GA-SEN 2022 Megathread: Werewolves and Vampires

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

https://twitter.com/christos_ioa/status/1598174684184707072

That can't be serious?

Has to be a joke.  It's pretty funny, actually.

yeah, sounds a lot like "Apartment complex? I find it quite simple"

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/SpiroAgnewGhost/status/1598373066685689856

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/SpiroAgnewGhost/status/1598373066685689856

Adults don’t vote for Walker.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Why should we not be surprised by WARNOCK winning as I have said every incumbent Senator and only 1 Incumbent Gov lost and we won AZ, MA, MD blue wall Give seats but failed at OH, NC, UT and FL because even in red states 4% unemployment matters if Eday was held today we would get a 51/47 PVI like 2012 but in that yr Brown, Manchin and Tester won because Fetterman won by the same margins as Obama but we don't know what type of wave insurance in the H or Senate with a 4/6 PVI because different yrs it meant different

That's why we can lose LA GOV but keep KY and NC because Incumbents matter

[BloJo94]

Can’t imagine young people voting for this

[Horus]

https://twitter.com/SpiroAgnewGhost/status/1598373066685689856

Ugh, looks like Herschel might have a chance after all.. this is major.

[Tekken_Guy]

https://twitter.com/SpiroAgnewGhost/status/1598373066685689856

Ugh, looks like Herschel might have a chance after all.. this is major.

I hope you’re being sarcastic.

[pantsaregood]

https://twitter.com/SpiroAgnewGhost/status/1598373066685689856

Ugh, looks like Herschel might have a chance after all.. this is major.

I hope you’re being sarcastic.

If he changes his avatar to a red MA avatar, he might convince someone he's being serious.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Inside Elections moves runoff rating from Toss-Up to Tilt D:

https://www.insideelections.com/news/article/georgia-senate-runoff-raphael-warnock-herschel-walker

Inside Elections has rated this race a Toss-up for the entirety of the cycle. It was close on Nov. 8 and the finale is likely to be close as well. But it’s hard to see how Warnock and Walker each have the same chance of winning. Not only did the senator outpace Walker narrowly a month ago (and win two years ago), but Democrats are outspending Republicans down the stretch, Warnock’s image is better than Walker’s, Democrats have been hitting their early turnout goals, and Republicans lost the potency of a core message when control of the Senate was decided by other races. We’re changing our rating to Tilt Democratic.

A rating change toward Warnock should not be equated to a guaranteed win for the Democrat, nor does it indicate Walker cannot win. There’s just more evidence pointing to a Warnock victory, even amidst the uncertainty of turnout in an oddly-timed election. Continuing with a Toss-up rating would be the easiest handicapping decision, but it also wouldn’t accurately reflect the dynamic of the race.

Much more detail in the article.

[Skill and Chance]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

[Holmes]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

Damn. Who is even thinking of a Republican supermajority?? At this point the discussion is where can they win to get a majority.

[Tekken_Guy]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

That means Democrats cannot afford to lose the following senators if Walker wins.

Brown
Cortez Masto
Hassan
Kaine
Manchin
Ossoff
Rosen
Sanders
Shaheen
Tester
Warner
Welch

Only Manchin and Shaheen are above the age of

[Skill and Chance]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

Damn. Who is even thinking of a Republican supermajority?? At this point the discussion is where can they win to get a majority.

Well, there has been this idea floating around out there for a while (as far back as 2012, I believe) that the Class I map would inevitably give Republicans a supermajority and a generational hold on the Senate as soon as it came up in a favorable year.  Of course, it hasn't yet.

[Skill and Chance]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

That means Democrats cannot afford to lose the following senators if Walker wins.

Brown
Cortez Masto
Hassan
Kaine
Manchin
Ossoff
Rosen
Sanders
Shaheen
Tester
Warner
Welch

Only Manchin and Shaheen are above the age of

West Virginia actually has a same party appointment law currently on the books.  Of course, it could be repealed at any time.  However, I doubt it could be repealed in a way that applied retroactively to a vacancy that already existed.


Starting in January, Democrats will have a veto override majority in Vermont, so they could unilaterally pass a same party appointment law, written in a way that would cover Sanders as a Dem because he caucuses with them. 

In Nevada, Democrats could pass a same party appointment law before Sisolak leaves office.

Same party appointment rules could also theoretically be imposed by initiative in Montana, Nevada, and Ohio.

