Democratic Trend in Georgia: A Thesis

[JRP1994]

This is a research paper that I wrote recently, about the democratic trend in my home state. I'm opening it up to peer review. What are your thoughts? Any objects to my thesis?


     With the eyes of the media already turning towards the 2016 election, many political analysts are raising the possibility of Georgia becoming a battleground state in the next election, for the first time since 1996. Naturally, this raises the question: is this claim supported by the facts? Does the evidence suggest that Georgia is becoming more of a swing state, or will it remain safely in Republican hands for the foreseeable future? This is a very significant question, because, if future Republican candidates have difficulty competing in Georgia, it becomes highly unlikely that they could win nationally. The evidence indicates a clear and definitive answer to this question: While it will be a few years before Georgia is truly competitive for the Democratic candidate in a Presidential election, the long-term trend is undeniable – Georgia is, albeit slowly – becoming a swing state once again. 
     In order to determine whether Georgia is becoming a swing state in Presidential elections again, it is necessary to examine the results from past elections in the state, and compare the results to the national results. One metric for measuring the partisanship of a state, developed by the Cook Political Report, is called the Partisan Voting Index, or PVI. To determine a state’s PVI, one simply averages the state’s partisan lean in the past two elections. For example, if the Republican candidate receives 50% of the national vote, but receives 53% of the vote in a certain state, that state has a 3-point Republican lean. If, in the subsequent election, the Republican candidate receives 50% of the national vote and 55% of the vote in the state, the state has a 5-point Republican lean. To determine the state’s PVI, the two results are averaged, and the state has a PVI of R+4 (4-point Republican lean). For the purposes of this analysis, a slightly different methodology will be applied – rather than averaging two separate election results to determine Georgia’s partisan lean, this research paper will examine Georgia’s partisan lean in each individual election.
     To determine whether Georgia is becoming a swing-state, the main methodology will be to examine Georgia’s PVI rating for recent elections, and determine if there is a statistically detectable trend of Georgia moving more towards the national average, rather than continuing to lean heavily Republican. If Georgia IS moving closer to the national average, than the evidence would definitively indicate that Georgia is becoming a swing state.
     The state of Georgia once was reliable Democratic stronghold in Presidential elections. From the time that both major parties were established in 1856, Georgia voted for the Democratic candidate in every election from 1856 until 1964 , including several national landslides for the Republicans. This Democratic partisan lean was quite extreme – for example, in the 1920 election, Warren Harding (R) defeated James Cox (D) by a national margin of 60% to 34% . However, in the state of Georgia, Mr. Cox won by a 72% to 28% margin, meaning that Georgia was nearly 40-points more Democratic than the nation. This intense Democratic lean persisted until the 1964 election, when Democrat President Lyndon Johnson won a landslide re-election over Republican Barry Goldwater, despite losing the Deep South by wide margins, due to the Civil Rights issue. 
     After the re-aligning election of 1964, Georgia has only backed the Democratic candidate in 3 elections (twice voting for Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter, and once for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton), while otherwise voting for the Republican candidate, often by substantial margins. For example, despite narrowly losing the national popular vote to Tennessee Senator and Vice President Al Gore, Texas Gov. George W. Bush carried Georgia by a 55% to 43% margin in the 2000 election , demonstrating that Georgia was 7 points more Republican leaning than the nation. Listed below are the results of Presidential elections in Georgia from 1964 through 2004 , compared to the national average, to show Georgia’s partisan lean over 40 years:

(Data omitted due to volume of post)

