North Carolina Or Georgia

[Vern]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

Except GA 2018 had an incredibly polarized electorate and presidential level turnout. The point is, with every passing election, GA becomes 2% more Dem as Atlanta grows. Split-ticket voting isn't really a thing in GA.

[Vern]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

Except GA 2018 had an incredibly polarized electorate and presidential level turnout. The point is, with every passing election, GA becomes 2% more Dem as Atlanta grows. Split-ticket voting isn't really a thing in GA.

I'm sorry but you can't look at a Governor's race the same as a Presidental race.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

Except GA 2018 had an incredibly polarized electorate and presidential level turnout. The point is, with every passing election, GA becomes 2% more Dem as Atlanta grows. Split-ticket voting isn't really a thing in GA.

I'm sorry but you can't look at a Governor's race the same as a Presidental race.

You can absolutely use it as a strong indicator under certain conditions.

[TDAS04]

I used to lean Georgia, now tilt North Carolina.  They probably won’t vote that different from each other.

[Vern]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

Except GA 2018 had an incredibly polarized electorate and presidential level turnout. The point is, with every passing election, GA becomes 2% more Dem as Atlanta grows. Split-ticket voting isn't really a thing in GA.

I'm sorry but you can't look at a Governor's race the same as a Presidental race.

You can absolutely use it as a strong indicator under certain conditions.

I disagree because in Governor races you have more local issues at play that can affect the outcome that wouldn't affect a Presidental race. That is why you get results like MD, MA, and KS in 2018. KS voted for a Democrat while MD and MA voted for a Republican.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems dont have to win either one, the path of Biden is the SW including AZ and the MW

[Smash255]

I wouldn't be shocked if Georgia votes to the left of North Carolina, but I would predict North Carolina albeit narrowly (they will likely be within 1 point or so of each other)

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

Except GA 2018 had an incredibly polarized electorate and presidential level turnout. The point is, with every passing election, GA becomes 2% more Dem as Atlanta grows. Split-ticket voting isn't really a thing in GA.

I'm sorry but you can't look at a Governor's race the same as a Presidental race.

You can absolutely use it as a strong indicator under certain conditions.

I disagree because in Governor races you have more local issues at play that can affect the outcome that wouldn't affect a Presidental race. That is why you get results like MD, MA, and KS in 2018. KS voted for a Democrat while MD and MA voted for a Republican.

That absolutely can be the case, but in GA 2018, it wasn't. GA 2018 was just GA 2016 with 2 years of population change and a killer ground game, nothing else.

[Smash255]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

While Presidential and Governors certainly aren't the same thing, the type of candidate does matter.   Abrahams in Georgia is closer to your average national Democrat from an ideological standpoint than Hogan & Baker are to your average national Republican.  A more apt comparison to Hogan & Baker winning is someone like Edwards in Louisiana.

[Vern]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

Except GA 2018 had an incredibly polarized electorate and presidential level turnout. The point is, with every passing election, GA becomes 2% more Dem as Atlanta grows. Split-ticket voting isn't really a thing in GA.

I'm sorry but you can't look at a Governor's race the same as a Presidental race.

You can absolutely use it as a strong indicator under certain conditions.

I disagree because in Governor races you have more local issues at play that can affect the outcome that wouldn't affect a Presidental race. That is why you get results like MD, MA, and KS in 2018. KS voted for a Democrat while MD and MA voted for a Republican.

That absolutely can be the case, but in GA 2018, it wasn't. GA 2018 was just GA 2016 with 2 years of population change and a killer ground game, nothing else.

No, you are wrong. Stacy Abrams represented the Atlanta area. She had close ties to that area and that is why she did super well in Atlanta.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

Except GA 2018 had an incredibly polarized electorate and presidential level turnout. The point is, with every passing election, GA becomes 2% more Dem as Atlanta grows. Split-ticket voting isn't really a thing in GA.

I'm sorry but you can't look at a Governor's race the same as a Presidental race.

You can absolutely use it as a strong indicator under certain conditions.

I disagree because in Governor races you have more local issues at play that can affect the outcome that wouldn't affect a Presidental race. That is why you get results like MD, MA, and KS in 2018. KS voted for a Democrat while MD and MA voted for a Republican.

That absolutely can be the case, but in GA 2018, it wasn't. GA 2018 was just GA 2016 with 2 years of population change and a killer ground game, nothing else.

No, you are wrong. Stacy Abrams represented the Atlanta area. She had close ties to that area and that is why she did super well in Atlanta.

Uh, no. Metropolitan Atlanta didn't vote for Abrams by such a big margin because she represented a single Atlanta district in the state legislature.

[Vern]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

While Presidential and Governors certainly aren't the same thing, the type of candidate does matter.   Abrahams in Georgia is closer to your average national Democrat from an ideological standpoint than Hogan & Baker are to your average national Republican.  A more apt comparison to Hogan & Baker winning is someone like Edwards in Louisiana.

This is true. And you will see she didn't improve on Democrats numbers outside of Atlanta. But because she is from Atlanta and had ties to the city she was able to run up her numbers there. While that could happen in a Presidental race if the candidate has ties to the city. It isn't going to happen for Biden unless he has a very good ground game there.   

[Roronoa D. Law]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

While Presidential and Governors certainly aren't the same thing, the type of candidate does matter.   Abrahams in Georgia is closer to your average national Democrat from an ideological standpoint than Hogan & Baker are to your average national Republican.  A more apt comparison to Hogan & Baker winning is someone like Edwards in Louisiana.

