This is so exaggerated. The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump. If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.
That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.
If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.
The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future.
Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.
"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum, it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.
Well its kind true. Look how well Trump did in the midwest and north east, and look how abysmal he did in the south. 6/11 of the swings against him were in the south (Arizona, Utah, Texas, Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia), while out of the 5 that weren't in the south, 4 were democratic states. I understand demographics and all, but going from an 18 to 9 point victory in Texas is down to many factors.
