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

[RINO Tom]

Why would a Democratic win in Arizona necessitate that they win one of its most Republican counties?

[RINO Tom]

Why would a Democratic win in Arizona necessitate that they win one of its most Republican counties?

Maricopa voted left of the state in 2016.

I wouldn't get too confident in any sort of trend just because of one election, but that's just me.  The county had a huge 7.5% third party vote, and these are Democrats' percentages there the past several elections:

2016: 44.8%
2012: 43.6%
2008: 43.9%
2004: 42.3%

While Trump did drop down a lot from Romney's 2012 percentage (54.3% to 47.7%), hardly any of those voters felt comfortable deflecting to the Democrats.

[RINO Tom]

Yes

Good analysis.

[RINO Tom]

Why would a Democratic win in Arizona necessitate that they win one of its most Republican counties?

Maricopa voted left of the state in 2016.

I wouldn't get too confident in any sort of trend just because of one election, but that's just me.  The county had a huge 7.5% third party vote, and these are Democrats' percentages there the past several elections:

2016: 44.8%
2012: 43.6%
2008: 43.9%
2004: 42.3%

While Trump did drop down a lot from Romney's 2012 percentage (54.3% to 47.7%), hardly any of those voters felt comfortable deflecting to the Democrats.

Trump added 19k votes from Romney's total....Clinton added 136k from Obama's.

Didn't the county grow by more than both of those combined during that timeframe?...

[RINO Tom]

Why would a Democratic win in Arizona necessitate that they win one of its most Republican counties?

Maricopa voted left of the state in 2016.

I wouldn't get too confident in any sort of trend just because of one election, but that's just me.  The county had a huge 7.5% third party vote, and these are Democrats' percentages there the past several elections:

2016: 44.8%
2012: 43.6%
2008: 43.9%
2004: 42.3%

While Trump did drop down a lot from Romney's 2012 percentage (54.3% to 47.7%), hardly any of those voters felt comfortable deflecting to the Democrats.

This is not true. All the countywide Democratic candidates got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton (at least 46%), indicating that it wasn't just a Trump-specific thing. Democrats won Sheriff by 13 points, Recorder by 1 point, and lost superintendent by 3, treasurer by 7 and County Attorney (against a two-term incumbent) by 5. I think it's entirely fair game to suggest that this might not be the staunch Republican county anymore that you think it is.

Only McCain really got a significant chunk of the Clinton voters, and that's probably a function of him being an institution in the state.

I'm not saying it's a "staunch Republican county."  I just don't think Democrats can make the blanket statement that they have to win "metro counties" to win every state; that's not a one-size-fits-all strategy for them, even after the 2016 election.  I HIGHLY doubt a winning Democrat in South Carolina is going to do better in the SC suburbs than the rural areas, I HIGHLY doubt a winning Democrat in Wisconsin is further reducing WOW margins rather than winning more rural areas, I don't think a winning Democrat in Ohio is winning the Republican suburbs of Cincinnati rather than swinging back Obama-Trump voters in places like Youngstown, etc.

[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.

[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.