Is Georgia Becoming A Battleground State?

[Badger]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

[Badger]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

The Fourth reason would be to expand voter registration, local campaign volunteers, and help build a foundation for future statewide (As well as Presidential elections) in a state that the Democratic Party has virtually neglected for many decades, effectively ceding that state to Republicans on all levels of government for quite some time.... Sure it would take investment in resources ($$$ and skilled staffers), but GA is much cheaper to invest resources in than TX, even though in theory there are demographic trends that favor the Dems in the long-term in Texas, so long as Republicans keep nominating candidates that don't believe that Mexican-Americans belong under the tent of the "Grand Old Party".

There's significantly more $ Democrats can raise in Texas than GA, even per capita, for such state projects.

Still you have a good point. But I suspect Hillary has to focus on the immediate goals of bringing in a Democratic Senate, and reducing the GOP majority in the House.

[Badger]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

The Fourth reason would be to expand voter registration, local campaign volunteers, and help build a foundation for future statewide (As well as Presidential elections) in a state that the Democratic Party has virtually neglected for many decades, effectively ceding that state to Republicans on all levels of government for quite some time.... Sure it would take investment in resources ($$$ and skilled staffers), but GA is much cheaper to invest resources in than TX, even though in theory there are demographic trends that favor the Dems in the long-term in Texas, so long as Republicans keep nominating candidates that don't believe that Mexican-Americans belong under the tent of the "Grand Old Party".

There's significantly more $ Democrats can raise in Texas than GA, even per capita, for such state projects.

Still you have a good point. But I suspect Hillary has to focus on the immediate goals of bringing in a Democratic Senate, and reducing the GOP majority in the House.

Ehhh... I think it will be 2040ish before swing state Texas can really happen.  Georgia looks like it could happen right now or at least by 2020.  Sure, they might get a Texas senate seat or governorship in a midterm wave before then, but getting bogged down there could put them in a very precarious position in the electoral college for a long while.

I'll give you that--sort of. While voting is relatively inelastic in both states, it's more so in GA. There's a higher floor to work with in GA, but the demographic trends are moving quicker in TX.

But yeah, if one moves GA to a purple state, kind of like VA was around 2004, the GOP is badly hurt having to defend another state.

[Badger]

As she doesn't need it to win, there are only 3 reasons for Clinton to go after GA:

1) Bragging rights. It's not entirely frivolous if she wants to present an unifying administration that carried the entire eastern coast of the south other than SC. Not to mention she'd want to start her administration off with as big an ass-kicking, mandate-granting victory as possible.

2) If Barksdale proves a serious competitor to Isakson and she might help him win. This poll indicates he's got a shot, but unlike Hillary he needs 50%+1 to avoid a runoff he'll quite likely lose.

3) Force Trump to spend $ there, weakening the amount he puts towards other states like PA and AZ.

The Fourth reason would be to expand voter registration, local campaign volunteers, and help build a foundation for future statewide (As well as Presidential elections) in a state that the Democratic Party has virtually neglected for many decades, effectively ceding that state to Republicans on all levels of government for quite some time.... Sure it would take investment in resources ($$$ and skilled staffers), but GA is much cheaper to invest resources in than TX, even though in theory there are demographic trends that favor the Dems in the long-term in Texas, so long as Republicans keep nominating candidates that don't believe that Mexican-Americans belong under the tent of the "Grand Old Party".

There's significantly more $ Democrats can raise in Texas than GA, even per capita, for such state projects.

Still you have a good point. But I suspect Hillary has to focus on the immediate goals of bringing in a Democratic Senate, and reducing the GOP majority in the House.

Ehhh... I think it will be 2040ish before swing state Texas can really happen.  Georgia looks like it could happen right now or at least by 2020.  Sure, they might get a Texas senate seat or governorship in a midterm wave before then, but getting bogged down there could put them in a very precarious position in the electoral college for a long while.

I'll give you that--sort of. While voting is relatively inelastic in both states, it's more so in GA. There's a higher floor to work with in GA, but the demographic trends are moving quicker in TX.

But yeah, if one moves GA to a purple state, kind of like VA was around 2004, the GOP is badly hurt having to defend another state.

Basically, by the time Texas is purple, large parts of the Acela Northeast will also be purple and Illinois and Minnesota will be the only Dem viable states left in the Midwest.  Georgia can make a difference almost in the present day.  That pesky runoff clause will mess with Georgia downballot Dems for a long time, though, and Texas doesn't have runoffs in the general.

I doubt WI or MI is floating away from being at least lean Democratic for sometime to come, and OH and IA will remain battlegrounds.

The rising GOP strength in Western PA is swamped by demographics: The population growth and Democratic trends (interrupted some from 2010-14) will continue making PA more a Magenta state than a purple one.