The most important state this election is Georgia. Another red state - purple.

[User157088589849]

Since the turn of the century, democrats have expanded the map. Republicans have retreated.

If Georgia is close and I mean democrats find a way to break this 45-46 ceiling and start hitting 48-49, its the biggest result this election cycle.

Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida are 4 must win states for the republicans as they are unable to expand the map. Its another state where the republicans will have to spend money just to keep the race competitive.

Its looking bad for democrats but the only state that has moved so far is Georgia.

Iowa and Colorado are still democratic states if the democratic candidate wins the popular vote. Republicans haven't changed the map.

[eric82oslo]

I agree. Georgia and Arizona are both starting to look catastrophic for Republicans.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree. Georgia and Arizona are both starting to look catastrophic for Republicans.

I disagree on Arizona... it's a far tougher nut to crack. While the SW as a whole has swung to the Democrats, AZ remains completely stuck. Even if a Democrat could win state-wide, that's not that indicative of much. Note that NM has a generally popular GOP Governor but has two Dem Senators and has voted for the Democrat in every election bar one for the last quarter-century.

If you look at the vote share of the Dem nominee in AZ since 2000, it's scarily static - around 44% each time. While AZ's Latino population is growing, albeit slightly slower than TX, CA, NM, CO and NV - the increasing age and conservatism of the white population is keeping pace.

In 2012, Obama got 39% of the white vote nationally - and got between 40 and 44% of the white vote in the SW and Mountain-west states - so even among the white vote Obama did better than he did nationally... but AZ? He got 32% of the white vote, so under-performed his national performance by 7%.

I'm sure AZ will shift as the older white voters start to shuffle-off ... but it's a different dynamic to Georgia. I can see GA voting for the Democrat nationally, well before AZ does.

[eric82oslo]

Hillary will get a boost from white and Hispanic voters, two demographics where Obama was never a perfect fit, and each being plentiful in the state of Arizona. The Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio harsh, extreme, on the verge of racist policies are already starting to backfire on Republicans in the state. The tide might be kept at a distance thanks to Arizona's two very moderate senators, but there are clear indications that the tide is already looming and soon might be approaching rapidly. According to early 2016 polls, Hillary is within a single point of the most popular GOP contender in both states, Arizona and Georgia. Hillary can't do better among blacks in Georgia than Obama did, however, she can do a lot better among Hispanics and whites in Arizona than he did, particularily when it comes to registration and turnout of latinos.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Remember GA has Latinos too. If Hillary could maintain a decent whack of the AA vote in GA, boost white and Latino support and support, I think it's a go-er.

Remember, as I said, Obama performed as well as Kerry or Gore in Arizona (with absolutely NO correlation to the national vote). Hillary COULD make Arizona closer than Obama did, but I don't see her being able to swing AZ, at least before she'd swung GA.

However, I think pinning hopes on Clinton out-doing Obama among Latinos might be a problematic strategy. She did better than him in the 08 primaries, but at the national level, I don't see any reason to say she'd do better than him.

[Adam Griffin]

I've been saying Georgia was changing and the next big thing since it was underground.

Glad to see everyone on Atlas jumping on the bandwagon - finally - instead of laughing about it.

[eric82oslo]

However, I think pinning hopes on Clinton out-doing Obama among Latinos might be a problematic strategy. She did better than him in the 08 primaries, but at the national level, I don't see any reason to say she'd do better than him.

I'm not sure she could do better than Obama's 2012 numbers (which were about as sky-high as they can get), however she could surely elevate registration and turnout considerably among latinos, which nearly reached a historic low in 2012 at only 48%. Hillary has always been a rock star among latinos, Obama has not. And if there's one thing latinos in general is truely passionate about, it's female politicians. Look at all the Latin American countries which have already elected female presidents: Argentina (thrice), Chile (twice), Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Haiti, as well as Peru having had a female prime minister. It's anyone's guess how much Hillary will be able to push up latino turnout in the end, but I certainly don't see a turnout of 55-60% out of reach. And latino turnout in states like Arizona and Georgia both could and should increase even more than the national average. Add Texas as well, if she chooses Julian Castro as her running mate. Arizona and Texas were reportedly the two states with the lowest latino turnouts in 2012, far, far below the national average.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I get what you're saying and don't disagree with a lot... but I do think you're over-egging.

