National Journal: Democrats Are Running Out of States to Flip

[Never]

In an interesting piece from National Journal, Josh Kraushaar argues that states like Arizona, Texas, and Georgia are unlikely to become swing states as some, like Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, have argued. One of his main justifications for this claim is that increased polarization will counteract the increasing minority vote. In Texas specifically, Kraushaar points out that while Hispanics (a strongly Democratic group) are growing in the state, their turnout is currently too low to prevent Republicans from winning in the state, and even when their numbers become high enough to have a real impact in the future, it is entirely possible that many Hispanics will self-identify as white and possibly vote Republican as the majority whites do.

He closes his article with these words:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any thoughts on this article? I thought that it injected some realism into the discussion about trends and how they only go so far in assisting the Democratic party, but I'm sure that there are other opinions out there.

[bedstuy]

Texas is a pipe-dream if you ask me.  If we're really competing in Texas, the election is a huge landslide because of a crazy event.  But, you don't have to flip these states, so who cares?  Getting 400+ electoral votes is pretty much useless.  You don't get an extra bonus year of being President if you hit 400.  The question is whether we can pick up House seats in Texas by contesting the state more heavily and boosting Hispanic turnout to reasonable levels.

Georgia might just become the Democrats' version of Minnesota or Pennsylvania, where they keep talking about winning it and come up short.

Arizona, I could actually see Hillary Clinton winning in 2016.  Arizona does have a strong Democratic base to work from in Tucson, Flagstaff and the Rez.  If you can win over the old people and get Hispanics voting at a higher rate, it's pretty simple to hit 50%.  Arizona is actually not nearly as culturally conservative as Georgia or Texas.  You have less knee-jerk, pro-life Republicans and more people who are somewhat independent.

[Never]

Texas is a pipe-dream if you ask me.  If we're really competing in Texas, the election is a huge landslide because of a crazy event.  But, you don't have to flip these states, so who cares?  Getting 400+ electoral votes is pretty much useless.  You don't get an extra bonus year of being President if you hit 400.  The question is whether we can pick up House seats in Texas by contesting the state more heavily and boosting Hispanic turnout to reasonable levels.

Georgia might just become the Democrats' version of Minnesota or Pennsylvania, where they keep talking about winning it and come up short.

Arizona, I could actually see Hillary Clinton winning in 2016.  Arizona does have a strong Democratic base to work from in Tucson, Flagstaff and the Rez.  If you can win over the old people and get Hispanics voting at a higher rate, it's pretty simple to hit 50%.  Arizona is actually not nearly as culturally conservative as Georgia or Texas.  You have less knee-jerk, pro-life Republicans and more people who are somewhat independent.

I agree that Clinton could win Arizona, but I suspect that she could win in Georgia too. While Georgia is culturally conservative, it was closer than Arizona in 2012, and the Peach State does have the Atlanta metropolitan area. Furthermore, Barack Obama actually won the female vote in Georgia back in 2008. If Clinton manages to do better with women than Obama, I suspect that she could be the one Democrat to flip Georgia.  

Now, I think her possible wins in both states would be similar to how Obama won Indiana in 2008, so neither would necessarily become permanent swing states (the notion that Kraushaar seems to argue against), but they both have the potential to be flukes (for lack of a better term) in 2016.

[bedstuy]

Texas is a pipe-dream if you ask me.  If we're really competing in Texas, the election is a huge landslide because of a crazy event.  But, you don't have to flip these states, so who cares?  Getting 400+ electoral votes is pretty much useless.  You don't get an extra bonus year of being President if you hit 400.  The question is whether we can pick up House seats in Texas by contesting the state more heavily and boosting Hispanic turnout to reasonable levels.

Georgia might just become the Democrats' version of Minnesota or Pennsylvania, where they keep talking about winning it and come up short.

Arizona, I could actually see Hillary Clinton winning in 2016.  Arizona does have a strong Democratic base to work from in Tucson, Flagstaff and the Rez.  If you can win over the old people and get Hispanics voting at a higher rate, it's pretty simple to hit 50%.  Arizona is actually not nearly as culturally conservative as Georgia or Texas.  You have less knee-jerk, pro-life Republicans and more people who are somewhat independent.

I agree that Clinton could win Arizona, but I suspect that she could win in Georgia too. While Georgia is culturally conservative, it was closer than Arizona in 2012, and the Peach State does have the Atlanta metropolitan area. Furthermore, Barack Obama actually won the female vote in Georgia back in 2008. If Clinton manages to do better with women than Obama, I suspect that she could be the one Democrat to flip Georgia.   

