Georgia senate seats runoff(s) megathread

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump still contesting the election is one of the reasons why Ds can sweep these races, moderates are being turned off by Trump endless contesting of the election

[Roll Roons]

Speaking of McGrath, she's finally trying to summon resistance boomers to important Senate races:

https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1329455030731223041

Oh no this might be the kiss of death. Tell national Dems to stay away from Ga and let them run their own campaign like jeez

Not that this election was winnable for Democrats

Wrong.

I was talking about Kentucky. Democrats can absolutely win both Georgia seats.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Speaking of McGrath, she's finally trying to summon resistance boomers to important Senate races:

https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1329455030731223041

Oh no this might be the kiss of death. Tell national Dems to stay away from Ga and let them run their own campaign like jeez

Not that this election was winnable for Democrats

Wrong.

I was talking about Kentucky. Democrats can absolutely win both Georgia seats.

Oh, gotcha. I agree with that, then. There were many better candidates than McGrath but it was always going to be a tough race to run.

[VAR]

https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1329786557344182273

[Pollster]

The voter file has been updated with preliminary Georgia 2020 data (most of the third party services hustled to get Georgia done first in time for the runoffs).

It looks like Democratic turnout was 70% while Republican turnout was 90%. We had modeled for Democratic turnout to be 68% and Republican turnout to be 84%. If this same pattern happened nationwide, it seems to confirm the working theory that the polling misses where they occurred predominantly came from undershooting Republican turnout. The electorate was also far more partisan than we anticipated in even our highest partisanship models (i.e. independent/nonpartisan voters were a lower share of the electorate) which also probably helped Democrats in the polls.

Our final poll, which showed Biden winning the state by 3 points (everyone here knows that I always say margins are meaningless, but it's as specific as I'm allowed to get), would have shown a tie under the turnout model based on the actual figures.

[Annatar]

Thanks for the information, so in GA at least it appears the Nate Cohn theory that Republican turnout was higher relative to democratic turnout than expected appears to be true.

[Pollster]

Thanks for the information, so in GA at least it appears the Nate Cohn theory that Republican turnout was higher relative to democratic turnout than expected appears to be true.

This sounds about right. Republican partisan turnout is almost always higher than Democratic, even in safe Democratic states/districts/etc. and in wave years. There are very few competitive races that Democrats wouldn't win if their partisan turnout rates reached standard Republican levels.

This year, it seems that both parties' turnout was higher than we anticipated, but Democrats only slightly whereas Republicans it was far more significant.

[QAnonKelly]

Seems like Loeffler didn't disclose her private jet on her ethics paperwork. You know, normal people things.

[lfromnj]

One reason I think Republicans should win is the polling is looking pretty good and Perdue outperformed his polls, I went back and looked at the polls on 538 for the senate forecast for the Georgia race and this is what they were:

Emerson: Ossoff +1
Data for Progress: Ossoff +5
Monmouth: Ossoff +2
PPP: Ossoff +1
YouGov: Perdue +1
NYT/Sienna: Tie
Landmark Communications: Perdue +2


Perdue won by 1.7% so he did better then the polls on average indicated, in the rcp average Ossoff was up 0.7%, so the rcp average had a 2.4% bias in favour of the dems.

The polls were off a bit bc of a GOP turnout surge. The same can't be expected this time around without Trump on the ballot.

How are you still so confident after being wrong?

Being wrong about what exactly? We're talking about Georgia, where the presidential polls were very accurate and the Senate polls only slightly off (the special moreso b/c they didn't include Deborah Jackson apparently)

Q has Biden getting 36% of Whites in GA and 89% of Blacks. On a good night for Biden, I don't see how that's impossible. If anything, he likely hits 90%+ with Blacks, and if Whites are really turning against Trump, Biden getting to 36% is not that out of the realm of possibility. I don't think Biden will actually win by 7, but Q-pac actually seems to be picking up on what's happening in GA compared to the polls that still have Trump +1-3.

Georgia polls were accurate albiet not yours.

[VAR]

https://twitter.com/SenhorRaposa/status/1329854745272573955

[VAR]

https://twitter.com/SenhorRaposa/status/1329852788243886080

[KaiserDave]

https://twitter.com/SenhorRaposa/status/1329852788243886080

She has no reason to worry. Scott cast a charm to protect her, the Dark Lord is very powerful.