This is true. And you will see she didn't improve on Democrats numbers outside of Atlanta. But because she is from Atlanta and had ties to the city she was able to run up her numbers there. While that could happen in a Presidental race if the candidate has ties to the city. It isn't going to happen for Biden unless he has a very good ground game there.   

Forget about Abrams, do you really think Trump will do better than Kemp in Atlanta of all places?

[Vern]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

While Presidential and Governors certainly aren't the same thing, the type of candidate does matter.   Abrahams in Georgia is closer to your average national Democrat from an ideological standpoint than Hogan & Baker are to your average national Republican.  A more apt comparison to Hogan & Baker winning is someone like Edwards in Louisiana.

This is true. And you will see she didn't improve on Democrats numbers outside of Atlanta. But because she is from Atlanta and had ties to the city she was able to run up her numbers there. While that could happen in a Presidental race if the candidate has ties to the city. It isn't going to happen for Biden unless he has a very good ground game there.   

Forget about Abrams, do you really think Trump will do better than Kemp in Atlanta of all places?

The question isn't will he do better. The question is will Biden get the voter turn-out in the Atlanta area as Abrams did.

[Roronoa D. Law]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Hillary didn't do better than Obama.

GA: Obama got 46.9% (08) and 45.39% (12) while Hillary got 45.35%

Yes, but 3rd party vote much higher in 2016.

Yes, which took away from the Republican vote total. Johnson votes more than likely would have voted for a different Republican candidate than Trump. The Democrat vote totally in GA hasn't changed, it was the Republican vote totally that did. That leads me to believe that around 45ish is currently the top end of what the Dems can get in GA.

Stacey Abrams would like a word.

We are talking about at the Presidental level.

But if you apply your logic then Republicans can win in MD and MA at the Presidental level.   

While Presidential and Governors certainly aren't the same thing, the type of candidate does matter.   Abrahams in Georgia is closer to your average national Democrat from an ideological standpoint than Hogan & Baker are to your average national Republican.  A more apt comparison to Hogan & Baker winning is someone like Edwards in Louisiana.

This is true. And you will see she didn't improve on Democrats numbers outside of Atlanta. But because she is from Atlanta and had ties to the city she was able to run up her numbers there. While that could happen in a Presidental race if the candidate has ties to the city. It isn't going to happen for Biden unless he has a very good ground game there.   

Forget about Abrams, do you really think Trump will do better than Kemp in Atlanta of all places?

The question isn't will he do better. The question is will Biden get the voter turn-out in the Atlanta area as Abrams did.

It's a presidential election why would Biden not get higher turnout in Atlanta.

[HAMMER77777]

None flips in 2020.

[krb08]

None flips in 2020.

The question was which votes further left. Not whether either will flip.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

This thread aged like milk. Many posters really underestimated the Dem swings in the Atlanta metro area and also in the Augusta and Savannah metros too.

NC will vote to the left of GA by 4-6 points

Might be the easiest question ever asked on this board....

North Carolina.

GEORGIA IS A LIKELY STATE. It’s not flipping anytime soon. It has close calls but never flips.

Texas will flip long before Georgia does

😂 😂

NC. NC and GA are powered by many of the same trendss, making it hard for me to see GA vote to the left of NC. If NC has flipped, GA has probably flipped as well. NC trended to the left of the nation in 2016, despite Clinton's dissapointing performance, so the state is clearly trending left in the long term.

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

Out of these Southern non-Florida states, I think the order of flipping is pretty clear: NC>GA>TX

North Carolina obviously flips first for the reasons JRP1994 mentioned, then Georgia flips later of Biden is doing well enough, and then if Texas flips it means both NC and GA already flipped. That being said, the only one of these 3 I realistically see flipping in 2020 is North Carolina.

And on top of that, I could very well see Cooper carrying Biden and Cunningham in North Carolina this year. I think it may well be a reverse of WI/PA/FL 2016.
I can't see such an effect happening in GA or TX, and even if Biden somehow won those, the GOP would hold the Senate seats there regardless.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Stop necroing these threads and making me relive my humiliation!

[Mr. Smith]

Stop necroing these threads and making me relive my humiliation!

What makes you think this is about you

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.

More young voters in Atlanta, and Atlanta has more pull than The Research Triangle or Charlotte for NC. Also fewer ancestral D rural areas that aren't already Republican in GA.

Not to mention Hillary literally did better than Obama's '08 performance in Georgia with little investment, meanwhile NC went rightwards despite investment through the roof.

Clearly, this is about my vindication!

[Progressive Pessimist]

Stop necroing these threads and making me relive my humiliation!

What makes you think this is about you

Haha! It's not, but my takes always seem to be among those that aged worse than milk.

[South Dakota Democrat]

NC will vote to the left of GA by 4-6 points

[South Dakota Democrat]

Might be the easiest question ever asked on this board....

North Carolina.

GEORGIA IS A LIKELY STATE. It’s not flipping anytime soon. It has close calls but never flips.

Texas will flip long before Georgia does

[South Dakota Democrat]

I really don't understand the argument for Georgia voting to the left of North Carolina. For Biden to win Georgia, he'll have to be benefitting from an Obama-level black turnout and over-performing Obama and Clinton among southern white voters. That's not out of the question, but I don't see a scenario where he does well enough among those demographics to win Georgia while simultaneously losing North Carolina, where there hasn't been nearly the exodus of white voters to the GOP.