Should democrats give up on NC and focus elsewhere?

[super6646]

Even Georgia is looking like more of a potential target in the near future, especially with how poor Trump did in the Atlanta suburbs. NC has been swinging back to the GOP every cycle, and even though Clinton spent millions and campaigned heavily in the state, it didn't even trend .2% towards the democrats this cycle, and thats with the massive swings that occured in Wake and Mecklemberg (which may or may not hold up over time). Barring a 6-7% democrat landslide, I just don't see NC flipping. So should democrats focus elsewhere, or keep trying to pull another Virginia?

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

In 2020 they should focus on getting to 270. Focus on landslides later.

In 2016 Clinton didn't want to just win - she wanted to win in an epic landslide. She spent more money in Omaha, NE than Michigan and Wisconsin combined. This is the same mistake she made in 2008.

So if North Carolina is crucial to their path in 2020 then they should focus on it.

[Lechasseur]

Nah, in all honesty I think trying to win North Carolina makes sense for them, but I keep on hearing about Texas and South Carolina and I think in those two it doesn't make any sense trying to win them bar a landslide.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

I was about to ask the exact same question. North Carolina looks like anti-Democratic territory to me. Even Indiana going Democrat in 2008 looked more logical to me.

To answer your question: yes, of course!

[Rookie Yinzer]

Depends on the mood and climate. A Democrat can win North Carolina but I do think Hillary wasted too much resources here last year.

I think a Bullock or Biden/Harris ticket would play extremely well here.

[TML]

It depends on (1) the polling there and (2) how close the general election is. In a super close election, I would recommend focusing on WI/MI/PA/FL first and then NC/AZ only if there is sufficient breathing room.

[Webnicz]

If anything they should give up on OH/IA and focus more on the sunbelt of NC/AZ where they performed better, particularly in AZ where the election was closer than NC with a fraction of the capital investment.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

If anything they should give up on OH/IA and focus more on the sunbelt of NC/AZ where they performed better, particularly in AZ where the election was closer than NC with a fraction of the capital investment.

In 2024 sure, but in 2020 they should focus on 270. The reason Trump dropped so much in Arizona was due to the white vote - something he could pick back up in 2020.

[super6646]

If anything they should give up on OH/IA and focus more on the sunbelt of NC/AZ where they performed better, particularly in AZ where the election was closer than NC with a fraction of the capital investment.

In 2024 sure, but in 2020 they should focus on 270. The reason Trump dropped so much in Arizona was due to the white vote - something he could pick back up in 2020.

Exactly. Trump did better with Hispanics than Romney. If Trump could get Romney's white vote share, it would've been a 10 point victory at least. While I do believe Arizona will go more in New Mexico's direction over time, the GOP will still have an advantage in the near future.

Giving up on Ohio and Iowa is a big deal. It also means that PA, MI, WI, and MN are proabably competitive too, and winning Arizona and NC wouldn't be able to offset that.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Exactly. Trump did better with Hispanics than Romney. If Trump could get Romney's white vote share, it would've been a 10 point victory at least. While I do believe Arizona will go more in New Mexico's direction over time, the GOP will still have an advantage in the near future.

Giving up on Ohio and Iowa is a big deal. It also means that PA, MI, WI, and MN are proabably competitive too, and winning Arizona and NC wouldn't be able to offset that.

100%.

Romney got about 66% of the white vote in Arizona, and only about 20% of the non-white vote (including Latinos). Trump got only 54% of the white vote, but 30% of the non-white vote.

So if Trump can even pick up half of the lost voters he can get to 60%.  If he's able to do that and just barely improves with non-whites he easily hits 52%+ (I am probably correctly assuming third parties won't even be half as significant in 2020). The GOP "ceiling" in Arizona is still over 53%.

Romney really hit the bottom of the barrel in terms of votes with minorities. What a crappy candidate. He tried to pander to everyone one thus he appealed to no one.