Now, I think her possible wins in both states would be similar to how Obama won Indiana in 2008, so neither would necessarily become permanent swing states (the notion that Kraushaar seems to argue against), but they both have the potential to be flukes (for lack of a better term) in 2016.

Maybe Clinton could win Georgia.  I just think people can overestimate what it means when you hit 46-47% of the vote in a strong election year for your side.  Hillary Clinton can utterly trounce the Republican candidate and hit a very high popular vote percentage and only hit 49% in Georgia.  These southern states have a lot of people who will never vote for a pro-choice, East Coast elite Democrat like Hillary Clinton. 

The other thing is that I think bigger states are harder to flip.  How much more money, staff and organization do you need to win Georgia vs. Arizona?  In Arizona you could just put staff and money in two or three cities and pretty well blanket the state.  Also, remember Arizona has been very friendly to female candidates in the past.  Arizona has had a female governor since like 1997, right?

[illegaloperation]

Does this article contribute anything new?

Democrats are making gain because of demographic changes. Duh!

Republicans are counteracting some of the Democrats' gain by winning larger percent of whites. Duh!

Hillary is such a powerful force because she can hold together the Obama coalition while she bring back whites that have abandoned the Democratic Party.

[Never]

Texas is a pipe-dream if you ask me.  If we're really competing in Texas, the election is a huge landslide because of a crazy event.  But, you don't have to flip these states, so who cares?  Getting 400+ electoral votes is pretty much useless.  You don't get an extra bonus year of being President if you hit 400.  The question is whether we can pick up House seats in Texas by contesting the state more heavily and boosting Hispanic turnout to reasonable levels.

Georgia might just become the Democrats' version of Minnesota or Pennsylvania, where they keep talking about winning it and come up short.

Arizona, I could actually see Hillary Clinton winning in 2016.  Arizona does have a strong Democratic base to work from in Tucson, Flagstaff and the Rez.  If you can win over the old people and get Hispanics voting at a higher rate, it's pretty simple to hit 50%.  Arizona is actually not nearly as culturally conservative as Georgia or Texas.  You have less knee-jerk, pro-life Republicans and more people who are somewhat independent.

I agree that Clinton could win Arizona, but I suspect that she could win in Georgia too. While Georgia is culturally conservative, it was closer than Arizona in 2012, and the Peach State does have the Atlanta metropolitan area. Furthermore, Barack Obama actually won the female vote in Georgia back in 2008. If Clinton manages to do better with women than Obama, I suspect that she could be the one Democrat to flip Georgia.  

Now, I think her possible wins in both states would be similar to how Obama won Indiana in 2008, so neither would necessarily become permanent swing states (the notion that Kraushaar seems to argue against), but they both have the potential to be flukes (for lack of a better term) in 2016.

Maybe Clinton could win Georgia.  I just think people can overestimate what it means when you hit 46-47% of the vote in a strong election year for your side.  Hillary Clinton can utterly trounce the Republican candidate and hit a very high popular vote percentage and only hit 49% in Georgia.  These southern states have a lot of people who will never vote for a pro-choice, East Coast elite Democrat like Hillary Clinton.  

The other thing is that I think bigger states are harder to flip.  How much more money, staff and organization do you need to win Georgia vs. Arizona?  In Arizona you could just put staff and money in two or three cities and pretty well blanket the state.  Also, remember Arizona has been very friendly to female candidates in the past.  Arizona has had a female governor since like 1997, right?

It's possible that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be able to make it above 50% in Georgia, though I suppose it would depend on how large her national victory is (for the sake of this discussion, I suppose we can assume that Clinton will win in 2016). If she wins by less than Obama's 2008 margin of victory, Georgia might be a tough state for a Democrat like Clinton to flip, but if she wins with 53-54% of the vote, Georgia might narrowly vote Democratic.

I suppose Georgia would require more resources than Arizona, but I suspect that many candidates would target the former over the latter because of the former's larger electoral vote share. Furthermore, a Democrat targeting Georgia might only need to target one media market, Atlanta. Also, if Georgia is being considered a major swing state, that probably means that several traditional battlegrounds like Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio are already in the Democrat's column, so the Democratic candidate could just pour more volunteers and ad dollars into the state without significant risk.

