GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[Adam Griffin]

Fulton County Department of Elections is suddenly changing voting locations for a dozen precincts in advance of the June 20 run-off. When asked why, their answer was "unforeseen circumstances".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the record, the April 18 partisan breakdown of these combined precincts was 55.3% GOP, 44.7% Dem.

Freedom Fighters!

[Adam Griffin]

^^^ Nah, this is part of the broader reason why our side is inherently inferior and continues to lose. Realize what world you're living in and abandon the idealism.

[Adam Griffin]

^^^ Nah, this is part of the broader reason why our side is inherently inferior and continues to lose. Realize what world you're living in and abandon the idealism.

I would rather be in the minority party that doesn't accept voter suppression as an a-ok form of winning then whatever pseudo-democratic Democratic party you support.

Maybe you can afford to have that hoity-toity moral luxury. Many of us cannot. One side tends to think like you and the other side gets to govern.

The system is fundamentally unfair as-is and slanted in favor of the GOP in a number of ways that give that minority bloc majority influence. If you actually support democracy that is representative, then you'll support whatever it takes to rat-f[inks]k the s[inks]t out of them, eliminate those unfair advantages and put the actual majority party in this country back in the majority again.

[Adam Griffin]

How much is Ossoff expected to win the early vote by? And what margin does Handel need with election day voters in order to win? I assume things here aren't as complicated in Montana.

Democrats combined won 78% of mail ballots and 63% of in-person votes, for an early vote total of 65%.

 

[Adam Griffin]

What do y'all make of this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It means Republicans weren't interested in the first round, but got spooked by how close it was and probably help Handel win by 7-8 points.

[Adam Griffin]

Early vote through today by county:

Cobb 10623 (16.9%)
DeKalb 15618 (24.8%)
Fulton 36722 (58.3%)
Total 62963

For reference:

In April (all votes), Fulton was 45%, Cobb 32% and Dekalb 23%.

In early vote, Fulton was 53%, Cobb 26% and Dekalb 21%.

[Adam Griffin]

Let's keep expectations tampered as far as anything to do with early vote is concerned -- we've surely learned that by now.

For starters, not all of the early vote is in yet. Judging by the raw vote already cast, a much larger share of the electorate is going to vote early this time. For all we know, this is (likely) a disproportionate sample even among early voters, let alone the electorate.

Secondly, remember that GOP voters closed strongly in the final days of early voting in April (a dynamic that I think was only partially connected to a divided field/people making up their minds about who to vote for). Democrats vote early, Republicans vote late - both out of habit and because Democratic campaigns push early voting much more so.

Remember the gulf of difference in April between EV and ED:

EV (29.5%): Democrats 64.7%
ED (70.5%): Republicans 57.6%

Democrats combined won 78% of mail ballots and 63% of in-person votes, for an early vote total of 65%.

 

[Adam Griffin]

Ossoff's hitting 50-51% in polls now - that's good - but always beware the "undecideds" in Georgia. When you consider how they usually break and the simple margins of error in polling, I'm very skeptical that this is even a 3-5 point race right now.

[Adam Griffin]

I love how in that robocall, Trump did what he does when he reads anything (teleprompters, paper scripts, etc) for the first time: injects his own commentary mid-sentence to reaffirm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then what follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do they realize what district this is?

[Adam Griffin]

I can understand to some extent why they'd use a robocall from Trump. In some respects, the campaign to win hearts and minds is already over: once early voting begins, you're trying to get out your solid supporters and hardcore partisans rather than persuade fence-sitters.

The problem here is that this isn't your standard 50-50 district: the only reason Ossoff is even within striking distance is because he's winning a sizable segment of voters who'd otherwise vote GOP. For Handel's sake, let's just hope they know which 10-20% of "Republicans" to whom they shouldn't be sending this.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

If Ossoff somehow manages to win, do you think that the chances are good that he will join the Blue Dog Coalition? I think he would at least consider it. Based on his platform and personality, he would fit in very well.

