The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that Georgia voters are more likely to vote Trump than Clinton by 4% — but more likely to vote for Sanders than Trump by 5%. This strikes me as remarkable for a number of reasons. I’d assume Georgia would be solid Trump territory— I’d suppose that most of those who didn’t switch to the GOP when Nixon’s Southern Strategy took effect would have become “Reagan Democrats”—unlikely to consider a New England socialist. And the results of the primary vote a couple of months ago sure didn’t suggest Georgians would prefer Sanders to Clinton.
After discussing the Trump-Clinton 45-41 poll result—on the edge of its 4% margin of error—the report goes on:
Perhaps the most telling sign of all: Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders polled higher than both in one-on-one matchups, winning a potential contest with Trump 47 percent to 42 percent. Although Clinton seems poised to win her party’s nomination, the AJC poll is among a string of surveys bolstering Sanders’ case that he poses the bigger threat to Trump.
Apparently Clinton’s 41% is a relatively good showing for any Democrat in Georgia presidential votes these days:
The poll gives new heft to claims by Georgia Democrats that they can turn the Peach State blue, or at least a shade of purple, for the first time since Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory.
Their strategy to reverse the GOP tide relies on two major factors: the possibility that outrage over Trump’s divisive statements could send independent-minded women fleeing from the Republican camp, and a surge of support from minorities that fueled Clinton’s victory in Georgia’s March 1 presidential primary.
The AJC poll seemed to reinforce both trends — though with caveats. [emphasis added]
The most obvious caveat would seem to be that an actual victory by a Democratic candidate in Georgia must almost certainly depends on nominating the candidate who’s actually favored to win, rather than the likely nominee who’s 9% behind him in the match-up with the GOP.
But Sanders, of course, is no longer considered a viable candidate. (Was he ever considered one?) He’s barely mentioned among the “caveats” the article cites.
Clinton’s 4% loss to Trump doesn’t count as a loss because it’s (exactly) on the poll’s margin of error. Sanders’ 5% victory over Trump is a mere 1% beyond that margin of error, so not much of a victory. But the 9% gap between Clinton and Sanders in their match-ups with Trump (in the same poll) is substantial by any standards (other than those of the Clinton campaigners), and is also quite consistent with what almost every match-up poll has been telling us for most of the past year.
We disregard that 9% gap at our peril.