Castro would be a terrible choice for VP... just saying.

[Adam Griffin]

Yeah I browsed over the discussion about AZ here, and I'll just boil my thoughts all down to this. We'll take the Democratic voting blocs and break them down by the numbers. The percentages shown below will build upon one another, showing the percentage of the vote statewide that is Democratic.

AZ not only a couple points less non-white than Georgia, but its non-white population is super-majority Latino, not super-majority Black. Latinos are barely 2-to-1 Democratic; Blacks are 9-to-1.

Theoretical non-white, Democratic vote (as a % of the state)
Georgia: 37.0%
Arizona: 30.8%

Then you have to factor in the fact that oh, say, 40% of the Latino population in a given area usually can't even register to vote.

Theoretical non-white, Democratic vote minus non-citizens (as a % of the state)
Georgia (83%): 34.8%
Arizona (69%): 21.0%

The whites in AZ may be more Democratic, but it isn't nearly enough to make up the difference.

Theoretical white, Democratic vote (as a % of the state)
Arizona (40%): 22.4%
Georgia (25%): 13.5%

When you add the two latter sets of numbers together:
Georgia: 48.3% D
Arizona: 43.4% D

Arizona's got a while before it's ready.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yay!! backed up by stats!!

[eric82oslo]

When you add the two latter sets of numbers together:
Georgia: 48.3% D
Arizona: 43.4% D

Arizona's got a while before it's ready.

According to polls it doesn't. So it's a matter whether you trust polls or not. In fact, Arizona was already ready in the 1990s, so why shouldn't it be ready in 2016? Without John McCain as the GOP candidate in 2008, it probably would have voted Democratic already in 2008, as poll after poll indicated it very well might.

[KCDem]

When you add the two latter sets of numbers together:
Georgia: 48.3% D
Arizona: 43.4% D

Arizona's got a while before it's ready.

According to polls it doesn't. So it's a matter whether you trust polls or not. In fact, Arizona was already ready in the 1990s, so why shouldn't it be ready in 2016? Without John McCain as the GOP candidate in 2008, it probably would have voted Democratic already in 2008, as poll after poll indicated it very well might.

Polls are crap unless they reflect reality which, time and again in Arizona, they don't.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The one time Arizona voted Democratic since 1948 was 1996, yes. But Clinton was the best performance by a Democrat since Johnson barely lost it, just under 47% with Perot drawing 8%.

I see NO evidence that with McCain Arizona would have voted Obama in 08 - it could have moved a bit closer, but the thing that is so remarkable about Arizona is how inelastic the Democratic performance has been. Note, when McCain was off the ticket in 2012, the GOP's vote share went up by a tiny amount and Obama's dropped slightly (despite a record performance among Latinos).  There was no discernible home-state bounce for McCain, although the interesting part is that it's the GOP's vote that bounces around.

Obama won by 7% in 2008 and got just under 45% in AZ - he won by 4% in 2012 and got 44.5%... Gore won nationally by a smidge and got 44% in AZ and Kerry lost by 2.5% and got... 44% in AZ. The needle doesn't move... It's a bizarre electoral oddity. I personally see no reason to invest too much in it.

[IceSpear]

I'll be optimistic about Georgia once we can actually win an election there.

[Sbane]

However, I think pinning hopes on Clinton out-doing Obama among Latinos might be a problematic strategy. She did better than him in the 08 primaries, but at the national level, I don't see any reason to say she'd do better than him.

And if there's one thing latinos in general is truely passionate about, it's female politicians.

WTF