Would Jon Ossoff survive the sixth year itch?

[Orange is back]

If Biden wins in 2024, could Georgia’s trend be enough for Ossoff to survive?

I think Ossoff could win in a sixth year itch, but the Republicans would need to pick a weak enough candidate.

I think Geoff Duncan or Burt Jones could beat him.

Edit: changed from could to would

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Could he? Sure. The question is worded so vaguely the answer basically has to be yes. But of course we don't know the fundamentals at the time so barring a Doug Jones-like scenario the answer is always "yes".

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes it's a 303 map with wave insurance anyways

[Arizona Iced Tea]

If Warnock loses this year, then probably not since he is a stronger candidate than Ossoff. If he wins, then Ossoff would be favored in 2026.

[MT Treasurer]

He’ll probably be favored even if Warnock loses narrowly (Lean D, maybe Likely D depending on the Republican opponent). Four more years of generational turnover/demographic change in a state where trends are so clearly in favor of one side will probably do the job. Besides, midterms during the second term of a President tend to go a little better for the President's party than the first midterm (when said party often has the trifecta).

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

If Georgia keeps trending as it does he’ll be fine

[TDAS04]

Of course.

[Tekken_Guy]

He’d be considerably less vulnerable than Peters, that’s for sure.

[NewYorkExpress]

Warnock would have had better odds of doing so, given the African-American base he has.

Ossoff doesn't have the same base, and thus is more vulnerable in a Democratic midterm.

[Orange is back]

He’ll probably be favored even if Warnock loses narrowly (Lean D, maybe Likely D depending on the Republican opponent). Four more years of generational turnover/demographic change in a state where trends are so clearly in favor of one side will probably do the job. Besides, midterms during the second term of a President tend to go a little better for the President's party than the first midterm (when said party often has the trifecta).

2014 wasn't really better than 2010 for the Democrats. Especially for the Senate.

[Spectator]

He’ll probably be favored even if Warnock loses narrowly (Lean D, maybe Likely D depending on the Republican opponent). Four more years of generational turnover/demographic change in a state where trends are so clearly in favor of one side will probably do the job. Besides, midterms during the second term of a President tend to go a little better for the President's party than the first midterm (when said party often has the trifecta).

2014 wasn't really better than 2010 for the Democrats. Especially for the Senate.

Republicans gains mask how well Democrat incumbents held onto or exceeded Obama’s vote share from 2012. Mark Udall and Jeanne Shaheen were the only Dems that didn’t at least match Obama’s 2012 performance. Edit: I missed Mark Warner’s close call.

Republican wins were far more impressive in the gubernatorial races where many Republican incumbents survived that people had written off for dead. And winning surprise gains in Maryland and Illinois too (Quinn was polling ahead).

As far as the question posed, Ossoff would start off a significant favor for the reasons posted above. Republicans have about nothing going for them demographically in Georgia, and 4 more years of churn will only be a more uphill battle.

[Schiff for Senate]

Probably not.

[MT Treasurer]

He’ll probably be favored even if Warnock loses narrowly (Lean D, maybe Likely D depending on the Republican opponent). Four more years of generational turnover/demographic change in a state where trends are so clearly in favor of one side will probably do the job. Besides, midterms during the second term of a President tend to go a little better for the President's party than the first midterm (when said party often has the trifecta).

2014 wasn't really better than 2010 for the Democrats. Especially for the Senate.

Contested Senate races (2010)

2008 D margin (PRES) / 2010 D margin (SEN) / D over- or underperformance vs. 2008

AR - -20 / -21 / -1  
CA - +24 / +10 / -14  
CT - +22 / +12 / -10  
CO - +9 / +2 / -7  
FL* - +3 / -19 / -22  
IL - +25 / -2 / -27  
IN - +1 / -15 / -16
KY - -16 / -11 / +5  
MO - -- / -14 / -14  
NC - -- / -12 / -12  
NH - +10 / -23 / -33  
NV - +13 / +6 / -7  
OH - +5 / -17 / -22  
PA - +10 / -2 / -12
WA - +17 / +5 / -12  
WI - +14 / -5 / -19
WV - -13 / +10 / +23  

