Georgia senate seats runoff(s) megathread

[Florida Man for Crime]

Will we get any polling of the runoff race?

There is a Remington poll on the polling sub-forum, with Loeffler +1 and Perdue +4.

Anyway, here is my take on the race.

Realistically both of these races are lean R, and perhaps more realistically likely R. But anyway, it is not a tossup (at best it would be tilt R, though Lean R is more defensible I would say). This is barring unforeseen events that change the dynamic in a significant way, which could possibly include Trump's behavior.

In 2008 Georgia had a similar runoff election for Senate, which is instructive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia

In the General, Obama did as well as any Dem had in a long time in Georgia, and the Dem Senate candidate out-performed Obama and was only behind by 3 points to Saxby Chambliss. Note that is not far from how much Perdue came ahead of Ossoff in the 2020 General, and also not far from the D-R split in the Warnock-Loeffler race if you add all the minor candidates together.

Then in the runoff, the polls were like this:

Source    Date    Chambliss (R)    Martin (D)
Rasmussen Reports    November 18, 2008    50%    46%
Public Policy Polling    November 23, 2008    52%    46%
Public Policy Polling    November 30, 2008    53%    46%

Those suggested that although Chambliss would be expected to win, the race should at least be reasonably competitive. And who knows, maybe if the voters who voted enthusiastically for Obama turned up to support the President, maybe they could pull off an upset.

But what were the actual results? Chambliss won 57.4% - 42.6%. It wasn't even close, it was a blowout, by more than the polls said.

Yes, it is true that the Dem coalition is somewhat more favorable for low turnout elections now than it was then, and that will make a bit of a difference. But how much difference, exactly, are you expecting? It is going to be maybe a few points at most, not some massive difference.

The change in the coalitions also means that Dems are reliant on support from white suburbanite voters to have any chance of winning in Georgia. Those voters are fickle, and for a good number of them, their votes were probably more anti-Trump than pro-Biden (and more anti-Trumpist-Republican in general than pro-Democrat).

Sure, Dems will retain some support from these sorts of voters in the runoffs, but how much exactly? Remember that Biden only barely won Georgia, and that both Ossoff and Warnock (obviously due to # of candidates) underperformed Biden. You only need a very small number of those suburban white voters who used to vote R but disliked Trump to peel off in order for these runoffs to go R. A good number of these voters will be susceptible to "check on Biden" nonsense messaging (and then, subsequently will blame Biden when Biden either gets nothing done or alternatively resorts to 'overreaching executive orders,' but that is another story).

And will Black and young Democratic base voters turn out in the runoff? Sure, some probably will, but an awful lot will not.

Yes, there will also be drop-off among the Republican base, but they have more of a reason to vote to stop Biden, whereas the Dems will be (relatively) more complacent. Remember that for a lot of low info voters, all that matters is the President. People think the President is more powerful/more important than in reality, and a lot of those low information and not particularly political/motivated voters will think (not that they will really be thinking too hard about it in the first place) "Biden won, Trump is gone" and conclude that their work here is done, why bother showing up again for a runoff?

Remember that the reason why Georgia and other southern states have runoffs in the first place is to suppress black voters. They have been historically successful at doing that, and there is every reason to believe they will continue to be successful at doing that.

Overall, it would probably be more surprising if Warnock/Ossoff win than if Perdue/Loeffler win by more than 5 points. Set your expectations accordingly.

[Florida Man for Crime]

A closer runoff (than 2008) is the 2018 Secr of State runoff. The Republican went into runoff with a small lead.  What was the runoff result:
Republican: 51.9
Democrat:  48.1

I hope you are right, but I don't think you are. The crucical thing that you are not giving enough attention here is that in 2018, Trump was President, and Democrats were motivated to turn out to vote against Trump. People would vote Dem even in totally unrelated races such as GA SOS as a way of expressing anti-Trump sentiment. Runoff elections are pretty much like Special Elections, and it is normal for whichever party does not control the White House to do relatively well in special elections. Moreover, this was not a new phenomenon with Trump; with previous Presidents the party out-of-the-White House also does well in Specials/Runoffs.

Also note that even in this runoff from 2018, the GOP won...