The only R governor/D senator states where absolutely nothing could be done prior to 2024 to ensure same party appointments are GA, NH, and VA.

[MT Treasurer]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

Damn. Who is even thinking of a Republican supermajority?? At this point the discussion is where can they win to get a majority.

Well, there has been this idea floating around out there for a while (as far back as 2012, I believe) that the Class I map would inevitably give Republicans a supermajority and a generational hold on the Senate as soon as it came up in a favorable year.  Of course, it hasn't yet.

I also don’t think there’s any discussion about "where they can win to get a majority," which is pretty obvious to even a casual observer (WV/OH/MT/NV).

There’s just a non-negligible number of Senate seats after those four that would only flip in a decisive Republican win in the presidential race as opposed to a more neutral year (MI/PA/WI/AZ), but even if you grant them that scenario, a supermajority seems out of reach. What would even be seat 60? NM? Even that only gets them to 59, and this assumes that Walker wins the runoff!

Still, even a 55- or 56-seat majority probably means Democrats don’t get the Senate back any time soon. However, they’d still be in a very good position in the House (sort of ironic that Democrats won the former while losing the latter this year).

[Tekken_Guy]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

That means Democrats cannot afford to lose the following senators if Walker wins.

Brown
Cortez Masto
Hassan
Kaine
Manchin
Ossoff
Rosen
Sanders
Shaheen
Tester
Warner
Welch

Only Manchin and Shaheen are above the age of

West Virginia actually has a same party appointment law currently on the books.  Of course, it could be repealed at any time.  However, I doubt it could be repealed in a way that applied retroactively to a vacancy that already existed.


Starting in January, Democrats will have a veto override majority in Vermont, so they could unilaterally pass a same party appointment law, written in a way that would cover Sanders as a Dem because he caucuses with them. 

In Nevada, Democrats could pass a same party appointment law before Sisolak leaves office.

Same party appointment rules could also theoretically be imposed by initiative in Montana, Nevada, and Ohio.

The only R governor/D senator states where absolutely nothing could be done prior to 2024 to ensure same party appointments are GA, NH, and VA.

What’s the deal with the inverse, if the KS/KY/LA/NC seats, Susan Collins’, or Ron Johnson’s seat opens up?

[Skill and Chance]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

Damn. Who is even thinking of a Republican supermajority?? At this point the discussion is where can they win to get a majority.

Well, there has been this idea floating around out there for a while (as far back as 2012, I believe) that the Class I map would inevitably give Republicans a supermajority and a generational hold on the Senate as soon as it came up in a favorable year.  Of course, it hasn't yet.

I also don’t think there’s any discussion about "where they can win to get a majority," which is pretty obvious to even a casual observer (WV/OH/MT/NV).

There’s just a non-negligible number of Senate seats after those four that would only flip in a decisive Republican win in the presidential race as opposed to a more neutral year (MI/PA/WI/AZ), but even if you grant them that scenario, a supermajority seems out of reach. What would even be seat 60? NM? (this assumes Walker wins the runoff)

Still, even a 55- or 56-seat majority probably means Democrats don’t get the Senate back any time soon. However, they’d still be in a very good position in the House (sort of ironic that Democrats won the former while losing the latter this year).

IDK the 2026 senate map starts looking more appetizing to Dems as time goes on between AK, NC, and TX, and of course a potential Collins retirement in ME.


Using 2016 numbers, the 60th R seat in 2024 would be ME with a Walker win and VA with a Warnock win.  However, this assumes that MN has already flipped because of how anomalously close Trump got in 2016.  That seems unlikely.  On the other hand, NV looks easier for R's than 2016 would suggest.

Winning everything Trump won in 2016 would be R+7 for 56R/44D if Warnock wins or 57R/43D if Walker wins.  However, NV is almost surely going to be easier for R's than MI even though Clinton won the former and Trump won the latter in 2016.

[Mr.Phips]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

Damn. Who is even thinking of a Republican supermajority?? At this point the discussion is where can they win to get a majority.

Well, there has been this idea floating around out there for a while (as far back as 2012, I believe) that the Class I map would inevitably give Republicans a supermajority and a generational hold on the Senate as soon as it came up in a favorable year.  Of course, it hasn't yet.

I also don’t think there’s any discussion about "where they can win to get a majority," which is pretty obvious to even a casual observer (WV/OH/MT/NV).

