Clinton PAC to make decision on AZ in 1 month, looking at IN/GA/MO

[HillOfANight]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-01/guy-cecil-of-priorities-usa-will-not-be-outspent
1. Priorities USA has already outspent what they did in 2012
2. They've raised 3x more than they did in 2012

They're looking at Arizona, but it seems they're going to pass on it, unless Trump's numbers are truly horrific.

They're also looking at Georgia and Indiana, but most interested in winning, not padding their margin.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/colorado-trump-shrinking-electoral-map-226653

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[F_S_USATN]

I wonder what McCain's comments this morning mean for what his internals are showing and how it relates to Trump's standing in AZ. I think Pence is going to be there twice this week.

I'm not sure i'd make GA and IN that much of a priority.

[heatcharger]

Arizona is still more likely to flip than Georgia or Indiana, but it would require a big GOTV effort with Hispanics. Suburban whites in Arizona are probably more inelastic than suburban whites in Georgia or Indiana.

[Seriously?]

I think millions of Democrat PAC money should be poured into Arizona, Indiana and Georgia. Go for it!

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

I'd go for Arizona and Georgia only. Indiana won't  flip.

[elcorazon]

Indiana and Georgia are a total waste of money. If Hillary wins those states, she will have already won NC, WI, IA, MI, OH, PA, VA and it will be a huge blowout. It's possible with a huge hispanic vote and a midwestern push by Trump that AZ could be valuable if Hillary takes, FL, NV, NM, CO and AZ, she can still lose OH, NC & PA and pull out a victory

[HillOfANight]

Suburban whites in Arizona are probably more inelastic than suburban whites in Georgia

Last time they had a Democratic Governor was Napolitano 2003-2009. Last time Georgia had a Dem Governor was 1872-2003.

Jeff Flake also barely won his Senate race in 2012.

[dspNY]

It tells you they think their polling numbers will improve but they will not spend in those states unless they think they have a hammerlock on 270

[Xing]

Georgia would be a waste. I mean, Hillary could win it in a landslide, but it'll stay Republican in a remotely close race, and there aren't any competitive senate or house races there. Indiana is even less likely to flip at the presidential level, but it's worth investing in the senate and gubernatorial races there. Arizona is definitely worth some attention.

[HillOfANight]

Anyone concerned that Guy Cecil is running this? He led the efforts in 2014.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-spend-big-more-just-ads

They spent $60 million on a fancy ground game and lost almost every race. Money on better messaging I think would have helped (in Georgia, it was all bashing Perdue, no pro Nunn).

[dspNY]

I'm also intrigued that he threw Indiana out there when asked specifically about Georgia. They must have some data suggesting Indiana is competitive (Bayh race shifting votes to Dem ticket?)

[Virginiá]

Anyone concerned that Guy Cecil is running this? He led the efforts in 2014.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-spend-big-more-just-ads

They spent $60 million on a fancy ground game and lost almost every race. Money on better messaging I think would have helped (in Georgia, it was all bashing Perdue, no pro Nunn).

I wouldn't say so. 2014 was bad all around, and maybe it would have been worse without that effort.

That said, Priorities is strategically running GOTV/registration efforts in areas where it can be helpful to both their primary goal and downballot races, so it's not all about the presidential race. Clinton and her supporting allies are trying their best to maximize their gains this cycle.

[pikachu]

...Utah might also be a decent possibility.

[Lachi]

...Utah might also be a decent possibility.

lolnope

[Indy Texas]

Indiana and Georgia are a total waste of money. If Hillary wins those states, she will have already won NC, WI, IA, MI, OH, PA, VA and it will be a huge blowout. It's possible with a huge hispanic vote and a midwestern push by Trump that AZ could be valuable if Hillary takes, FL, NV, NM, CO and AZ, she can still lose OH, NC & PA and pull out a victory

Even if she doesn't win them outright, pushing up her numbers there can help Bayh and Gregg in Indiana.

[Flake]

Anyone concerned that Guy Cecil is running this? He led the efforts in 2014.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-spend-big-more-just-ads

They spent $60 million on a fancy ground game and lost almost every race. Money on better messaging I think would have helped (in Georgia, it was all bashing Perdue, no pro Nunn).