And while it's true that Black turnout in prior runoff elections dropped off considerably- there is a big difference this year- There is a Black candidate on the ballot (with a chance to be the 1st Black Senator from Georgia)... and I think the first Black candidate to win a statewide election in Georgia.  Also, the possibility that the first Black VP would be the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

So I would argue the game-changer is that Black turnout will be sky high in the 2020 runoff.

In the 2008 Senate runoff, black voters had a chance to support the first African American President, Obama, shortly after his initial election and with all the excitement surrounding that in recent memory. Under such circumstances you would think that Black turnout would be relatively high. And yet, African American turnout in the runoff was low.

Also, think back as recently as 2018. There was a black candidate at the top of the ticket for Governor (Stacey Abrams). Yes, black turnout was good in 2018 for a midterm. But it still was not at fully Presidential levels, and as a result Abrams narrowly fell short. I would similarly not be too surprised if Black turnout were relatively good for a runoff, but in order for Dems to win, Black turnout needs to be better than just relatively good for a runoff. You need to hit similar %s of the electorate being African American as in a Presidential election like what we just had.

The other advantage for Dems is that they dominated the mail-in vote.  And mail-in voters are the most likely to be repeat voters in the runoff, due to the lack of (relative) time commitment required to vote by mail.  Additionally, Jan 5th is a very busy time of the year due to the holidays- which will likely impact same-day voter turnout (to some extent).

I agree, this is a good point. It is plausible that Dems could get higher than normal turnout due to the relative ease of voting by mail, especially if people are already getting sent ballots. If there is any chance of winning, I would say the chance would have to rely heavily on this. Dems need super-aggressive and super-effective vote by mail mobilization. Hopefully lots of resources are dumped into that, rather than just into ineffective TV ad spam. However, remember that in the election we just had, a lot of the votes were cast in person (early in person voting) also, not just mail...

[Florida Man for Crime]

Not wanting a Dem trifecta is the height of madness.

We already know exactly what McConnell is going to do.  We already know exactly where this country is going.  The Senate Republicans are beyond salvation.  They won't even recognize that Biden won the election!  The Biden presidency is going to begin with Senate Republicans refusing to pass any COVID stimulus package, and that will be the first in a series of actions intended to intentionally destroy America, so that they can blame it on Biden.  And just like with Obama, dummy Americans will believe it.  "Oh, he didn't have a good relationship with Congress.  He wasn't a good compromiser."

You are correct that we all know what McConnell will do.

But back in the primaries, you were singing a very different tune when you were hacking for Biden and trying to beat back Bernie.

At the time, apparently you didn't know that McConnell would do that.

According to you, Biden would be able to work with McConnell and the Senate would "return to normal" if we just had a President Biden rather than a President Sanders:

The tea party and McConnell stonewalling Obama and holding the country hostage over the debt ceiling was an aberration, not the norm.  It may be that the next Congress treats a Democratic president the same way.  But I think we are much more likely to see a return to normal relations if we have a president Biden who knows how the Senate works and has decades of connections and experience writing and passing effective, substantial bipartisan legislation.  A president Sanders who has decades of doing nothing and making everyone hate him, famously refuses to compromise, and takes the most extreme position on every issue?  Ain't gonna happen.

Magical Biden bipartisanship sparkle ponies? Why don't we just send Biden in to reason with McConnell. Surely it will work out then, we'll get some wonderful bipartisan legislation then, right? And we will get ponies, too.

What ever happened to that MacArthur?

[Florida Man for Crime]

-"Defund the police" is still a big problem for Democrats. Court packing, Green New Deal, and filibuster abolishment are not, and none fit into successful anti-Dem narratives the way that defunding the police does.

