FiveThirtyEight: Clinton probably can't expand 2016 map; GA/AZ not trending blue

[JRP1994]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/clinton-probably-cant-expand-the-2016-map-and-if-she-does-it-wont-matter/



"Arizona and Georgia have long been listed by Democrats as potential pickup opportunities because of each state’s growing racial diversity. And it’s possible they’ll become presidential battlegrounds. But there isn’t any sign that will happen in the next two years.

Voters in Arizona and Georgia leaned more Republican than the nation five years ago, and they continue to do so. If these states were becoming more Democratic, you’d expect at least some movement toward the Democrats in terms of party identification. There hasn’t been any.

And like in the first bucket states, Republicans hold clear majorities in both houses of Arizona and Georgia’s legislatures.

None of this is to say that Clinton can’t win these five states in 2016. But if she does, then chances are she will have already won the White House — Arkansas’s, Indiana’s, Missouri’s, Arizona’s or Georgia’s electoral college votes would be superfluous."

[Beet]

Wow. Look at the plunges in 2012. The Republicans really mopped up that year in states that were off the radar.

[Tender Branson]

Yeah, Hillary won't expand on the 2008 map.

AR & KY might look close in polls now, but won't be anywhere near close in the election.

AZ, GA, IN and MS are all fools gold and not yet ready for picking (maybe in 10-20 years).

Don't know if Hillary has much appeal in MO either, we'll see. But better throw it into the "fools gold" column.

Also, Hillary needs to be careful about CO & IA, because she might lose these two.

[Devils30]

 Don't think it's so much that Hillary needs or can win those states but she will run a campaign designed to appeal to those moderate voters. Could help her win Florida and lockup Pennsylvania. Arizona and Georgia will be more diverse than 2012 and eventually have their day but I doubt Hillary can make up a 8-9 point deficit in one cycle. If she loses those by less than 5 it's a good year.

[Landslide Lyndon]

We'll see. Let's just remind you that even in June 2008 almost everybody was laughing at the idea that Obama would carry Virginia (by 7 points no less), North Carolina and Indiana.

[Ljube]

Yeah, Hillary won't expand on the 2008 map.

Hillary won't expand on the 2012 map.

Actually, we know her plan. Back in 2008, her plan was to win Ohio and thus the election. She will try to repeat that. It's not in her nature to try to expand the map.

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ummm okay? No one is saying that those states will be the tipping point state. That is most likely going to be CO or VA again. 538 seems to be arguing against a strawman here. Long-shot states like NC, MO, IN and MT weren't tipping point states in 2008; Obama still invested heavily in them and won 2 of them (coming close in the other 2).

[KCDem]

LOL Nate Silver. What an idiot for keeping Harry Enten on staff. Joke website!

[Lief 🗽]

I just love this concern trolling whenever Democrats so much as hint that they might play offense in the electoral college! Every year, Republicans waste millions of dollars and hundreds of campaign stops on states they haven't won since Ronald Reagan was aware of his surroundings. Michigan and Wisconsin are not going to be tipping point states either, but Republicans are allowed to attempt to win those every year. By the logic of this article, presidential campaigns should ignore every state but Colorado, Virginia and Ohio and spend all their time and energy in these states. It's stupid.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We'll see. Let's just remind you that even in June 2008 almost everybody was laughing at the idea that Obama would carry Virginia (by 7 points no less), North Carolina and Indiana.

Don't forget that Nebraska elector. But that was Obama, who was more inspirational, and the October 2008 economic meltdown didn't hurt.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ummm okay? No one is saying that those states will be the tipping point state. That is most likely going to be CO or VA again. 538 seems to be arguing against a strawman here. Long-shot states like NC, MO, IN and MT weren't tipping point states in 2008; Obama still invested heavily in them and won 2 of them (coming close in the other 2).

Yes, everyone already knows these states would be icing on the cake. But if people only cared about the "tipping point state", money only would've been spent in Colorado in 2012, with everything else being ignored.

[IceSpear]

Yeah, Hillary won't expand on the 2008 map.