*giving Meek 2/3 of the Crist vote and Rubio 1/3 of the Crist vote

Average D over-/underperformance: -11.8


Contested Senate races (2014)

2012 D margin (PRES) / 2014 D margin (SEN) / D over- or underperformance vs. 2012

AK - -14 / -2 / +12
AR - -24 / -17 / +7
CO - +5 / -2 / -7
GA - -8 / -8 / --
IA - +6 / -8 / -14
KY - -23 / -15 / +8
LA - -17 / -12 / +5
MI - +9 / +13 / +4
NC - -2 / -2 / --
NH - +6 / +3 / -3
VA - +4 / +1 / -3

Average D over-/underperformance: +0.8

[Spectator]

He’ll probably be favored even if Warnock loses narrowly (Lean D, maybe Likely D depending on the Republican opponent). Four more years of generational turnover/demographic change in a state where trends are so clearly in favor of one side will probably do the job. Besides, midterms during the second term of a President tend to go a little better for the President's party than the first midterm (when said party often has the trifecta).

2014 wasn't really better than 2010 for the Democrats. Especially for the Senate.

Contested Senate races (2010)

2008 D margin (PRES) / 2010 D margin (SEN) / D over- or underperformance vs. 2008

AR - -20 / -21 / -1  
CA - +24 / +10 / -14  
CT - +22 / +12 / -10  
CO - +9 / +2 / -7  
FL* - +3 / -19 / -22  
IL - +25 / -2 / -27  
IN - +1 / -15 / -16
KY - -16 / -11 / +5  
MO - -- / -14 / -14  
NC - -- / -12 / -12  
NH - +10 / -23 / -33  
NV - +13 / +6 / -7  
OH - +5 / -17 / -22  
PA - +10 / -2 / -12
WA - +17 / +5 / -12  
WI - +14 / -5 / -19
WV - -13 / +10 / +23  

*giving Meek 2/3 of the Crist vote and Rubio 1/3 of the Crist vote

Average D over-/underperformance: -11.8


Contested Senate races (2014)

2012 D margin (PRES) / 2014 D margin (SEN) / D over- or underperformance vs. 2012

AK - -14 / -2 / +12
AR - -24 / -17 / +7
CO - +5 / -2 / -7
GA - -8 / -8 / --
IA - +6 / -8 / -14
KY - -23 / -15 / +8
LA - -17 / -12 / +5
MI - +9 / +13 / +4
NC - -2 / -2 / --
NH - +6 / +3 / -3
VA - +4 / +1 / -3

Average D over-/underperformance: +0.8

I agree with your overall point, but I think Obama’s lopsided 2008 margins were clearly an anomaly in hindsight. A Democrat hasn’t won by double digits in a high profile race in Nevada ever since, for example.

[MT Treasurer]

He’ll probably be favored even if Warnock loses narrowly (Lean D, maybe Likely D depending on the Republican opponent). Four more years of generational turnover/demographic change in a state where trends are so clearly in favor of one side will probably do the job. Besides, midterms during the second term of a President tend to go a little better for the President's party than the first midterm (when said party often has the trifecta).

2014 wasn't really better than 2010 for the Democrats. Especially for the Senate.

Contested Senate races (2010)

2008 D margin (PRES) / 2010 D margin (SEN) / D over- or underperformance vs. 2008

AR - -20 / -21 / -1  
CA - +24 / +10 / -14  
CT - +22 / +12 / -10  
CO - +9 / +2 / -7  
FL* - +3 / -19 / -22  
IL - +25 / -2 / -27  
IN - +1 / -15 / -16
KY - -16 / -11 / +5  
MO - -- / -14 / -14  
NC - -- / -12 / -12  
NH - +10 / -23 / -33  
NV - +13 / +6 / -7  
OH - +5 / -17 / -22  
PA - +10 / -2 / -12
WA - +17 / +5 / -12  
WI - +14 / -5 / -19
WV - -13 / +10 / +23  