So, if Biden wants to get any legislation passed at all in his Presidency, maybe he should try do something like this:

1) Over the next week or two, come out with a major plan to "Fund and Reform the Police."
2) The core of this would be some sort of federal legislation to increase funding for the police, but direct the funding towards things like funding better and more extensive training across the nation for police in how to react well in difficult situations and avoid resorting to excessive violence in situations where that is not appropriate and the like especially in the context of race, i.e. to better avoid situations in which police have killed innocent black people unnecessarily. Also throw in other stuff like raising police salaries with federal matching funds etc.
3) Biden goes down to Georgia and announces his "Fund and Reform the Police" legislation/plan, and Biden emphasizes that his plan to Fund the Police is his number one legislative priority other than handling COVID and COVID relief (and this COVID relief, btw, is branded as "Funding Firefighters and Teachers" and the like - so Biden wants to Fund the Police, fund Firefighters, Fund Teachers). Get Warnock and Ossoff there as well and keep talking about how they support Biden's plan to Fund the Police etc, and get the whole Democratic party talking about this. When talking to progressives, the "and reform" aspect of this can be emphasized, whereas in other contexts the "fund" aspect can be emphasized.
4) Ask Perdue/Loeffler if they support Biden's plan to Fund the Police.
5) Even if they support it, which they won't (at least not entirely with a blank check no questions asked endorsement), attack Perdue/Loeffler for their opposition to funding the police. Run a bunch of messaging saying that Perdue and Loeffler have come out against funding the police and consequently they want to defund the police. Anything other than full-throated endorsement of Biden's particular plan to fund the police amounts to wanting to defund the police. Whereas Biden's top non-COVID priority is to make sure the police are well funded (and reformed), and if you elect Warnock/Ossoff, that is what they will work with Biden to do. Keep repeating this endlessly, the same message about funding the police, until the runoff. Just hammer it, then hammer it again, and then hammer it again, and then hammer it again, and then hammer it again, and then... you get the picture.

IDK if this would work, but it seems like the alternative is that nothing of significance except some executive orders will happen in Biden's presidency. So seems like it is worth a shot.

[Florida Man for Crime]

To anyone who is optimistic about Dem chances in these runoffs, particularly for Ossoff, can you explain why we should expect Ossoff in particular to win given that he lost the 2017 GA-06 special election/runoff? Why should we expect Dem turnout to be better now in a statewide runoff with a President Biden just having been elected than then in GA-06 with a President Trump (and a GOP trifecta at the time)?

One of the major things preventing me from being at all optimistic about these runoffs are the results in that special election at a time when the national environment should have been more favorable for Dems than now.

[Florida Man for Crime]

To anyone who is optimistic about Dem chances in these runoffs, particularly for Ossoff, can you explain why we should expect Ossoff in particular to win given that he lost the 2017 GA-06 special election/runoff? Why should we expect Dem turnout to be better now in a statewide runoff with a President Biden just having been elected than then in GA-06 with a President Trump (and a GOP trifecta at the time)?

One of the major things preventing me from being at all optimistic about these runoffs are the results in that special election at a time when the national environment should have been more favorable for Dems than now.

How is that relevant though, considering McBath came back and won? Ossoff only lost 2017 pretty much bc the race was so nationalized. Also there was way more antipathy towards Trump in 2018 than 2017

The relevance of the comparison that I am suggesting is basically that that was a special election/runoff held fairly shortly after Trump was elected. By the time of the runoff Trump had already done the Muslim ban, and stuff was coming out regarding Russia, FBI, etc. The initial special election was on April 18, 2017 and the runoff was June 20, 2017. For some context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_investigations_into_Donald_Trump_and_Russia_(January%E2%80%93June_2017)

e.g.:

April 4: BuzzFeed News identifies "Male-1", described in 2015 US government court documents containing evidence of a Russian spy ring attempting to recruit American assets in New York, as Carter Page.[176][177]

June 8: Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence committee in both open and closed hearings.[282][33]:41[35]:774

June 16: Trump tweets: "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt."[294]


Basically, if we should expect that GA as a whole should now be significantly more favorable to Dems during run-off/special elections, then I would think we should have expected that to definitely be the case in 2017 when all the above stuff was in the process of coming out, and there was a GOP trifecta (so voting for a Dem House candidate would just help to 'check and balance' Trump), and the special election in question was in precisely the area (northern Atlanta) where you would expect more of a pro-Dem swing than in the state as a whole.

Sure, Dems won GA-06 in 2018 and in 2020, but neither of those were run-off elections or special elections.