AR & KY might look close in polls now, but won't be anywhere near close in the election.

AZ, GA, IN and MS are all fools gold and not yet ready for picking (maybe in 10-20 years).

Don't know if Hillary has much appeal in MO either, we'll see. But better throw it into the "fools gold" column.

Also, Hillary needs to be careful about CO & IA, because she might lose these two.

AR/KY: Agreed.

AZ/GA: Agreed on GA. AZ I'm somewhat more optimistic for. Obama may have won or come close to winning it in 2008 if McCain wasn't the nominee.

IN: I don't see how this is fool's gold when Obama won it in 2008.

MS: Who even discussed this as an opportunity?

MO: Hillary will definitely make it competitive.

[Likely Voter]

Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.

[Ljube]

Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.

It is not possible for Hillary to get 42% of the white vote. That ship has sailed for the Democrats.
2008 like wave election is not possible in 2016, not after two terms of Dem president.

Let's get serious in our analysis.

Whites can't be that low in 2016. It is more likely that they will be about 71%.

[IceSpear]

Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.

It is not possible for Hillary to get 42% of the white vote. That ship has sailed for the Democrats.
2008 like wave election is not possible in 2016, not after two terms of Dem president.

Let's get serious in our analysis.

Whites can't be that low in 2016. It is more likely that they will be about 71%.

Kerry, who was a fairly weak candidate, got 41%.

[Ljube]

Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.

It is not possible for Hillary to get 42% of the white vote. That ship has sailed for the Democrats.
2008 like wave election is not possible in 2016, not after two terms of Dem president.

Let's get serious in our analysis.

Whites can't be that low in 2016. It is more likely that they will be about 71%.

Kerry, who was a fairly weak candidate, got 41%.

Ever decreasing percentage of whites won by Dem candidate, that is likely to keep decreasing.

[porky88]

Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.

It is not possible for Hillary to get 42% of the white vote. That ship has sailed for the Democrats.
2008 like wave election is not possible in 2016, not after two terms of Dem president.

Let's get serious in our analysis.

Whites can't be that low in 2016. It is more likely that they will be about 71%.

I agree that Hillary won't get 42 percent of the white vote. I don't think a democrat can achieve that number unless it's a wave election, and I doubt 2016 will be a wave for the democrats.

However, all she really needs is 38 percent of the white vote. According to exit polls, that’s what democrats got in 2014.

The white vote has fallen in every presidential election since 1992. It was about 72 percent in 2012. If Hispanics, African Americans, and Asians all go for her by the same margin they did Obama in 2012, she could win the presidency even with 38 percent of the white vote.

It really shows the structural advantage the democrats currently have at the presidential level. It's not full proof. I could see her losing, but only if republicans make inroads on Obama's margins among minorities.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.

It is not possible for Hillary to get 42% of the white vote. That ship has sailed for the Democrats.
2008 like wave election is not possible in 2016, not after two terms of Dem president.

Let's get serious in our analysis.

Whites can't be that low in 2016. It is more likely that they will be about 71%.

Kerry, who was a fairly weak candidate, got 41%.

Ever decreasing percentage of whites won by Dem candidate, that is likely to keep decreasing.

And that will happen because...

[Likely Voter]

Let's not forget that Obama got 43% of whites in 2008. The simple fact is that we really don't know how things will look for a while, but Hillary doing better than Obama's 2012 performance is not only reasonable but probably likely. How much better is a question mark but getting into the Gore/Kerry/Obama 2008 range is certainly not crazy talk.

But my point was that if you game out all the Hillary scenarios, her team should look at at 8% PV possibility ala 2008 and see what states go into play. Especially this far out, they are blue-skying it. And as noted by the Hillary team, this is more to do with making the GOP play defense. That is why Obama stayed in NC until the end in 2012 (forcing the GOP to spend more there then the Dems because it was a must win state for them)

[henster]

Let's not forget that Obama got 43% of whites in 2008. The simple fact is that we really don't know how things will look for a while, but Hillary doing better than Obama's 2012 performance is not only reasonable but probably likely. How much better is a question mark but getting into the Gore/Kerry/Obama 2008 range is certainly not crazy talk.