While Arizona does seem to favor female candidates and is an inexpensive target, for some reason it seems like white voters there are rigidly Republican, perhaps even more so than whites in Georgia. It would seem that this would explain how Jan Brewer could win in Arizona.

[bedstuy]

It's possible that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be able to make it above 50% in Georgia, though I suppose it would depend on how large her national victory is (for the sake of this discussion, I suppose we can assume that Clinton will win in 2016). If she wins by less than Obama's 2008 margin of victory, Georgia might be a tough state for a Democrat like Clinton to flip, but if she wins with 53-54% of the vote, Georgia might narrowly vote Democratic.

I suppose Georgia would require more resources than Arizona, but I suspect that many candidates would target the former over the latter because of the former's larger electoral vote share. Furthermore, a Democrat targeting Georgia might only need to target one media market, Atlanta. Also, if Georgia is being considered a major swing state, that probably means that several traditional battlegrounds like Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio are already in the Democrat's column, so the Democratic candidate could just pour more volunteers and ad dollars into the state without significant risk.

While Arizona does seem to favor female candidates and is an inexpensive target, for some reason it seems like white voters there are rigidly Republican, perhaps even more so than whites in Georgia. It would seem that this would explain how Jan Brewer could win in Arizona.

I don't think that's true at all.  Exit polls had Obama at 32% among whites in Arizona.  There's no way Obama was near 30% among whites in Georgia.

[illegaloperation]

It's possible that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be able to make it above 50% in Georgia, though I suppose it would depend on how large her national victory is (for the sake of this discussion, I suppose we can assume that Clinton will win in 2016). If she wins by less than Obama's 2008 margin of victory, Georgia might be a tough state for a Democrat like Clinton to flip, but if she wins with 53-54% of the vote, Georgia might narrowly vote Democratic.

I suppose Georgia would require more resources than Arizona, but I suspect that many candidates would target the former over the latter because of the former's larger electoral vote share. Furthermore, a Democrat targeting Georgia might only need to target one media market, Atlanta. Also, if Georgia is being considered a major swing state, that probably means that several traditional battlegrounds like Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio are already in the Democrat's column, so the Democratic candidate could just pour more volunteers and ad dollars into the state without significant risk.

While Arizona does seem to favor female candidates and is an inexpensive target, for some reason it seems like white voters there are rigidly Republican, perhaps even more so than whites in Georgia. It would seem that this would explain how Jan Brewer could win in Arizona.

Clinton does not need to get 50% of the vote to win Georgia. There's no runoff in presidential election.

Also, Georgia voters are definitely more rigid that Arizona's.

[illegaloperation]

I don't think that's true at all.  Exit polls had Obama at 32% among whites in Arizona.  There's no way Obama was near 30% among whites in Georgia.

According to exit polls, Obama got 23% of the Georgian white votes in 2008.

Had Obama gotten ~30% of the white vote in Georgia, he would have won the state easily.

[Never]

It's possible that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be able to make it above 50% in Georgia, though I suppose it would depend on how large her national victory is (for the sake of this discussion, I suppose we can assume that Clinton will win in 2016). If she wins by less than Obama's 2008 margin of victory, Georgia might be a tough state for a Democrat like Clinton to flip, but if she wins with 53-54% of the vote, Georgia might narrowly vote Democratic.

I suppose Georgia would require more resources than Arizona, but I suspect that many candidates would target the former over the latter because of the former's larger electoral vote share. Furthermore, a Democrat targeting Georgia might only need to target one media market, Atlanta. Also, if Georgia is being considered a major swing state, that probably means that several traditional battlegrounds like Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio are already in the Democrat's column, so the Democratic candidate could just pour more volunteers and ad dollars into the state without significant risk.

While Arizona does seem to favor female candidates and is an inexpensive target, for some reason it seems like white voters there are rigidly Republican, perhaps even more so than whites in Georgia. It would seem that this would explain how Jan Brewer could win in Arizona.

I don't think that's true at all.  Exit polls had Obama at 32% among whites in Arizona.  There's no way Obama was near 30% among whites in Georgia.

Admittedly, it seems that in 2008, McCain won 76% of the white vote in Georgia compared to just 59% in Arizona, so I will walk back on my comments.

It's possible that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be able to make it above 50% in Georgia, though I suppose it would depend on how large her national victory is (for the sake of this discussion, I suppose we can assume that Clinton will win in 2016). If she wins by less than Obama's 2008 margin of victory, Georgia might be a tough state for a Democrat like Clinton to flip, but if she wins with 53-54% of the vote, Georgia might narrowly vote Democratic.