[Edgeofnight]

Long term I think Democrats should heavily target North Carolina. For 2020 however, I think that absent polling indicating it to be a close race, the money that the DNC would pore into NC could be better spent elsewhere. Secure New Hampshire and Minnesota, win back Michigan and Pennsylvania.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Assuming a very competitive election, democrats should focus on in the following order:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Florida
3. Wisconsin
4. Georgia
5. Michigan
6. Minnesota
7. North Carolina
8. Nevada
9. Arizona
10 Maine
11. New Hampshire

[Rookie Yinzer]

Assuming a very competitive election, democrats should focus on in the following order:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Florida
3. Wisconsin
4. Georgia
5. Michigan
6. Minnesota
7. North Carolina
8. Nevada
9. Arizona
10 Maine
11. New Hampshire

Why would Georgia be prioritized over states they actually won the last election and/or in 2012?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Assuming a very competitive election, democrats should focus on in the following order:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Florida
3. Wisconsin
4. Georgia
5. Michigan
6. Minnesota
7. North Carolina
8. Nevada
9. Arizona
10 Maine
11. New Hampshire

Why would Georgia be prioritized over states they actually won the last election and/or in 2012?

Georgia is trending left faster than most states (Mississippi is probably trending faster but it's too far gone right now). Very big age gap in voting. Young whites are getting less polarized, and most young people there are miniorities too. A lot of more liberal people from new england are moving down to Georgia as well. I don't really see much room for growth in Arizona or North Carolina. Iowa and Ohio are going to be very hard to win without a big victory.

Georgia is prioritized more than Nevada / NH / Maine because these states don't have much electoral votes.

Michigan shouldn't be too hard to win as long as /some/ resources are put into the state and the messaging isn't too bad. Minnesota seems like it could be a longterm problem for democrats but I think they will be okay for a little bit longer as long as they put in more resources.

PA and Wisconsin are a bit tougher, and Florida is always a tough state to win even though the population will probably be less than 60% white by the time 2020 comes around.

[Sestak]

Assuming a very competitive election, democrats should focus on in the following order:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Florida
3. Wisconsin
4. Georgia
5. Michigan
6. Minnesota
7. North Carolina
8. Nevada
9. Arizona
10 Maine
11. New Hampshire

Unless the candidate is someone like Sanders in which case you can kiss Florida goodbye.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Assuming a very competitive election, democrats should focus on in the following order:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Florida
3. Wisconsin
4. Georgia
5. Michigan
6. Minnesota
7. North Carolina
8. Nevada
9. Arizona
10 Maine
11. New Hampshire

Unless the candidate is someone like Sanders in which case you can kiss Florida goodbye.

Sanders would do terrible in Florida due to his support of Fidel Castro (adios Cuban vote) and Socialism scaring the retirees.

[Sestak]

Assuming a very competitive election, democrats should focus on in the following order:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Florida
3. Wisconsin
4. Georgia
5. Michigan
6. Minnesota
7. North Carolina
8. Nevada
9. Arizona
10 Maine
11. New Hampshire

Unless the candidate is someone like Sanders in which case you can kiss Florida goodbye.

Sanders would do terrible in Florida due to his support of Fidel Castro (adios Cuban vote) and Socialism scaring the retirees.

Exactly.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Exactly.

Yup. I can't believe some people said he'd do great in Florida.

Like hello?? Do you think a guy who praised Fidel Castro's breadlines is going to be popular there?

Sanders was never attacked, so he has high favorable ratings. But there is so much dirt on him it's mind blowing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sanders was never attacked, so he has high favorable ratings. But there is so much dirt on him it's mind blowing.

The Washington Post was only running 16 hit pieces a day against Bernie. Clearly you need 17 to have it count as being attacked.

[super6646]

Sanders was never attacked, so he has high favorable ratings. But there is so much dirt on him it's mind blowing.

The Washington Post was only running 16 hit pieces a day against Bernie. Clearly you need 17 to have it count as being attacked.

Sorry, but even those on the left know the Washington Post is little more than an opinion piece with "news" sprinkled in. I cannot stand some of the stupitidy that comes from that website.

