National Journal: Democrats Are Running Out of States to Flip

[Never]

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.  

Do you mean flip as in Georgia could vote Democratic during a sizeable national victory for that party, or are you predicting that the state's PVI will go left of the nation?

[Sol]

Georgia is a fait accompli at this point, but TX and AZ are fairly unlikely to flip- Democrats are completely delusional on these two.

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

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. 

Only if Black turnout is consistent with '08 levels and democrats hold the republicans to about 70% (as opposed to the 80% they're currently getting) of the GA white vote.

[°Leprechaun]

There are smaller states and Nebraska (one district) as well:
AK,SD,ND,SC,MT, MO or even IN(same size as AZ).
Wouldn't it make sense to target these than to spend a lot in a fairly
conservative state like Texas?
All the Democrats need is to hold onto states that they already have like
Florida, Ohio and Virginia, so trying to expand the map may be a mistake
anyway.

[illegaloperation]

Only if Black turnout is consistent with '08 levels and democrats hold the republicans to about 70% (as opposed to the 80% they're currently getting) of the GA white vote.

Democrats don't need 30% of the white vote. Had Obama been able to get 30% of the white vote, he would have already won the state.

All the Democrats need is to get 20+% of the white vote (Kerry 2004/Obama 2008 level) and make sure minorities turn out to vote. Demographic changes will do the rest.

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

Only if Black turnout is consistent with '08 levels and democrats hold the republicans to about 70% (as opposed to the 80% they're currently getting) of the GA white vote.

Democrats don't need 30% of the white vote. Had Obama been able to get 30% of the white vote, he would have already won the state.

All the Democrats need is to get 20+% of the white vote (Kerry 2004/Obama 2008 level) and make sure minorities turn out to vote. Demographic changes will do the rest.

Obama got 23% of the white vote in 2008 and got essentially maximum black turnout and got 98% of the black vote, and still lost statewide by 5.2%. Even if Hillary can turn out blacks at 2008 levels and get 98% of the black vote, which is definitely not a sure bet, she'll still need to overperform what Obama did among whites in 2008 by 5,6, maybe even 7 points to carry GA in 2016.

[illegaloperation]

Only if Black turnout is consistent with '08 levels and democrats hold the republicans to about 70% (as opposed to the 80% they're currently getting) of the GA white vote.

Democrats don't need 30% of the white vote. Had Obama been able to get 30% of the white vote, he would have already won the state.

All the Democrats need is to get 20+% of the white vote (Kerry 2004/Obama 2008 level) and make sure minorities turn out to vote. Demographic changes will do the rest.

Obama got 23% of the white vote in 2008 and got essentially maximum black turnout and got 98% of the black vote, and still lost statewide by 5.2%. Even if Hillary can turn out blacks at 2008 levels and get 98% of the black vote, which is definitely not a sure bet, she'll still need to overperform what Obama did among whites in 2008 by 5,6, maybe even 7 points to carry GA in 2016.

What I said above I was thinking of 2020.

But yet, Hillary has to outperform Obama with the white vote to win the state in 2016.

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

Only if Black turnout is consistent with '08 levels and democrats hold the republicans to about 70% (as opposed to the 80% they're currently getting) of the GA white vote.

Democrats don't need 30% of the white vote. Had Obama been able to get 30% of the white vote, he would have already won the state.

All the Democrats need is to get 20+% of the white vote (Kerry 2004/Obama 2008 level) and make sure minorities turn out to vote. Demographic changes will do the rest.

Obama got 23% of the white vote in 2008 and got essentially maximum black turnout and got 98% of the black vote, and still lost statewide by 5.2%. Even if Hillary can turn out blacks at 2008 levels and get 98% of the black vote, which is definitely not a sure bet, she'll still need to overperform what Obama did among whites in 2008 by 5,6, maybe even 7 points to carry GA in 2016.

What I said above I was thinking of 2020.

But yes, Hillary has to outperform Obama with the white vote to win the state in 2016.

Well, 2020 is not as tough, I'll give you that. But still, even assuming '08 black turnout and support, Hillary would probably still have to reach 25,26% of the white vote. But, if you assume a modest drop in black support, perhaps to 93% or so, Then she'd need, once again, about 30% of the white vote.

[Kevin]

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?

Is that really the best you can come up with?

To answer your question, everytime i look into the delusional portal I see someone like you.

[Orser67]

All of Krashauur's posts seem to be "I'm going to say something unoriginal and mildly contrarian about what both parties think." Actually, that seems to be National Journal's MO these days.

