Is Georgia Becoming A Battleground State?

[pppolitics]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-georgia-becoming-a-battleground-state/

[freedomburns]

Yes, and it is shifting Dem.  One of the latest polls shows Hillary up four points there.

[evergreenarbor]

Georgia is Tilt R right now, but would be Likely R with a competent Republican nominee. I don't think a Democrat will win Georgia until 2024 or 2028.

[pppolitics]

Georgia is Tilt R right now, but would be Likely R with a competent Republican nominee. I don't think a Democrat will win Georgia until 2024 or 2028.

Never write-off the possibility that Trump would explode.

[Podgy the Bear]

The demographics of the Atlanta suburban population are changing significantly, and clearly, this is making an impact.  This, and the Trump factor turning off a lot of white collar independents/Republicans in the Atlanta area (and I have seen it) will make it a tight race. 

It will be tough for Hillary to pull it out, but she should place resources here to make it that much tougher for Trump.

[nicholas.slaydon]

No. This is just the effect of Donald Trump being the nominee. Any other republican would carry the state easily.

[Badger]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

[NOVA Green]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

The Fourth reason would be to expand voter registration, local campaign volunteers, and help build a foundation for future statewide (As well as Presidential elections) in a state that the Democratic Party has virtually neglected for many decades, effectively ceding that state to Republicans on all levels of government for quite some time.... Sure it would take investment in resources ($$$ and skilled staffers), but GA is much cheaper to invest resources in than TX, even though in theory there are demographic trends that favor the Dems in the long-term in Texas, so long as Republicans keep nominating candidates that don't believe that Mexican-Americans belong under the tent of the "Grand Old Party".

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I guess it depends on the definition of "battleground state"--how narrowly do you define the term? In 2012, Georgia was less close than Minnesota, but all the other states surrounding it were the definitional swing states--and the next closest state in the other direction was Arizona, which is obviously a swing state this year. So, sure. It might not be the closest state on election day, or even the fifth closest, but the demographics are clearly shifting towards the Democrats, and it's been close the last two elections (7th closest in 2008, and 12th closest in 2012). The polls show a close race, and I believe them.

[Bojack Horseman]

Eventually it probably will be, as will Mississippi and arguably Louisiana as said states become more Black.

[Badger]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

The Fourth reason would be to expand voter registration, local campaign volunteers, and help build a foundation for future statewide (As well as Presidential elections) in a state that the Democratic Party has virtually neglected for many decades, effectively ceding that state to Republicans on all levels of government for quite some time.... Sure it would take investment in resources ($$$ and skilled staffers), but GA is much cheaper to invest resources in than TX, even though in theory there are demographic trends that favor the Dems in the long-term in Texas, so long as Republicans keep nominating candidates that don't believe that Mexican-Americans belong under the tent of the "Grand Old Party".

There's significantly more $ Democrats can raise in Texas than GA, even per capita, for such state projects.

Still you have a good point. But I suspect Hillary has to focus on the immediate goals of bringing in a Democratic Senate, and reducing the GOP majority in the House.

[Badger]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

The Fourth reason would be to expand voter registration, local campaign volunteers, and help build a foundation for future statewide (As well as Presidential elections) in a state that the Democratic Party has virtually neglected for many decades, effectively ceding that state to Republicans on all levels of government for quite some time.... Sure it would take investment in resources ($$$ and skilled staffers), but GA is much cheaper to invest resources in than TX, even though in theory there are demographic trends that favor the Dems in the long-term in Texas, so long as Republicans keep nominating candidates that don't believe that Mexican-Americans belong under the tent of the "Grand Old Party".

There's significantly more $ Democrats can raise in Texas than GA, even per capita, for such state projects.

Still you have a good point. But I suspect Hillary has to focus on the immediate goals of bringing in a Democratic Senate, and reducing the GOP majority in the House.

Ehhh... I think it will be 2040ish before swing state Texas can really happen.  Georgia looks like it could happen right now or at least by 2020.  Sure, they might get a Texas senate seat or governorship in a midterm wave before then, but getting bogged down there could put them in a very precarious position in the electoral college for a long while.

I'll give you that--sort of. While voting is relatively inelastic in both states, it's more so in GA. There's a higher floor to work with in GA, but the demographic trends are moving quicker in TX.

But yeah, if one moves GA to a purple state, kind of like VA was around 2004, the GOP is badly hurt having to defend another state.

[Xing]

It's becoming more competitive, but it definitely won't be the tipping point state this year. Hillary only carries it if she's winning by an Obama '08 margin or larger.

[Badger]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

The Fourth reason would be to expand voter registration, local campaign volunteers, and help build a foundation for future statewide (As well as Presidential elections) in a state that the Democratic Party has virtually neglected for many decades, effectively ceding that state to Republicans on all levels of government for quite some time.... Sure it would take investment in resources ($$$ and skilled staffers), but GA is much cheaper to invest resources in than TX, even though in theory there are demographic trends that favor the Dems in the long-term in Texas, so long as Republicans keep nominating candidates that don't believe that Mexican-Americans belong under the tent of the "Grand Old Party".

