Arizona Democratic house candidates did very well in most districts - all of their incumbents either winning or in a virtual, yet to be determined, toss-up - in several of them (far) exceeding expectations. In Georgia on the other hand, both Nunn and Carter did much, much worse than every poll had indicated. Does these two facts point to the fact that Arizona perhaps might become more competitive in 2016 than Georgia, despite the conventional wisdom of the opposite being the case?
You may as well be asking,
Colorado versus Virginia?, prior to 1992.
Screw analyzing the midterms! Those numbers don't compare to presidential election years.
From 1992 to 2012, Arizona and Georgia have been no greater than five percentage points in spread with just the exception of George W. Bush's re-election in 2004.
A Republican winning the presidency will carry both states (of course). A Democrat winning the presidency, after 2012, will be in connection with the margin in the U.S. Popular Vote.
If 2016 becomes a Republican pickup of the presidency, never mind the topic. If 2016 results in a Democratic hold of the presidency, look to the margin in the U.S. Popular Vote. If it goes up, say a couple percentage points, North Carolina comes in first. If it's more than a five-point Democratic shift, it's likely Arizona and Georgia will both get picked up. So, it's not one out of the two; it's both of them. They last disagreed in 1992 (when Bill Clinton won a pickup of Georgia but not Arizona) and 1996 (when Bob Dole flipped Georgia while a re-elected Bill Clinton counter-flipped Arizona); but, like the last several election cycles with Colorado and Virginia (with their margins closely connected in every election since 1996), they're liable to agree.