Anyway, I don't think that TX, GA, or AZ will matter in 2016, but they're still worth it. Imho, pushing them towards becoming at least swing states for the foreseeable future will either give Democrats a major advantage going forward, or force Republicans to moderate to some degree in order to win the presidency. Either possibility is a win.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

So are Republicans, unfortunately.

[Never]

All of Krashauur's posts seem to be "I'm going to say something unoriginal and mildly contrarian about what both parties think." Actually, that seems to be National Journal's MO these days.

Anyway, I don't think that TX, GA, or AZ will matter in 2016, but they're still worth it. Imho, pushing them towards becoming at least swing states for the foreseeable future will either give Democrats a major advantage going forward, or force Republicans to moderate to some degree in order to win the presidency. Either possibility is a win.

I suppose that one should take Kraushaar's (or any journalist's) views with a grain of salt. Still, a dose of contrarian thinking is useful every now and then.

For the Democrats, attempting to push for TX/GA/AZ could be risky if their position isn't solidified in the traditional swing states. On a bad night, that could cause the party to lose almost every swing state on the table.

I have a feeling that we witnessed this with Romney's campaign in 2012. He targeted a large number of states that have been difficult for Republicans recently (like Michigan and New Hampshire), and he thought he had VA/FL/NC in his column, yet the only battleground state he won was North Carolina. If Romney had been more realistic about his chances in Virginia and Florida, and heavily focused on a select few states that would have been necessary to place the ticket over the 270 electoral vote mark, it is possible that he would have fared better in the election.

Now, I cite this example to show why it is crucial for political parties to shore up their position in states where they think they will win instead of overextending a presidential campaign for naught.  

[illegaloperation]

I suppose that one should take Kraushaar's (or any journalist's) views with a grain of salt. Still, a dose of contrarian thinking is useful every now and then.

For the Democrats, attempting to push for TX/GA/AZ could be risky if their position isn't solidified in the traditional swing states. On a bad night, that could cause the party to lose almost every swing state on the table.

I have a feeling that we witnessed this with Romney's campaign in 2012. He targeted a large number of states that have been difficult for Republicans recently (like Michigan and New Hampshire), and he thought he had VA/FL/NC in his column, yet the only battleground state he won was North Carolina. If Romney had been more realistic about his chances in Virginia and Florida, and heavily focused on a select few states that would have been necessary to place the ticket over the 270 electoral vote mark, it is possible that he would have fared better in the election.

Now, I cite this example to show why it is crucial for political parties to shore up their position in states where they think they will win instead of overextending a presidential campaign for naught.  

Well, Democrats already have Nevada locked down for 2016, so why not contest new state?

[Never]

I suppose that one should take Kraushaar's (or any journalist's) views with a grain of salt. Still, a dose of contrarian thinking is useful every now and then.

For the Democrats, attempting to push for TX/GA/AZ could be risky if their position isn't solidified in the traditional swing states. On a bad night, that could cause the party to lose almost every swing state on the table.

I have a feeling that we witnessed this with Romney's campaign in 2012. He targeted a large number of states that have been difficult for Republicans recently (like Michigan and New Hampshire), and he thought he had VA/FL/NC in his column, yet the only battleground state he won was North Carolina. If Romney had been more realistic about his chances in Virginia and Florida, and heavily focused on a select few states that would have been necessary to place the ticket over the 270 electoral vote mark, it is possible that he would have fared better in the election.

Now, I cite this example to show why it is crucial for political parties to shore up their position in states where they think they will win instead of overextending a presidential campaign for naught.  

Well, Democrats already have Nevada locked down for 2016, so why not contest new state?

They could try, but there's still many swing states where the Democrats are not assured of victory from the outset in the way that they are likely to win Nevada. Also, there is always the risk that Republicans could get very serious about targeting a large slightly-Democratic state like Pennsylvania, the loss of which would counteract the Democrat's gains in a newly won state.

[Adam Griffin]

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. 

Your prayers have been heard and I will return to this thread shortly.

[Adam Griffin]

I'll provide some new content later, but you can start with this in regards to Hillary needing 30% of the white vote (LOL):

I observed some silly talk a bit ago in this thread about how someone like Hillary couldn't win Georgia. So here's a spreadsheet (well, an image of a spreadsheet) that will let you compare scenarios for 2016 (1% given to third-parties)!



I couldn't include every single one, but hey, isn't 99 enough? Also highlighted are the two closest scenarios to 2008 & 2012. If you consider the likely composition of the electorate in 2016 (58-59% white) with Obama's 2008 performance, you'll suddenly realize that someone like Hillary could win the state with 50-51% of the vote - and that's just on momentum - an actual campaign in Georgia would only increase the likelihood of Dems winning the state.

If a Dem can get more than 25% of the white vote in Georgia in a presidential election, it's over.

