GA: Clinton dominates

[pbrower2a]

What is this? Electoral shift?

The era of Trump

Who exactly are the GEORGIA voters that you think are defecting over Trump?  LOL.

People tiring of the Republican majority in the House?

People who distrust the demagoguery of Donald Trump?

People scared of the reactionary agenda of Ted Cruz?


...Dubya was an awful President, but at the least he knew when to keep his mouth shut and about what during a campaign. Could Cruz and Trump be less adept campaigners than Dubya?

[pbrower2a]

I don't know if I fully trust this one. Unless the Republican nominee is a complete turkey*, no way do I expect Georgia to go for the Democratic nominee for President. On the other hand, Georgia leans about as R as Missouri, where a recent poll shows Clinton leading Trump. Georgia is more D (and probably more elastic) than Mississippi and Texas, where Hillary Clinton is within the margin of error in another poll. (Not that I trust any poll of Texas!)  Georgia is not much more R than North Carolina, and the most recent poll of North Carolina shows Clinton  leading both Trump and Cruz. But not this much!

But this said, Georgia was Barack Obama's second-closest loss in both 2008 and 2012. I'd like to see another poll corroborate or contradict this. If Hillary Clinton is winning Georgia, then she is on the way to winning at least 390 electoral votes.  Dislike this poll? then just wait for another. The most recent poll of Georgia is stale.

*Then again, what if he is?

[pbrower2a]

Could the entire south be in play? Holy crap.

Of course -- if white Southerners are going back to the partisan patterns normal when Jimmy Carter was President, Hillary Clinton could be on the way to a 450-EV win in November.  But if only as they were in the 1990s? We could see her pick up every state that Bill Clinton ever won in the 1990s except perhaps Montana -- but win Virginia.

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012   

Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

Let the Republicans have everything in blue, and  only everything in blue (maybe exchanging Alabama for Arizona), and the Republicans have a nightmare -- their worst election since at least 1964 for the Presidency.

I'm not saying that this happens.

This map is even messier, if only less decisive a Democratic Presidential win:

deep blue -- all elections for the Republican
medium blue --  all but one election for the Republican (but once for Obama)
pale blue -- all but once for the Republicans (but once for Clinton)
deep green -- Clinton twice, but Obama losing by more than 10% twice
medium green -- Clinton twice, Obama barely losing once
yellow -- Clinton once, Obama twice
tan -- Clinton never, Obama twice
medium red -- all but one election for the Democrat
deep red -- all elections for the Democrat

white -- always went for the winner  (Clinton twice, George W. Bush twice, Obama)

...imagine anything not in dark blue, and the Republican nominee still faces the worst landslide loss for a Republican since 1964. 

[pbrower2a]

Junk....

The Democratic nominee for President can win without Georgia. If Georgia is at all close, then the Democrats are winning nationwide. Likewise Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina.  The Democratic nominee is winning Florida and North Carolina if he has a chance of winning Georgia. He's winning Colorado and Nevada if he has a chance of winning Arizona. He's winning Ohio if he is winning either Indiana or Missouri.

How insignificant is Georgia to this Presidential race? It's the mirror image of Michigan, a state which the Democrat must have as a decisive win to have a real chance at the Presidency. The Senate seat will matter more in Georgia.

[pbrower2a]

How insignificant is Georgia to this Presidential race? It's the mirror image of Michigan, a state which the Democrat must have as a decisive win to have a real chance at the Presidency. The Senate seat will matter more in Georgia.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Obama could have lost Michigan and still won very comfortably.

However, I suspect you meant in a scenario where Ohio and Florida were far from guaranteed, then yeah, losing Michigan would be very risky. But there are a lot of alternative paths for Democrats to take for an EC win.

By that criterion there are theoretical ways for the Democrat to win the Presidency without California, but those suggest huge shifts in voting patterns not easily contained in California alone.

True, but that would practically take a reversion to to the pattern of state voting in 1976. Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic nominee to win Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina -- and the last Democratic nominee to lose California, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine and still win the Presidency. That would happen again if the Republicans and Democrats ended up with the same constituencies that they had in the 1970s... which is highly unlikely.

[pbrower2a]

This reminds of that poll that said Obama was going to win Arizona in 2012.

It also reminds me of all the disbelief that I had about Barack Obama winning either Indiana or Virginia, neither state having voted for any Democratic Presidential nominee since 1964, in 2008 in what looked like a close election.

I can say this: if Georgia goes for any Democrat in 2016, then a landslide is in the making. Georgia, the second-closest loss for Obama in 2008, would have put him at 391 electoral votes.   

[pbrower2a]

Dislike this poll? Then wait for another. I've seen polls like that for Pennsylvania.