Georgia's Very Own Megathread!

[Adam Griffin]

A lot of questions like these will be cleared up in the next couple of weeks, when the state publishes age, race and gender turnout breakdowns for every precinct in the state. We'll be able to see clear correlations beyond the county level, and also see who exactly voted in each county. I just don't want to wait that long to speculate.

[Adam Griffin]

BTW, I'd say this map is more likely to show where Dixiecrats are disproportionately influencing (particularly in the Yes >70% counties). I really wish I had done these with 5-point gradients, but oh well:



Can't wait to do the mass transit one: pretty much the distance from ATL seems to have influenced the outcome.

[Adam Griffin]

Again, 4 specific counties (Taliaferro, Washington, Wilkinson and Montgomery) show substantial signs of Dixiecrat meddling. Echols (which Bernie won in 2016) and Clinch are also other less obvious examples.

[Adam Griffin]

*snip*

Oh, absolutely - even in Whitfield, you're doing good to have 15% of the total electorate be Latino in a presidential year (which is roughly what it was in 2016 if I recall correctly, when you include the large segment of "other/unknown" registered voters as classified by SoS who are in fact Latino). That number is growing rapidly, though: it was something like 10-11% in 2012 and in the single digits in 2008.

But that number is obviously a bit bigger in the Democratic primary, even when assuming fewer Latinos as a share of the electorate show up to vote compared to a general. Prior to 2016, our baseline Democratic electorate in Whitfield was approximately 60% White, 25% Latino and 15% Black, making us one of the only counties in GA where not only are whites the majority of the Democratic electorate, but where blacks are not the runners-up, so to speak (maybe even the only; not sure if Latinos have become the #2 bloc even in Gwinnett or Hall). I'll need to go check the data for 2016 to get an approximate figure, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Latino percentage of our electorate in the 2016 general was one-third of our vote-bloc.

In a primary, however, I'm sure those numbers are lower. Nevertheless, in most of the surrounding and far northern counties, you're dealing with Democratic electorates that are 90-95% white or more, so it would still be a fairly big difference in a primary.

EDIT: and yes, at least as of a few years ago, two of the three counties with the highest percentage of workers in manufacturing in the country were in NW Georgia. I believe #2 was Murray (our neighbor) and #3 was Whitfield; the #1 county is home to Elkhart, Indiana I believe. It's also no surprise that these two MSAs were the hardest hit by the recession as a share of jobs lost (~25%) during the height of the economic situation.

[Adam Griffin]

It's similar to how parts of Central California and Eastern Washington have heavily Hispanic precincts that are 70% or more Republican. The CVAP is far lower than the population.

Yes, it's a common phenomenon outside of any urban area where a large Latino presence has appeared in the past 30 years for the area to be substantially GOP. In my county, you're looking at 40-45% of the Latino population being non-citizens, and of those who are citizens, a disproportionate share are still under the age of 30. Basically, here, 80% of those over 50 are non-citizens and 80% under 30 are citizens.

When you control for those factors, Latinos are actually voting at comparable levels to whites in places like this (i.e. old Latinos can't vote for the most part, and young Latinos - who comprise most of the citizenry - are voting at levels compared to young whites, which is at piss-poor levels but not unique to them based on race or ethnicity).

[Adam Griffin]

Fascinating stuff an awesome effort post as always Fmr. President....

I keep forgetting that because Georgia is still a VRA State, that one can actually drill down the self-identified "race/ethnicity" numbers to model turnout numbers....

So based upon what you have discovered in Whitfield County, Latino baseline composition of the Democratic Primary (Assuming a GE year election) are roughly 25% of the Democratic Electorate, and possibly as high as 15% in a "Good Year--- 2016" of the Total GE electorate?

So, this raises some interesting questions as well, since 80% of Latino voters 50+ are non-citizens, and 80% under 30 are citizens....

Is it fair to say that the vast majority Latino electorate of Whitfield County skews heavily Millennial???

If so, one would imagine that when it comes to certain types of Social Issues, these voters would tend to be fairly Liberal compared to their Parents/ Grandparents....

Whoops, I should have clarified: the 25% number is a baseline for their share of the Democratic electorate in a presidential general election (based on 2012 GE figures). In a midterm, that number has historically dropped dramatically (I believe it was ~15% of our electorate in 2014 GE), and in presidential primaries, somewhere in between.