     As demonstrated by this data, Georgia has moved from being nearly 15-points Republican leaning in the late 1960s/early 1970s, to around 6-points Republican leaning at the present time. The evidence also suggests that Georgia, though a Republican-leaning state, can become significantly more competitive when a Democrat from the South is on the ballot (as evidenced by the results from 1976, 1992, and 1996). One small detail should be noted – the difference between the 2004 results, and the 2008 results. Georgia trended Democratic, moving from R+7 to R+6. This slight shift can partially be explained by the fact that Barack Obama won a sizeable victory in the national popular vote, and therefore, one would expect his across-the-board-performance to be better John Kerry, who lost the popular vote in 2004. However, this does not account for the entirety of the shift – Barack Obama made no real effort to contest Georgia, yet performed much better in Georgia than in similar southern states (such as Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee – all of which he lost by substantial margins).
     Another important trend should be noted, as it explains why Georgia is beginning to trend Democrat. In his New York Times article “Presidential Geography: Georgia”, political analyst Micah Cohen notes that, while there has been a trend of white voters moving away from the Democratic Party and into the Republican party (more so than in other Southern swing-states such as Virginia and North Carolina), the percentage of black and Hispanic voters in Georgia has risen exponentially in recent years. “The number of minority residents in Georgia has increased dramatically, particularly in the Atlanta area. Black residents made up 31 percent of the state’s population in 2010, up from 26 percent 2000, and the percentage of Hispanic residents increased to 9%, from 5%.”
     In addition, Mr. Cohen notes that demographic shifts are beginning to lessen the influence of white voters in Georgia, which is contributing to the recent competitiveness of the state. “According to exit polls, the proportion of votes cast in Georgia by non-Hispanic whites has dropped over the last two decades, from 79 percent in the 1992 presidential election to 73 percent in 1996 and 2000 to 70 percent in 2004 to 65 percent in 2008.”
     Mr. Cohen’s analysis highlights the problem facing the Republican Party on a national level, and the situation in Georgia is a prime example of this. The percentage of the white vote is declining, and the percentage of the minority vote, which tends to be strongly Democratic, is rising. The Republican Party seems to be unable to expand its appeal to these minority voters, at least at the present time. It may be a few election cycles before the tipping point is reached where the Democratic candidate is able to carry Georgia with the minority vote alone, but the trend in that direction is inevitable.
     One might object to this thesis by noting that the recent narrower margins in Georgia are a direct result of Barack Obama’s success in the national popular vote, and not indicative of a trend in Georgia. However, if that were the case, one would not expect Georgia to actually trend Democratic – that is, to move closer to the national average, which it did. Another objection might be that Georgia’s move to the center is not inevitable, and that Republicans may be able to reverse this trend by appealing more to minority voters. This is a valid point, though not necessarily an objection to the thesis. The Republicans may very well reverse this trend, however, at the moment, the trend is evident. Finally, one might object to the prognostication of Georgia politics, arguing that it is impossible to predict future election results, due to the individual circumstances of each election. One might site the 1996 result (R+1) and the 2000 result (R+7) as evidence of that Georgia can trend Republican – that any trend is largely due to the individual candidates, and fundamentals of each election. While it is definitely true that the identity of the individual candidates can have a strong bearing in Georgia (see 1976 and 1992), and that election fundamentals always play a role in results, it remains to be seen whether the recent trend in Georgia is due to favorable fundamentals for Democrats, or evidence of a definitive trend away from the Republicans. The election data sited, in tandem with the demographic information sited by Mr. Cohen, strongly suggests the latter – a slow but definitive trend away from the Republicans.
     The question of whether the state of Georgia is becoming a swing-state is becoming a more frequently discussed question. It is a significant question, as it has a direct bearing on the direction of national politics. Pundits and talking heads on both sides of the isle will give contradictory answers to the question of Georgia’s competitiveness, based on what makes their party look better. However, the evidence gives a clear answer. While its movement may be slow, the evidence shows that Georgia is becoming more of a swing state. The PVI trend shows that Georgia is less republican leaning than in past elections. In addition, demographic shifts suggest that the importance of the white vote (a strong Republican coalition) is declining, while the importance of minority votes (a strong Democratic coalition) is on the rise. Barring some unforeseen, extraordinary circumstance, it will be a few election cycles before the tipping point is reached – before a Democrat can win Georgia with only the support from minority voters – but Georgia’s days as a Republican stronghold are definitely numbered.

[barfbag]

Georgia has been 13 points to the right of the popular vote in each of the last two elections. Prior to 2000, it was closer. If anything Georgia is trending to the right. Yes, I know they'll argue about how far to the right it was for the Bush elections, but if you actually look at numbers you'll see that it was 12 and then 14 points to the right of the popular vote. Stop spreading gossip and myths about a state that has been consistently 13 points to the right of the national vote. If all things were equal, GA would be 56-44. Furthermore, when Georgia used to be in the Democratic column, it still voted for the more conservative party. Stop the gossip!

[JRP1994]

13 points?

In 2008, McCain received 45.6% of the national popular vote, while receiving 52.1% in Georgia. That translate to a Republican lean of 6.5%.