[Florida Man for Crime]

The theory is that statewide in 2020, only higher-propensity voters will show up for a runoff, and that rural whites are low-propensity voters unlikely to show up in such high numbers without Trump on the ballot. With this happening, Democrats can afford to slightly underperform Biden with high propensity North Atlanta suburb voters (still winning them) and get 50.1%.

I'm not quite convinced, but I don't think it's entirely unrealistic. GA Dems certainly have the stronger GOTV infrastructure.

Yes, but if Dems benefited from more higher propensity voters showing up now, you would think that benefit would also have occurred in 2017 in GA-06, where there was a greater concentration of those higher propensity voters than statewide. Although I guess maybe you might be trying to say that the GOP base in GA-06 is also higher propensity; if so, that does sort of make sense. The GOP drop-off in run-offs should be more from WWC voters, and I guess there are proportionally fewer of those in GA-06 than statewide.

Yes, the GOTV infrastructure and vote by mail organization will probably help though.

[Florida Man for Crime]

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.

[Florida Man for Crime]

One thing that I find so curi ous about this race is that it seems like both sides are pessimistic on their chances of winning. Normally on Atlas, and throughout other election communities, Democrats tend to be bullish on Democrats while Republicans tend to be bullish on Republicans, yet for these, I feel like I'm seeing a more than usual number of people from both sides saying the other side will win. Democrats generally seem worried their voters won't show up, and the opposite is true for Republicans, who worry their base won't show up. Anyone else who feels this way?

The difference is that Democrats have actual reasons which reference facts and rational discourse to justify their pessimism, whereas the Republicans who are pessimistic are just pessimistic because they believe baseless conspiracy theories that the elections are somehow rigged in Georgia by Republicans against Republicans.

Ironically, the only thing that can really give Dems the faintest sliver of hope is the very fact that Republicans apparently believe and are promoting these conspiracy theories, and pretending that Trump won the election rather than facing the reality that he lost by 8 million votes, and are attempting to overturn the election based on nothing and install Trump as dictator, which might cause a few extra suburbanites to vote Dem in repulsion at that.

[Florida Man for Crime]

That may be true to some degree, but even on this forum, Trump supporters such as Buzz who have accepted the results of the election has expressed some concerns about Republican’s chances despite generally being favorable to Trump and Republicans in his predictions.

Um, this doesn't sound all that pessimistic about Republican chances in the GA runoffs....:

Any poll showing Perdue tied or trailing is certified junk.  You can chose to believe it but you will be in the same position the polls put you in a couple weeks ago.  I won’t be posting much as I’m burnt out after the last few months, but Perdue is a LOCK.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Radical liberal Raphael Warnock is doomed

[Florida Man for Crime]

Mail ballot requests continue to skew non-white as more come in

Special election mail ballot requests: 1,167,996 (53.6% white/31.2% black/5.3% asian or hispanic/9.1% other)

GE mail ballot requests: 1,782,580 (51.2% white/31.4% black/6.6% asian or hispanic/10.8% other)

By "skew non-white" do you mean that the white % is going down as compared to what it was a few days ago? Overall it is still higher than the GE mail ballot requests, are you suggesting that once all the requests are in the White % will be lower or that it is getting lower?

[Florida Man for Crime]

Mail ballot requests continue to skew non-white as more come in

Special election mail ballot requests: 1,167,996 (53.6% white/31.2% black/5.3% asian or hispanic/9.1% other)

GE mail ballot requests: 1,782,580 (51.2% white/31.4% black/6.6% asian or hispanic/10.8% other)

By "skew non-white" do you mean that the white % is going down as compared to what it was a few days ago? Overall it is still higher than the GE mail ballot requests, are you suggesting that once all the requests are in the White % will be lower or that it is getting lower?

I think it used to be around 56%; not really enough data to suggests a trend but let’s see if the white % continues to go down

If it used to be 56% and is trending down, then that is a very promising trend. Also (if that is the case) it is very promising that the African American share is almost the same as in the General Election.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Mail ballot requests continue to skew non-white as more come in

Special election mail ballot requests: 1,167,996 (53.6% white/31.2% black/5.3% asian or hispanic/9.1% other)

GE mail ballot requests: 1,782,580 (51.2% white/31.4% black/6.6% asian or hispanic/10.8% other)

So checking back in on this, it looks like the White percentage is indeed going down. It was 53.6% yesterday white, now down to 53.2%. If it were hypothetically to go down by 0.4% each day, then we would get to 51.2% white in 5 more days. The black percentage share also held firm at 31.4%.