For this year's primary specifically, I can't say until the figures come out: in part, it's hard to say that any one number/percentage is the norm because the Latino share of the electorate across all types of contests here is growing so rapidly and was practically nothing as little as 12 years ago, so my baselines are generally just relevant for the last comparable election.

Just to give you somewhat of an example, the white share of the overall electorate in Whitfield in presidential general elections has been dropping at roughly one point per year since 2000 (96% white in 2000, 92% white in 2004, 87% white in 2008, 82% white in 2012 and 78% white in 2016; while not all of that was Latino growth, the vast majority was).

And yes: Millennials are a huge percentage of the Democratic Latino electorate. I remember that in 2016, a little over 70% of Latino Democratic presidential primary voters were 18-30 in Whitfield, and actually was the first time Latinos were a plurality in any age group (in this case, 18-30) in any Democratic contest here. Compare that to the electorate at-large and it's an incredible difference. I don't have the figures for the general on-hand but I imagine they're equally insane.

[Adam Griffin]

For what it's worth, I never received any outreach from down-ballot candidates in terms of mail, calls, etc save for two: one of them was John Barrow. Being one of a relative handful of people in a non-metro county who would be identified as a "Strong Democrat" in Democratic voter files, that tells me he was one of the very few down-ballot who ran a legitimate statewide campaign targeting as many Democrats as possible.

[Adam Griffin]

This is really weird but for the number crunchers out there, can you guesstimate how Milton, Fulton, and Campbell counties would have voted in 2016 with their pre-1929 boundaries?

Give or take a few points:

Milton: Clinton 49-46
Fulton: Clinton 76-19
Campbell: Clinton 85-13

Estimates are based off of 2008 totals and inferring general trends in '12/'16 for each broader area.

[Adam Griffin]

This is really weird but for the number crunchers out there, can you guesstimate how Milton, Fulton, and Campbell counties would have voted in 2016 with their pre-1929 boundaries?

Give or take a few points:

Milton: Clinton 49-46
Fulton: Clinton 76-19
Campbell: Clinton 85-13

Estimates are based off of 2008 totals and inferring general trends in '12/'16 for each broader area.

Thanks you're awesome! I wanted to see if Trump won the old Milton area barely, but a small Clinton plurality seems about right. I also wanted to see how far to the left old Fulton and Campbell would go. Campbell would have just barely been the most Democratic county in the state, just a tinge to the left of Clayton.

No trouble at all! At second glance, I feel one of those projections at minimum is off unless the voter distribution in the county is way different than the population. Based on the old 2010 population estimates, it would suggest Clinton easily cleared 70% of the vote, which didn't happen. I'm not sure which might be off, though. I have a hard time seeing Clinton sink below 85% in a 85% black area (Campbell), and the swings in north Fulton had to be at least several points greater than the county as a whole...however, maybe my estimates for Milton are too generous.


Looks like Low-Energy Cagle is coming up with a new name for his opponent:

 

[Adam Griffin]

Not only is that pun terrible (and I love puns!)but couldn't Cagle at least try to use a less awkward picture? He looks like he's holding in a fart.

I assure you: that's just the way he looks!

In reality, what it really looks like he's always trying to hold in is a classic case of Gay-Face™ from peeking out too much.

[Adam Griffin]

Why is Cagle doing so well? So much of politics is image and identity, but Cagle looks like he should be running for the PTA in Brooklyn. Like, as much as I dislike Kemp, at least he looks and sounds like a man's man in a primary that is (I would assume) dictated in part by how much masculinity you can exude. What's going on here?

and before I get flamed to death: I'm not saying that having masculine characteristics makes one a better candidate, I'm saying that my expectation is that it would give one a competitive advantage in a Republican primary race.

The short and sweet of it is: Cagle has been Lt Gov for 12 years and GAGOP voters are much more mainline as a whole than in many other Southern states. I've written multiple times in previous pages and threads about how Cagle is actually the loonier of the two when you get down to brass tacks, but there is a substantial segment of GAGOP voters who will defer to the incumbent or "mainline" candidate, and of those, a huge portion are lobotomized in effect (i.e. basically assuming that whoever has the blessing of the establishment and/or who is the incumbent must be the more reasonable candidate).

In this case/additionally, Cagle has also campaigned as the mainline option (despite being the more extreme; while Kemp, the more moderate of the two, has flanked to the right to try to win) and has been able to do so successfully due to the power of incumbency and the state establishment siding with him because of said incumbency.  

