Clinton 2016 campaign: Georgia is a "Tier Two" state

[WVdemocrat]

It's smart to invest in states like Georgia and Arizona and North Carolina, though I don't know why Hillary's campaign considers NC a "long shot." Expanding the map shouldn't be her priority, but she should look into where they could expand to in favorable circumstances.

[WVdemocrat]

So long as Jeb Bush is the GOP nominee, Hillary Clinton's path to 272 becomes a lot harder because he will win Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina. Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, and Iowa would be up for grabs.

Florida isn't a lock for Jeb, it's as much Bush country as it is Hillary country. And please tell me your reasoning behind him being a lock to win NV is more elaborate than "muh Hispanic wife" and "muh immigration." Also, news flash: Obama nearly won NC and Hillary's leading in the polls. She, the wife of a very popular former president, would be running against the brother of a very unpopular former president. I'm sure you can come up with reasons why Hillary isn't Bill and Jeb isn't George, but the GP will not see it that way. Hillary will make this a referendum on the Clinton and Bush names, and based on that, she will win.

With Scott Walker, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico come back into her column. Virginia and Colorado are leaning her way, though up for grabs. North Carolina is 50/50, then Ohio and Iowa lean Walker.

Is that supposed to be an extended home state effect (re: OH and IA)?

I don't understand why Atlas thinks these candidates can only be exclusively competitive. Was Romney only competitive in NH and in the Upper Midwest (he was born in MI, so obviously he'll win there and surrounding states)? No. He didn't nearly win NH or MI or WI. He nearly won Florida. And Virginia, and Ohio. Why? Because when you become a presidential candidate, it no longer matters that you're from Wisconsin or Florida, or that you have a Hispanic wife. The fact that Walker hails from Wisconsin does not mean Florida voters (or voters anywhere else) are going to be less likely to vote for him. Just because Rubio is from Florida, doesn't mean he can't compete in Wisconsin. Just because Jeb has a Hispanic wife, doesn't mean that Colorado, and New Mexico, and Nevada, and Florida are locks for him. We lambaste "Mark Halperin logic" here all the time, so why do we constantly engage in it? Why do we on Atlas engage in arbitrating, months out from Election Day, which states (many of which went for the opposite party in 2012) are a lock for which candidates?

[WVdemocrat]

I think the above R pollster was laying a plausible case if a close election was to be.

But, there hasnt been consecutive elections where duplicate maps have been made. The compiled map which shows this is more wishful thinking.

It will be a close election like 1960, 1976 and 2000 were, third term inc party.

Maybe that would be the case under different circumstances, but polling shows that Hillary is maintaining the Obama 2012 map (with some small differences, but mostly maintaining it).

This is Hillary vs. Jeb (a map of current polling):

Do you notice that there's essentially no change from 2012? Virginia and North Carolina are switched, but otherwise it's the same. Hillary's crushing Jeb in Nevada, she's leading in his home state of Florida.

Nothing indicates this will be a close election. The GOP field is a bunch of clowns and a Bush. TBH, their best candidate would be Romney and even he would ensure a loss. Precedent can be helpful insight, but it can't guide us. 2000 was closer than 1996. 1960 was closer than 1956. 1988 was closer than 1984. 2016 looks to break that tradition.