There’s just a non-negligible number of Senate seats after those four that would only flip in a decisive Republican win in the presidential race as opposed to a more neutral year (MI/PA/WI/AZ), but even if you grant them that scenario, a supermajority seems out of reach. What would even be seat 60? NM? Even that only gets them to 59, and this assumes that Walker wins the runoff!

Still, even a 55- or 56-seat majority probably means Democrats don’t get the Senate back any time soon. However, they’d still be in a very good position in the House (sort of ironic that Democrats won the former while losing the latter this year).

You probably need a Republican Presidential win for Nevada to flip.  Nevada going Republican means Dems would have to thread the needle to win the electoral college.  You really think NV goes Republican before WI/AZ/GA?

[Adam Griffin]

https://twitter.com/GabrielSterling/status/1598396366744702977

[prag_prog]

This thread summarizes current EV data quite well -

https://twitter.com/gtryan/status/1598400927333056529
TLDR: Atleast so far, Dem precints turnout has been better than GOP precints

[Skill and Chance]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

That means Democrats cannot afford to lose the following senators if Walker wins.

Brown
Cortez Masto
Hassan
Kaine
Manchin
Ossoff
Rosen
Sanders
Shaheen
Tester
Warner
Welch

Only Manchin and Shaheen are above the age of

West Virginia actually has a same party appointment law currently on the books.  Of course, it could be repealed at any time.  However, I doubt it could be repealed in a way that applied retroactively to a vacancy that already existed.


Starting in January, Democrats will have a veto override majority in Vermont, so they could unilaterally pass a same party appointment law, written in a way that would cover Sanders as a Dem because he caucuses with them. 

In Nevada, Democrats could pass a same party appointment law before Sisolak leaves office.

Same party appointment rules could also theoretically be imposed by initiative in Montana, Nevada, and Ohio.

The only R governor/D senator states where absolutely nothing could be done prior to 2024 to ensure same party appointments are GA, NH, and VA.

What’s the deal with the inverse, if the KS/KY/LA/NC seats, Susan Collins’, or Ron Johnson’s seat opens up?

KS: traditional gubernatorial appointment until the next GE, with no restrictions on whom the governor can choose.  However, note that KS R's are still veto-proof in the legislature, so they could unilaterally impose a same party appointment rule at any time.

KY: strict same party appointment law, party committee gives the governor a list of 3 to pick from

LA: special election called if more than 1 year left in the term, governor appoints with no restrictions but the appointee only serves until the special (or the GE if the term is expiring within 1 year)

ME: traditional gubernatorial appointment until the next GE, with no restrictions on whom the governor can choose

NC: strict same party appointment law, party committee gives the governor a list of 3 to pick from

WI: special election called, seat stays vacant until the special with no gubernatorial appointment at all

In ME, a same party appointment law could theoretically be passed by initiative.

Also, on the R governor/D senator side, note that VA has a GE every year, limiting the maximum length of a gubernatorial appointment.

[Atlas Force]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

Only Manchin and Shaheen are above the age of

Did you forget to finish the sentence?

[Tekken_Guy]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

Only Manchin and Shaheen are above the age of

Did you forget to finish the sentence?

Oh yeah. Manchin, Shaheen, and the VT Senators will all be above 70. Brown turns 70 before his term ends though.

[Atlas Force]

This seat would mean Dems could be more confident in retaining control through the 2024 election, because a single vacancy in a state with an R governor controls appointments would no longer flip the chamber.

It could also have a significant impact on 2024.  In the event that election was an R blowout, they would need to win 11 seats for a supermajority. There are currently exactly 10 senate seats up in states where Trump won or came within 5% in 2016.  A Warnock win would mean R's would have to win VA or NM for a supermajority (along with MN and ME, which haven't really been close in any election since 2016).

Only Manchin and Shaheen are above the age of

Did you forget to finish the sentence?

Oh yeah. Manchin, Shaheen, and the VT Senators will all be above 70. Brown turns 70 before his term ends though.

Alright then

[Spectator]

This thread summarizes current EV data quite well -

https://twitter.com/gtryan/status/1598400927333056529
TLDR: Atleast so far, Dem precints turnout has been better than GOP precints

I disagree with his notion that Forsyth’s trends are such that it will be the second most likely metro county to flip after Fayette. I think Spalding has that title locked down.

I think Fayette is on track to flip next week though.