In 2012, Romney received 47.2% of the national popular vote, while receiving 53.1% in Georgia. That translates to a Republican lean of 5.9%.

I definitely agree with part of what you said - Georgia was much more competitive in the 1990s than it was after 2000. But it has not snapped back to the GOP-lean it possessed in the 1980s, and is slowly becoming bluer. I don't think it will pay off for the Dems (assuming a competitive election) until the 2020s, but still - the writing is on the wall.

[DC Al Fine]

Tend to agree, but not sure about the timing. From 1996-2004, Georgia had a steady R lean of about 7%. Since then it's declined by only 0.5% per Presidential election. Even if that speeds up, it'll still be a while before it turn competitive. Think 2030's, not 2020's.

[illegaloperation]

Tend to agree, but not sure about the timing. From 1996-2004, Georgia had a steady R lean of about 7%. Since then it's declined by only 0.5% per Presidential election. Even if that speeds up, it'll still be a while before it turn competitive. Think 2030's, not 2020's.

I guess it depends on what you mean by competitive. I will probably be where North Caroline is now in 2024 or 2028.

[Adam Griffin]

Georgia has been 13 points to the right of the popular vote in each of the last two elections. Prior to 2000, it was closer. If anything Georgia is trending to the right. Yes, I know they'll argue about how far to the right it was for the Bush elections, but if you actually look at numbers you'll see that it was 12 and then 14 points to the right of the popular vote. Stop spreading gossip and myths about a state that has been consistently 13 points to the right of the national vote. If all things were equal, GA would be 56-44. Furthermore, when Georgia used to be in the Democratic column, it still voted for the more conservative party. Stop the gossip!

LOLOLOLOLOL

Fact: Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Latinos increased by 96%, Asians by 81%, Blacks by 26%, Whites by 6%

Fact: By that measurement, the makeup of new growth over the past decade is as such: Black 41%, Latino 28%, White 21%, Other 10%

Fact: Georgia's white population is declining by 1 point per year (65% in 2000, 55% in 2010)

Fact: Georgia's white electorate is declining at roughly the same rate (78% in 1996, 75% in 2000, 73% in 2004, 64% in 2008, 61% in 2012)

Fact: 90% of the growth in metro Atlanta over the past decade was non-white

Fact: ~89% of non-whites voted for Obama in 2008

Fact: ~86% of non-whites voted for Obama in 2012

Also:

13 points?

In 2008, McCain received 45.6% of the national popular vote, while receiving 52.1% in Georgia. That translate to a Republican lean of 6.5%.

In 2012, Romney received 47.2% of the national popular vote, while receiving 53.1% in Georgia. That translates to a Republican lean of 5.9%.

I definitely agree with part of what you said - Georgia was much more competitive in the 1990s than it was after 2000. But it has not snapped back to the GOP-lean it possessed in the 1980s, and is slowly becoming bluer. I don't think it will pay off for the Dems (assuming a competitive election) until the 2020s, but still - the writing is on the wall.

Maybe he meant margin? Still, it doesn't make sense. It's so sad that conservatives fail to see the writing on the wall time and time again. Just like in 2012 with the whole, "we need a more conservative candidate - the only pathway to victory is if we convince the entire nation to be as antiquated as us!", when the country is running in the opposite direction as fast as it can. By the end of the decade, even reliable conservative bastions like Georgia are going to be off the table for these guys and they don't even realize it! Maybe they should crack open a data-set or two every once in a while.

[old timey villain]

Georgia will probably evolve into a swing state and remain competitive for a long time. This data assumes Georgia will become competitive if voter demographics remain the same, which is short sighted. But the two parties always compete amongst different races, religions, ethnicities, religions, occupations etc.

What the data really shows is that Georgia is becoming a very diverse state in a lot of different ways. For a long time it was a white/black agrarian state with most people being culturally southern and religious. But in the future there will be much more diversity in all areas. The state will be very racially diverse, agriculture will be replaced by other industries and religious conservatism won't be dominant in the Atlanta area. That will probably give both parties strong bases of support regardless.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Long - term? Yes, It looks like it could very much be competitive.

Shorter - term? Probably like another Arizona, or like the Repub problems with Pennsylvania/Wisconsin: always seemingly in-reach, only to slip away in October and hinges heavily on turn-out.