Then there was also this:

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.

[henster]

Hillary will not contest Georgia in 2016 or Arizona if she's already having trouble in Iowa and Colorado as shown in recent pollings then she will not be focused on expanding the map if she's losing Obama states.

[eric82oslo]

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.

Rand Paul is in fact the only Republican candidate which is trying to appeal to minorities. Even minority Republicans themselves like Jindal and Rubio are not very actively trying to appeal to minorities. Rand Paul is no doubt the new Chris Christie, who used to be the new John McCain, meaning that they were all at some point regarded as the Maverick Republican. Time will tell whether this maverick stamp will forever stick to Paul or not. He seems if possible almost as consistent as his father, so my bet is that he will very much continue to be the odd one out, the black sheep, the only maverick in the tragic and lackluster family that is the Republican idiots.

[eric82oslo]

Hillary will not contest Georgia in 2016 or Arizona if she's already having trouble in Iowa and Colorado as shown in recent pollings then she will not be focused on expanding the map if she's losing Obama states.

Not true even the slightest. Obviously she's currently struggling like mad in Colorado. However, her somewhat struggling in Iowa (at the moment meaning she's still winning the state comfortably, though trailing her national average) does not mean she will be both crazy and insane enough not to contest Arizona even a tad. Arizona should be one of the very easiest pick up states for Hillary come 2016. Everyone knows that, even Hillary herself. Only an ever so slight increase in the minority turnout in Arizona in 2016 might mean wonders for her in 2016, knowing that Arizona whites were almost twice as likely to vote in 2012 as Arizona hispanics.

[Adam Griffin]

There's no point in Democrats going after Arizona before Georgia. The demographic math simply disagrees with the premise.

The argument for Arizona goes somewhat like this: "well, whites there are more Democratic than in Georgia and minorities are more fickle about turning out, so let's go with Arizona". The only problem is that you need strong minority turnout in Arizona - in fact, you need even more of it in Arizona than you do in Georgia, because Arizona's minority bloc is less Democratic. Oh, and that minority bloc is the most fickle of all voters.

The secondary argument seems to be: "well, blacks are voting at unnaturally high rates for Democrats in Georgia; if it swings in the opposite direction even just a bit, it's not attainable". Well, so are Latinos in Arizona, and the swing in the Latino electorate between 2004-2012 is much larger than it was for blacks. I'd also argue that polarization could drive white support for Democrats down by a much larger amount in AZ than it will in GA; you're not going to see white support in GA get any lower than it is now, but AZ is culturally quite similar to GA and yet has remained above 35% Democrat among whites.

In short, there's a lot more room for white and Latino Democratic support alike to fall in AZ than there is in Georgia. You're not going to see black turnout relevant election-to-election drop in GA; white turnout will, however. I also don't think you're going to see black support for Democrats drop by any huge amount (though even a small drop in Georgia will have a measurable impact). The long-term trends in Georgia are simply stronger, and there's no debate about that. Arizona's minority population is comprised largely of a group of which half aren't even citizens, and the other half turnout at a rate only 2/3 that of blacks.

Keep in mind that everything that's happened in GA thus far has happened without any DNC investment whatsoever. I'd argue that if GA had been contested like NC, it'd already be as Democratic - if not more - than the Tarheel State. And if Hillary wants a Senate with as many Democrats as possible (i.e.: 60), then you bet she and the DNC will be in GA come 2016.

[Person Man]

If the Republicans start winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Minnesota and start pulling away in Ohio, Democrats will need to start doing better in Arizona and Georgia. They probably won't do that until Florida, Nevada, Colorado and North Carolina can be more reliable.

[illegaloperation]

If the Republicans start winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Minnesota and start pulling away in Ohio, Democrats will need to start doing better in Arizona and Georgia. They probably won't do that until Florida, Nevada, Colorado and North Carolina can be more reliable.

The problem is that Republicans are also running out of states to flip.

They already got the formerly Democratic stronghold of Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc.

The Midwest (except Pennsylvania) is fairly stagnant and isn't trending.

[Never]

If the Republicans start winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Minnesota and start pulling away in Ohio, Democrats will need to start doing better in Arizona and Georgia. They probably won't do that until Florida, Nevada, Colorado and North Carolina can be more reliable.

The problem is that Republicans are also running out of states to flip.

They already got the formerly Democratic stronghold of Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc.

The Midwest (except Pennsylvania) is fairly stagnant and isn't trending.

Could the proposition be made that the election map is stagnating due to increased polarization? I think so. Still, I wouldn't rule out a Republican win in the states that Night Man listed or Democrats winning Georgia or Arizona on a good night for either party.