Georgia 1992
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:39:06 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Georgia 1992
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Georgia 1992  (Read 8683 times)
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 11, 2016, 01:25:04 PM »

This one puzzled me because it was the first state, along with Vermont, to be called for Clinton on election night.  But it ended up being the closest state that year, with Clinton winning by 0.59%.  What happened?  Did the TV networks rely too heavily on flawed exit polling, like they did in 2000 when they prematurely called Florida for Gore?
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2016, 02:25:34 PM »

Yeah, flawed exit polls + Democratic media bias. They also called NH for Clinton at poll closing time, and it was very close as well. Not to mention that they projected Democrat Wyche Fowler as the winner in the GA Senate race (Fowler later lost to Republican Paul Coverdell in the runoff).


Yeah, Clinton ended up winning NH by just 1 point (huge shift from 1988 when Bush won it by 20 points; his second best state after Utah).  The liberal media is so dishonest that it's ridiculous.  Bush would have comfortably won Florida in 2000 if they did not prematurely call it for Gore.  The heavily republican panhandle is in central time zone, and lot of Bush voters stayed home when they heard that Gore had already won it.
Logged
heatcharger
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,237
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2016, 03:23:30 PM »


Care to explain how Democratic media bias played a role in networks calling Mississippi and Alabama for Reagan when polls closed? Even though he won both by only 1.3%? Maybe exit polls in the South just suck(ed).
Logged
heatcharger
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,237
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2016, 03:50:26 PM »


Care to explain how Democratic media bias played a role in networks calling Mississippi and Alabama for Reagan when polls closed? Even though he won both by only 1.3%? Maybe exit polls in the South just suck(ed).

True, but still.. they called so many close states for Clinton as soon as the polls closed, but they didn't even call Oklahoma or North Dakota for Bush at poll closing time.

Clinton actually underperformed his polling expectations; he was expected to win by double digits, so networks thought it would be a pretty safe bet to call states that were most likely gonna go to him. I bet they thought Oklahoma would vote similarly to Arkansas, which wouldn't have been a terrible assumption at the time. There was also a big Perot effect that probably messed up exit polls.

Besides, after the 2000 debacle, networks got a lot less lenient on how soon to call states.
Logged
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2016, 08:14:25 PM »

In 1980, some states were early called to Reagan, and his margin was very small.

In 1992, some states that Clinon won narrowly were called early to Clinton, and some states that Bush won were considered too close to call.

In 2004, some states that Kerry won narrowly were called early to Kerry, and some states that Bush Jr. won narrowly were considered too close to call.


Hypothesis:
Exit polls do not reach well the rural areas of the states. So, they overestimated Clinton and Kerry, and overestimated Reagan too. In the southern states, Carter did better in the rural areas.
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2016, 10:13:08 PM »

In 1980, some states were early called to Reagan, and his margin was very small.

In 1992, some states that Clinon won narrowly were called early to Clinton, and some states that Bush won were considered too close to call.

In 2004, some states that Kerry won narrowly were called early to Kerry, and some states that Bush Jr. won narrowly were considered too close to call.


Hypothesis:
Exit polls do not reach well the rural areas of the states. So, they overestimated Clinton and Kerry, and overestimated Reagan too. In the southern states, Carter did better in the rural areas.

Why would exit polls be less reliable in rural areas?  From my understanding of how exit polls work, people ask random voters as they are leaving the polling station, who they voted for.  Would rural voters be more inclined to lie than say urban or suburban voters? Or is it simply a numbers issue whereby there are fewer volunteers in rural areas and hence the sample size is too small to make a reliable conclusion?
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2016, 10:14:31 PM »


Care to explain how Democratic media bias played a role in networks calling Mississippi and Alabama for Reagan when polls closed? Even though he won both by only 1.3%? Maybe exit polls in the South just suck(ed).

True, but still.. they called so many close states for Clinton as soon as the polls closed, but they didn't even call Oklahoma or North Dakota for Bush at poll closing time.

Clinton actually underperformed his polling expectations; he was expected to win by double digits, so networks thought it would be a pretty safe bet to call states that were most likely gonna go to him. I bet they thought Oklahoma would vote similarly to Arkansas, which wouldn't have been a terrible assumption at the time. There was also a big Perot effect that probably messed up exit polls.