[eric82oslo]

There is some justification in claiming that Georgia has in fact turned a tide and is now slowly becoming more Democratic again. In fact, Georgia used to be the second most conservative/Republican state in the 1972 election (basically where Wyoming is now). That is so not the case anymore. Even without southern candidates like their own Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Georgia was still a few points more Democratic in 2012 relative to the national average than in 2004.

Here is Georgia's place on the Democratic-Republican scale (1-51) in selected presidential years going back to 1964 (51 being the most Republican state):

1964: 47
1972: 50
1988: 39
1992 & 1996: 33 (despite the all southern Clinton/Gore-ticket)
2000: 34 (despite Gore)
2004: 35
2008: 32
2012: 29

This means that in just 24 years, Georgia has managed to become more moderate than 10 other Republican states. And it has surpassed 21 states if we look at a longer 40 year time frame. To be fair, since 1988, Georgia has passed 14 Republican states in moderacy, not 10, because Georgia itself has been surpassed by 4 once even heavier Republican strongholds (Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire & Nevada). The 14 states that the more diverse Georgian electorate thus has managed to surpass are thus the following; Missouri, Indiana, Montana, Texas, Louisiana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia and Oklahoma. Not a small feat exactly.

[old timey villain]

There is some justification in claiming that Georgia has in fact turned a tide and is now slowly becoming more Democratic again. In fact, Georgia used to be the second most conservative/Republican state in the 1972 election (basically where Wyoming is now). That is so not the case anymore. Even without southern candidates like their own Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Georgia was still a few points more Democratic in 2012 relative to the national average than in 2004.

Here is Georgia's place on the Democratic-Republican scale (1-51) in selected presidential years going back to 1964 (51 being the most Republican state):

1964: 47
1972: 50
1988: 39
1992 & 1996: 33 (despite the all southern Clinton/Gore-ticket)
2000: 34 (despite Gore)
2004: 35
2008: 32
2012: 29

This means that in just 24 years, Georgia has managed to become more moderate than 10 other Republican states. And it has surpassed 21 states if we look at a longer 40 year time frame. To be fair, since 1988, Georgia has passed 14 Republican states in moderacy, not 10, because Georgia itself has been surpassed by 4 once even heavier Republican strongholds (Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire & Nevada). The 14 states that the more diverse Georgian electorate thus has managed to surpass are thus the following; Missouri, Indiana, Montana, Texas, Louisiana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia and Oklahoma. Not a small feat exactly.

Part of the reason Georgia went so strongly for Nixon in 1972 was because blacks weren't fully franchised yet. You begin to see a strong base of Democratic support in the black belt by the 1980s.

But yes, you make a good point. The strange thing we've seen in Georgia is a D trend with absolutely no thanks to white people who have become less Democratic. My only fear is that as Georgia becomes more diverse, white voters will become even more Republican. I'm almost positive that the percentage of whites voting Democratic in Georgia has decreased in almost every election since 1992. Whites were about 30% for Gore, 23% for Kerry, 23% for Obama (08) and maybe 21% for Obama (12). If that continues we'll be looking like Mississippi pretty soon. Could it be that as Georgia has become more diverse, whites are moving to the GOP out of a sense of white solidarity? I hate to think that but it makes sense.

Luckily the urban core of Atlanta is booming with young progressives and some of the wealthier suburbs aren't as conservative as they used to be.

[Adam Griffin]

Georgia will probably evolve into a swing state and remain competitive for a long time. This data assumes Georgia will become competitive if voter demographics remain the same, which is short sighted. But the two parties always compete amongst different races, religions, ethnicities, religions, occupations etc.

What the data really shows is that Georgia is becoming a very diverse state in a lot of different ways. For a long time it was a white/black agrarian state with most people being culturally southern and religious. But in the future there will be much more diversity in all areas. The state will be very racially diverse, agriculture will be replaced by other industries and religious conservatism won't be dominant in the Atlanta area. That will probably give both parties strong bases of support regardless.

Don't get me wrong - things could change. The growth that we've experienced over the past decade isn't permanently sustainable, but even if the transplant growth we have experienced were to stop tomorrow, Georgia would be in a position to become reliably Democratic within 15 years. It's not as if people are going to stop having kids - unless they're white, apparently.