I suppose Georgia would require more resources than Arizona, but I suspect that many candidates would target the former over the latter because of the former's larger electoral vote share. Furthermore, a Democrat targeting Georgia might only need to target one media market, Atlanta. Also, if Georgia is being considered a major swing state, that probably means that several traditional battlegrounds like Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio are already in the Democrat's column, so the Democratic candidate could just pour more volunteers and ad dollars into the state without significant risk.

While Arizona does seem to favor female candidates and is an inexpensive target, for some reason it seems like white voters there are rigidly Republican, perhaps even more so than whites in Georgia. It would seem that this would explain how Jan Brewer could win in Arizona.

Clinton does not need to get 50% of the vote to win Georgia. There's no runoff in presidential election.

Also, Georgia voters are definitely more rigid that Arizona's.

I didn't really mean 50% in that way, though it admittedly wasn't a good choice of words. I just meant that winning candidates usually win at least that percentage.

That graphic from 538 is definitely useful, but it doesn't specifically look at white voters, though after taking a look at some exit poll data from 2008, I realized that I am wrong about white voters from Arizona being more rigid than whites from Georgia.

[Free Bird]

Once again this is all based on the candidates. A Clinton clearly has a southern advantage. However, Texas Hispanics are much more conservative than nationally. The minority problem with Reps IMO might be weakening, as they are now trying to appeal more. In fact a recent survey said that Rand Paul would attract something like 30% of the black vote.

[illegaloperation]

Once again this is all based on the candidates. A Clinton clearly has a southern advantage. However, Texas Hispanics are much more conservative than nationally. The minority problem with Reps IMO might be weakening, as they are now trying to appeal more. In fact a recent survey said that Rand Paul would attract something like 30% of the black vote.

lol, no

[illegaloperation]

Georgia is probably easier for Democrats to win.

The biggest ethnic minority in Georgia is African American not Hispanic white.

It's a lot easier for Democrats to convince African American to turnout and vote for Democrats than it is for Hispanic white.

Of cause Hillary's special strength with Southern non-Hispanic whites probably helps a bit.

[Kevin]

Georgia is probably easier for Democrats to win.

The biggest ethnic minority in Georgia is African American not Hispanic white.

It's a lot easier for Democrats to convince African American to turnout and vote for Democrats than it is for Hispanic white.

Of cause Hillary's special strength with Southern non-Hispanic whites probably helps a bit.

Your the one who's delusional to believe that Hillary will do any better among white voters then Obama did. Esp. when campaign season kicks into full gear(if she wins the nomination that is)

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Once again this is all based on the candidates. A Clinton clearly has a southern advantage. However, Texas Hispanics are much more conservative than nationally. The minority problem with Reps IMO might be weakening, as they are now trying to appeal more. In fact a recent survey said that Rand Paul would attract something like 30% of the black vote.

Well, remember that for the Republicans its pretty much only Rand Paul who cares about issues facing minority communities enough to speak about them.

[henster]

Once again this is all based on the candidates. A Clinton clearly has a southern advantage. However, Texas Hispanics are much more conservative than nationally. The minority problem with Reps IMO might be weakening, as they are now trying to appeal more. In fact a recent survey said that Rand Paul would attract something like 30% of the black vote.

Well, remember that for the Republicans its pretty much only Rand Paul who cares about issues facing minority communities enough to speak about them.

I think his views on the Civil Rights Act and other issues (Southern Avenger) will hurt him greatly among blacks he could easily be painted as a racist.

[illegaloperation]

Once again this is all based on the candidates. A Clinton clearly has a southern advantage. However, Texas Hispanics are much more conservative than nationally. The minority problem with Reps IMO might be weakening, as they are now trying to appeal more. In fact a recent survey said that Rand Paul would attract something like 30% of the black vote.

Well, remember that for the Republicans its pretty much only Rand Paul who cares about issues facing minority communities enough to speak about them.

I did not said that Rand Paul won't get more black votes than other Republicans. Rather, I doubt that he would be able to get 30% of the black vote unless it's a 1984 landslide.

Your the one who's delusional to believe that Hillary will do any better among white voters then Obama did. Esp. when campaign season kicks into full gear(if she wins the nomination that is)

Are you sure? How come everytime you look into a mirror, a delusional person always look back at you?