Besides, after the 2000 debacle, networks got a lot less lenient on how soon to call states.

In 1996 Clinton was leading Dole by as much as 15 points, but in the last 2 weeks of the campaign Clinton basically stopped campaigning for himself and instead focused on congressional races.  Perhaps the late polling that year didn't quite capture that effect.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2016, 10:25:53 PM »

In 1980, some states were early called to Reagan, and his margin was very small.

In 1992, some states that Clinon won narrowly were called early to Clinton, and some states that Bush won were considered too close to call.

In 2004, some states that Kerry won narrowly were called early to Kerry, and some states that Bush Jr. won narrowly were considered too close to call.


Hypothesis:
Exit polls do not reach well the rural areas of the states. So, they overestimated Clinton and Kerry, and overestimated Reagan too. In the southern states, Carter did better in the rural areas.

Why would exit polls be less reliable in rural areas?  From my understanding of how exit polls work, people ask random voters as they are leaving the polling station, who they voted for.  Would rural voters be more inclined to lie than say urban or suburban voters? Or is it simply a numbers issue whereby there are fewer volunteers in rural areas and hence the sample size is too small to make a reliable conclusion?

Exit pollsters are less likely to sample rural precincts. 
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2016, 10:31:38 PM »

Yeah, flawed exit polls + Democratic media bias. They also called NH for Clinton at poll closing time, and it was very close as well. Not to mention that they projected Democrat Wyche Fowler as the winner in the GA Senate race (Fowler later lost to Republican Paul Coverdell in the runoff).


Yeah, Clinton ended up winning NH by just 1 point (huge shift from 1988 when Bush won it by 20 points; his second best state after Utah).  The liberal media is so dishonest that it's ridiculous.  Bush would have comfortably won Florida in 2000 if they did not prematurely call it for Gore.  The heavily republican panhandle is in central time zone, and lot of Bush voters stayed home when they heard that Gore had already won it.


The call was made about 10 minutes before the polls in the Central Time Zone closed....
Logged
The Arizonan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,543
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2017, 08:08:44 AM »

If Georgia didn't go straight to Bill Clinton at 7 PM, Georgia would've been the only one too close to call by 3 AM, Clinton would have to wait a week or two to win the Peach State.

A total of 300 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in 1992, and in 1996, a total of 350 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in those states.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried my home state of NJ by a margin of just 2.37%! (In 1988, Bush won it by 14 points, and is the only state excluded from the Dukakis strategy to not cast a single vote for a Republican since the 1980s.)

Maine was excluded from the Dukakis strategy too. So were NM, NH, VA, CO, and NV!

This is also the only election where Vermont and Georgia both voted Democrat in the same election (if you don't include the elections before the founding of the Republican party). Vermont never went Democrat until 1964, Georgia never went Republican until 1964. Both states voted Republican in 1972, 1984, and 1988.

It's important to note that Vermont voted straight Whig before the Republican Party even existed. Why was it Republican for so long?
Logged
Plankton5165
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 679


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2017, 09:12:44 AM »

If Georgia didn't go straight to Bill Clinton at 7 PM, Georgia would've been the only one too close to call by 3 AM, Clinton would have to wait a week or two to win the Peach State.

A total of 300 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in 1992, and in 1996, a total of 350 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in those states.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried my home state of NJ by a margin of just 2.37%! (In 1988, Bush won it by 14 points, and is the only state excluded from the Dukakis strategy to not cast a single vote for a Republican since the 1980s.)

Maine was excluded from the Dukakis strategy too. So were NM, NH, VA, CO, and NV!

This is also the only election where Vermont and Georgia both voted Democrat in the same election (if you don't include the elections before the founding of the Republican party). Vermont never went Democrat until 1964, Georgia never went Republican until 1964. Both states voted Republican in 1972, 1984, and 1988.

It's important to note that Vermont voted straight Whig before the Republican Party even existed. Why was it Republican for so long?

The question is "why is it so Democratic now?"
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2017, 06:44:13 PM »

If Georgia didn't go straight to Bill Clinton at 7 PM, Georgia would've been the only one too close to call by 3 AM, Clinton would have to wait a week or two to win the Peach State.