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/GA_RO.html

Race    Count    Percent
Non-Hispanic White    636,821    53.2
Non-Hispanic Black    375,756    31.4
Hispanic    25,561    2.1
Non-Hispanic Asian American    38,465    3.2
Non-Hispanic Native American    1,607    0.1
Other/Multiple/Unknown    108,168    9.0

[Florida Man for Crime]

Steve Daines? Tilt R -> Safe R (unless Tester campaigns for Ds in GA, in which case the state implodes)

I mean true, but Sarah Palin attending probably cancels out Daines' superpowers

What's the story here- why would Daines or Tester have any impact in GA?

Because they are both unbeatable titans.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Steve Daines? Tilt R -> Safe R (unless Tester campaigns for Ds in GA, in which case the state implodes)

I mean true, but Sarah Palin attending probably cancels out Daines' superpowers

What's the story here- why would Daines or Tester have any impact in GA?

Because they are both unbeatable titans.

I assume I'm missing some sort of sarcastic joking regarding Daines & Tester having any impact in GA?

On a slightly different note, although I go back and forth regarding the possibility of a split result (and similarly regarding if the results will be extremely close or not)-  I keep going back to the notion that all of the unknown factors regarding turnout, are going to break to one party- enough so that one party will win both seats by something like 3-4% & 1-2% respectively).

Steve Daines and Jon Tester both bring unique characteristics to the table that are uniquely suited to have a significant impact on the Georgia Senate runoffs, albeit in different ways. In a close election, their intervention could potentially tip the balance either way.

First, consider Jon Tester. When Jon Tester was a young Jon, of about 9 years of age, he unfortunately lost 3 of his fingers in an agricultural accident involving a meat grinder. As a result of this, all Jon Tester has to do is flash his hand in the air, and *BOOM* instant farm credibility.

So now consider the position that Radical Liberal Raphael Warnock finds himself in. Kelly Loeffler made quite clear in the recent debate that one of the main reasons people in Georgia should vote for her is that she grew up on a farm. However, if Radical Liberal Raphael Warnock can get Jon Tester to come in to vouch for him, the tables start to turn pretty radically. Just consider the thoughts that go through the minds of the typical Appling County GA rural voter when they see Jon Tester vouching for Raphael Warnock, and then compare that to Kelly Loeffler. Kelly Loeffler has unusally long hair. Imagine if she were to do some work with a meatgrinder. What do you think would happen? Well, pretty quickly her hair would get sucked into the meatgrinder. First just 1 hair, but then the other hairs would get pulled in sequence, leading to potential for a dangerous accident. By contrast, Jon Tester learned from his meatgrinder accident, and has short, closely cropped hair. As a result, if Jon Tester were to work with a meatgrinder, he could do so safely without risk of his hair being pulled into the meatgrinder. Who would you trust to grind meat - Kelly Loeffler or Jon Tester? Clearly Jon Tester. And by extension, Radical Liberal Raphael Warnock.

Next, consider Steve Daines. Steve Daines is pretty widely recognized as perhaps one of the most Bipartisan Senators in the United States Senate. His record of bipartisanship goes back many years, and includes things such as his
Daines' Bipartisan Wildfire Prevention Bill which he introduced with Democratic Senator Feinstein of California. Daines also was a key player in passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, which contained permanent funding for the Land, Water and Conservation Fund and billions of dollars for national park maintenance. What is more, Senator Daines helped expand acreage in the Bob Marshall Wilderness when Barack Obama was president, and paired up with Democrats to pass a bill granting benefits to Vietnam Navy veterans harmed by Agent Orange. I could keep talking about Daines' Bipartisan accomplishment for pages and pages, but I am starting to run dangerously close to the character limit for this post, so I will have to try to keep things concise. I will, however, add that Daines voted with Democrats last year to move a bill out of committee to reduce prescription drug prices and also has co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to help solve the U.S. Postal Service’s financial woes. OK, I will stop now, I promise, although I could say more.