Remember, Georgia is substantially urbanized compared to many other states. While there are plenty of nuts and weirdos of that classic Southern variety here, the share of GOP voters statewide who come from metro areas isn't that much smaller than it is for the Democrats. At least on the surface, these people like to believe they're more dignified than their rural and/or reactionary, Tea-Party, Trump-loving counterparts.

[Adam Griffin]

Wow that's some petty politics right there. Cagle really might be more evil.

Trust: he is.

[Adam Griffin]

A narrow Democratic win in 2018 probably looks something like this:



The "peripheral expansion counties" as I call them (places like Meriwether, McIntosh, Wilkes, etc) are hard to predict, but I think they have a much better chance of all going GOP even with a statewide D win at this point than even 1 of them going D (Meriwether may be the exception to that). The SW portion of the Black Belt is collapsing fast, too: it's possible none of those D>40% counties goes to Abrams even in a statewide victory.

Brooks is a difficult one to predict. There were great things happening there several years ago, but ever since the GOP crushed the rebellion, it has slid substantially back toward the GOP. In a good year, though, it has the potential to flip.

[Adam Griffin]

Pres. Griff, does the black portion of the electorate typically grow or decline from primaries to general?

Statewide? Well, I don't actually know off the top of my head the comparisons for all recent elections, but in 2014:

Black % of Total Primary: 24.7%
Black % of DEM Primary: 65.6%
Black % of Carter's vote: 58.2%*

* Based on SoS turnout figures by race & 2014 exit polls pegging Carter's black support @ 89%

So at least 4 years ago, the black share of the Democratic electorate decreased between the primary and the general. This makes sense, given that black Democratic voters disproportionately live in areas where Democrats dominate - and therefore the Democratic primary is the de-facto general election - and white Democratic voters disproportionately live in areas where Republicans dominate - and therefore are more likely to pull GOP primary ballots to influence inevitable outcomes.

It's also not too surprising to see the share of the statewide Democratic electorate that is black decrease compared to 2014; as I said prior to the primary, there was lots of non-black enthusiasm brewing and it made sense that it would manifest in the primary. Despite what some might say and irrespective of the debate over "old" and "new" strategies for victory, a winning statewide Democratic electorate will not be two-thirds black (and probably not much over half).

I'm glad we finally got some data, though. It looks like it'll be at least another 2-3 weeks before SoS publishes the breakdowns.

[Adam Griffin]

^^ Oh, and I misread your comment about the 29% (was thinking that was the black share of the electorate for CD 6 for some reason). I went ahead and edited above; that same number was a bit under 25% in 2014.

Realistically, I guess we won't know for sure until the detailed breakdowns emerge. Based on the figures we do have available, raw black turnout definitely increased, but was offset and then some by non-black first-time voters. It's weird to think about it; that 1) raw black vote increased, 2) black share of total primary electorate (DEM+GOP) increased, and 3) black share of DEM primary decreased. That's the only thing that can explain those three things happening. We're not used to seeing that in GA.

Georgia is a state where black turnout in elections is about as high as can be realistically expected when factoring in discrepancies in age (the younger a group, the blacker said group is) and especially voting eligibility due to incarceration/parole/probation (something like 1 in 6 black adults in GA cannot vote due to this).

When you control for this, you come to the conclusion that the black vote is already operating at like 125% of parity: how much more can realistically be squeezed out? To put it in perspective, among eligible adult citizens, blacks have greater representation than whites at the ballot box pound-for-pound, at least as far as votes go.

We've been in the 28-30% range for every election since 2008, and exactly 30% in the past 3 presidentials. To be at 29% in a primary is good compared to 4 years ago. So, there very well may be more black voters (however, I'd hypothesize that increase in raw black turnout this year was fueled by people who usually vote in midterms/presidentials but not in primaries), but being the same share of the electorate (or even less) isn't a death sentence for Democrats given that a) blacks are very close to being maxed out realistically and b) lots of new Democratic voters are emerging that are not black, thereby adding Democratic votes but reducing overall black share of one or both electorates.

This will increasingly become the case as the "third way voters" (Latinos, Asians and other non-whites) increasingly begin voting and/or suburban whites defect from the GOP.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOCK HIM UP
LOCK HIM UP



But seriously, though...damnit, this is happening too soon. When I said he'd be David Vitter 2.0, I meant it. Alas, he's probably not going to make it to the general now.

[Adam Griffin]

Also, while the term "David Vitter 2.0" was inspired by multiple things, I originally coined it because many years ago, there were rumors that he was banging all sorts of hookers. At one point, it was publicly discussed but nothing ever came of it; mainly through state political blogs and the like rather than major media outlets. Now that I'm googling it and trying to find old articles, I cannot find any.