He would have virtually nothing to gain by doing so: the type of voter he's having to win over isn't impressed or appealed to by using the "Blue Dog" label, and many of the base Democrats in the district would be turned off by it. He's not in a situation like Silly David Scott where he can say, do or be virtually anything he wants and not pay a political price for it.

[Adam Griffin]

GOP pollsters Trafalgar Group have it: Ossoff 50 Handel 47

There polls were super Republican in 2016, but most ended up being pretty accurate.

Can we spot calling them super Republican when they were the most accurate state level polls?

Also, *their

There's a difference between being right coincidentally and actually being right. If I correctly calculate the odds of a quarter landing on heads three times in a row, then that makes me right. If I correctly guess that the quarter will land on heads three times in a row, then that makes me lucky.

That's why there are so many "pollsters" in each election cycle who get bestowed with the title of "[one of the] most accurate pollsters of the election cycle", and then proceed to being hilariously wrong in future ones (just like they were in the past). In most cases, their methodologies haven't changed; they just lucked out. If a pollster predicts in every election that the results are going to be more GOP/DEM than other pollsters are showing, and the results in one election cycle do in fact end up being more GOP/DEM than most expected, then voila: "most accurate pollster"!

TL;DR: broken clock is right twice a day; Trafalgar is a sh**t pollster

[Adam Griffin]

FWIW, that poll also has Ossoff winning the early vote 56-44.

Would this be...good? Dems won the early vote in April by 30 points, but presumably a greater share of the electorate has voted early this time.

[Adam Griffin]

Does anyone have the final Round 1 results for the following four precincts?  (Just total D and total R would be fine).  Thanks in advance.

Cobb TM01 (Terrell Mill)
DeKalb PF (Pleasantdale Road)
Fulton ML05A (Milton 5A)
Fulton SS09A (Sandy Springs 9A)

Is this possibly Timber Ridge? Terrell Mill isn't in the CD according to SoS results, and neither is SS09A.

Precinct	GOP	DEM
Timber Ridge 01	781	536
Pleasantdale Road	165	682
ML05A	3	9

Here's a complete list of each precinct's results listed individually on the website (scroll to bottom):
Fulton
Dekalb
Cobb

[Adam Griffin]

Does anyone have the final Round 1 results for the following four precincts?  (Just total D and total R would be fine).  Thanks in advance.

Cobb TM01 (Terrell Mill)
DeKalb PF (Pleasantdale Road)
Fulton ML05A (Milton 5A)
Fulton SS09A (Sandy Springs 9A)

Is this possibly Timber Ridge? Terrell Mill isn't in the CD according to SoS results, and neither is SS09A.

Precinct	GOP	DEM
Timber Ridge 01	781	536
Pleasantdale Road	165	682
ML05A	3	9

Here's a complete list of each precinct's results listed individually on the website (scroll to bottom):
Fulton
Dekalb
Cobb

Thanks!  There were some ballots showing up in the absentee file with TM01 and SS09A precincts, which is why I was wondering about those.

Is that for April or for June? If the former, does it specify whether those are provisional ballots? Both of those precincts border the CD, so I could easily see there being people who got bombarded with ads and even mailers, who thought they were in the district and were allowed to cast provisionals.

[Adam Griffin]

From the June 10th file.

I guess it could still be the same thing: if I recall correctly, provisional ballots can be cast during early voting as well, so that's probably what it is.

[Adam Griffin]

From the June 10th file.

I guess it could still be the same thing: if I recall correctly, provisional ballots can be cast during early voting as well, so that's probably what it is.

Actually, it was from the April file (too many tabs open).

In that case, I'm nearly 100% confident that those were provisionals that ended up not being counted.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm going to take a stab at what Ossoff would need to win.  At minimum 56% of the EV, though 58% would be preferable.  Just a guess though.

If we assume a) 230k total votes and b) Ossoff wins 40% of ED vote (I believe it was 41% in April), then 56% of EV is spot-on.