But anyway, now consider the position that Suburban King David Perdue finds himself in. He is running for re-election in a state that Democrat Joe Biden just won - the first time in more than 20 years (since Bill Clinton) that Democrats won Georgia (with a very different coalition). The Georgia GOP has been hemmorhagging votes in the Atlanta suburbs, especially in the past few years, and is full of moderate suburbanite voters who want to see the parties work together and compromise. They just voted for Joe Biden, but while they don't want to give Biden a blank check, they do want their Senators to work constructively with Biden on Bipartisan legislation for the national common good, to Solve Problems (™). In order to win, Perdue needs to hold on to enough of these moderate suburban swing voters, who voted for Biden but voted GOP in the past, and want Bipartisanship and good governance. So who better to come in and vouch for David Perdue's Bipartisan credentials than Steve Daines? That's right... I can hear the wheels turning in your head. Nobody can do a better job of assuaging such concerns than Bipartisan Senator Steve Daines.

In sum, both Tester and Daines are uniquely situated to shore up key weaknesses and help candidates on their side to victory - in Tester's case, he can help Warnock get enough rural support so that he can dominate in the Atlanta metro and win without being outvoted by the rurals. And in Daines' case, he can help David Perdue retain just enough grip on the Suburbs where for many years he has reigned, but which have been trending sharply against the GOP, to pull out a win.

I hope this #Analysis helps to clear things up.

[Florida Man for Crime]

I really don't get why Atlas obsesses over people like Daines going to GA to support the Republican canidates. Ultimately, very very few GA voters know who Steve Daines is

That may be the case now, but Steve Daines has only just started to retail campaign. In addition to his Bipartisanship, Steve Daines is known for his prowess at the art of retail campaigning (like many Senators from small rural states, including his fellow Senator Jon Tester).

, and the ones who do know him are probably politically engaged enough to the point where they are certain to vote, and have already made up their mind.

You talk about juicing turnout as though it is a bad thing. If Steve Daines can help increase Republican turnout, that will help Republicans.

The only surrogates with real power are those with big names like Trump or Obama, everything else is just a bunch of drama, just drama.

Not really. David Perdue does not really need Trump to be his surrogate. The problem that David Perdue has is in the suburbs, where Trump would actually hurt. What he needs to hold on to the suburbs is a voice that can credibly testify to Perdue's moderation and Bipartisan work ethic - just as Steve Daines is uniquely well-equipped to do. Likewise, Radical Liberal Raphael Warnock doesn't much need help from Obama. Warnock is African American, and has lots of support from Stacey Abrams' turnout machine. But what Warnock DOES need help with is making sure he doesn't do too horrendously in rural GA, especially among rural white voters. Jon Tester can help persuade those voters that Raphael Warnock can't be that bad, because if he gets on with Jon Tester, then he would get on well with people like them and must be at heart a good guy.

Again, this election will come down to turnout; both sides have the votes to win these runoffs, it's just a question of how well the voters are activated. There are very few swing voters, let alone those who care about Steve Daine's bipartisan bills, and for the few undecided voters, Steve Daines will have very little influence over their voting choice.

Just look at the many many posters on this very discussion board who exemplify the Atlanta area suburban voters who have swung towards the Dems, but who voted Republican to the past and may be willing to do so now also, especially since Biden will be the next President. What these voters want is compromise, bipartisanship, and cooperation. They are repelled by Trumpist excess, and need a calm reassuring voice like Steve Daines rambling on about his bipartisan bills. Ultimately little can help with these voters more than Steve Daines and his Bipartisan bills. Those will put you to sleep, and that is EXACTLY WHAT THESE VOTERS WANT. A RETURN TO NORMALCY. SO THAT THEY CAN JUST SLEEP SOUNDLY.

If I see one more post about Steve Daines in this thread, I’m going to flip out, and trust me, you do not want to see the angry Progressive Moderate

You are a typical Angry Radical Liberal, just like Raphael Warnock. You know what that sort of attitude does? It alienates Metro Atlanta suburban college-educated white swing voters. Despite how much you want to riot and loot, if you want a chance for your favored candidates to win, you will need to restrain yourself and allow Jon Tester to work his retail campaigning magic on rural white voters.