[It’s so Joever]

Speaking of McGrath, she's finally trying to summon resistance boomers to important Senate races:

https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1329455030731223041

Oh no this might be the kiss of death. Tell national Dems to stay away from Ga and let them run their own campaign like jeez

Not that this election was winnable for Democrats

Wrong.

I was talking about Kentucky. Democrats can absolutely win both Georgia seats.

At the rate things are going...definitely not.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

The voter file has been updated with preliminary Georgia 2020 data (most of the third party services hustled to get Georgia done first in time for the runoffs).

It looks like Democratic turnout was 70% while Republican turnout was 90%. We had modeled for Democratic turnout to be 68% and Republican turnout to be 84%. If this same pattern happened nationwide, it seems to confirm the working theory that the polling misses where they occurred predominantly came from undershooting Republican turnout. The electorate was also far more partisan than we anticipated in even our highest partisanship models (i.e. independent/nonpartisan voters were a lower share of the electorate) which also probably helped Democrats in the polls.

Our final poll, which showed Biden winning the state by 3 points (everyone here knows that I always say margins are meaningless, but it's as specific as I'm allowed to get), would have shown a tie under the turnout model based on the actual figures.

That definitely sounds to me like good news for the Dems. That would suggest that the vote that Trump got, as well as that Congressional/Senate Republicans got, was probably pretty close to a ceiling for Republicans (at least for the time being).

That makes me more optimistic about the runoffs and also the 2022 midterms than I was before, because it suggests that things may be less favorable for Republicans in lower turnout elections when Trump is not himself directly driving up GOP turnout by being on the ballot. This would also bode well for 2024 and future Presidential years, since GOP turnout in those future Presidential years pretty much can't be higher than it was this year, and they still lost.


Also just wondering - does the voter file data you are using have modeled race data in addition to the voter registration declared race? If so, and if you are allowed to share, how many of the "unknown" race voters are modeled as white vs non-white? And how does that compare to 2016 (and 2018)? There have been some articles claiming that African American vote share was lower in GA, but it is unclear if that is really true because of the "unknown" race voters. Similarly it would be helpful to know the turnout percentage for voters that are African American as compared to White. Because if Biden did in fact win with African American turnout not being that great, that would definitely be a good sign for Dems in the future, since it suggests Dems may be able to win GA even without absolutely perfect black turnout. That might also suggest that some of the swings to Trump in some African American rural counties may be more due to turnout differentials than black voters switching to the GOP than has been thought (which would also be a good thing).

If we knew that these things were the case, I would definitely be a lot more optimistic about Dem chances in the runoff election.

And so I also hope that you are correct and this turns out to be the case in other states as well. It would suggest that the "Emerging Democratic Majority" thesis might actually be still more on-track than has been feared and would suggest that the GOP will sooner or later be forced to go in the 2012 autopsy direction.

[KaiserDave]

The voter file has been updated with preliminary Georgia 2020 data (most of the third party services hustled to get Georgia done first in time for the runoffs).

It looks like Democratic turnout was 70% while Republican turnout was 90%. We had modeled for Democratic turnout to be 68% and Republican turnout to be 84%. If this same pattern happened nationwide, it seems to confirm the working theory that the polling misses where they occurred predominantly came from undershooting Republican turnout. The electorate was also far more partisan than we anticipated in even our highest partisanship models (i.e. independent/nonpartisan voters were a lower share of the electorate) which also probably helped Democrats in the polls.

Our final poll, which showed Biden winning the state by 3 points (everyone here knows that I always say margins are meaningless, but it's as specific as I'm allowed to get), would have shown a tie under the turnout model based on the actual figures.

Yeah, all things considered then, Georgia is zipping away fast from the GOP.

[Pollster]

The voter file has been updated with preliminary Georgia 2020 data (most of the third party services hustled to get Georgia done first in time for the runoffs).

It looks like Democratic turnout was 70% while Republican turnout was 90%. We had modeled for Democratic turnout to be 68% and Republican turnout to be 84%. If this same pattern happened nationwide, it seems to confirm the working theory that the polling misses where they occurred predominantly came from undershooting Republican turnout. The electorate was also far more partisan than we anticipated in even our highest partisanship models (i.e. independent/nonpartisan voters were a lower share of the electorate) which also probably helped Democrats in the polls.