It'll remain competitive for quite some time at the statewide level in general but presidential elections are going to become far more competitive as the electorate permits national resources to be justified. I think only a conservative-to-moderate Democrat like Hillary could win it in 2016, but 2020 is a different story. If the trends continue, then we're only a decade away from a majority-minority electorate.

[barfbag]

Georgia has been 13 points to the right of the popular vote in each of the last two elections. Prior to 2000, it was closer. If anything Georgia is trending to the right. Yes, I know they'll argue about how far to the right it was for the Bush elections, but if you actually look at numbers you'll see that it was 12 and then 14 points to the right of the popular vote. Stop spreading gossip and myths about a state that has been consistently 13 points to the right of the national vote. If all things were equal, GA would be 56-44. Furthermore, when Georgia used to be in the Democratic column, it still voted for the more conservative party. Stop the gossip!

LOLOLOLOLOL

Fact: Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Latinos increased by 96%, Asians by 81%, Blacks by 26%, Whites by 6%

Fact: By that measurement, the makeup of new growth over the past decade is as such: Black 41%, Latino 28%, White 21%, Other 10%

Fact: Georgia's white population is declining by 1 point per year (65% in 2000, 55% in 2010)

Fact: Georgia's white electorate is declining at roughly the same rate (78% in 1996, 75% in 2000, 73% in 2004, 64% in 2008, 61% in 2012)

Fact: 90% of the growth in metro Atlanta over the past decade was non-white

Fact: ~89% of non-whites voted for Obama in 2008

Fact: ~86% of non-whites voted for Obama in 2012

Also:

13 points?

In 2008, McCain received 45.6% of the national popular vote, while receiving 52.1% in Georgia. That translate to a Republican lean of 6.5%.

In 2012, Romney received 47.2% of the national popular vote, while receiving 53.1% in Georgia. That translates to a Republican lean of 5.9%.

I definitely agree with part of what you said - Georgia was much more competitive in the 1990s than it was after 2000. But it has not snapped back to the GOP-lean it possessed in the 1980s, and is slowly becoming bluer. I don't think it will pay off for the Dems (assuming a competitive election) until the 2020s, but still - the writing is on the wall.

Maybe he meant margin? Still, it doesn't make sense. It's so sad that conservatives fail to see the writing on the wall time and time again. Just like in 2012 with the whole, "we need a more conservative candidate - the only pathway to victory is if we convince the entire nation to be as antiquated as us!", when the country is running in the opposite direction as fast as it can. By the end of the decade, even reliable conservative bastions like Georgia are going to be off the table for these guys and they don't even realize it! Maybe they should crack open a data-set or two every once in a while.

Here's another fact, Romney won 53-46 and lost 51-47 nationally. That is 11 points away from the popular vote. Another fact would be that Georgia has never really been that red except for the Bush elections when the Republican candidate's base was the evangelical south. As for the Hispanic population increase, it's happening all over the country. Georgia I see alternating back and forth between light red when Republicans win and purplish red when Republicans lose.

[eric82oslo]

Could the black Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed be a rising star in the Democratic party?

In this interview he's discussing gay marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2txHXx8yzE

This article on the upcoming senatorial campaign in Georgia names Kasim Reed as the single most popular Democratic politician in Georgia right now: http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/senate_race_a_test_case_for_democrats_in_georgia-225371-1.html?popular=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

Quote: "Johnson listed five specific necessities for Nunn to win and show her state as competitive: • Full engagement from the political operation of Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, the most popular Democrat in the state."

[old timey villain]

I love some of the comments in that article. So many Republicans thrashing about screaming "NO WAY!!!"

Most people here, even Democrats, have just accepted the idea that Republicans will always dominate in Georgia. I don't think that's the case, but things will only change once people agree that Democrats have a shot at winning here.

[Flake]

I love some of the comments in that article. So many Republicans thrashing about screaming "NO WAY!!!"

Most people here, even Democrats, have just accepted the idea that Republicans will always dominate in Georgia. I don't think that's the case, but things will only change once people agree that Democrats have a shot at winning here.

Me personally, I think the south will become more democratic and the midwest will become more republican.

[Devils30]

I could see Hillary winning Georgia like 50-49 if she won nationally by 7-9 points. Other than that its off the table for 2016.
As far as counties go I see Hillary possibly taking Gwinnett and Henry, with those demographics they cant keep a red lean too much longer.

