North Carolina

[LimoLiberal]

Should the Democrats invest here in 2020?

[White Trash]

Only if the Great Lakes are locked up tight

[America Needs R'hllor]

Sure. They should invest everywhere where a win is pretty possible. That means also Arizona, Georgia, anywhere else where polls look good and very importantly the Midwest.

[AGA]

Only if they nominate a candidate who can get African-American turnout up. Clinton lost the state by nearly 4 points after investing so many resources into it; even Arizona was closer. It is not as much as a swing state as people think it is.

[Mr. Smith]

Depends on Roy Cooper's popularity and how bad of shape Thom Tillis is in [and not just a mere unknown like Burr].

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

Only if the Great Lakes are locked up tight

This.

If they're still struggling to gain ground here (especially in Minnesota and Wisconsin), then they should start seriously targeting NC.

[Vosem]

Of course. Both parties should go all-out on any states that were within 5 points (unless internals suggest a ridiculously massive shift), plus any states where internals suggest competition is possible. Both parties must compete in MI, NH, PA, WI, FL, MN, NV, ME-Statewide, NE-2, AZ, NC, CO.

4 points is a very narrow margin that is not at all difficult to overturn. In 2016, even as the country only shifted 2 points, 30/50 states shifted 4 points or more. In 2008, the country shifted 10 points, and 44/50 states shifted 4 points or more. It can definitely be done. It's healthy for a party to have more than one path to the Presidency, and it's pretty clear that (while by no means should they give up in the Great Lakes) the Democrats can set up a path to victory without them. Flipping FL, AZ, and NC (all of which were within 4 points) gives Democrats a win even if they drop MN, NH, and ME-Statewide. If they can hold all the Hillary '16 states, FL+basically any other swing state anywhere (9 EVs are needed; the closest Trump state that had less than that is IA, which is probably gone for anyone other than Klobuchar in 2020) is a win.

It should be noted in FL that Trump backslid from Romney's percentage; the Democrats bled more to third parties. The Rubio Senate campaign may have turned out some people who were otherwise unlikely to vote as well, or Rubio's endorsement may have assuaged some errant Republicans. Florida needs to be Ground Zero for offense for the Democratic effort in 2020.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Of course. Both parties should go all-out on any states that were within 5 points (unless internals suggest a ridiculously massive shift), plus any states where internals suggest competition is possible. Both parties must compete in MI, NH, PA, WI, FL, MN, NV, ME-Statewide, NE-2, AZ, NC, CO.

4 points is a very narrow margin that is not at all difficult to overturn. In 2016, even as the country only shifted 2 points, 30/50 states shifted 4 points or more. In 2008, the country shifted 10 points, and 44/50 states shifted 4 points or more. It can definitely be done. It's healthy for a party to have more than one path to the Presidency, and it's pretty clear that (while by no means should they give up in the Great Lakes) the Democrats can set up a path to victory without them. Flipping FL, AZ, and NC (all of which were within 4 points) gives Democrats a win even if they drop MN, NH, and ME-Statewide. If they can hold all the Hillary '16 states, FL+basically any other swing state anywhere (9 EVs are needed; the closest Trump state that had less than that is IA, which is probably gone for anyone other than Klobuchar in 2020) is a win.

It should be noted in FL that Trump backslid from Romney's percentage; the Democrats bled more to third parties. The Rubio Senate campaign may have turned out some people who were otherwise unlikely to vote as well, or Rubio's endorsement may have assuaged some errant Republicans. Florida needs to be Ground Zero for offense for the Democratic effort in 2020.

Agreed with basically everything. I think that they should also look at investing in states with wider margins like 5-7, even 8. It could give each party some interesting opportunities.

[Adam Griffin]

No. If we're talking about investment for presidential elections alone, then NC should be abandoned and GA should get the investment. It's kept up with NC since 2000 in terms of tracking with the state in its share of the Democratic vote.

No - Georgia is obviously total fool's gold for the Democrats and we should continue to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into uber swing-state NC!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Truly inspiring!

[/]

No. If we're talking about investment for presidential elections alone, then NC should be abandoned and GA should get the investment. It's kept up with NC since 2000 in terms of tracking with the state in its share of the Democratic vote.

No - Georgia is obviously total fool's gold for the Democrats and we should continue to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into uber swing-state NC!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Truly inspiring!

NC is one of only four states that has trended Democratic in each of the last four cycles. Georgia isn't.

[Adam Griffin]

NC is one of only four states that has trended Democratic in each of the last four cycles. Georgia isn't.

"Trend" is effectively meaningless outside of Atlas nerd analysis, though.