A total of 300 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in 1992, and in 1996, a total of 350 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in those states.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried my home state of NJ by a margin of just 2.37%! (In 1988, Bush won it by 14 points, and is the only state excluded from the Dukakis strategy to not cast a single vote for a Republican since the 1980s.)

Maine was excluded from the Dukakis strategy too. So were NM, NH, VA, CO, and NV!

This is also the only election where Vermont and Georgia both voted Democrat in the same election (if you don't include the elections before the founding of the Republican party). Vermont never went Democrat until 1964, Georgia never went Republican until 1964. Both states voted Republican in 1972, 1984, and 1988.

It's important to note that Vermont voted straight Whig before the Republican Party even existed. Why was it Republican for so long?

-Because it was so strongly Republican before 1960, and many older Republicans in it couldn't believe what the GOP was becoming for decades.
Logged
Plankton5165
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 679


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2017, 08:55:26 AM »

If Georgia didn't go straight to Bill Clinton at 7 PM, Georgia would've been the only one too close to call by 3 AM, Clinton would have to wait a week or two to win the Peach State.

A total of 300 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in 1992, and in 1996, a total of 350 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in those states.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried my home state of NJ by a margin of just 2.37%! (In 1988, Bush won it by 14 points, and is the only state excluded from the Dukakis strategy to not cast a single vote for a Republican since the 1980s.)

Maine was excluded from the Dukakis strategy too. So were NM, NH, VA, CO, and NV!

This is also the only election where Vermont and Georgia both voted Democrat in the same election (if you don't include the elections before the founding of the Republican party). Vermont never went Democrat until 1964, Georgia never went Republican until 1964. Both states voted Republican in 1972, 1984, and 1988.

Wait a minute, Delaware was also excluded from the Dukakis strategy, and it hasn't gone Republican since 1988. Surprise, right?

If I was Bush in 1992 or Dole in 1996, I wouldn't even set up a winning ceremony.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2017, 05:41:09 AM »

If Georgia didn't go straight to Bill Clinton at 7 PM, Georgia would've been the only one too close to call by 3 AM, Clinton would have to wait a week or two to win the Peach State.

A total of 300 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in 1992, and in 1996, a total of 350 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in those states.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried my home state of NJ by a margin of just 2.37%! (In 1988, Bush won it by 14 points, and is the only state excluded from the Dukakis strategy to not cast a single vote for a Republican since the 1980s.)

Maine was excluded from the Dukakis strategy too. So were NM, NH, VA, CO, and NV!

This is also the only election where Vermont and Georgia both voted Democrat in the same election (if you don't include the elections before the founding of the Republican party). Vermont never went Democrat until 1964, Georgia never went Republican until 1964. Both states voted Republican in 1972, 1984, and 1988.

It's important to note that Vermont voted straight Whig before the Republican Party even existed. Why was it Republican for so long?

Republicans were the party of Protestant Yankees from birth. Whigs were as well but not the same extent. A lot of free soil Democrats in VT never went back after joining the GOP. There was a Jeffersonian/Jacksonian element within the state, but it got largely absorbed as well.

Politics became a generational thing and VT had a very strictly adhered to political establishment within the GOP and those that tried to skip in line, were often destroyed politically. That mattered more than ideology so there were a large number of progressives and "traditionalist" (Protectionist, anti-immigration, isolationist) Conservatives within the same party in the state.

In the 1950's and 1960's, Conservatism became defined nationally in a way that made it hostile to the state's voters, especially on defense issues. The Conservative wing collapsed and the first Democrats got elected in 1958. After that, the only ones who could win were the heirs to the Progressive wing (Prouty, Aiken, Stafford, Jeffords), and as the state's population exploded from New York transplants,  the Protestant religious fervor pretty much collapsed, and the rise of environmentalism became a factor.

By 1992, enough old people who still were part of the tribalistic Republicanism had passed away, leaving the state open to voting for a Democrat. And it hasn't looked back since.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2017, 09:26:14 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2017, 09:29:07 PM by Skill and Chance »

If Georgia didn't go straight to Bill Clinton at 7 PM, Georgia would've been the only one too close to call by 3 AM, Clinton would have to wait a week or two to win the Peach State.

A total of 300 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in 1992, and in 1996, a total of 350 EVs went to Bill Clinton as soon as the polls closed in those states.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried my home state of NJ by a margin of just 2.37%! (In 1988, Bush won it by 14 points, and is the only state excluded from the Dukakis strategy to not cast a single vote for a Republican since the 1980s.)