Has Cagle threatened legal action against anybody who reported on his alleged hooker ongoings and forced them to take the content down, or am I just not searching properly?

EDIT: maybe it was just infidelity rather than hookers. However, I do remember looking at his campaign finance reports and seeing gobs of money going to Dewberry.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/claim-cagle-overpaid-staffer-to-hide-affair/241639791
http://therealcaseycagle.blogspot.com/2010/10/casey-cagle-affair.html

[Adam Griffin]

Were there any exit polls in Georgia during the 2012 Presidential Election? I wanted play around with some numbers and I was thinking that best case scenario for Abrams with black voters would Obama's 2012 performance. His 98-2 showing in the 2008 Exit polls seem a little out of reach for Abrams lol.

When I did the county-by-county national breakdowns of the white vote for 2012, Georgia was one of the few states where I really got to refine my estimates due to the Secretary of State's recorded data by race, gender, age and precinct, and check my work.

Based on turnout in many counties where it's all black and white (no pun intended) allowing me to refine said estimates and comparing them (and the rest of the state) to the SoS data and results, Obama received 19.6% of the white vote and 94.5% of the black vote in my calculations.

[Adam Griffin]

C'mon Kemp: damage yourself enough so we can put Cagle back into the game!

[Adam Griffin]

Honestly, it reminds me a lot of Deal's (business) scandals in both of his elections. This probably all originated from the Cagle team, who's trying to muddy the waters as much as possible; it smacks exactly of oppo research dug up by a campaign and I don't think it's coincidence it dropped like 4 days after the recording. They're probably trying to stop any bleeding on their end more so than proactively cost Kemp votes. Otherwise, they would have waited until early voting to feed it to the media.

[Adam Griffin]

The much awaited sequel has arrived
https://youtu.be/Y6htgrVPi7A

The father-in-law not pointing his gun directly at you is a good sign in Southern culture. Looks like they're making progress!

[Adam Griffin]

^^^ Oh good - the turnout by demographics figures are finally available! I'll have to look through them later.

[Adam Griffin]

So screw looking at 2010 (the Democratic electorate has changed so much since then that I think using "competitive primary" equivalents here is worthless). Here's the comparison between 2014-2018:

Code:

Black-18	      338865	60.15%
White-18	      167611	29.75%
Non-BW-18	16124	2.86%
Unknown-18	40704	7.24%
Total-18	      563304

Black-14	     231568	65.58%
White-14	     102890	29.13%
Non-BW-14	 2821	0.80%
Unknown-14     15824	4.49%
Total-14	     353103

Black-18		146% of 2014
White-18		163% of 2014
Non-BW-18        572% of 2014
Unknown-18	257% of 2014
Total-18	        160% of 2014

Note: the "other/unknown" categories are expanding rapidly and have basically become a catch-all, and in many cases are locally representative of the electorates and/or new registrations as a whole. With all the new ways in which voter registrations are processed, race-related information often gets missed or omitted; still, it's best not to make tons of assumptions about these voters unless you're analyzing the data at a granular level. Nevertheless, I'm sure the bulk of them are either white or black.

[Adam Griffin]

Barring an upset in either the 6th or 7th (which I think are long shots, and should still be viewed as flukes until more GE voting patterns are established), the two most prime CD pickups "ancestrally" for Democrats would be the 1st and 12th CDs. I think if any dummymander were to truly crack, it'd show up here. Obviously the 12th was winnable, but I think in the absence of anybody with real local bonafides in the district, that Democratic DNA is effectively purged there.

The 1st is intriguing in that at the state/local level a few years back, the GOP didn't necessarily outnumber DEMs there that much (maybe 55/45 at most); Kingston was just a really strong incumbent who overperformed immensely. It gave the exact same margin to Romney as the 12th did (down to the tenth of a percentage point; 12.x points IIRC) and Democrats missed a real opportunity when Kingston ran for Senate; pretty much every congressional Democratic primary there in recent memory (save for this year) has been an absolute clusterf[inks]k with joke candidates running. Ring is a real organizer, but will it make a dent in what is arguably the most "moderate" district in the state...I don't know.

[Adam Griffin]

Starting to dig through the county-level demographic data for the primary...here's a teaser map, showing which racial group was the largest bloc in the Democratic primary (left) and the gubernatorial results (right):

 

Might look a tad familiar: