Battleground Georgia: Democrats see 2014 flip

[illegaloperation]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/georgia-election-2014-democrats-109267.html

[Free Bird]

Wishful thinking. They may win the two races in November, but that won't make Georgia blue overnight. Did the Republican takeover in Maine in 2010 make that a red state? No.

[illegaloperation]

Wishful thinking. They may win the two races in November, but that won't make Georgia blue overnight. Did the Republican takeover in Maine in 2010 make that a red state? No.

When Webb won the senate seat in 2006, that was foreshadowing.

[Free Bird]

Wishful thinking. They may win the two races in November, but that won't make Georgia blue overnight. Did the Republican takeover in Maine in 2010 make that a red state? No.

When Webb won the senate seat in 2006, that was foreshadowing.

More like Allen putting his foot in his mouth, and even then it was close. VA only took a turn to the left in 2008 because of Obama raising black turnout. Need I remind you of the gubernatorial races. McDonnell won in a landslide even after Obama's comfortable win there, and Terry only won due to a spoiler in the form of Sarvis. 2012 was closer, and was also due to Obama and maybe a popular governor being on the ballot for Senate, causing swing voters to vote across the board. The latter half is just my theory, though.

[illegaloperation]

More like Allen putting his foot in his mouth, and even then it was close. VA only took a turn to the left in 2008 because of Obama raising black turnout. Need I remind you of the gubernatorial races. McDonnell won in a landslide even after Obama's comfortable win there, and Terry only won due to a spoiler in the form of Sarvis. 2012 was closer, and was also due to Obama and maybe a popular governor being on the ballot for Senate, causing swing voters to vote across the board. The latter half is just my theory, though.

Yes, Allen would probably have won if he did have a hiccup. Still, that doesn't make the race any less important in the grand scheme of things. What that election shows is that Northern Virginia is now strong enough to power a Democrat to victory given favorable circumstances.

Also, for a very long time (longer than I can remember), Virginia has elected governor from the party that looses the White House the previous year. That McAuliffe won is a break of tradition. Additionally, Sarvis only took slightly more from McAuliffe than Cuccinelli (poll data).

[Free Bird]

More like Allen putting his foot in his mouth, and even then it was close. VA only took a turn to the left in 2008 because of Obama raising black turnout. Need I remind you of the gubernatorial races. McDonnell won in a landslide even after Obama's comfortable win there, and Terry only won due to a spoiler in the form of Sarvis. 2012 was closer, and was also due to Obama and maybe a popular governor being on the ballot for Senate, causing swing voters to vote across the board. The latter half is just my theory, though.

Yes, Allen would probably have won if he did have a hiccup. Still, that doesn't make the race any less important in the grand scheme of things. What that election shows is that Northern Virginia is now strong enough to power a Democrat to victory given favorable circumstances.

Also, for a very long time (longer than I can remember), Virginia has elected governor from the party that looses the White House the previous year. That McAuliffe won is a break of tradition. Additionally, Sarvis only took slightly more from McAuliffe than Cuccinelli (poll data).

It was still a nailbiter. It is far from Lean D as of now.

[NHLiberal]

Terry only won due to a spoiler in the form of Sarvis.

I don't really think that's true. The poll data showed that Sarvis took about the same from each, but regardless of that, I think Cuccinelli was just a horrendous candidate and McAuliffe, though pretty bad, was simply viewed as the lesser of two evils. I can't really think of any reason to believe that Sarvis is what made the difference here.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I don't know a lot about Carter or Nunn other than they're viewed as moderate Southern Democrats.  Do either of them actually disagree with the national platform on any significant issues to earn that reputation (e.g., being pro-life or against gay marriage)?

[Adam Griffin]

Georgia is so inelastic that once Democrats break through in multiple races, it's a signaling point that the demographics are reaching critical mass. Nunn and Carter are helping us cheat by moving it up a cycle so to speak, but the argument by and large still stands.

After that happens, the Republicans will have at most one cycle to reclaim any territory before they lose it forever. In other words, if Nunn/Carter win in '14, Republicans can fight hard to keep Georgia's EVs for the Republicans - and the Senate seat - in '16, but '18 would likely be a clean-sweep of all statewide offices for Democrats (save for the very most popular incumbents). It also won't help that every statewide officer will be finishing their second term, a common retirement point, in '18 (except State School Superintendent).

In the example above, though, I think a Dem win in the Gov/Sen races in '14 is a lot harder than a win in '16; that case may be the actual end of Republican dominance in the state if we succeed in Nov.