[barfbag]

Democrats continue to have a sexual fantasy of winning Georgia.

[illegaloperation]

Could the black Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed be a rising star in the Democratic party?

In this interview he's discussing gay marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2txHXx8yzE

This article on the upcoming senatorial campaign in Georgia names Kasim Reed as the single most popular Democratic politician in Georgia right now: http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/senate_race_a_test_case_for_democrats_in_georgia-225371-1.html?popular=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

Quote: "Johnson listed five specific necessities for Nunn to win and show her state as competitive: • Full engagement from the political operation of Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, the most popular Democrat in the state."

Kasim Reed shouldn't be the face of the Georgia Democratic Party.

The party need people who can build bridges to the rural whites.

In fact, a lot more John Barrow(s) would sure help in statewide elections.

[barfbag]

Could the black Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed be a rising star in the Democratic party?

In this interview he's discussing gay marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2txHXx8yzE

This article on the upcoming senatorial campaign in Georgia names Kasim Reed as the single most popular Democratic politician in Georgia right now: http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/senate_race_a_test_case_for_democrats_in_georgia-225371-1.html?popular=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

Quote: "Johnson listed five specific necessities for Nunn to win and show her state as competitive: • Full engagement from the political operation of Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, the most popular Democrat in the state."

Kasim Reed shouldn't be the face of the Georgia Democratic Party.

The party need people who can build bridges to the rural whites.

In fact, a lot more John Barrow(s) would sure help in statewide elections.

Republicans hold the upper hand in Georgia. It has the likelihood of going blue that Delaware does of going red.

[eric82oslo]

Me personally, I think the south will become more democratic and the midwest will become more republican.

There's a lot of truth in this if you think race/ethnicity and religiousness. Some of the most religious and whitest of states are in the midwest, like Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois and the Dakotas. On the other hand, states like Alaska and Arizona are hardly (very) religious at all.

If you combined the multicultural makeup of each state with the religiousness of each state, you get this list (to show how close it could be to future elections, look what two states are topping and bottoming the list):

1. Washington D.C. - 30% 7 + 2 = 9
2. Hawaii - 31.4% 11 + 1 = 12
3. Nevada 11 + 6 = 17
4. California - 34.5% 17 + 3 = 20
5. New York - 31.5% 13 + 12 = 25
6. Alaska - 31.3% 10 + 17 = 27
7. Maryland 22 + 7 = 29
8. Arizona - 36.6% 21 + 9 = 30
9. New Jersey - 34.7% 18 + 13 = 31
10. Massachusetts - 26.5% 4 + 28 = 32
11. Connecticut - 30.5% 8 + 24 = 32
12. Washington 8 + 25 = 33
13. Florida - 37.6% 24 + 10 = 34
14. Rhode Island - 29.1% 6 + 29 = 35
15. Oregon - 28.8% 5 + 32 = 37
16. Colorado - 33.5% 15 + 23 = 38
17. Delaware - 35.2% 19 + 20 =39
18. Illinois - 38% 25 + 15 = 40
19. New Mexico - 43.2% 36 + 4 = 40
20. Texas - 47% 41 + 5 = 46
21. Virginia - 41.1% 29 + 18 = 47
22. New Hampshire - 23.4% 2 + 48 = 50
23. Michigan - 36.5% 20 + 30 = 50
24. Vermont - 19.1% 1 + 50 = 51
25. Georgia - 47.9% 43 + 8 = 51

26. Maine - 24.4% 3 + 51 = 54

27. Wyoming - 32.8% 14 + 43 = 57
28. Montana - 34% 16 + 45 = 61
29. Pennsylvania - 39.5% 28 + 33 = 61
30. Wisconsin - 36.7% 22 + 40 = 62
31. Ohio - 38.2% 26 + 36 = 62
32. South Carolina - 51.9% 46 + 16 = 62
33. Louisiana - 53.5% 48 + 14 = 62
34. Mississippi - 58.4% 51 + 11 = 62
35. North Carolina - 49.5% 44 + 19 = 63
36. Oklahoma - 47.6% 42 + 22 = 64
37. Minnesota 26 + 39 = 65
38. Nebraska - 44.2% 37 + 28 = 65
39. Missouri - 42.1% 34 + 35 = 69
40. Kansas - 45.1% 38 + 31 = 69
41. Alabama - 55.7% 49 + 21 = 70
42. Idaho - 41.5% 31 + 41 = 72
43. Indiana - 42.7% 35 + 37 = 72
44. Tennessee - 50.3% 45 + 27 = 72
45. Arkansas - 52.3% 47 + 26 = 73
46. Iowa - 41.3% 30 + 46 = 76
47. North Dakota - 41.6% 32 + 47 = 79
48. West Virginia - 41.9% 33 + 49 = 82
49. South Dakota - 45.6% 40 + 42 = 82
50. Kentucky - 45.4% 39 + 44 = 83
51. Utah - 56% 50 + 34 = 84