I wouldn't say so. 2014 was bad all around, and maybe it would have been worse without that effort.

That said, Priorities is strategically running GOTV/registration efforts in areas where it can be helpful to both their primary goal and downballot races, so it's not all about the presidential race. Clinton and her supporting allies are trying their best to maximize their gains this cycle.

I was talking with Adam Griffin and Bacon King and we discussed basically how horrible the 2018 elections will be for the Democrats. For example, if we win enough seats to get the Senate back this cycle, it'll be great for about two years. Once we go into 2018 the Democrats are going to have to play defense, and it will be unbelievably tough.



The gains were great in the 2012 cycle, but the Democrats are almost certain to lose in places like North Dakota, West Virginia, Indiana, and Missouri, that's four seats gone already. We're going to face tough challenges in Ohio and Montana; our only pickup opportunity being Nevada (maybe even Arizona, but that's really a stretch).

Unless the Democrats pretty much sweep the board in 2016, (winning all of the safe Democratic seats along with Nevada, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, and Arizona) and keeping their losses contained to only the four previously mentioned races, then the Republicans will control the Senate once it's 2018. :/

Of course we're not at all focusing on Governor's races, which could bring in a bunch of Democratic Governors (right before redistricting!) if we don't screw it up! I mean this map could change drastically:



Democrats are almost guaranteed Nevada, New Mexico, Maryland, and Maine (along with New Jersey in 2017). Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Florida are great pickup opportunities, Ohio could become really competitive if there's a candidate that actually has a driver's license runs, while Georgia and maybe even Kansas could be surprisingly competitive.

If Clinton is successful and has a high approval rating, it could be a great year for Democrats on both sides (winning a bunch of competitive elections and holding the Senate) or a terrible year for Democrats (losing a bunch of winnable races and losing the Senate). This talk is all too premature as well since we don't know what 2016 will give us! 😁

[Virginiá]

If Clinton is successful and has a high approval rating, it could be a great year for Democrats on both sides (winning a bunch of competitive elections and holding the Senate) or a terrible year for Democrats (losing a bunch of winnable races and losing the Senate). This talk is all too premature as well since we don't know what 2016 will give us! 😁

Hah, yeah. Bacon showed me the map you guys came up with . It will certainly be tough, and our only semi-safe option right now, as you alluded to, is to somehow sweep all/most of the plausible seats this cycle so as to create a buffer for 2018, which unfortunately is pretty unlikely to happen, absent a collapse in GOP support this November.

However, I'm not sold on this idea of perpetual GOP midterm waves (there are more structural reasons why our midterms have been tough, and those reasons are steadily evaporating), especially as some here insist will happen despite 2016's election not even being done with yet. We will probably lose it again in 2018, but I'm not convinced right now it will be as bad as 2014 in terms of how many seats we are left with, though admittedly Democrats are facing a map from hell

Who knows. What I do know is that I'll wait until Summer/Fall 2018 before I start committing to specific predictions.

[Flake]

If Clinton is successful and has a high approval rating, it could be a great year for Democrats on both sides (winning a bunch of competitive elections and holding the Senate) or a terrible year for Democrats (losing a bunch of winnable races and losing the Senate). This talk is all too premature as well since we don't know what 2016 will give us! 😁

Hah, yeah. Bacon showed me the map you guys came up with . It will certainly be tough, and our only semi-safe option right now, as you alluded to, is to somehow sweep all/most of the plausible seats this cycle so as to create a buffer for 2018, which unfortunately is pretty unlikely to happen, absent a collapse in GOP support this November.

However, I'm not sold on this idea of perpetual GOP midterm waves (there are more structural reasons why our midterms have been tough, and those reasons are steadily evaporating), especially as some here insist will happen despite 2016's election not even being done with yet. We will probably lose it again in 2018, but I'm not convinced right now it will be as bad as 2014 in terms of how many seats we are left with, though admittedly Democrats are facing a map from hell

Who knows. What I do know is that I'll wait until Summer/Fall 2018 before I start committing to specific predictions.

Would you mind expanding on that bit actually?

[Virginiá]

Would you mind expanding on that bit actually?