[illegaloperation]

I don't know a lot about Carter or Nunn other than they're viewed as moderate Southern Democrats.  Do either of them actually disagree with the national platform on any significant issues to earn that reputation (e.g., being pro-life or against gay marriage)?

Carter just voted for the gun everywhere law that the majority of Georgians don't even agree with.

Nunn is a neocon that wants to US to be the world police.

[Dixie Reborn]

By this logic, New Jersey should be considered a dark (atlas) blue state because of Christie's margins.

[illegaloperation]

By this logic, New Jersey should be considered a dark (atlas) blue state because of Christie's margins.

Nope. New Jersey is an elastic state.

The reason that Chris Christie can run up huge margins in his reelection in 2013 is the same reason that Mike Bebee can run up huge margins in his reelection in 2010 (while Blanche Lincoln got defeated in a landslide the same year).

[Mechaman]

Georgia is so inelastic that once Democrats break through in multiple races, it's a signaling point that the demographics are reaching critical mass. Nunn and Carter are helping us cheat by moving it up a cycle so to speak, but the argument by and large still stands.

After that happens, the Republicans will have at most one cycle to reclaim any territory before they lose it forever. In other words, if Nunn/Carter win in '14, Republicans can fight hard to keep Georgia's EVs for the Republicans - and the Senate seat - in '16, but '18 would likely be a clean-sweep of all statewide offices for Democrats (save for the very most popular incumbents). It also won't help that every statewide officer will be finishing their second term, a common retirement point, in '18 (except State School Superintendent).

In the example above, though, I think a Dem win in the Gov/Sen races in '14 is a lot harder than a win in '16; that case may be the actual end of Republican dominance in the state if we succeed in Nov.

My friend, it doesn't bode well to make such sweeping statements.

Sure, there are enough trends to indicate that there is a Democratic majority about to emerge, but let's not ignore the possibility that the GOP can (and most likely will) address such changes in a way besides saying "nah uh uh!"  Or more to the point, all they need is an economic shift in the demographics that will upset the balance in the state.

No offense, but your analysis about the FOREVER DEMOCRATIC Georgia is a bit in the hackish realm.  Nunn and Carter winning in 2014 is no more of a testament to permanent political realignment as Walsh and Curley winning in 1934.  Sure, a victory can happen in 2014, 2016, or 2018, but it's not some definite end to GOP hopes . . . . .  forever. 

[Dixie Reborn]

Georgia is so inelastic that once Democrats break through in multiple races, it's a signaling point that the demographics are reaching critical mass. Nunn and Carter are helping us cheat by moving it up a cycle so to speak, but the argument by and large still stands.

After that happens, the Republicans will have at most one cycle to reclaim any territory before they lose it forever. In other words, if Nunn/Carter win in '14, Republicans can fight hard to keep Georgia's EVs for the Republicans - and the Senate seat - in '16, but '18 would likely be a clean-sweep of all statewide offices for Democrats (save for the very most popular incumbents). It also won't help that every statewide officer will be finishing their second term, a common retirement point, in '18 (except State School Superintendent).

In the example above, though, I think a Dem win in the Gov/Sen races in '14 is a lot harder than a win in '16; that case may be the actual end of Republican dominance in the state if we succeed in Nov.

Democrats' wet dream since 1992.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Georgia is so inelastic that once Democrats break through in multiple races, it's a signaling point that the demographics are reaching critical mass. Nunn and Carter are helping us cheat by moving it up a cycle so to speak, but the argument by and large still stands.

After that happens, the Republicans will have at most one cycle to reclaim any territory before they lose it forever. In other words, if Nunn/Carter win in '14, Republicans can fight hard to keep Georgia's EVs for the Republicans - and the Senate seat - in '16, but '18 would likely be a clean-sweep of all statewide offices for Democrats (save for the very most popular incumbents). It also won't help that every statewide officer will be finishing their second term, a common retirement point, in '18 (except State School Superintendent).

In the example above, though, I think a Dem win in the Gov/Sen races in '14 is a lot harder than a win in '16; that case may be the actual end of Republican dominance in the state if we succeed in Nov.

Democrats' wet dream since 1992.

Agreed for now, but things can change.  We never thought we'd ever have a "lock" on Georgia before about the '70s or '80s...

[Skill and Chance]

You all forget that Perdue is already talking like he is running in CO or VA.  Even if Kingston beat Nunn, he would likely be toast in 2020.  But if Perdue doesn't self-immolate this year or get primaried from the right, he has the seat as long as he wants it.

