Georgia's Very Own Megathread! (v2)

[Adam Griffin]

While reading a random article just now:

[Adam Griffin]

I want Abrams to concede so that she doesn’t risk turning off any of the voters she won over by refusing to concede

Yes, and every day matters now - and not just for her. We started with 28 days until the runoff - now we're down to 25 days. Every day spent talking about this and chasing down likely invalid ballots is a day not spent on organizing for the runoff for our two candidates who are actually going to be in it. I'm honestly quite disappointed with how the state party and the campaign are reacting to this: surely they have people more capable than I who see the math. I understand - and support enthusiastically - making sure every valid vote is counted. However, that can still be done after a concession and without hostile press conferences and frivolous legal action.

On the other hand, raising a little bit of hell might be just what is needed to ensure some of these low-propensity and first-time voters actually come back out to vote on December 4th. There is a very good case that can be made to all Abrams supporters: "the guy who just stole the election used the power of his office to do so, and you will have an opportunity to ensure this never happens again by electing a Democrat to that office in a few weeks". If too much noise is made, however, then there will be a counter-effect and damn near all of these GOP voters will come back out as well.

We have to short-circuit the traditional runoff dynamic - and what they're doing right now in my opinion is akin to throwing gasoline on the fire of the status quo.

[lfromnj]

So why did John Barrow do so well, and why wasn’t he recruited for the governor race instead?

Barrow would never have brought out the vote in metro Atlanta that Stacey Abrams was able to do.  He benefited from her presence on the ticket.   That, plus his natural base in the Athens area and his very good television presence helped.

It was basically Gillum nelson
Abrams brought out turnout and all the new voters probably just voted for Barrow anyway but the voters in his district thought he was a good old boy so he did slightly better.

[Badger]

A fellow Georgian and I were discussing what this election might have looked like if we could have had the best of both worlds: Carter's better numbers and/or Abrams' better numbers for each county. Well, I've went ahead and calculated it.

For the counties where Abrams' margin was better, I used 2018 percentages (below; yellow). Where they were better for Carter, I used the 2014 percentages (green). Because of the vastly different turnout levels for the 2 elections, I took each county's share of the electorate for both 2014 and 2018 and averaged it, and used that to calculate the raw votes each candidate received in an election with 3.9 million voters.



I also had to reconcile the Libertarian vote share differences: in short, I gave 10% of the excess Libertarian vote share to Abrams and 90% to Kemp (realistic - maybe even overly generous to Kemp).

Not only would she be in the lead, she would have won outright:

Hybrid Carter-Abrams Majority Win

50.15% - 1962929 - Abrams
48.90% - 1913946 - Kemp
0.95% - 37088 - Metz

(Colors are exact Atlas colors but some counties show up a shade darker/lighter due to the way I have to tell Google Fusion Tables to color the map; Douglas is a good example, as it's below 40% GOP, it colors it with >60% Dem)

What if you merged The Carter and Abrams margins, but kept turn out at 2018 level? I suspect going forward that's the only realistic numbers to use. Turn that won't always be so hyped up is this year, but it it's going to be closer to this rather than 2014 and older elections going forward. Every off-year election is now a battle to the death it seems.

[Adam Griffin]

Just for reference (percentages among each vote type as of now):

[Reaganfan]

Brian Kemp's numbers among white women were insane. 76% of the white women vote for Kemp. That explains the story. To be honest, I'm shocked Abrams didn't lose worse with those types of dismal numbers among women.

[Adam Griffin]

What if you merged The Carter and Abrams margins, but kept turn out at 2018 level? I suspect going forward that's the only realistic numbers to use. Turn that won't always be so hyped up is this year, but it it's going to be closer to this rather than 2014 and older elections going forward. Every off-year election is now a battle to the death it seems.

I mean, for the most part, that's how it was done. Because there was such a huge difference in the raw vote between 2018 and 2014, there was no way I could just take the raw figures for each group and combine them. Instead, what I did was take the share of the electorate for each county in both elections, average them, and use that.

So for example, say ABC County was 1.34% of the electorate in 2014 and 1.38% in 2018; in my calculations, it is 1.36% of the electorate.