[Webnicz]

Assuming a very competitive election, democrats should focus on in the following order:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Florida
3. Wisconsin
4. Georgia
5. Michigan
6. Minnesota
7. North Carolina
8. Nevada
9. Arizona
10 Maine
11. New Hampshire

Why would Georgia be prioritized over states they actually won the last election and/or in 2012?

Georgia is trending left faster than most states (Mississippi is probably trending faster but it's too far gone right now). Very big age gap in voting. Young whites are getting less polarized, and most young people there are miniorities too. A lot of more liberal people from new england are moving down to Georgia as well. I don't really see much room for growth in Arizona or North Carolina. Iowa and Ohio are going to be very hard to win without a big victory.

Georgia is prioritized more than Nevada / NH / Maine because these states don't have much electoral votes.

Michigan shouldn't be too hard to win as long as /some/ resources are put into the state and the messaging isn't too bad. Minnesota seems like it could be a longterm problem for democrats but I think they will be okay for a little bit longer as long as they put in more resources.

PA and Wisconsin are a bit tougher, and Florida is always a tough state to win even though the population will probably be less than 60% white by the time 2020 comes around.

Trump won 51+% in Georgia vs NC and AZ where he scored under 50. meaning states where the majority of the population that didn't vote for trump are easier for Dems to win compared to GA where the majority voted for trump.

GA is trending but I still think AZ is above GA in terms of who turns blue first.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The Democrats can't afford to give up on North Carolina.  It's a battleground state that needs to be engaged by the Democrats.

What the Democrats need is a candidate who can carry North Carolina, while still being a Democrat, and not a candidate who will alienate the critical undecided swing voters of North Carolina.

[Webnicz]

Exactly. Trump did better with Hispanics than Romney. If Trump could get Romney's white vote share, it would've been a 10 point victory at least. While I do believe Arizona will go more in New Mexico's direction over time, the GOP will still have an advantage in the near future.

Giving up on Ohio and Iowa is a big deal. It also means that PA, MI, WI, and MN are proabably competitive too, and winning Arizona and NC wouldn't be able to offset that.

100%.

Romney got about 66% of the white vote in Arizona, and only about 20% of the non-white vote (including Latinos). Trump got only 54% of the white vote, but 30% of the non-white vote.

So if Trump can even pick up half of the lost voters he can get to 60%.  If he's able to do that and just barely improves with non-whites he easily hits 52%+ (I am probably correctly assuming third parties won't even be half as significant in 2020). The GOP "ceiling" in Arizona is still over 53%.

Romney really hit the bottom of the barrel in terms of votes with minorities. What a crappy candidate. He tried to pander to everyone one thus he appealed to no one.

I really don't see any evidence that suggest trump increased Romenys latino vote specifically in AZ, I agree he improved in FL(where most exit polling suggesting trump increased his share among latinos were preformed)

If you look at Maricopa county numbers, from '08 and '12 nearly the same amount of ballots were cast.The around of votes Obama got in MC were basically the same. in 2016, 100K new hispanics got motivated and registered to vote to get rid of Arpaio(which is an issue most have forgotten about on atlas, there will be ads ALL over local media bringing back up this close to heart issue of the pardon). Just so happens Clinton received 100K more votes than Obama in MC, whereas Trump lost votes.

Theres a 3K vote difference in GOP votes In MC since e'08. where as theres a 100K vote difference for Dems.

[Beet]

^ He is talking about the CNN exit poll. In 2012, Romney got 25% of the Hispanic vote, Trump improved to 32%.

Looking at the gender breakdown among Hispanics is amusing, if sad. Trump actually did worse among Latino women, getting just 17% of the vote, compared to 22% for Romney. But he skyrocketed among Latino men, getting 42% of the vote, compared to 27% for Romney. If so, it would indicate a machismo culture among Hispanics has an effect, reducing the willingness to vote for a woman.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The whole notion that Trump improved upon Romneys performance among latino voters is fake news