[illegaloperation]

Democrats' wet dream since 1992.

What are you talking about? Georgia Democrats were still doing well then.

My friend, it doesn't bode well to make such sweeping statements.

Sure, there are enough trends to indicate that there is a Democratic majority about to emerge, but let's not ignore the possibility that the GOP can (and most likely will) address such changes in a way besides saying "nah uh uh!"  Or more to the point, all they need is an economic shift in the demographics that will upset the balance in the state.

No offense, but your analysis about the FOREVER DEMOCRATIC Georgia is a bit in the hackish realm.  Nunn and Carter winning in 2014 is no more of a testament to permanent political realignment as Walsh and Curley winning in 1934.  Sure, a victory can happen in 2014, 2016, or 2018, but it's not some definite end to GOP hopes . . . . .  forever.  

How are Georgia Republicans going to address the changes when African American votes aren't remotely elastic?

You all forget that Perdue is already talking like he is running in CO or VA.  Even if Kingston beat Nunn, he would likely be toast in 2020.  But if Perdue doesn't self-immolate this year or get primaried from the right, he has the seat as long as he wants it.

Southern blacks are even more partisan than southern whites, so Perdue could be in trouble by just being a Republican.

[Adam Griffin]

Georgia is so inelastic that once Democrats break through in multiple races, it's a signaling point that the demographics are reaching critical mass. Nunn and Carter are helping us cheat by moving it up a cycle so to speak, but the argument by and large still stands.

After that happens, the Republicans will have at most one cycle to reclaim any territory before they lose it forever. In other words, if Nunn/Carter win in '14, Republicans can fight hard to keep Georgia's EVs for the Republicans - and the Senate seat - in '16, but '18 would likely be a clean-sweep of all statewide offices for Democrats (save for the very most popular incumbents). It also won't help that every statewide officer will be finishing their second term, a common retirement point, in '18 (except State School Superintendent).

In the example above, though, I think a Dem win in the Gov/Sen races in '14 is a lot harder than a win in '16; that case may be the actual end of Republican dominance in the state if we succeed in Nov.

My friend, it doesn't bode well to make such sweeping statements.

Sure, there are enough trends to indicate that there is a Democratic majority about to emerge, but let's not ignore the possibility that the GOP can (and most likely will) address such changes in a way besides saying "nah uh uh!"  Or more to the point, all they need is an economic shift in the demographics that will upset the balance in the state.

No offense, but your analysis about the FOREVER DEMOCRATIC Georgia is a bit in the hackish realm.  Nunn and Carter winning in 2014 is no more of a testament to permanent political realignment as Walsh and Curley winning in 1934.  Sure, a victory can happen in 2014, 2016, or 2018, but it's not some definite end to GOP hopes . . . . .  forever.  

Not in the literal sense, no. In a generational sense (which is forever in terms of careers and trends), I stand by what I say. Most aren't interested in the changes over 100 years; particularly in the South (excluding the 60s), we don't have a tendency to wildly flip-flop back and forth between parties, anyway. Combine that with our current demography (very little of which would respond to a Wallace-like wrench being thrown into things), and a rapid deviation from the trend any time soon seems very, very unlikely.

Georgia is so inelastic that once Democrats break through in multiple races, it's a signaling point that the demographics are reaching critical mass. Nunn and Carter are helping us cheat by moving it up a cycle so to speak, but the argument by and large still stands.

After that happens, the Republicans will have at most one cycle to reclaim any territory before they lose it forever. In other words, if Nunn/Carter win in '14, Republicans can fight hard to keep Georgia's EVs for the Republicans - and the Senate seat - in '16, but '18 would likely be a clean-sweep of all statewide offices for Democrats (save for the very most popular incumbents). It also won't help that every statewide officer will be finishing their second term, a common retirement point, in '18 (except State School Superintendent).

In the example above, though, I think a Dem win in the Gov/Sen races in '14 is a lot harder than a win in '16; that case may be the actual end of Republican dominance in the state if we succeed in Nov.

Democrats' wet dream since 1992.

Because we lost one of our Senators then - the one that we had lost in 1980 and won back in 1986? I don't think that's a good time to pinpoint our downfall, considering we still had 1 Senator, 10/11 U.S. House seats, huge majorities in both state chambers and every statewide office.