By and large, there were no huge shifts in what percentage of the total vote each county comprised, so this was the best compromise method I could see utilizing in this situation. I could potentially run the figures using only 2018 shares of the electorate, but it honestly should not impact the margins by more than a rounding error.

[Badger]

Even if Abrams losing, she improved on Hillary's margin despite only focusing on Democrats. Considering she's only down ~1.5% (from HRC -4), 2020 is definitely in contention.

I will go out on a limb and say that even in relatively inelastic Georgia and state race is becoming increasingly partisan, that there is still a distinction between a state and federal race in terms of how much a blue or red State's voters will give the other party's candidates a shake. In other words, Charlie Baker is Never Ever Getting elected to the US Senate, and Georgia Democrats will have more difficulty electing a senator than they will a governor. Demographics are moving in their direction to be sure, but I suspect the governor's mansion will fall before one of the Senators, boring individual issues such as a mega Gaff or scandal

[Young Conservative]

Even if Abrams losing, she improved on Hillary's margin despite only focusing on Democrats. Considering she's only down ~1.5% (from HRC -4), 2020 is definitely in contention.

I will go out on a limb and say that even in relatively inelastic Georgia and state race is becoming increasingly partisan, that there is still a distinction between a state and federal race in terms of how much a blue or red State's voters will give the other party's candidates a shake. In other words, Charlie Baker is Never Ever Getting elected to the US Senate, and Georgia Democrats will have more difficulty electing a senator than they will a governor. Demographics are moving in their direction to be sure, but I suspect the governor's mansion will fall before one of the Senators, boring individual issues such as a mega Gaff or scandal

This is true, also, why go after Georgia senate when there are bluer states up? Seems like Democrats often favor "moral" victories over actual wins.

[Adam Griffin]

Even if Abrams losing, she improved on Hillary's margin despite only focusing on Democrats. Considering she's only down ~1.5% (from HRC -4), 2020 is definitely in contention.

I will go out on a limb and say that even in relatively inelastic Georgia and state race is becoming increasingly partisan, that there is still a distinction between a state and federal race in terms of how much a blue or red State's voters will give the other party's candidates a shake. In other words, Charlie Baker is Never Ever Getting elected to the US Senate, and Georgia Democrats will have more difficulty electing a senator than they will a governor. Demographics are moving in their direction to be sure, but I suspect the governor's mansion will fall before one of the Senators, boring individual issues such as a mega Gaff or scandal

Historically, the key difference in Georgia (all the way through 2014 or even 2016) between state level and federal elections is that rural voters have been more willing to back state Democrats, while metro voters have been more willing to back federal Democrats. This election, by and large, showed a complete breakdown of the benefit Democrats in GA enjoy in midterms (higher rural support). Abrams basically got in rural GA what Clinton got.

As such, I'd have a hard time seeing many - if any - of the people who voted for Stacey Abrams backing a Republican for federal office, especially in the metro areas. If you take a couple more years of demography and couple it with rural support levels that aren't likely to get any lower and metro support levels that won't drop among existing voters, it's definitely a toss-up.

For all the noise about these huge early voting lines, Kemp still slightly won the early in-person vote?

Yep - and by a bit more than Deal did in 2014 (Deal won AIP by 0.7 points; Kemp by 1.1).

If you take the total early vote (including mail), then it's a bit different: Deal won by 2.6 in 2014, while Abrams won by 1.5. Expect the GOP to try and end mail voting next year now that it's no longer their best category of voters.

However, it's not surprising to me: I warned before Election Day about how the 2018 EV electorate didn't look much different than the 2014 EV electorate in net terms (white-black margin).

[Zaybay]

Even if Abrams losing, she improved on Hillary's margin despite only focusing on Democrats. Considering she's only down ~1.5% (from HRC -4), 2020 is definitely in contention.

I will go out on a limb and say that even in relatively inelastic Georgia and state race is becoming increasingly partisan, that there is still a distinction between a state and federal race in terms of how much a blue or red State's voters will give the other party's candidates a shake. In other words, Charlie Baker is Never Ever Getting elected to the US Senate, and Georgia Democrats will have more difficulty electing a senator than they will a governor. Demographics are moving in their direction to be sure, but I suspect the governor's mansion will fall before one of the Senators, boring individual issues such as a mega Gaff or scandal

This is true, also, why go after Georgia senate when there are bluer states up? Seems like Democrats often favor "moral" victories over actual wins.