The shifting bases of each party's coalitions seemingly reached peak intensity in the Obama years as Democrats made huge inroads with young voters, starting back in the 90s under Clinton and ramping up under Bush/Obama-now. Democrats basically own the 18-44 voting bloc at this point, and Reagan/Bush1-era Republicans are aging and becoming even more reliable in midterms. Simply put, Democrats rely on voters who only turn out en masse every 4 years, whereas Republicans and their older voter base turn out every 2 years. This is a generational replacement issue, combined with a realignment of partisan power in various states (mostly Democrat=>Republican)

However, favorable demographic trends and generational turnover are eroding the GOP's advantage. Heavily Republican silent generation voters will soon be done with as a political force, and Republican-leaning boomers and older genx'ers are taking their place. By next redistricting Democrats should have enough support to neutralize this gaping midterm dropoff, as +6 years from now is a lot of lost support for Republicans.

However, this isn't to say the GOP is sure to lose the House by then. They could hold on for some time. There are many states where Republicans dominate every age group, but there are others where Republicans are only holding advantages because of older voters who are literally dying off by the year. North Carolina and Florida are good examples of where new generation(s) of voters are pushing the older, more heavily Republican voters out.

This is a very excellent read if you ask me:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/the-great-midterm-divide/380784/

And here you can see in visual form the steady erosion of Republican support in many battleground states (states that are only battlegrounds for the exact reason I stated before):

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

At some point they just won't have the support to hold on anymore in those places.

[BlueSwan]

Would you mind expanding on that bit actually?

The shifting bases of each party's coalitions seemingly reached peak intensity in the Obama years as Democrats made huge inroads with young voters, starting back in the 90s under Clinton and ramping up under Bush/Obama-now. Democrats basically own the 18-44 voting bloc at this point, and Reagan/Bush1-era Republicans are aging and becoming even more reliable in midterms. Simply put, Democrats rely on voters who only turn out en masse every 4 years, whereas Republicans and their older voter base turn out every 2 years. This is a generational replacement issue, combined with a realignment of partisan power in various states (mostly Democrat=>Republican)

However, favorable demographic trends and generational turnover are eroding the GOP's advantage. Heavily Republican silent generation voters will soon be done with as a political force, and Republican-leaning boomers and older genx'ers are taking their place. By next redistricting Democrats should have enough support to neutralize this gaping midterm dropoff, as +6 years from now is a lot of lost support for Republicans.

However, this isn't to say the GOP is sure to lose the House by then. They could hold on for some time. There are many states where Republicans dominate every age group, but there are others where Republicans are only holding advantages because of older voters who are literally dying off by the year. North Carolina and Florida are good examples of where new generation(s) of voters are pushing the older, more heavily Republican voters out.

This is a very excellent read if you ask me:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/the-great-midterm-divide/380784/

And here you can see in visual form the steady erosion of Republican support in many battleground states (states that are only battlegrounds for the exact reason I stated before):

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

At some point they just won't have the support to hold on anymore in those places.

Quality post!

However, we should also take into account the slight tendency for people to get more conservative as they age.

[Holmes]

I think millions of Democrat PAC money should be poured into Arizona, Indiana and Georgia. Go for it!

I mean, sure? It's not like they're getting any competition anywhere from Trump and his allies.

[Brittain33]

In addition to higher Latino turnout, Arizona has the X factor of a large Mormon community that reliably votes Republican but could sit out this election.

[HillOfANight]

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/760528923516080128

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are they waiting for, let's beat McCain and Trump

[Likely Voter]

Politico has an article on how Dems in AZ are pressing the Clinton campaign to spend resources in the state.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/arizona-clinton-trump-blue-226536

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Indiana and Georgia are a total waste of money. If Hillary wins those states, she will have already won NC, WI, IA, MI, OH, PA, VA and it will be a huge blowout. It's possible with a huge hispanic vote and a midwestern push by Trump that AZ could be valuable if Hillary takes, FL, NV, NM, CO and AZ, she can still lose OH, NC & PA and pull out a victory

Even if she doesn't win them outright, pushing up her numbers there can help Bayh and Gregg in Indiana.

This.

Coattails aside, the way I see the Dem strategy:

Arizona and North Carolina are Pennsylvania insurance.
Georgia is Michigan insurance.
Indiana is about coattails.