Arizona versus Georgia

[eric82oslo]

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?

[Devils30]

Arizona is probably a better bet just because it's more elastic. Georgia someday will be winnable for Ds but 2020 is more realistic.

[RINO Tom]

I'm in the minority, but I think Democrats have a much better chance (going forward) in the South than in the West.  This might be optimistic, but I don't see Latino voters remaining THAT loyal to Democrats for decades to come, while I don't see Black support going anywhere.  As the GOP moves in a more socially moderate direction (which I think it has to and will eventually), Whites in in the West will start voting more Republican (as they did pre-2008), IMO.

[Beet]

I'm in the minority, but I think Democrats have a much better chance (going forward) in the South than in the West.  This might be optimistic, but I don't see Latino voters remaining THAT loyal to Democrats for decades to come, while I don't see Black support going anywhere.  As the GOP moves in a more socially moderate direction (which I think it has to and will eventually), Whites in in the West will start voting more Republican (as they did pre-2008), IMO.

The Democrats have had black support in the South since the 1930s. It hasn't been helping them. The white vote is what decides the South.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Clinton won it a couple times with Perot's help.  The growing Latino population makes it more likely to be a Democratic pickup.  As the previous poster said, the black-to-white ratio in Georgia isn't changing all that much and the whites are as Republican as they've ever been.  Even Obama's near-landslide in 2008 couldn't move it within 5 points.  Obama did a little better in GA than he did in AZ in 2012, but Romney is a very good GOP candidate for AZ and Obama is a very good Dem candidate for GA. 

[TDAS04]

What HockeyDude said. 

[Adam Griffin]

We already did this a few weeks ago, but here goes:

Yeah I browsed over the discussion about AZ here, and I'll just boil my thoughts all down to this. We'll take the Democratic voting blocs and break them down by the numbers. The percentages shown below will build upon one another, showing the percentage of the vote statewide that is Democratic.

AZ not only a couple points less non-white than Georgia, but its non-white population is super-majority Latino, not super-majority Black. Latinos are barely 2-to-1 Democratic; Blacks are 9-to-1.

Theoretical non-white, Democratic vote (as a % of the state)
Georgia: 37.0%
Arizona: 30.8%

Then you have to factor in the fact that oh, say, 40% of the Latino population in a given area usually can't even register to vote.

Theoretical non-white, Democratic vote minus non-citizens (as a % of the state)
Georgia (83%): 34.8%
Arizona (69%): 21.0%

The whites in AZ may be more Democratic, but it isn't nearly enough to make up the difference.

Theoretical white, Democratic vote (as a % of the state)
Arizona (40%): 22.4%
Georgia (25%): 13.5%

When you add the two latter sets of numbers together:
Georgia: 48.3% D
Arizona: 43.4% D

Arizona's got a while before it's ready.

And Georgia whites - in a mid-term and during a national Republican wave - were as Democratic as they were in 2008 for a black guy with the most ideal circumstances that could be expected for Democrats (and even more Democratic than they were in 2012), so I wouldn't necessarily say that whites "are as Republican as they've ever been".

In addition to that, Latinos are very fickle and unreliable voters as a whole, who are not a locked-down demographic for Democrats.

[Skill and Chance]

We already did this a few weeks ago, but here goes:

Yeah I browsed over the discussion about AZ here, and I'll just boil my thoughts all down to this. We'll take the Democratic voting blocs and break them down by the numbers. The percentages shown below will build upon one another, showing the percentage of the vote statewide that is Democratic.

AZ not only a couple points less non-white than Georgia, but its non-white population is super-majority Latino, not super-majority Black. Latinos are barely 2-to-1 Democratic; Blacks are 9-to-1.

Theoretical non-white, Democratic vote (as a % of the state)
Georgia: 37.0%
Arizona: 30.8%

Then you have to factor in the fact that oh, say, 40% of the Latino population in a given area usually can't even register to vote.

Theoretical non-white, Democratic vote minus non-citizens (as a % of the state)
Georgia (83%): 34.8%
Arizona (69%): 21.0%

The whites in AZ may be more Democratic, but it isn't nearly enough to make up the difference.