Maine was excluded from the Dukakis strategy too. So were NM, NH, VA, CO, and NV!

This is also the only election where Vermont and Georgia both voted Democrat in the same election (if you don't include the elections before the founding of the Republican party). Vermont never went Democrat until 1964, Georgia never went Republican until 1964. Both states voted Republican in 1972, 1984, and 1988.

It's important to note that Vermont voted straight Whig before the Republican Party even existed. Why was it Republican for so long?

Republicans were the party of Protestant Yankees from birth. Whigs were as well but not the same extent. A lot of free soil Democrats in VT never went back after joining the GOP. There was a Jeffersonian/Jacksonian element within the state, but it got largely absorbed as well.

Politics became a generational thing and VT had a very strictly adhered to political establishment within the GOP and those that tried to skip in line, were often destroyed politically. That mattered more than ideology so there were a large number of progressives and "traditionalist" (Protectionist, anti-immigration, isolationist) Conservatives within the same party in the state.

In the 1950's and 1960's, Conservatism became defined nationally in a way that made it hostile to the state's voters, especially on defense issues. The Conservative wing collapsed and the first Democrats got elected in 1958. After that, the only ones who could win were the heirs to the Progressive wing (Prouty, Aiken, Stafford, Jeffords), and as the state's population exploded from New York transplants,  the Protestant religious fervor pretty much collapsed, and the rise of environmentalism became a factor.

By 1992, enough old people who still were part of the tribalistic Republicanism had passed away, leaving the state open to voting for a Democrat. And it hasn't looked back since.

I think a very underrated factor in Vermont and New England's political transformation is that the region was the heartland of an ancient century religious left movement (not exactly leftist in today's terms, but on the issues that carry over from that time) that collapsed almost overnight after they finally got a child labor ban past SCOTUS in 1938.  That was a 100 year struggle from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century, and after it was finally won, the movement was divided on war and peace and never really found a new issue to coalesce around.  Prohibition and its ultimate repeal also discredited them significantly.  It wasn't a clean R vs. D split, but more a Protestant/Catholic divide with both parties having a foothold in the movement and in the establishment that resisted it.  Vermont was on the establishment side of this divide after 1890 or so and steadfastly opposed FDR.   

Ironically, I would imagine the modern religious right would find itself in a similar crisis if Roe v. Wade ever truly goes down.
Logged
Plankton5165
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 679


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2017, 09:44:50 AM »
« Edited: April 01, 2017, 04:11:08 PM by Plankton5165 »

CBS's list of battleground states in 2016:

Georgia - 5.1%
Virginia - 5.3%
North Carolina - 3.7%
Ohio - 8.1%
New Hampshire - 0.3%
Pennsylvania - 0.7%
Florida - 1.2%
Arizona - 3.6%
Colorado - 4.9%
Wisconsin - 0.8%
Michigan - 0.2% (went from the bottom of the close state list in 2012 to the top in 2016)
Iowa - 9.4%
Nevada - 2.4%

Minnesota isn't even on there... It was a 1.5% state, Maine was a 3% state.

Also, news networks prematurely called Pennsylvania for Barack Obama in 2012. If they didn't, Romney probably would've won it. (sure, by about the same margin as in North Carolina)

NBC's staff said "they need to win Pennsylvania, the election is over if the Democrats lose Pennsylvania." If Obama lost Pennsylvania, he still would've won (312 to 226).
Logged
Plankton5165
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 679


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2017, 04:27:03 PM »

Yeah, flawed exit polls + Democratic media bias. They also called NH for Clinton at poll closing time, and it was very close as well. Not to mention that they projected Democrat Wyche Fowler as the winner in the GA Senate race (Fowler later lost to Republican Paul Coverdell in the runoff).