There's significantly more $ Democrats can raise in Texas than GA, even per capita, for such state projects.

Still you have a good point. But I suspect Hillary has to focus on the immediate goals of bringing in a Democratic Senate, and reducing the GOP majority in the House.

Ehhh... I think it will be 2040ish before swing state Texas can really happen.  Georgia looks like it could happen right now or at least by 2020.  Sure, they might get a Texas senate seat or governorship in a midterm wave before then, but getting bogged down there could put them in a very precarious position in the electoral college for a long while.

I'll give you that--sort of. While voting is relatively inelastic in both states, it's more so in GA. There's a higher floor to work with in GA, but the demographic trends are moving quicker in TX.

But yeah, if one moves GA to a purple state, kind of like VA was around 2004, the GOP is badly hurt having to defend another state.

Basically, by the time Texas is purple, large parts of the Acela Northeast will also be purple and Illinois and Minnesota will be the only Dem viable states left in the Midwest.  Georgia can make a difference almost in the present day.  That pesky runoff clause will mess with Georgia downballot Dems for a long time, though, and Texas doesn't have runoffs in the general.

I doubt WI or MI is floating away from being at least lean Democratic for sometime to come, and OH and IA will remain battlegrounds.

The rising GOP strength in Western PA is swamped by demographics: The population growth and Democratic trends (interrupted some from 2010-14) will continue making PA more a Magenta state than a purple one.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The demographics of Georgia have changed dramatically.  It's black population is 31.4% as of the 2010 census and is rising.  Only MS and LA are ahead of GA, and those states have a far more inelastic white electorate, whereas GA has a bloc of white voters who are not far-right wing conservatives.  It's trending the Democrats' way, and it will stay in the Democratic column as VA has, and FL will.  I think Trump will carry GA, but unless he rights his campaign ship, he'll have to work very, very hard to do so.

[dspNY]

Chuck Todd on MTP just said Clinton is ramping up operations in GA

[Sir Mohamed]

Ususally it's likely R (with a good candidate) or at least lean R. As of now, it is still slightly lean R, but absolutely worth a shot for the Clinton campaign. If the fake billionaire continues to implode, she may very well end up with these additional 16 electoral votes.

Due to the demographic changes, GA is likely becoming a battleground after 2020.

[pbrower2a]

Target: a Senate seat.  See also Iowa, Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Nevada (the only current Senate seat now held by a Democrat that could be vulnerable this year). If she keeps a campaign going in Pennsylvania it will be to pound Senator Toomey, and not to win Pennsylvania by 15% instead of 10%. Likewise Iowa.

She does not need Arizona (she would win Colorado and Nevada anyway, which imply victory); Georgia (which means that she is also winning Florida and North Carolina); Indiana (in which case she is also winning Ohio and the Presidential election); Missouri (which suggests that she is already winning Ohio and Virginia); or North Carolina (which suggests that she is also winning   Virginia and the election overall.

She would be campaigning in Texas if it had a Senate seat up for grabs.    

[Tartarus Sauce]

I'll give you that--sort of. While voting is relatively inelastic in both states, it's more so in GA. There's a higher floor to work with in GA, but the demographic trends are moving quicker in TX.

But yeah, if one moves GA to a purple state, kind of like VA was around 2004, the GOP is badly hurt having to defend another state.

That leads me to believe that the optimal strategy for Democrats would be to invest in Texas for expanding voting registration and infrastructure networks to establish long term potential growth while considering how to actually begin building a bench in Georgia for the more immediate future. Pulling off a win in GA this election cycle would motivate putting more resources into such an effort.

[Suburbia]

A lot of prominent African Americans in Georgia have wanted it to be a swing state for many cycles, now, and it looks like it is becoming a battleground state.

[Likely Voter]

here is what Todd said on MTP about Clinton and Georgia (and AZ).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bacon King]

Can confirm Hillary is running ads in Georgia - I just saw one while watching the Olympics here on Atlanta media market network TV

[Likely Voter]

Can confirm Hillary is running ads in Georgia - I just saw one while watching the Olympics here on Atlanta media market network TV

Actually the Clinton campaign did a national buy for the Olympics, although it is speculated that they did that because it turned out to be not much more than targeted buys. 

[7,052,770]

Can confirm Hillary is running ads in Georgia - I just saw one while watching the Olympics here on Atlanta media market network TV

Was that a local buy? I've seen a bunch of Hillary ads on the Jackson NBC station during the Olympics.

[OneJ]

Can confirm Hillary is running ads in Georgia - I just saw one while watching the Olympics here on Atlanta media market network TV

Was that a local buy? I've seen a bunch of Hillary ads on the Jackson NBC station during the Olympics.

I've seen an ad here in Jackson too on the same station. Interesting.