(The percentage is the level of very religiousness, the two next numbers are the rank for religiousness & for multiculturalism.)

In italics I've placed future potential pickup states for Democrats and Republicans.

Ranked after likelihood of a pickup, we find...

For Democrats: 1. Alaska, 2. Arizona, 3. Florida, 4. Texas, 5. Virginia, 6. Georgia
For Republicans: 1. Iowa, 2. Minnesota, 3. Wisconsin, 4. Pennsylvania

This ranking is of course solely based on the multicultural makeup and the degree of deep religion in each states. Thus Alaska, Arizona & Florida could potentially become very competitive already in 2016, while for Texas and Georgia one might have to wait until 2020, possibly.

Republicans know what 4 states they should concentrate on. The states of Santorum, Bachmann, Scott Walker and so on.

This could then well be the 2020 map we'll be looking at :

[barfbag]

Me personally, I think the south will become more democratic and the midwest will become more republican.

There's a lot of truth in this if you think race/ethnicity and religiousness. Some of the most religious and whitest of states are in the midwest, like Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois and the Dakotas. On the other hand, states like Alaska and Arizona are hardly (very) religious at all.

If you combined the multicultural makeup of each state with the religiousness of each state, you get this list (to show how close it could be to future elections, look what two states are topping and bottoming the list):

1. Washington D.C. - 30% 7 + 2 = 9
2. Hawaii - 31.4% 11 + 1 = 12
3. Nevada 11 + 6 = 17
4. California - 34.5% 17 + 3 = 20
5. New York - 31.5% 13 + 12 = 25
6. Alaska - 31.3% 10 + 17 = 27
7. Maryland 22 + 7 = 29
8. Arizona - 36.6% 21 + 9 = 30
9. New Jersey - 34.7% 18 + 13 = 31
10. Massachusetts - 26.5% 4 + 28 = 32
11. Connecticut - 30.5% 8 + 24 = 32
12. Washington 8 + 25 = 33
13. Florida - 37.6% 24 + 10 = 34
14. Rhode Island - 29.1% 6 + 29 = 35
15. Oregon - 28.8% 5 + 32 = 37
16. Colorado - 33.5% 15 + 23 = 38
17. Delaware - 35.2% 19 + 20 =39
18. Illinois - 38% 25 + 15 = 40
19. New Mexico - 43.2% 36 + 4 = 40
20. Texas - 47% 41 + 5 = 46
21. Virginia - 41.1% 29 + 18 = 47
22. New Hampshire - 23.4% 2 + 48 = 50
23. Michigan - 36.5% 20 + 30 = 50
24. Vermont - 19.1% 1 + 50 = 51
25. Georgia - 47.9% 43 + 8 = 51

26. Maine - 24.4% 3 + 51 = 54

27. Wyoming - 32.8% 14 + 43 = 57
28. Montana - 34% 16 + 45 = 61
29. Pennsylvania - 39.5% 28 + 33 = 61
30. Wisconsin - 36.7% 22 + 40 = 62
31. Ohio - 38.2% 26 + 36 = 62
32. South Carolina - 51.9% 46 + 16 = 62
33. Louisiana - 53.5% 48 + 14 = 62
34. Mississippi - 58.4% 51 + 11 = 62
35. North Carolina - 49.5% 44 + 19 = 63
36. Oklahoma - 47.6% 42 + 22 = 64
37. Minnesota 26 + 39 = 65
38. Nebraska - 44.2% 37 + 28 = 65
39. Missouri - 42.1% 34 + 35 = 69
40. Kansas - 45.1% 38 + 31 = 69
41. Alabama - 55.7% 49 + 21 = 70
42. Idaho - 41.5% 31 + 41 = 72
43. Indiana - 42.7% 35 + 37 = 72
44. Tennessee - 50.3% 45 + 27 = 72
45. Arkansas - 52.3% 47 + 26 = 73
46. Iowa - 41.3% 30 + 46 = 76
47. North Dakota - 41.6% 32 + 47 = 79
48. West Virginia - 41.9% 33 + 49 = 82
49. South Dakota - 45.6% 40 + 42 = 82
50. Kentucky - 45.4% 39 + 44 = 83
51. Utah - 56% 50 + 34 = 84