The Georgia senate race was too close to call.
Logged
Obama-Biden Democrat
Zyzz
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2017, 07:08:59 PM »

The polls were way off both in 1992 and 1996 in Clinton's favor.  In 1992, the October polls had Clinton up by 10-15%, him only winning by 5.5% was a surprise and underachievement. In 1996, Clinton was up 15%-20% in the polls leading up the election and only won by 9%. The media was expecting a big Clinton blowout both times, in the mold of Reagan 84 or Eisenhower 52/56. These terrible polls had a partial effect in the media calling those states early for Clinton.
Logged
Plankton5165
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 679


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2017, 08:05:57 PM »

I'm surprised Delaware was too close to call in 1992.
Logged
Plankton5165
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 679


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2017, 08:13:14 PM »

The polls were way off both in 1992 and 1996 in Clinton's favor.  In 1992, the October polls had Clinton up by 10-15%, him only winning by 5.5% was a surprise and underachievement. In 1996, Clinton was up 15%-20% in the polls leading up the election and only won by 9%. The media was expecting a big Clinton blowout both times, in the mold of Reagan 84 or Eisenhower 52/56. These terrible polls had a partial effect in the media calling those states early for Clinton.

In 1996, only four states that were undecided went to Clinton later on: Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, and Arizona. (Louisiana would go for Clinton by DOUBLE DIGITS!)
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2017, 08:21:17 PM »

Yeah, flawed exit polls + Democratic media bias. They also called NH for Clinton at poll closing time, and it was very close as well. Not to mention that they projected Democrat Wyche Fowler as the winner in the GA Senate race (Fowler later lost to Republican Paul Coverdell in the runoff).

The Georgia senate race was too close to call.

Georgia has a law that requires the winner of a GE race (including Presidential electors) to achieve 50% to avoid a runoff.  Georgia was projected for Clinton early, but taken off the board later on after reporters learned that there was a runoff  (Fowler was close to 50%, but Clinton won Georgia with 43% as Bush refused a runoff.) 
Logged
Plankton5165
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 679


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2017, 01:13:44 PM »

Maybe the networks started being more cautious after Georgia 1992, and even more cautious after Florida 2000. Since 1976, every time Georgia was undecided, it went Republican. In 2004, Georgia went Republican on poll closing time. They didn't call states at poll closing time until 1980.

Anyway, in Georgia in 1996, NBC said Dole was 1 point ahead all night. But in 2016, Trump started off with an immense 50+ point lead before collapsing to a 5 point lead. They projected the state when Trump's lead was much smaller. That isn't what they did in 2012 with Pennsylvania. When Fox News projected the state would go to Obama, he was leading by 33 points with 7% of the vote in, this was ultimately a 5 point lead.

Dole won Georgia with 47% of the vote, so Clinton must've refused the runoff. Is that correct?

If Clinton won Georgia in a runoff, that would give him 32+DC again, he would have 392 electoral votes. Without Georgia, he already had 379, which was enough for him to win.

These people sure like to give Florida's 25 to the Democrats. It went blue once and red twice. In 1992, some news networks incorrectly projected Clinton the winner, and in 2000, it's obvious, Gore was incorrectly projected the winner. In 1996, when it went blue, the state was the first state Clinton won on election night.

I assume the huge shift in New Hampshire was due to the projections from news networks. This is another state they like to give to the Democrats. In 1992, it was projected at poll closing time, it was won by 1.1%. In 1996, they falsely projected at poll closing time Dick Swett would defeat Bob Smith.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,100
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2017, 05:51:59 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they also used to call states before their polls even closed?
Logged
Plankton5165
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 679


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2017, 10:21:56 PM »
« Edited: April 20, 2017, 10:28:36 PM by Plankton5165 »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they also used to call states before their polls even closed?
Maybe. Not since 2004 however. Only one certain case--the state of Florida for Al Gore in 2000.

They handed Michigan's 18 electoral votes to the Democrats at 8:00 three times.

In 1988, they projected a very close state for Dukakis at poll closing time, it was New York.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2017, 10:43:56 PM »

Yeah, flawed exit polls + Democratic media bias. They also called NH for Clinton at poll closing time, and it was very close as well. Not to mention that they projected Democrat Wyche Fowler as the winner in the GA Senate race (Fowler later lost to Republican Paul Coverdell in the runoff).

The Georgia senate race was too close to call.

Georgia has a law that requires the winner of a GE race (including Presidential electors) to achieve 50% to avoid a runoff.  Georgia was projected for Clinton early, but taken off the board later on after reporters learned that there was a runoff  (Fowler was close to 50%, but Clinton won Georgia with 43% as Bush refused a runoff.) 

Georgia has never had any such law applying to presidential elections.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 12 queries.