[Free Bird]

Once again this is all based on the candidates. A Clinton clearly has a southern advantage. However, Texas Hispanics are much more conservative than nationally. The minority problem with Reps IMO might be weakening, as they are now trying to appeal more. In fact a recent survey said that Rand Paul would attract something like 30% of the black vote.

Well, remember that for the Republicans its pretty much only Rand Paul who cares about issues facing minority communities enough to speak about them.

I did not said that Rand Paul won't get more black votes than other Republicans. Rather, I doubt that he would be able to get 30% of the black vote unless it's a 1984 landslide.

Your the one who's delusional to believe that Hillary will do any better among white voters then Obama did. Esp. when campaign season kicks into full gear(if she wins the nomination that is)

Are you sure? How come everytime you look into a mirror, a delusional person always look back at you?

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-is-getting-more-black-support-than-almost-any-other-republican/

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Arizona is certainly flippable, but it will likely always have an initial conservative lean. It depends on Hillary turning out the hispanic vote, but also matching Richard Carmona's performance (2012 senate nominee) in terms of percentage of vote won among each demographic group.

Georgia is tougher, because turning out the black vote there can only help you so much - Clinton will also have to improve in the white vote, which was nearly 80% republican in both 2008 and 2012. I think Clinton needs to win close to a third of the georgia white vote in order to win the state. Hard, but not impossible.

As far as Texas goes, it's going to be really hard to flip. Not only are hispanics there never going to vote at 70% dem (even 60% dem would be a surprise in TX), but Clinton would also need to essentially match Bill Clinton's 1996 performance in terms of percentage of vote among every demographic group (whites, blacks, the old, the young, what have you) in order for a high hispanic turnout to actually flip the state.

[henster]

Once again this is all based on the candidates. A Clinton clearly has a southern advantage. However, Texas Hispanics are much more conservative than nationally. The minority problem with Reps IMO might be weakening, as they are now trying to appeal more. In fact a recent survey said that Rand Paul would attract something like 30% of the black vote.

Well, remember that for the Republicans its pretty much only Rand Paul who cares about issues facing minority communities enough to speak about them.

I did not said that Rand Paul won't get more black votes than other Republicans. Rather, I doubt that he would be able to get 30% of the black vote unless it's a 1984 landslide.

Your the one who's delusional to believe that Hillary will do any better among white voters then Obama did. Esp. when campaign season kicks into full gear(if she wins the nomination that is)

Are you sure? How come everytime you look into a mirror, a delusional person always look back at you?

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-is-getting-more-black-support-than-almost-any-other-republican/

The poll they cite had a very small sample size of blacks it was most likely statistical noise than anything else.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

As far as Texas goes, it's going to be really hard to flip. Not only are hispanics there never going to vote at 70% dem (even 60% dem would be a surprise in TX)...

Texas Hispanics are more GOP than Hispanics elsewhere but the difference is not that great; 60%+ is actually pretty common for a Democrat in Texas. Obama got 63% in 2008, compared to 67% nationally (there are no TX exits for 2012), and even Bill White got 61%, which was comparable to the national D vote in 2010 (60%). 70% would be difficult, though the Clintons have a lot of ties to the state historically and would be starting from a far stronger position than the average Dem.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-is-getting-more-black-support-than-almost-any-other-republican/

1. It's a poll of his home state.
2. It's SurveyUSA. They're pretty good overall, but they have weird internals (same is true of PPP).

[IceSpear]

Texas has always been a pipe dream, and did anybody really think Wendy Davis could win? People were saying she could of course, but that was just to boost morale. It was pretty obvious from the get go that she'd need to run against a Republican with an Akin moment along with 2014 becoming a Democratic wave year to have a chance.

It's an interesting question whether Arizona or Georgia would be easiest to flip. I'd say Arizona, simply because even a modest drop in black turnout would make it near impossible to carry Georgia. There's more wiggle room in Arizona, and I still think Obama would've won the state in 2008 (or come very close to winning it) if it wasn't for McCain being the nominee.

[henster]

Hillary will not contest any new states unless she's winning in a walk. You expand the map when your confident and comfortable her focus should be holding down the Obama states and it looks like she could struggle with that (CO, IA).

[Gass3268]

Georgia is going to flip by the end of the decade or beginning of the next. The demographic trends are big to ignore.

Adam Griffin should post his chart in here.