Which states are fool's gold for the Democrats?

[retromike22]

Which states, in your opinion, are fool's gold for the Democrats? By fool's gold, I mean: They may seem to others as potential 2016 target states, but you feel that no matter what, for Democrats to compete in them in 2016 will just waste money and resources.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Texas, Missouri, and Indiana.

[BaconBacon96]

South Carolina.

[Mordecai]

Indiana, Missouri and South Carolina.

[morgieb]

Texas, South Carolina, Arizona (doesn't look it's swinging anywhere).

I wouldn't really bother in Indiana. Surprised people are answering Missouri though.

[eric82oslo]

None of these in a longer perspective (say within 10-12 years), yet South Carolina surely comes the closest.

[Supersonic]

South Carolina, Missouri and Indiana.

There is a feasible long term plan for the others.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Indiana, Texas, and South Carolina for now. If we're talking about the next 15-20 years, then take off Texas.

Missouri could be winnable for Hillary, and in a Democratic landslide Georgia and Arizona could flip but chances are none will.

[IceSpear]

Texas is the ultimate fool's gold. Every 4 years we hear "soon it will be purple!". Every 4 years it's a Republican landslide.

[eric82oslo]

South Carolina, Missouri and Indiana.

There is a feasible long term plan for the others.

If Hillary can't manage to win Missouri in neither 2016 nor 2020, I agree. Otherwise, I think it's still winnable. Indiana I think was more than a fluke for Obama. In the long run, I think Indiana will remain more Democrat-friendly than Missouri. Just like the entire south by now has (temporarily) realigned themselves, it might happen that Indiana with time will realign itself with its northern neighbours as well. Bad news for Indiana is of course that they don't have a Chicago like their Western neighbour. That complicates stuff a lot of course.

[henster]

The key difference between Republicans is that Democrats aren't wasting money and resources trying to win these states every year like the GOP does with MN, PA, WI. Team Obama was smart enough to not even waste time contesting these states.

[eric82oslo]

The key difference between Republicans is that Democrats aren't wasting money and resources trying to win these states every year like the GOP does with MN, PA, WI. Team Obama was smart enough to not even waste time contesting these states.

I think he was stupid not to contest Arizona and Georgia actually, at the very least Arizona. Rumour has it he did contest Georgia early on in his 2008 50 state strategy. Plus he and especially his Illinois volunteers very much did contest Indiana in 2008. Some even say it was the state with the best groundwork of all, at least one of them.

[Skill and Chance]

The key difference between Republicans is that Democrats aren't wasting money and resources trying to win these states every year like the GOP does with MN, PA, WI. Team Obama was smart enough to not even waste time contesting these states.

I think he was stupid not to contest Arizona and Georgia actually, at the very least Arizona. Rumour has it he did contest Georgia early on in his 2008 50 state strategy. Plus he and especially his Illinois volunteers very much did contest Indiana in 2008. Some even say it was the state with the best groundwork of all, at least one of them.

Georgia would have made a lot of sense in 2008.  Democrats could have really used one more senator during the 2009-10 period and the Dem only barely lost round 1.

[Mr. Illini]

Texas, SC, and Indiana

Texas looks potentially swingy long down the road, but competing there now will be impossible.

Arizona, Missouri, and Georgia are unlikely to go Democrat but will much sooner than the three listed would.

[Flake]

Indiana, Texas, and it was a tossup between Missouri and South Carolina, but I voted South Carolina.

[pbrower2a]

Indiana -- because a Democratic nominee for President who wins Indiana is winning Ohio and the election anyway.

South Carolina -- because a Democratic nominee who wins South Carolina is winning Georgia and the election anyway.

Texas -- because Texas is roughly the difference between 410 and 440 electoral votes.

[ElectionsGuy]

All of them except Georgia and Arizona.

[Kevin]

TX, IN, and GA(at least for the foreseeable future)

[CatoMinor]

All of the above

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

All of the above

^^
It was rather hackish to not include 5 options, unless the answer was "the most" pointless state to target.

[Nichlemn]

All of them make little sense for the Democrats to target in 2016 at least, because they're just too far from the national average to be likely tipping points. I picked TX, GA and SC, because their inelasticity can make the margins deceptive, and the optimism for them generally relies on demographic trends that are occurring too slowly to have large electoral effects so soon.

[Del Tachi]

For 2016?

All of these states. 

[Ebowed]

The following is just conjecture based on fuzzy anecdotal evidence, but: I remember being ten years old in SC and asking my classmates how they would vote, if they could, in the 2000 presidential election.  I attended a public school that was about 60-40 (white-black) in terms of racial balance.  There was only one other white kid who admitted to supporting Gore.  Some of the white kids said they liked Jim Hodges (Democratic governor of SC, elected in 1998) because of his push for the lottery...

Of course, all this really says is how their parents were voting, but it was a school with a strong emphasis on the arts (a 'magnet' school), so I'd be pleasantly surprised if South Carolina turns Democratic any time in the next couple of decades.

(By 2004, I was attending a public school in a more urban district, with a 50-50 racial split, and only a negligible increase in support for Kerry compared to 2000.)

---

Just to throw this out there, as I have probably mentioned many years ago, I met Mark Sanford at my megachurch in 2003, and our pastor touted him as a good Christian man.  Looking up the congregation a year ago, I learned that current South Carolina Senator Tim Scott delivered a guest sermon at the same megachurch in 2010 to discuss the evils of big government and fiscal irresponsibility.

[LeBron]

Texas - The fool's gold of them all. No Democrat is winning here in 2016 because just South Texas won't cut it. However, with the new rising, young and bold Democratic politicians in TX, they may have something to offer in a few decades.

South Carolina - Unless Vincent Sheheen were to pull an upset on Haley and decides for a run for President, no Democrat is winning a Presidential race here for a long time.

Georgia - The state is still too polarized to flip but it would be close in a Hillary vs. Cruz match-up.


Indiana and Missouri really aren't fools gold though because if we get Clinton, Bayh or Nixon then those Mideast states could be in play and any three of them could replicate Obama's '08 numbers if they run a strong campaign. And Arizona could be a state to watch in 2016, but Democrats should wait until at least 2020 to compete there strongly.

[Landslide Lyndon]

How is Indiana fool's gold? Obama carried it once and it elected a Democratic senator in 2012.