But if we are gonna look at it, then look at the trend of the trend: NC is spent. NC's 2012 trend beat GA by a measly 0.2 points and in 2016, NC got stomped by GA. This is with NC getting tons of investment and money, and GA getting none.

All that money can buy there has been bought already. Time to invest in GA!

[OneJ]

NC is one of only four states that has trended Democratic in each of the last four cycles. Georgia isn't.

"Trend" is effectively meaningless outside of Atlas nerd analysis, though.

But if we are gonna look at it, then look at the trend of the trend: NC is spent. NC's 2012 trend beat GA by a measly 0.2 points and in 2016, NC got stomped by GA. This is with NC getting tons of investment and money, and GA getting none.

All that money can buy there has been bought already. Time to invest in GA!

I have to agree with you. Hillary made strong attempts to capture NC and still swung towards Trump. But then looking at a state like Georgia and even Texas, where there was no serious play for those states, swung for Hillary (especially TX). Those two + AZ would be great substitutes if WI, MI, and PA are still stubborn to come back home (though it won't obviously be easy). FL should also be added to the mix.

Northern Carolina is proving to be somewhat inelastic, so might as well try in other places.

I also agree with trend being pointless as well. It doesn't provide any meaningful information really.

[Figueira]

Depends on Roy Cooper's popularity and how bad of shape Thom Tillis is in [and not just a mere unknown like Burr].

We can't just not target Thom Tillis.

[Mr. Smith]

To be fair, Hurricane Matthew, the fire-bombing, and Charlotte didn't exactly do any favors.

[Person Man]

To be fair, Hurricane Matthew, the fire-bombing, and Charlotte didn't exactly do any favors.

Not sure how Hurricane Matthew could've have affected the presidential race?

Made it hard for those most adversely affected by a Trump presidency to vote.

[Shadows]

Ofcourse. Did Trump not target WI or MI? Those are states not within 5 points, states Republicans haven't won for decades.

The Dem need a long term 50 state strategy & they need to campaign hard in atleast 15-18 states. The focus should come only in the last 30-40 depending on polls.

I would focus on the following -

1 - Ohio
2 - Indiana
3 - Pennsylvania
4 - Iowa
5 - Michigan
6 - Wisconsin
7 - Maine
8 - New Hampshire
9 - Nevada
10 - Colorado
11 - Georgia
12 - Arizona
13 - Texas
14 - Florida
15 - North Carolina
16 - Minnesota

Apart from these I would say Nebraska CD2.

Maybe they could abort Texas, etc in the end if the polls don't tighten enough. FL or TX would put the White House out of the reach for the GOP!

[Fuzzy Bear]

NC's Democratic trend has halted because of the leftward shift of the Democratic Party.

GA's Democratic trend has increased because it is becoming more black, with blacks migrating to metro Atlanta.

[libertpaulian]

NC's Democratic trend has halted because of the leftward shift of the Democratic Party.

GA's Democratic trend has increased because it is becoming more black, with blacks migrating to metro Atlanta.

However, in my view, Romney and Trump winning NC by a margin of only low single digits is ominous of NC's political future.

[Devils30]

You just don't know, 2016 is going to produce some major shifts either way. It may just be beginning though, if Trump is unpopular then the Dems have the chance for a 2020 landslide. I figure he either wins by a few in 2020 or loses by 10% plus. America is due for a realignment (generally in 40-50 year cycles) and 2020 will be 40 since Reagan in 1980.

[Axel Foley]

Second disappointment in a row for Dems here...2012 convention in Charlotte, many investments in 2016 with presidential couple highly involved, and still lose...they only won the State in a landslide in 2008, so for now NC is Dem-winnable when they don't need it at all, I suppose.

Not anymore a safe-GOP State, but not yet a true swing-State. Lean GOP.

[Fuzzy Bear]

NC's Democratic trend has halted because of the leftward shift of the Democratic Party.

GA's Democratic trend has increased because it is becoming more black, with blacks migrating to metro Atlanta.

However, in my view, Romney and Trump winning NC by a margin of only low single digits is ominous of NC's political future.

I would agree with this.

NC has a number of northern retirees entering the state.  Some are wealthy and conservative, but some are rather liberal and progressive, at least socially.

[libertpaulian]

NC's Democratic trend has halted because of the leftward shift of the Democratic Party.

GA's Democratic trend has increased because it is becoming more black, with blacks migrating to metro Atlanta.

However, in my view, Romney and Trump winning NC by a margin of only low single digits is ominous of NC's political future.

I would agree with this.

NC has a number of northern retirees entering the state.  Some are wealthy and conservative, but some are rather liberal and progressive, at least socially.

Even in the GOP tsunami of 2014, Thom Tillis only won by 2%.