Does a dem win in Arizona require that the Democrats win Maricopa? County?

[MT Treasurer]

In the presidential race? Almost certainly. Sure, I could maybe see Maricopa voting 1 point to the right of the state in 2020, but definitely not more than that. Generally speaking, Maricopa is exactly the place where Democrats need to do well if they want to win AZ in a presidential election. Yes, Bill Clinton lost Maricopa in 1996, but he also lost Fairfax County. The 1996 results tell us nothing about what is likely to happen in 2020.

While true, I think you put way too much emphasis on what role 2016 will play in predicting non-Trump elections.  If the GOP has a different nominee in 2020, a 2020 election will have just as much to do with a Romney winning map as it would a Trump winning map; I would argue a median between the two.

This is true to some extent (but like PNM said, we also have to consider the impact demographic changes have had in places like Orange County, Maricopa County, etc., so it's a bit risky to simply assume that a less "Trump-ish" nominee will do significantly better there), but I don't think "Trumpism" will just disappear in 2020 or whatever. Or do you believe someone like Kasich or Sandoval could win a Republican Primary any time soon?

[Beet]

Huh, I just realized that if the Democrats can take Arizona and Florida, they can technically get to 271, but it's a very risky strategy since it relies on holding every state Clinton narrowly carried, like NH, NV, MN and ME. Next up is NC, but the D trend of that state is over. In the end, this thought experiment just reinforces the indispensability of the rust belt. I'm convinced a lot of the pessimism from Democrats for 2020 is the instinctive fear that the candidates being touted today lack rust belt appeal.

[RINO Tom]

In the presidential race? Almost certainly. Sure, I could maybe see Maricopa voting 1 point to the right of the state in 2020, but definitely not more than that. Generally speaking, Maricopa is exactly the place where Democrats need to do well if they want to win AZ in a presidential election. Yes, Bill Clinton lost Maricopa in 1996, but he also lost Fairfax County. The 1996 results tell us nothing about what is likely to happen in 2020.

While true, I think you put way too much emphasis on what role 2016 will play in predicting non-Trump elections.  If the GOP has a different nominee in 2020, a 2020 election will have just as much to do with a Romney winning map as it would a Trump winning map; I would argue a median between the two.

This is true to some extent (but like PNM said, we also have to consider the impact demographic changes have had in places like Orange County, Maricopa County, etc., so it's a bit risky to simply assume that a less "Trump-ish" nominee will do significantly better there), but I don't think "Trumpism" will just disappear in 2020 or whatever. Or do you believe someone like Kasich or Sandoval could win a Republican Primary any time soon?

What I believe is that Trumpism means support for Trump.  There was no predecessor, there will be no successor.  He doesn't represent a cohesive ideological wing, and neither do his primary supporters.  Not even close to one, really.  A "Trumpish" GOP candidate will adopt his brashness without feeling any need to be protectionist, for example.  At least IMO.  He was a blanket candidate for millions of primary voters who were sick of politicians who'd lied to them, not a white knight for committed populists.

[Webnicz]

Winning Maricopa county has never been easier with the pardoning of Arpaio

[smoltchanov]

No, but you must be very close there...

[pbrower2a]

I see Maricopa County dominating Arizona politics even more than Cook County dominates Illinois politics. Arizona is unlikely to see any dispersal of its population. There might be relatively-pleasant places to live by a climatic standpoint, but those places are extremely mountainous. Construction, whether of buildings, water and sewer mains, or roads is difficult and expensive in mountains.  Greater Chicago in theory* can expand toward Rockford, Kankakee, and Bloomington without running into difficulties of water supply or land barriers (OK, it could expand into Indiana, Wisconsin, and even Michigan, but that would affect the politics of those states).  Greater Phoenix runs into mountains of stark relief to the north and east, and desert to the south and west.

The problem isn't the heat; it's a water supply. Give Phoenix an adequate water supply and it would be another Houston.

...Does anyone see Tucson becoming a giant urban area in its own right?

*It wouldn't be be practical, anyway. Greater Chicago depends heavily upon its location as a center of transportation for the rich farm product of the area and for industry related to coal from southern Illinois and limestone from the overall area for steel production. Greater Chicago probably maxed out on potential growth a couple decades ago, as budgetary problems of the State of Illinois demonstrate. 

[ElectionsGuy]

I think it does now, as the county is trending Democratic. But its possible without.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The problem isn't the heat; it's a water supply. Give Phoenix an adequate water supply and it would be another Houston.

Or just get rid of the absurdly water intensive agriculture (which IIRC is disproportionately owned by rich Saudis). It's already rather huge (it might be bigger then Houston depending on how you measure it). Water isn't killing growth yet AFAIK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not small, but I'm not sure. Water is still a limit, and Tucson's not currently growing very much.

[Adam Griffin]

No, not necessarily - but it is probably more likely than not in the current and short-term political climate.

AZ flipping in 2018/2020 will probably be contingent upon a good investment and ground-game by both the party and one or more candidates, and resources tend to go where there is the greatest concentration of people. This means that a disproportionate share of gains relative to 2014/2016 would probably come out of Maricopa.

If we base it off of previous election results, then the answer is obviously no - with an important caveat. Obama did better in non-Maricopa AZ in both 2008 and 2012 than in Maricopa, but he didn't come close to winning the state either time. There's probably not enough raw vote potential in the remainder of the state to close a 10-point gap on its own - certainly more in Maricopa overall - and so any scenario where the state is truly in play is likely being fueled by larger-than-average gains in Phoenix.

In a world of uniform swings, yes, AZ could fall into the Democratic column by a point or two while still leaving Maricopa in the GOP column by a point or two...but based on recent trends, it's probably more likely that Maricopa falls into the Democratic column by a point or two while the remainder of the state remains lean GOP.

[The Mikado]

Huh, I just realized that if the Democrats can take Arizona and Florida, they can technically get to 271, but it's a very risky strategy since it relies on holding every state Clinton narrowly carried, like NH, NV, MN and ME. Next up is NC, but the D trend of that state is over. In the end, this thought experiment just reinforces the indispensability of the rust belt. I'm convinced a lot of the pessimism from Democrats for 2020 is the instinctive fear that the candidates being touted today lack rust belt appeal.

I don't think that the GOP keeps Michigan no matter what. It went to Trump by a stupidly narrow margin (0.2%!) and did so in an environment where 6% of Michiganders felt safe voting third party, which certainly won't be the case in the next election. I think that the GOP has a good shot at maintaining WI and PA (although both of those are no worse than Tossup and may be Lean D), but not MI.

If MI flips back to Dems, then Florida alone wins the election. AZ alone could push the GOP down to 279 (278 if they also lose ME-02), which puts Dems in striking distance if there's a breakthrough in NC.

As to the topic question, Maricopa probably only runs 1-2 points more GOP than AZ as a whole. It'd need to be a razor-thin Dem win for the Dems to win the state without it.