*giving Meek 2/3 of the Crist vote and Rubio 1/3 of the Crist vote

Average D over-/underperformance: -11.8


Contested Senate races (2014)

2012 D margin (PRES) / 2014 D margin (SEN) / D over- or underperformance vs. 2012

AK - -14 / -2 / +12
AR - -24 / -17 / +7
CO - +5 / -2 / -7
GA - -8 / -8 / --
IA - +6 / -8 / -14
KY - -23 / -15 / +8
LA - -17 / -12 / +5
MI - +9 / +13 / +4
NC - -2 / -2 / --
NH - +6 / +3 / -3
VA - +4 / +1 / -3

Average D over-/underperformance: +0.8

I agree with your overall point, but I think Obama’s lopsided 2008 margins were clearly an anomaly in hindsight. A Democrat hasn’t won by double digits in a high profile race in Nevada ever since, for example.

1. I could just as well argue that 2010 was an anomaly because Republicans won more than a 60% in a high-profile federal race in New Hampshire (sweeping every county) when they haven’t won a federal statewide race there since. It’s also problematic to dismiss 2008 as an 'anomaly' because Obama matched or came close to matching his 2008 margins in many states in 2012.

2. Even if you compare it with 2012, however, most of these (e.g. CA, FL, NC, NH, OH, WI) remain eye-popping -

CA - +23 / +10 / -13
FL - +1 / -19 / -20
NC - -2 / -12 / -10  
NH - +6 / -23 / -29  
OH - +3 / -17 / -20
WA - +15 / +5 / -10
WI - +6 / -5 / -11

The bottom line is that 2010 (first midterm) was clearly worse than 2014 (second midterm) for Democrats at the Senate level. We saw the same pattern in 1994 (Democrats had the trifecta) vs. 1998 (Republicans already controlled Congress). 2022 will obviously (at least in my view) look closer to 2014 than 2010 in terms of the D over-/underperformance, which I’m sure you agree with.

[Spectator]

He’ll probably be favored even if Warnock loses narrowly (Lean D, maybe Likely D depending on the Republican opponent). Four more years of generational turnover/demographic change in a state where trends are so clearly in favor of one side will probably do the job. Besides, midterms during the second term of a President tend to go a little better for the President's party than the first midterm (when said party often has the trifecta).

2014 wasn't really better than 2010 for the Democrats. Especially for the Senate.

Contested Senate races (2010)

2008 D margin (PRES) / 2010 D margin (SEN) / D over- or underperformance vs. 2008

AR - -20 / -21 / -1  
CA - +24 / +10 / -14  
CT - +22 / +12 / -10  
CO - +9 / +2 / -7  
FL* - +3 / -19 / -22  
IL - +25 / -2 / -27  
IN - +1 / -15 / -16
KY - -16 / -11 / +5  
MO - -- / -14 / -14  
NC - -- / -12 / -12  
NH - +10 / -23 / -33  
NV - +13 / +6 / -7  
OH - +5 / -17 / -22  
PA - +10 / -2 / -12
WA - +17 / +5 / -12  
WI - +14 / -5 / -19
WV - -13 / +10 / +23  

*giving Meek 2/3 of the Crist vote and Rubio 1/3 of the Crist vote

Average D over-/underperformance: -11.8


Contested Senate races (2014)

2012 D margin (PRES) / 2014 D margin (SEN) / D over- or underperformance vs. 2012

AK - -14 / -2 / +12
AR - -24 / -17 / +7
CO - +5 / -2 / -7
GA - -8 / -8 / --
IA - +6 / -8 / -14
KY - -23 / -15 / +8
LA - -17 / -12 / +5
MI - +9 / +13 / +4
NC - -2 / -2 / --
NH - +6 / +3 / -3
VA - +4 / +1 / -3

Average D over-/underperformance: +0.8

I agree with your overall point, but I think Obama’s lopsided 2008 margins were clearly an anomaly in hindsight. A Democrat hasn’t won by double digits in a high profile race in Nevada ever since, for example.