...because there are only 2 Blue Senate seats up? If the Dems want to take the senate(in this scenario, AZ and FL have flipped) they will need 4 seats. They lose AL, putting them down by 4, and gain, the Blue Senate seats, putting them at -2. From there, they need to win the presidency and two currently Red State senate seats to win the senate. The most likely targets would be AZ, and either NC/GA. This would be the D path to the senate of least resistance.

[Virginiá]

...because there are only 2 Blue Senate seats up? If the Dems want to take the senate(in this scenario, AZ and FL have flipped) they will need 4 seats. They lose AL, putting them down by 4, and gain, the Blue Senate seats, putting them at -2. From there, they need to win the presidency and two currently Red State senate seats to win the senate. The most likely targets would be AZ, and either NC/GA. This would be the D path to the senate of least resistance.

I'm kind of worried that 2020's electorate will be just as polarized and that will limit opportunities. Even under such a situation, I still think Montana, North Carolina and maybe Georgia are doable. Iowa should be too although less so than maybe previously thought. Maine may, depending on what goes on with Collins and whether Democrats can tarnish her image even more over Kavanaugh (they may be able to). If anything, NC and GA are just as doable as they would be without Trump on the ballot, since they always have very polarized results. So in that sense they are either ripe for flips or not.

I think the opportunities are there but they seem like harder reaches right now unless Trump goes down fairly comfortably (something I still think is not only possible but maybe even more likely than not as of right now).

[lfromnj]

...because there are only 2 Blue Senate seats up? If the Dems want to take the senate(in this scenario, AZ and FL have flipped) they will need 4 seats. They lose AL, putting them down by 4, and gain, the Blue Senate seats, putting them at -2. From there, they need to win the presidency and two currently Red State senate seats to win the senate. The most likely targets would be AZ, and either NC/GA. This would be the D path to the senate of least resistance.

I'm kind of worried that 2020's electorate will be just as polarized and that will limit opportunities. Even under such a situation, I still think Montana, North Carolina and maybe Georgia are doable. Iowa should be too although less so than maybe previously thought. Maine may, depending on what goes on with Collins and whether Democrats can tarnish her image even more over Kavanaugh (they may be able to). If anything, NC and GA are just as doable as they would be without Trump on the ballot, since they always have very polarized results.

I think the opportunities are there but they seem like harder reaches right now unless Trump goes down fairly comfortably (something I still think is not only possible but maybe even more likely than not as of right now).

I honestly am shocked how bad Steve king did. Nate silver really should have kept a scandal effect on him in his forecast. I thought the hicks Iowa 4th loved King and his internal would be relatively accurate.

[Zaybay]

...because there are only 2 Blue Senate seats up? If the Dems want to take the senate(in this scenario, AZ and FL have flipped) they will need 4 seats. They lose AL, putting them down by 4, and gain, the Blue Senate seats, putting them at -2. From there, they need to win the presidency and two currently Red State senate seats to win the senate. The most likely targets would be AZ, and either NC/GA. This would be the D path to the senate of least resistance.

I'm kind of worried that 2020's electorate will be just as polarized and that will limit opportunities. Even under such a situation, I still think Montana, North Carolina and maybe Georgia are doable. Iowa should be too although less so than maybe previously thought. Maine may, depending on what goes on with Collins and whether Democrats can tarnish her image even more over Kavanaugh (they may be able to).

I think the opportunities are there but they seem like harder reaches right now unless Trump goes down fairly comfortably (something I still think is not only possible but maybe even more likely than not as of right now).

If the electorate stays as polarized as it is now, then the D senate becomes easier to obtain. ME and CO would throw out their Rs, no matter how popular/unpopular, and it becomes much easier to take NC, GA, and TX. It should be noted that 2018 was a midterm, and many minorities, such as Hispanics, did not vote. If polarization from 2018 stays, then TX is a complete tossup, AZ is also gone, and GA is gone. NC is the only one that may not be lost if polarization were to stay the same.

[Virginiá]

Oh right, I forgot about Arizona. Good catch.