[Florida Man for Crime]

So checking back in on this, it looks like the White percentage is indeed going down. It was 53.6% yesterday white, now down to 53.2%. If it were hypothetically to go down by 0.4% each day, then we would get to 51.2% white in 5 more days. The black percentage share also held firm at 31.4%.

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/GA_RO.html

Race    Count    Percent
Non-Hispanic White    636,821    53.2
Non-Hispanic Black    375,756    31.4
Hispanic    25,561    2.1
Non-Hispanic Asian American    38,465    3.2
Non-Hispanic Native American    1,607    0.1
Other/Multiple/Unknown    108,168    9.0

Update again on this, the White share is continuing to go down, while the Black share is going up. That has to be a positive trend for the Dems. This is definitely making me more optimistic than I was about the Dem's chances:

Race    Count    Percent
Non-Hispanic White    646,591    53.0
Non-Hispanic Black    385,171    31.6
Hispanic    26,539    2.2
Non-Hispanic Asian American    39,503    3.2
Non-Hispanic Native American    1,650    0.1
Other/Multiple/Unknown    110,552    9.1
TOTAL    1,220,685    100.0


The White:Black ratio for absentee requests was 0.613 in the General Election

Currently it is 0.596 and still trending up.

The question is how many more days are there still going to be more requests coming in, and will it keep trending up?

This is suggestive that African American turnout may be just fine for the run-off, and if AA turnout is good while college whites vote relatively more than non-college whites, then Dems do have a legitimate shot at this, despite Biden being President elect. That is also in part due to Trump's atrocious behavior and how he is staying in the news trying to overturn the election, which will probably help Dems among suburban college whites.

[Florida Man for Crime]

AOC should ask Perdue to send her the plane ticket to go to GA, and then when (if) she gets it, don't bother to go after all, and instead simply tweet "A fool and his money are soon parted."

[Florida Man for Crime]

Mail ballot requests continue to skew non-white as more come in

Special election mail ballot requests: 1,167,996 (53.6% white/31.2% black/5.3% asian or hispanic/9.1% other)

GE mail ballot requests: 1,782,580 (51.2% white/31.4% black/6.6% asian or hispanic/10.8% other)

Yeah, in just a few days, White has now gone from 53.6% to 53.0% and Black from 31.2% to 31.6%.

It seems like the trend may be starting to slow down, it only went down from 53.0% to 52.9% white today with not many more requests reported. However, maybe that is a weekend reporting effect, perhaps a number of counties don't report as much on the weekend?:

Race    Count    Percent
Non-Hispanic White    648,865    52.9
Non-Hispanic Black    388,301    31.6
Hispanic    26,738    2.2
Non-Hispanic Asian American    39,727    3.2
Non-Hispanic Native American    1,663    0.1
Other/Multiple/Unknown    111,165    9.1
TOTAL    1,227,285    100.0

[Florida Man for Crime]

Typically midterms don't really have a huge effect on Georgia

There is only really a single case that really can be used to support your point where there were competitive elections in GA in a midterm, and that is 2014.

The last previous case where there were competitive-ish elections in a midterm in GA was probably 2002 (certainly not 2010 or 2006), and I think Max Cleland would probably beg to differ that the midterm didn't have much of an effect on him.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Typically midterms don't really have a huge effect on Georgia

There is only really a single case that really can be used to support your point where there were competitive elections in GA in a midterm, and that is 2014.

The last previous case where there were competitive-ish elections in a midterm in GA was probably 2002 (certainly not 2010 or 2006), and I think Max Cleland would probably beg to differ that the midterm didn't have much of an effect on him.

I would beg to differ with your wording's implication that the 2018 midterms didn't see a competitive-ish election in GA

2018 was competitive, and I didn't mean to suggest that it was not, but it can't really be used to argue that there is no difference in comparison to the previous Presidential election. Abrams lost by just a bit more than 1%, whereas Clinton lost GA by a bit more than 5%. A 4 point improvement in the margin, to me, seems to indicate the out of power party doing better in a midterm, and hence indicates midterms in GA having a significant effect. If, by contrast, it had been a Hillary Clinton midterm, I doubt GA-GOV 2018 would have been that close, I would have expected it to be more similar to 2014.