1. I could just as well argue that 2010 was an anomaly because Republicans won more than a 60% in a high-profile federal race in New Hampshire (sweeping every county) when they haven’t won a federal statewide race there since. It’s also problematic to dismiss 2008 as an 'anomaly' because Obama matched or came close to matching his 2008 margins in many states in 2012.

2. Even if you compare it with 2012, however, most of these (e.g. CA, FL, NC, NH, OH, WI) remain eye-popping -

CA - +23 / +10 / -13
FL - +1 / -19 / -20
NC - -2 / -12 / -10  
NH - +6 / -23 / -29  
OH - +3 / -17 / -20
WA - +15 / +5 / -10
WI - +6 / -5 / -11

The bottom line is that 2010 (first midterm) was clearly worse than 2014 (second midterm) for Democrats at the Senate level. We saw the same pattern in 1994 (Democrats had the trifecta) vs. 1998 (Republicans already controlled Congress). 2022 will obviously (at least in my view) look closer to 2014 than 2010 in terms of the D over-/underperformance, which I’m sure you agree with.

I do agree that 2022 will probably resemble 2014 more than 2010 in terms of under/over performance. Mostly as a result of the overall garbage candidates that GOP put up in every non-Nevada race, though.

[MT Treasurer]

I do agree that 2022 will probably resemble 2014 more than 2010 in terms of under/over performance. Mostly as a result of the overall garbage candidates that GOP put up in every non-Nevada race, though.

That’s one factor, but it will also be interesting to compare it with the HPV — I don’t think a GOP +7 victory like in 2010 would have been possible even before Dobbs, for instance (I’ve always thought of something like +4/5 as the GOP's ceiling even under extremely favorable domestic conditions). It’s possible that the Democratic floor is just considerably higher today than it was in 2010 or even 2014.

If that’s the case (as I think it is), there are a couple of reasons: (a) Democratic gains among high-propensity voters (hard to overstate how much of the 2010 wave was fueled by GOP strength in suburbs/exurbs and how much the GOP has collapsed in many of those places since then), (b) a substantial and increasingly overwhelming Democratic financial advantage (this has been a trend since 2012), (c) more sophisticated Democratic organizing & stronger social media presence/professional use of social media (this has been another trend since Obama's presidential campaigns), (d) an increase in the number of non-white voters.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I do agree that 2022 will probably resemble 2014 more than 2010 in terms of under/over performance. Mostly as a result of the overall garbage candidates that GOP put up in every non-Nevada race, though.

That’s one factor, but it will also be interesting to compare it with the HPV — I don’t think a GOP +7 victory like in 2010 would have been possible even before Dobbs, for instance (I’ve always thought of something like +4/5 as the GOP's ceiling even under extremely favorable domestic conditions). It’s possible that the Democratic floor is just considerably higher today than it was in 2010 or even 2014.

If that’s the case (as I think it is), there are a couple of reasons: (a) Democratic gains among high-propensity voters (hard to overstate how much of the 2010 wave was fueled by GOP strength in suburbs/exurbs and how much the GOP has collapsed in many of those places since then), (b) a substantial and increasingly overwhelming Democratic financial advantage (this has been a trend since 2012), (c) more sophisticated Democratic organizing & stronger social media presence/professional use of social media (this has been another trend since Obama's presidential campaigns), (d) an increase in the number of non-white voters.

Generally speaking, I think having a midterm as low turnout as 2010 and 2014 is pretty much impossible these days and will continue to be for some time. That makes truly lopsided elections in either direction much trickier. It's worth noting for instance in 2018, Republicans received more votes nationally for House than either 2010 or 2014, but it ended up being a bad year because Dem turnout surge was relatively much larger. Dems literally saw like a 170% increase in votes from 2014.

I suspect in 2022, there's a good chance both sides, especially Republicans surpass their 2018 House national totals

[Xing]

Unless we start to see a reversal of current trends in Greater Atlanta, he probably would.

[Sir Mohamed]

Possible this becomes some VA-2014 redux. I suggested that before.

[Del Tachi]

Ossoff is generally a worse fit for GA than Warnock, so I'd think he'd be pretty vulnerable in a Democratic midterm.  Not as vulnerable as Peters though, I agree.