I'm a bit less optimistic about Texas and Georgia still. I really do like the performances this year even if we lost, but I still question whether we can actually flip those Senate seats in 2020. Maybe we lose by 1 point, but it's still a loss. Although I admit I do think it's competitive and a large presidential win might send us over the top, so that would be my definition of 'doable.'

Suffice to say I just have little faith in most southern states. They are always a tease.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I've been looking at results on the Georgia SOS page... any idea why turnout for Lt. Gov. was so much lower than for all the other statewide races?

[Shadows]

GA & TX Senate races may or may not be attainable in 2020 if Abrams or O'Rourke couldn't do it in 2018. When it comes to Senate, TX & GA are not Top priorities. The 2 Blue States should be 1st priority (CO & ME). Collins is not the Collins of 2008 anymore. MT is also winnable with Bullock. If Tester could win it with Trump, his family, all top GOP guys campaigning consistently to make this about Trump vs  Dems & Tester still pulls through, then Bullock has a 50% chance atleast to win.

There is NC which elected a DEM Gov. in 2016 when Trump won by 3.5%. Romney also won NC by "ONLY" 2% & in 2008 Obama carried it. It is winnable. AZ is winnable in 2020 with Trump not being very popular & Sinema likely winning it in 2018. 2020 AZ is an open seat. That makes it 5, relatively competitive races.

Then there is Iowa. Now, there is a chance that the Dem 2020 Nominee carries Iowa in 2020. It is very "ELASTIC" unlike Georgia. Dems took 2 seats from the GOP & Steve King crashed & now looks beatable in 2020. Maybe Dems could carry all 4 House Seats of Iowa in 2020 & there is no reason that the Senate seat is also not in play.

So you have -> Colorado, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa - 6 Seats which are easier targets than TX & Georgia. In a wave year or if the economy goes south, Texas & Georgia may well go blue. Regardless, there are enough Competitive Senate Seats in 2020 to take back the Senate even w/o TX & GA.

[lfromnj]

Oh right, I forgot about Arizona. Good catch.

I'm a bit less optimistic about Texas and Georgia still. I really do like the performances this year even if we lost, but I still question whether we can actually flip those Senate seats in 2020. Maybe we lose by 1 point, but it's still a loss. Although I admit I do think it's competitive and a large presidential win might send us over the top, so that would be my definition of 'doable.'

Suffice to say I just have little faith in most southern states. They are always a tease.

I think that Texas statewide itself doesn't become competitive in a neutral year. until 2026(previously I thought 2032 but Beto shook my expectations.) Assuming its a slightly good year for democrats in 2020 where the dem in Texas loses by 5(a reasonable expectation) the dems can take back the state house because democrats in texas are not as self packed as republicans are. republicans in rurals are often 80+ republican while only the very urban city cores are like that. The suburbans are getting burb stomped by the dems and its very possible that Beto won something like 80/150 state house seats while losing by 3 points.

[Inmate Trump]

Abrams is hurting her political future and also potentially hurting Georgia’s status as a swing state for 2020.

I voted for her; it’s time to concede.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Abrams is hurting her political future and also potentially hurting Georgia’s status as a swing state for 2020.

I voted for her; it’s time to concede.

I see nothing wrong with waiting until all the outstanding votes have been counted.  If the final count shows Kemp comfortably above the runoff threshold, then she should concede at that time.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Abrams is hurting her political future and also potentially hurting Georgia’s status as a swing state for 2020.

I voted for her; it’s time to concede.

I see nothing wrong with waiting until all the outstanding votes have been counted.  If the final count shows Kemp comfortably above the runoff threshold, then she should concede at that time.

Yeah, the GOP isn’t even going at her that hard for holding out. This will be over by Tuesday. Abrams supporters are honestly more fervent than ever.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

GA isn't a swing state

[GeorgiaModerate]

GA isn't a swing state

Jim Galloway, the AJC's highly respected political columnist, thinks otherwise: Atlanta’s northern ‘burbs have put Georgia in play for 2020.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I was talking more about tipping point states than purple states. But in a landslide, yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kamala Harris is now grifting off this close race.

https://twitter.com/GarrettShorr/status/1060721428545232897