Maybe the dream since 2002, but the difference between 2002 and 2014 can clearly be seen in the chart I made. Georgia whites are at their floor in terms of Democratic support; virtually everything outside of the main cities and south of Atlanta already looks like MS/AL in that regard. Blacks aren't shifting in persuasion; Latinos could but their effect would still be relatively small and not a deal-breaker in the short-term. Again, though, there are very few voting blocs in Georgia that demonstrate elastic traits and it's been a long-but-quickening trot toward our return; unless an exodus of non-whites occurs within the next few years, this will never again* be a safe Republican state.

*See my similar reply to Mechaman

[Mechaman]

Democrats' wet dream since 1992.

What are you talking about? Georgia Democrats were still doing well then.

My friend, it doesn't bode well to make such sweeping statements.

Sure, there are enough trends to indicate that there is a Democratic majority about to emerge, but let's not ignore the possibility that the GOP can (and most likely will) address such changes in a way besides saying "nah uh uh!"  Or more to the point, all they need is an economic shift in the demographics that will upset the balance in the state.

No offense, but your analysis about the FOREVER DEMOCRATIC Georgia is a bit in the hackish realm.  Nunn and Carter winning in 2014 is no more of a testament to permanent political realignment as Walsh and Curley winning in 1934.  Sure, a victory can happen in 2014, 2016, or 2018, but it's not some definite end to GOP hopes . . . . .  forever.  

How are Georgia Republicans going to address the changes when African American votes aren't remotely elastic?

You all forget that Perdue is already talking like he is running in CO or VA.  Even if Kingston beat Nunn, he would likely be toast in 2020.  But if Perdue doesn't self-immolate this year or get primaried from the right, he has the seat as long as he wants it.

Southern blacks are even more partisan than southern whites, so Perdue could be in trouble by just being a Republican.

I can imagine this post in 1934:

How are Massachusetts Republicans going to address the changes when Irish American votes aren't even remotely elastic!?

Also,

Northern Catholics are even more partisan than Northern Protestants, so Bacon could be in trouble just by being a Republican.

[illegaloperation]

I can imagine this post in 1934:

How are Massachusetts Republicans going to address the changes when Irish American votes aren't even remotely elastic!?

Also,

Northern Catholics are even more partisan than Northern Protestants, so Bacon could be in trouble just by being a Republican.

Georgia Republicans can win back the southern black votes; all they have to do is stop being racists which would make it almost impossible baring a realignment.

[Free Bird]

I can imagine this post in 1934:

How are Massachusetts Republicans going to address the changes when Irish American votes aren't even remotely elastic!?

Also,

Northern Catholics are even more partisan than Northern Protestants, so Bacon could be in trouble just by being a Republican.

Georgia Republicans can win back the southern black votes; all they have to do is stop being racists which would make it almost impossible baring a realignment.

Okay seriously how are Republicans racist?

[Rockefeller GOP]

I can imagine this post in 1934:

How are Massachusetts Republicans going to address the changes when Irish American votes aren't even remotely elastic!?

Also,

Northern Catholics are even more partisan than Northern Protestants, so Bacon could be in trouble just by being a Republican.

Georgia Republicans can win back the southern black votes; all they have to do is stop being racists which would make it almost impossible baring a realignment.

Okay seriously how are Republicans racist?

It's just a fact!  There are no racist Democrats.

[SWE]

Wishful thinking. They may win the two races in November, but that won't make Georgia blue overnight. Did the Republican takeover in Maine in 2010 make that a red state? No.

When Webb won the senate seat in 2006, that was foreshadowing.

More like Allen putting his foot in his mouth, and even then it was close. VA only took a turn to the left in 2008 because of Obama raising black turnout. Need I remind you of the gubernatorial races. McDonnell won in a landslide even after Obama's comfortable win there, and Terry only won due to a spoiler in the form of Sarvis. 2012 was closer, and was also due to Obama and maybe a popular governor being on the ballot for Senate, causing swing voters to vote across the board. The latter half is just my theory, though.

Sarvis took more votes from Terry than he did Cucinelli

[hcallega]

On the question of Nunn and Carter's political ideologies, they are both pretty moderate and actually break with the Democratic leadership on some big issues:

Nunn: Fiscally conservative, pro-entitlement reform, supports corporate tax reduction and reform, free trader, pro-small business deregulation, opposed to defense spending cuts.

Carter: Pro-small business tax reform, pro-gun, pro-charter school.

In both cases, they've embraced the necessary niche to be competitive in Georgia. They've taken pro-business, socially moderate stances, without alienating their base. Nunn's actually quite a bit like her father on all the big issues, though she seems slightly more liberal.

[hcallega]

Actually, the best comparison I can think of for Nunn for someone currently in the Senate is Mark Warner.