However, I would imagine that there would be some shifts in both figures from April, considering that Democrats won 65% of the EV vote in April. Unless the new voters between April & June lean GOP by a decent margin, either the EV is going to be more Democratic than 56% or ED is going to be far worse for Ossoff.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm going to take a stab at what Ossoff would need to win.  At minimum 56% of the EV, though 58% would be preferable.  Just a guess though.

If we assume a) 230k total votes and b) Ossoff wins 40% of ED vote (I believe it was 41% in April), then 56% of EV is spot-on.

However, I would imagine that there would be some shifts in both figures from April, considering that Democrats won 65% of the EV vote in April. Unless the new voters between April & June lean GOP by a decent margin, either the EV is going to be more Democratic than 56% or ED is going to be far worse for Ossoff.

Actually, I guess we could end up with a 56/40 EV/ED split for Ossoff, considering we have a much larger share of voters this time.

If I'm thinking through it correctly, presumably there'd need to be a large number of GOP voters who voted in April (but not early) more than cancelling out the purportedly-favorable-to-Ossoff newly-registered voters in early voting; that'd drag Ossoff's EV percentage down. Additionally, you'd need a decent number of already-registered GOP voters who didn't vote in April at all to turn out on Election Day, to prevent the ED vote from becoming more Democratic than it was in April. Just an example: you could of course flip/mix those two GOP groups as far as who would be EV/ED.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't think these tricks they're employing, most of which basically amount to name-calling and invoking Democratic boogeymen/women, are going to be very successful or resonate with as many people as they'd like. This is the sixth most-educated district in the entire country. Full of professionals and moderate, reasonable people who care about the issues. So yeah, it's going to take a little more than 'Pelosi!1!!' to convince this electorate.

There's a small part of east Fulton that was weak for Handel in R1, and I don't know why. JC-13A & JC-13B she lost to Gray, and in the former she wasn't even in the top 3 (Ossoff came in 2nd, Moody 3rd). Similar result directly to the north in JC-14: Ossoff picked it up and she came in 3rd behind him and Gray. To the east in JC-12, same story - Ossoff first, Moody second, and she's in third. In JC-11 and JC-07, came in 3rd after Ossoff and Gray. Does anyone know why she performed so poorly there?

Bob Gray's neighborhood + his baseline vote share district-wide + united Democratic front = enough to knock Handel down to 3rd/4th place in these areas

If Moody or Hill had been above 10% district-wide, they would have likely flipped some of their home precincts as well.

[Adam Griffin]

Some disgusting RW troll group is putting out a last minute ad tying Ossoff to the Scalise shooting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh7ZiddrkmI

Republicans know what they're doing.  They know how to win.  When will Democrats start being as mean and ruthless as they are?

It's better to lose ethically than to win unethically.

No. Only winners get to shape the future of the country, and therefore only the winners' morals matter.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm not going to argue, but I think this is a silly argument to begin with.  Um, let me put it this way.

ThereisnothingCongressmanOssoffwouldsupportthatBernieSandersorElizabethWarrendonot.

Ossoff is not pro free college, at least.

Read what he said carefully.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm not going to argue, but I think this is a silly argument to begin with.  Um, let me put it this way.

ThereisnothingCongressmanOssoffwouldsupportthatBernieSandersorElizabethWarrendonot.

Ossoff is not pro free college, at least.

Read what he said carefully.

He opposes single payer.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/14/georgia-special-ossoff-handel-239523

And I don't think he's really laid out his positions. I'm sure he's to the right of Bernie on many, if not most issues.

Read what Scott said carefully.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm not going to argue, but I think this is a silly argument to begin with.  Um, let me put it this way.

ThereisnothingCongressmanOssoffwouldsupportthatBernieSandersorElizabethWarrendonot.

Ossoff is not pro free college, at least.

Read what he said carefully.

He opposes single payer.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/14/georgia-special-ossoff-handel-239523

And I don't think he's really laid out his positions. I'm sure he's to the right of Bernie on many, if not most issues.

Read what Scott said carefully.

It's a ridiculous assertion. I'm sure he'd vote with the 91 Senators for increased military spending and not the 3 that included Bernie here.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00301