Theoretical white, Democratic vote (as a % of the state)
Arizona (40%): 22.4%
Georgia (25%): 13.5%

When you add the two latter sets of numbers together:
Georgia: 48.3% D
Arizona: 43.4% D

Arizona's got a while before it's ready.

And Georgia whites - in a mid-term and during a national Republican wave - were as Democratic as they were in 2008 for a black guy with the most ideal circumstances that could be expected for Democrats (and even more Democratic than they were in 2012), so I wouldn't necessarily say that whites "are as Republican as they've ever been".

In addition to that, Latinos are very fickle and unreliable voters as a whole, who are not a locked-down demographic for Democrats.

I am rethinking things after this year's elections.  The problem in Georgia is that I don't think black voters are going to remain this D after Obama.  And the white voters moving in are much more likely to be culturally Midwestern than in FL, VA or even NC.  So I just don't see a D path in Georgia with an 85/15 black vote, a 65/35 Hispanic vote and a 55/45 Asian vote, which is probably where we are heading post-Obama.  The more libertarian positions D's will need to take to hold on in CO/NV/VA etc. will eventually turn off some moderate minorities.

On the other hand, culturally Western white voters were one of the only Dem bright spots this year, and AZ is acting like a tilt R purple state for downballot D's.  Obama did some unique things to alienate the state, so once he is out off office, D opportunities should only grow there.     

[IceSpear]

Blacks are not going to get more Republican, and there's not going to be massive turnout dropoffs either. People tend to forget that Obama only improved black support/turnout marginally from Gore/Kerry levels.

Still, even this very modest dropoff in support/turnout could be fatal in a state like Georgia. If even Nunn and Carter can't appeal to whites in Georgia more than Obama can, why would Hillary be able to? Granted, she'll have higher turnout on her side, which will help. In a good year for Democrats, I could see Hillary making it close (maybe even closer than it was in 2008), but it's very tough to see her actually winning it. If she does, I actually see it being one of the last states to flip, in this order: NC (347) + MO (357) + NE-02 (358) + AZ (369) + IN (380) + GA (396) + AR (402). The rest of the Appalachian states are gone at this point (maybe even AR, but I'll tentatively keep it as possibility), and the rest are non starters of course.

[Adam Griffin]

I am rethinking things after this year's elections.  The problem in Georgia is that I don't think black voters are going to remain this D after Obama.  And the white voters moving in are much more likely to be culturally Midwestern than in FL, VA or even NC.  So I just don't see a D path in Georgia with an 85/15 black vote, a 65/35 Hispanic vote and a 55/45 Asian vote, which is probably where we are heading post-Obama.  The more libertarian positions D's will need to take to hold on in CO/NV/VA etc. will eventually turn off some moderate minorities.

On the other hand, culturally Western white voters were one of the only Dem bright spots this year, and AZ is acting like a tilt R purple state for downballot D's.  Obama did some unique things to alienate the state, so once he is out off office, D opportunities should only grow there.    

Exit polling both in 2010 and 2014 suggested that black support dropped a bit, but only to where it was in Georgia pre-Obama, which is 90% Democratic. Yes, that'll impact things considerably, but consider that even with that drop, Nunn basically got the same percentage of the vote that Obama got in 2012, and 3-4 points more of the white vote during an election with abysmal turnout. I'm still waiting to see all of the county-by-county breakdowns on racial turnout (should be available from SoS soon), but it appears that the biggest drop-off in this cycle was among white, progressive, younger voters.

I've seen two sets of estimates for white D support in 2010 - one showed 20% and the other showed 23%. It's important to consider that the white level of support in this very low turnout election (more so than 2010) was at or above 2010 levels. Considering the state became two points more Democratic when compared to 2010, I tend to think the closer estimate for 2010 was whites @ 20% Democratic. I think there's a much bigger increase (among whites, mainly) waiting to be seen in 2016 with full turnout and a (presumably) non-black nominee.

[IceSpear]

I still don't understand how turnout dropped in Georgia from 2010 to 2014 when the former had no competitive races and the latter had two (seemingly) very competitive races.

[Sol]

Also important: the black population of Georgia is booming.

[sg0508]

Clinton won it a couple times with Perot's help.  The growing Latino population makes it more likely to be a Democratic pickup.  As the previous poster said, the black-to-white ratio in Georgia isn't changing all that much and the whites are as Republican as they've ever been.  Even Obama's near-landslide in 2008 couldn't move it within 5 points.  Obama did a little better in GA than he did in AZ in 2012, but Romney is a very good GOP candidate for AZ and Obama is a very good Dem candidate for GA. 

Clinton won it once, not twice.  Dole's negative image in '96 in the early AZ primary also hurt him pretty bad, along with the social security issue.  The statewide Democratic Party in AZ isn't up to snuff.  The Democrats have had chances to take AZ and haven't done it since '96.  Worse, they don't really seem to be making the inroads they should with the changing population.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

It actually really depends. If Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio win the nomination in 2016 and win, then obviously Georgia will be closer. If an anti immigration candidate wins, then Arizona.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The one time Arizona voted Democratic since 1948 was 1996, yes. But Clinton was the best performance by a Democrat since Johnson barely lost it, just under 47% with Perot drawing 8%.

I see NO evidence that without McCain Arizona would have voted Obama in 08 - it could have moved a bit closer, but the thing that is so remarkable about Arizona is how inelastic the Democratic performance has been. Note, when McCain was off the ticket in 2012, the GOP's vote share went up by a tiny amount and Obama's dropped slightly (despite a record performance among Latinos).  There was no discernible home-state bounce for McCain, although the interesting part is that it's the GOP's vote that bounces around.

Obama won by 7% in 2008 and got just under 45% in AZ - he won by 4% in 2012 and got 44.5%... Gore won nationally by a smidge and got 44% in AZ and Kerry lost by 2.5% and got... 44% in AZ. The needle doesn't move... It's a bizarre electoral oddity. I personally see no reason to invest too much in it.

So there you go... regardless of national or even local demographic strength, the Democratic candidate's performance has been within a tiny band of less than 1% for the last four elections. Despite increases in the Latino vote and their support for Democrats, the white vote in older and far more conservative as a whole. Keep in mind that AZ has benefited from white-flight from CA, NV and Northern states.

There's no reason to assume that this is going to change.... whereas the Demographic story in GA is far more suitable and positive for Democrats. However, I don't expect it to flip in 2016, although of the two, I think it is much more likely.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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?

If anything, the conventional wisdom suggests that Arizona will be competitive first because of Hispanics.

[5280]

Conventional wisdom doesn't always fit the narrative. Hispanics in Texas are different from those in California, like they're different from Colorado Hispanics and Arizona Hispanics.

[Gass3268]

Conventional wisdom doesn't always fit the narrative. Hispanics in Texas are different from those in California, like they're different from Colorado Hispanics and Arizona Hispanics.

This is why I always laugh when folks say that Rubio would help the Republicans in states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

[TJ in Oregon]

Arizona may have a better chance of being competitive in 2016 but only if Hillary wins in a landslide and Arizona is only competitive because it's more elastic. As for the long term, the Democrats have a much brighter future in Georgia because unlike Arizona it's unambiguously headed in their direction. For all the fuss that has been made about how Arizona is turning Atlas red, it hasn't budged in the slightest. Whether from Hispanic assimilation or more white retirees to outvote the Mexicans, or low Hispanic turnout, the supposed inevitable Democratic takeover of Arizona just hasn't happened. Meanwhile, Georgia has slowly but surely been creeping leftward.

[5280]

Also AZ is going to continue being a state for retirees and the elderly, which will stay Atlas blue for a while.

[All Along The Watchtower]

GA, easily.

[hopper]

Probably GA is more winnable for the Dems since Blacks in GA are not as Republican as Hispanics in AZ are.

[DS0816]

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.