(The percentage is the level of very religiousness, the two next numbers are the rank for religiousness & for multiculturalism.)

In italics I've placed future potential pickup states for Democrats and Republicans.

Ranked after likelihood of a pickup, we find...

For Democrats: 1. Alaska, 2. Arizona, 3. Florida, 4. Texas, 5. Virginia, 6. Georgia
For Republicans: 1. Iowa, 2. Minnesota, 3. Wisconsin, 4. Pennsylvania

This ranking is of course solely based on the multicultural makeup and the degree of deep religion in each states. Thus Alaska, Arizona & Florida could potentially become very competitive already in 2016, while for Texas and Georgia one might have to wait until 2020, possibly.

Republicans know what 4 states they should concentrate on. The states of Santorum, Bachmann, Scott Walker and so on.

If these pickups happen it won't be for a very long time. The numbers look about right, but some of us won't ever see it. 2020 is way too soon for Texas to become blue. It's become a haven of relocation for conservatives all over the world.

[eric82oslo]

If these pickups happen it won't be for a very long time. The numbers look about right, but some of us won't ever see it. 2020 is way too soon for Texas to become blue. It's become a haven of relocation for conservatives all over the world.

Yeah, Texas is tricky cause it's damn religious. Same with Georgia. Arizona on the other hand.

[barfbag]

I would have to see Georgia in an election where Democrats lose and a white candidate runs as their nominee before I got worried about it becoming blue. Obama was a great candidate for Georgia and he won the elections. Until we see it against an election where the Republicans win and the Democratic nominee is white, then we must also consider the possibility of it being an Indiana 2008 instance.

[greenforest32]

Georgia has been 13 points to the right of the popular vote in each of the last two elections. Prior to 2000, it was closer. If anything Georgia is trending to the right. Yes, I know they'll argue about how far to the right it was for the Bush elections, but if you actually look at numbers you'll see that it was 12 and then 14 points to the right of the popular vote. Stop spreading gossip and myths about a state that has been consistently 13 points to the right of the national vote. If all things were equal, GA would be 56-44. Furthermore, when Georgia used to be in the Democratic column, it still voted for the more conservative party. Stop the gossip!

LOLOLOLOLOL

Fact: Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Latinos increased by 96%, Asians by 81%, Blacks by 26%, Whites by 6%

Fact: By that measurement, the makeup of new growth over the past decade is as such: Black 41%, Latino 28%, White 21%, Other 10%

Fact: Georgia's white population is declining by 1 point per year (65% in 2000, 55% in 2010)

Fact: Georgia's white electorate is declining at roughly the same rate (78% in 1996, 75% in 2000, 73% in 2004, 64% in 2008, 61% in 2012)

Fact: 90% of the growth in metro Atlanta over the past decade was non-white

Fact: ~89% of non-whites voted for Obama in 2008

Fact: ~86% of non-whites voted for Obama in 2012

*channels inner Dick Morris*

Georgia will flip in 2016¹

----
¹ My numbers (decimals included):

Projected 2016 Democratic vote in Georgia:
24% of the white vote which is 60% of the electorate (60 x .24) = 14.40%
93% of the black vote which is 32% of the electorate (32 x .93) = 29.76% (44.16% cumulative)
74% of the latino vote which is 5% of the electorate (5 x .74) = 3.70% (47.86% cumulative)
72% of the asian vote which is 2% of the electorate (2 x .72) = 1.44% (49.30% cumulative)
72% of the 'other' vote which is 1% of the electorate (1 x .72) = 0.72% (50.02% cumulative)

[barfbag]

Here's a fact. In order for Democrats to win Georgia, they'd have to win nearly 400 EV.