[Florida Man for Crime]

With regard to racial composition of the runoff electorate thus far, remember that early in-person voting begins today and the GOP electorate will start pouring into the ballot boxes. For November's election, VBM racial breakdowns had whites in the low-50s before early in-person voting began (just as they are now); by the time it ended, whites were back around 58-59%. In a normal election, the electorate would begin getting substantially whiter with each passing day. That effect may be muted somewhat for a runoff, since this election has naturally lower awareness among rank-and-file voters; a greater percentage of black voters may also vote in-person this time when compared to November.

Also remember that among the mail ballots requested, 631,332 were automatically sent due to requesting a mail ballot in the primary and/or general by those 65+, disabled, veteran or overseas (the 65+ segment is the vast, vast majority). That's a majority of all mail ballots requested for the runoff thus far, so don't read too much into the total number of mail ballots requested (especially because of the age breakdowns among these voters). Likewise, with only 21% of requested ballots being returned thus far with early in-person voting starting today, these VBM request totals are pretty worthless as far as #analysis goes.  

This is all true, but you can do an apples-to-apples comparison of VBM requests now to VBM requests in the general, which tells you in a general sense whether "things look better" or "things look worse." Of course, the same should be done for in person early voting, absentee returns, and other metrics as well, and they may or may not tell different stories. But in any case, it is always relevant - but not determinate - to know the demographics of who is voting.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Mail ballot requests continue to skew non-white as more come in

Special election mail ballot requests: 1,167,996 (53.6% white/31.2% black/5.3% asian or hispanic/9.1% other)

GE mail ballot requests: 1,782,580 (51.2% white/31.4% black/6.6% asian or hispanic/10.8% other)

Yeah, in just a few days, White has now gone from 53.6% to 53.0% and Black from 31.2% to 31.6%.

It seems like the trend may be starting to slow down, it only went down from 53.0% to 52.9% white today with not many more requests reported. However, maybe that is a weekend reporting effect, perhaps a number of counties don't report as much on the weekend?:

Race    Count    Percent
Non-Hispanic White    648,865    52.9
Non-Hispanic Black    388,301    31.6
Hispanic    26,738    2.2
Non-Hispanic Asian American    39,727    3.2
Non-Hispanic Native American    1,663    0.1
Other/Multiple/Unknown    111,165    9.1
TOTAL    1,227,285    100.0

Slight further improvement despite weekend reporting seemingly being delayed. There are literally only about 2k new ballot requests reported today, but that is enough to drop the White share another tenth of a percent and increase the black share another tenth of a percent, because more of the new requests that were reported are actually from Black than from White voters:

Race    Count    Percent
Non-Hispanic White    649,897    52.8
Non-Hispanic Black    389,461    31.7
Hispanic    26,787    2.2
Non-Hispanic Asian American    39,805    3.2
Non-Hispanic Native American    1,666    0.1
Other/Multiple/Unknown    111,423    9.1
TOTAL    1,229,917    100.0

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://twitter.com/gtryan/status/1338824661015138309?s=20

Atlas: “Turnout’s going to be low because a Dixiecrat who ran away from the shadow of Obama lost a low turnout election over a decade ago before millions of new voters joined the voter rolls.”

The funny thing is Jim Martin was not a Dixiecrat, he was an urban white progressive Dem from Atlanta lol - pretty close to the demographic that Democrats have appealed to to make gains in the northern part of the Atlanta metro (pretty much the same demographic as Jon Ossoff for one).

Anyway, the turnout so far seems to make it clear that it is not going to be a repeat of the 2008 runoff. The worst case scenario of a blowout R win can pretty much be ruled out at this point, it seems implausible that Rs can win by more than 5% or so at the very most, and more likely it will be closer than that and the Dems do have a realistic chance of winning.

The interesting question is how much of this is due to what factors? How much of the higher turnout is due to Trump, specifically, sticking around and refusing to concede the election? How much is due to the general trend of higher turnout and political engagement that has gone back for at least a decade or two in general? How much of it is due to control of the Senate depending on this race? I think these are all significant factors explaining high turnout relative to some historical runoffs.