Our final poll, which showed Biden winning the state by 3 points (everyone here knows that I always say margins are meaningless, but it's as specific as I'm allowed to get), would have shown a tie under the turnout model based on the actual figures.

That definitely sounds to me like good news for the Dems. That would suggest that the vote that Trump got, as well as that Congressional/Senate Republicans got, was probably pretty close to a ceiling for Republicans (at least for the time being).

That makes me more optimistic about the runoffs and also the 2022 midterms than I was before, because it suggests that things may be less favorable for Republicans in lower turnout elections when Trump is not himself directly driving up GOP turnout by being on the ballot. This would also bode well for 2024 and future Presidential years, since GOP turnout in those future Presidential years pretty much can't be higher than it was this year, and they still lost.


Also just wondering - does the voter file data you are using have modeled race data in addition to the voter registration declared race? If so, and if you are allowed to share, how many of the "unknown" race voters are modeled as white vs non-white? And how does that compare to 2016 (and 2018)? There have been some articles claiming that African American vote share was lower in GA, but it is unclear if that is really true because of the "unknown" race voters. Similarly it would be helpful to know the turnout percentage for voters that are African American as compared to White. Because if Biden did in fact win with African American turnout not being that great, that would definitely be a good sign for Dems in the future, since it suggests Dems may be able to win GA even without absolutely perfect black turnout. That might also suggest that some of the swings to Trump in some African American rural counties may be more due to turnout differentials than black voters switching to the GOP than has been thought (which would also be a good thing).

If we knew that these things were the case, I would definitely be a lot more optimistic about Dem chances in the runoff election.

And so I also hope that you are correct and this turns out to be the case in other states as well. It would suggest that the "Emerging Democratic Majority" thesis might actually be still more on-track than has been feared and would suggest that the GOP will sooner or later be forced to go in the 2012 autopsy direction.

Modeled ethnicity on our file for 2020 voters has 5% unknown. 57% white, 29% Black/African American (2016 was 59/30, 2018 was 58/31). We usually don't put much stock in these numbers, though. Modeled ethnicity is really difficult to get right and is prone to a lot of unavoidable error.

Should be noted that in Georgia and many states, the voter file has modeled party as well (for states without registration), though its significantly easier to model party ID than race.

[MT Treasurer]

It’s beyond obvious that the long-term prospects for Republicans are singularly bleak in GA (arguably more so than in any other state), which is why I don’t see Perdue/Loeffler winning by more than 4 points or so, but extrapolating GA trends or even a single voter file into a narrative about an emerging Democratic national majority which also includes unusual strength in midterm elections is pointless.

[President Johnson]

Potentially stupid question: What are the chances Donald Trump throwing Perdue and Loeffler under the bus now that the Secretary of State has certified the results (assuming Kemp follows Raffensberger)? So a Republican internal war would be great.

[Frenchrepublican]

https://twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/1329880058580918276?s=20

It will be interesting to see how much democratic PACs spend, anyway it's fair to say that this will be the most expensive senatorial election ever.

[Barack Oganja]

https://twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/1329880058580918276?s=20

It will be interesting to see how much democratic PACs spend, anyway it's fair to say that this will be the most expensive senatorial election ever.

Feels like there's a race that makes this true every single election these days

[Young Conservative]

Definitely clear that corporate America wants to preserve their tax cuts and is investing, as such.

[Ljube]

Definitely clear that corporate America wants to preserve their tax cuts and is investing, as such.

They aren't investing enough, in my opinion.
Too much is at stake here. They should be ready to spend 200 million at least.

Plus they should start harvesting ballots. Why would ballot harvesting be the Dem exclusive sport?

[Bootes Void]

Spending too much money can backfire. Reminds me of PA-18 back in 2018

[ProgressiveModerate]

Spending too much money can backfire. Reminds me of PA-18 back in 2018

While I agree, generally typically money only backfires when the partisanship of the state or district is unfavorable, and GA was basically a tie on the Presidential level

[Frenchrepublican]

Just imagine if a fraction of this money had been spent against Manchin and Tester in 2018.