GA-Landmark: Trump 42 Clinton 41

[HillOfANight]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/poll-georgians-largely-undecided-about-presidential-race/265867522
http://media.beta.wsbtv.com/document_dev/2016/05/06/Statewide%20Poll%20Pres%20May%205th%20xlsx_4271809_ver1.0.pdf

She leads among women by 5 percent. Trump leads men by 6 percent but he has a double digit lead among voters over age 65.

[MT Treasurer]

GA is trending away from the GOP, but I don't think it will flip in 2016. At least not yet.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If/when Republicans unite, we won't have to worry about places like Georgia

[Lief 🗽]

BEAUTIFUL!!!

Too bad there's no senate election there this year.

[MT Treasurer]

Too bad there's no senate election there this year.

There is. Johnny Isakson is running for reelection to a third term, even though the race is basically Safe R.

[Adam Griffin]

Georgia will be a little tease like it usually is...the two will be more or less statistically-tied up until the final weeks and then the remaining 5-7 percent  ("undecideds") will break heavily for the GOP.

It's possible that Trump makes this race the equivalent of what 2020 would look like in neutral conditions, in which case, it might be actually competitive. You'll have to excuse me for my pessimism, though.

Sooner or later...

[HillOfANight]

If Gary Johnson or someone ran that could tip this race in her favor like how Bill won in 1992 and 1996 thanks to Perot.

[MT Treasurer]

Is it fair to say that GA 2016 = VA 2000?

[Comrade Funk]

Hillary can win Georgia. I think as the election goes on, and she plays the 'adult in the room' card (maybe picking a military VP), her lead will only grow.

[Heisenberg]

Is it fair to say that GA 2016 = VA 2000?

As in?  (Please explain, maybe since after 2000 VA trended away from Republicans pretty fast?)

[IceSpear]

BEAUTIFUL!!!

Too bad there's no senate election there this year.

There is. Unfortunately, Dems weren't even competent enough to find a somewhat decent candidate for wave insurance, so it's unwinnable.

This is the pollster that frequently showed Nunn/Perdue tied as well, so take it for what it's worth. I could see Hillary keeping it close, but it's very difficult to see her winning.

[Ebsy]

I keep the dream of a blue (atlas red) Georgia alive.

[Xing]

This could end up being within 5%, but GA is most likely staying Republican. GA's probably more like where NC was about 15 years ago.

[windjammer]

Is it fair to say that GA 2016 = VA 2000?

Hmmmm,
Adam will give us the answer but I think the 2 states are different:
- GA is becoming bluer because of massive immigration.
-While obviously VA immigration is big too, I think one of the biggest factors of the dem shift is the democrats becoming more and more appealing to the DC suburbs (as you pointed out)

[Adam Griffin]

There is. Unfortunately, Dems weren't even competent enough to find a somewhat decent candidate for wave insurance, so it's unwinnable.

This is the pollster that frequently showed Nunn/Perdue tied as well, so take it for what it's worth. I could see Hillary keeping it close, but it's very difficult to see her winning.

The candidate isn't a bad one given the environment and some other metrics. He's prepared to spend as much of his own money as possible on the race. He's an "outsider businessman" (a la Perdue). The negatives of course are lack of prior name recognition and a less-than-currently visible campaign outside of mailers and social media. After the losses of people with the names of Nunn & Carter (which in my opinion, weren't terrible losses given the climate; did as well as Obama in a bad mid-term year and with a whiter electorate/lower levels of AA support), you weren't going to have any "big" names step up to run against a guy like Isakson who is - for whatever reason - rather beloved.

And perhaps I'm not remembering it correctly, but weren't most pollsters showing an effectively-tied race until the final week or two? It seems like there was only one pollster (and a less than credible one at that) that predicted a 8-10 point win for Perdue.

[ElectionsGuy]

High undecideds, likely of which most lean Republican.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

There is. Unfortunately, Dems weren't even competent enough to find a somewhat decent candidate for wave insurance, so it's unwinnable.

This is the pollster that frequently showed Nunn/Perdue tied as well, so take it for what it's worth. I could see Hillary keeping it close, but it's very difficult to see her winning.

The candidate isn't a bad one given the environment and some other metrics. He's prepared to spend as much of his own money as possible on the race. He's an "outsider businessman" (a la Perdue). The negatives of course are lack of prior name recognition and a less-than-currently visible campaign outside of mailers and social media. After the losses of people with the names of Nunn & Carter (which in my opinion, weren't terrible losses given the climate; did as well as Obama in a bad mid-term year and with a whiter electorate/lower levels of AA support), you weren't going to have any "big" names step up to run against a guy like Isakson who is - for whatever reason - rather beloved.

And perhaps I'm not remembering it correctly, but weren't most pollsters showing an effectively-tied race until the final week or two? It seems like there was only one pollster (and a less than credible one at that) that predicted a 8-10 point win for Perdue.

If I remember correctly, Perdue was consistently about 5 points ahead and then the race suddenly became a tie for about 7-10 days in late October, before Perdue pulled away in the end.  Since we didn't have a competitive election in Tennessee (apart from a ballot initiative), I went to Georgia for a weekend to campaign in that race.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We know Clinton's baseline is 272 and Trump is 266. Due to Trump's Wall building in NM and OH and Va are bellweathers along with CO.

Tracking polls dont mean a thing at this stage. But, Trump is the one GOPer to lose in a landslide

[pppolitics]

Georgia is very inelastic.

It might not be as affected by a wave election as other states.

Democrats have better shot in an elastic states like Arizona.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Georgia is very inelastic.

It might not be as affected by a wave election as other states.

Democrats have better shot in an elastic states like Arizona.

Many on here won't like that Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't considered inelastic.  At least one poster will be furious that New Hampshire is both a swing state and an elastic state.  But, it seems to me that there is a strong cultural divide between the elastic and inelastic states as well.

[pppolitics]

Georgia is very inelastic.

It might not be as affected by a wave election as other states.

Democrats have better shot in an elastic states like Arizona.

Many on here won't like that Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't considered inelastic.  At least one poster will be furious that New Hampshire is both a swing state and an elastic state.  But, it seems to me that there is a strong cultural divide between the elastic and inelastic states as well.

Minnesota and Wisconsin are probably winnable if the Republicans nominate a moderate. Christie might be able to win them.

Oh, and BTW, Rubio is not a moderate.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Also, when it comes to the presidential vote totals for Democrats in AZ, it's one of THE most inelastic states, and has almost no connection to the national results.

2012 - 44.5%
2008 - 44.9%
2004 - 44.3%
2000 - 44.7%

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

GREAT NEWS!!

[pppolitics]

If Hillary can get really close and make Republicans spend money to defend the state, then that's already a win in my book.

[pbrower2a]

Georgia this close indicates:

1. Florida and North Carolina are Lean D
2. Virginia is gone this time for the GOP. 

Hillary Clinton wins Georgia only if she is winning 360 or more electoral votes.