizona and Georgia typically five percentage points or less from each other. Even in 1992 and 1996, when they carried differently, they were no more than five points in spread. 2004 was the year they were six points in spread from each other.

Had Barack Obama won the 2012 re-election with a national margin between 10 and 12 points (rather than between 3 and 4 points), I would say that, while losing Indiana and Nebraska #02 to losing Republican challenger Mitt Romney, the 44th president would have countered with Democratic pickups of Arizona and Georgia. That way, he would've been re-elected along traditional historical lines of improved electoral-vote score, with North Carolina retained, going from 365 (in 2008) to 374 (in 2012) electoral votes.

[sg0508]

Arizona maintains its "reddish" trend. The statewide GOP is still far stronger and better organized than the democratic party.  2012 should have been a ripe year for Obama to make a run at it, but he never did.  He didn't need it, but it was one state (the other being GA) that the democrats could have put some heat on the GOP. 

GA needs a few more cycles before it's considered to be a swing state at the presidential level.  Although it looks like it's going to be a GOP year (right now), watch the Senate race this year.  Can the democrats actually make a run for it?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

About Arizona, I feel that even if the GOP starts courting Hispanics nationwide (like in Texas and Florida), the Arizona Republican Party is so far to the right on immigration that it will still go D. Agree?

[illegaloperation]

About Arizona, I feel that even if the GOP starts courting Hispanics nationwide (like in Texas and Florida), the Arizona Republican Party is so far to the right on immigration that it will still go D. Agree?

You mean like this?:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-republicans-censure-john-mccain-for-being-too-liberal/

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

About Arizona, I feel that even if the GOP starts courting Hispanics nationwide (like in Texas and Florida), the Arizona Republican Party is so far to the right on immigration that it will still go D. Agree?

You mean like this?:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-republicans-censure-john-mccain-for-being-too-liberal/

Exactly what I had in mind.

[Skill and Chance]

Arizona maintains its "reddish" trend. The statewide GOP is still far stronger and better organized than the democratic party.  2012 should have been a ripe year for Obama to make a run at it, but he never did.  He didn't need it, but it was one state (the other being GA) that the democrats could have put some heat on the GOP. 

GA needs a few more cycles before it's considered to be a swing state at the presidential level.  Although it looks like it's going to be a GOP year (right now), watch the Senate race this year.  Can the democrats actually make a run for it?

Well, Republicans are really suffering downballot in AZ.  Part of that is the Dem-favoring maps going into effect, but Carmona only lost by about 3% and he had some serious issues as a candidate.  Perhaps AZ was uniquely cold toward Obama but more open to Dems in general?  It almost reminds me of Southern Blue Dogs.

[moderatevoter]

Arizona maintains its "reddish" trend. The statewide GOP is still far stronger and better organized than the democratic party.  2012 should have been a ripe year for Obama to make a run at it, but he never did.  He didn't need it, but it was one state (the other being GA) that the democrats could have put some heat on the GOP. 

GA needs a few more cycles before it's considered to be a swing state at the presidential level.  Although it looks like it's going to be a GOP year (right now), watch the Senate race this year.  Can the democrats actually make a run for it?

Well, Republicans are really suffering downballot in AZ.  Part of that is the Dem-favoring maps going into effect, but Carmona only lost by about 3% and he had some serious issues as a candidate.  Perhaps AZ was uniquely cold toward Obama but more open to Dems in general?  It almost reminds me of Southern Blue Dogs.

I've actually always wondered why Flake didn't win by more in Arizona.