But my point was that if you game out all the Hillary scenarios, her team should look at at 8% PV possibility ala 2008 and see what states go into play. Especially this far out, they are blue-skying it. And as noted by the Hillary team, this is more to do with making the GOP play defense. That is why Obama stayed in NC until the end in 2012 (forcing the GOP to spend more there then the Dems because it was a must win state for them)

Hillary is not winning by 8 points especially with her party in the WH and an unpopular President, I don't see how that is possible. She can probably pull out a 5 point win at best.

[eric82oslo]

Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.

It is not possible for Hillary to get 42% of the white vote. That ship has sailed for the Democrats.
2008 like wave election is not possible in 2016, not after two terms of Dem president.

Let's get serious in our analysis.

Whites can't be that low in 2016. It is more likely that they will be about 71%.

Kerry, who was a fairly weak candidate, got 41%.

Ever decreasing percentage of whites won by Dem candidate, that is likely to keep decreasing.

And that will happen because...

In 38 elections from now, exactly 0% of white voters will vote for the Democratic candidate.

[eric82oslo]

Let's not forget that Obama got 43% of whites in 2008. The simple fact is that we really don't know how things will look for a while, but Hillary doing better than Obama's 2012 performance is not only reasonable but probably likely. How much better is a question mark but getting into the Gore/Kerry/Obama 2008 range is certainly not crazy talk.

But my point was that if you game out all the Hillary scenarios, her team should look at at 8% PV possibility ala 2008 and see what states go into play. Especially this far out, they are blue-skying it. And as noted by the Hillary team, this is more to do with making the GOP play defense. That is why Obama stayed in NC until the end in 2012 (forcing the GOP to spend more there then the Dems because it was a must win state for them)

Hillary is not winning by 8 points especially with her party in the WH and an unpopular President, I don't see how that is possible. She can probably pull out a 5 point win at best.

I happen to think a 5 point win is close to her floor actually. I have a really hard time seeing her win by less than 3%. It doesn't matter if a so b. Hillary is Hillary and she is pretty unique. So is American history. Women across the states won't allow her not to win. They won't allow their entire gender to go down the drain like that. Because most of them will very well know that if the most qualified female politician throughout US history can't become president, then no woman will ever be qualified enough, at least not for another generation or two, or three... Tons of Republican women voters will vote for her, believe me.

[IceSpear]

Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.

It is not possible for Hillary to get 42% of the white vote. That ship has sailed for the Democrats.
2008 like wave election is not possible in 2016, not after two terms of Dem president.

Let's get serious in our analysis.

Whites can't be that low in 2016. It is more likely that they will be about 71%.

Kerry, who was a fairly weak candidate, got 41%.

Ever decreasing percentage of whites won by Dem candidate, that is likely to keep decreasing.

Alternatively, Obama could've hit the floor in 2012, and now there's nowhere to go but up.

[Non Swing Voter]

"Voters in Arizona and Georgia leaned more Republican than the nation five years ago, and they continue to do so. If these states were becoming more Democratic, you’d expect at least some movement toward the Democrats in terms of party identification. There hasn’t been any."

How is this excerpt from the article at all accurate?  The graphic right above this shows that there was movement in both Arizona and Georgia over the last couple of years.  Not a lot, but for them to say there "hasn't been any" is poor journalism.

[The_Doctor]

This identifies a key variable. How many whites will actually vote for Clinton that didn't vote for Obama? Winning 43% and 39% is something to consider. White women voted 56-42% for Romney; would they shift because a white woman is at the top of the ticket? And if they did shift, at 38% of the 2012 electorate, how much do we reasonably expect a shift of?

I agree, if white women do decide to vote more Democratic than what they did in 2012, the Democrats do have an advantage. But if white support for the Democrats slip and they don't support Hillary in the numbers expected, that would be interesting to see.

Someone should model the floor of white support for the Democratic Party, by economic class and try to model how much Hillary would win at a minimum with current conditions.