Georgia senate seats runoff(s) megathread

[ProgressiveModerate]

Honest question:

is there ANY good news for the gop in any of this ev data?

it looks dreadful.

-Polling is a virtual tie, and pretty much 90% of the time, a statistical tie in polling broke for Rs in 2020.
-Strongly D counties don't have all that much higher turnout than strongly R counties, if you're a Democrat, you prolly want a slightly bigger gap
-The holidays are coming up which will prolly lead to fewer EVs for at least a few days
-Never underestimate Rs ability to turn up on election day

[Roll Roons]

Is early vote data actually worth reading into? People on here thought blue Texas was inevitable based on massive early voting turnout, only to be sorely disappointed.

[Matty]

Is early vote data actually worth reading into? People on here thought blue Texas was inevitable based on massive early voting turnout, only to be sorely disappointed.

texas ev data simply indicated that turnout would be massive. it didn't tell you which side was turning out.

georgia ev data indicates a d electorate.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Is early vote data actually worth reading into? People on here thought blue Texas was inevitable based on massive early voting turnout, only to be sorely disappointed.

To some degree yes. Biden did end up getting 1.5 million more votes than Clinton, it’s just that the Election Day turnout was also pretty massive. Heck, even Hegar got 1 million more votes than Clinton did. To me, it seems like the EV data can tell us a lot about D turnout with Republican turnout being more of a wild card that we won’t know to the day of.

Also, in a place like TX, there were very few breakdowns so we knew turnout was high and that urban counties were passing there 2016 total, but we didn’t know much else about who these people are

[Frenchrepublican]

If one side wins both runoffs, they will have gotten extremely lucky with winning narrow senate races to form this congress, especially if they both break narrowly for Republicans.

Also, if both seats flip, it kind of destroys the "structural likely R senate" meme.  Biden won 25 states.  If Senate Dems can defeat GOP incumbents in Biden's narrowest state, they are in much better shape than anyone thought after 2018.

There is a error on your list

[Frenchrepublican]

Is early vote data actually worth reading into? People on here thought blue Texas was inevitable based on massive early voting turnout, only to be sorely disappointed.

texas ev data simply indicated that turnout would be massive. it didn't tell you which side was turning out.

georgia ev data indicates a d electorate.

No, these data simply show that democrats are more prone to vote early, you can't extrapolate anything more from these numbers

[ProgressiveModerate]

If one side wins both runoffs, they will have gotten extremely lucky with winning narrow senate races to form this congress, especially if they both break narrowly for Republicans.

Also, if both seats flip, it kind of destroys the "structural likely R senate" meme.  Biden won 25 states.  If Senate Dems can defeat GOP incumbents in Biden's narrowest state, they are in much better shape than anyone thought after 2018.

There is a error on your list

Lol I can’t find it and I’m going insane at this point. Any care to tel me what it is?

[Tintrlvr]

I might just be a political oddball but I do actually care about the deficit and responsible spending and I'm not convinced a blanket $2,000 stimulus check is good policy. I'd much prefer the Dems take some time to lay out all the different options for stimulating the economy (e.g., infrastructure spending, tax credits for parents that need child care for the pandemic), rather than just jump on the more checks for everyone train.

We're in a recession, the deficit doesn't matter right now (and barely matters during times of economic expansion). The best stimulus for this pandemic would be lockdowns coupled with direct aid to businesses to keep them open and direct checks to families/individuals so that they can afford to stay home and keep the virus in check.

Half the population is working from home already according to the polls and doing better financially than ever. Do they really need direct checks?

I disagree the deficit doesn't matter. We're financing all of this in the form of debt that carries interest that the Government will have to pay each year until that debt is paid off.

Who says we have to pay?

Well, as I see it, there are 3 options:

1) Government borrows more money to pay off the interest, resulting in ever higher interest payments. This just kicks the can down the road for options 2 and 3 below.

2) Government cuts spending or increases taxes to pay off the debt. I imagine both would be just as politically unpopular as the stimulus checks might be popular.

3) Government defaults on the debt or prints money to pay off the debt. See Venezuela for why this is a bad idea - hyperinflation, currency would become worthless, bank runs.

Option #4 is that government spending increases future incomes relative to the baseline significantly more than its cost, increasing tax receipts that pay off the debt incurred by spending or at least keep debt neutral compared to the no-stimulus scenario (which may be ugly regardless given the current state of things - or may not be, I remain optimistic about a rapid economic recovery). This may not be the case during a boom period, but it's clearly a very relevant factor in an economic downturn.

[Frenchrepublican]

If one side wins both runoffs, they will have gotten extremely lucky with winning narrow senate races to form this congress, especially if they both break narrowly for Republicans.

Also, if both seats flip, it kind of destroys the "structural likely R senate" meme.  Biden won 25 states.  If Senate Dems can defeat GOP incumbents in Biden's narrowest state, they are in much better shape than anyone thought after 2018.

There is a error on your list

Lol I can’t find it and I’m going insane at this point. Any care to tel me what it is?

ND-SEN 2018 ; you have mixed Hoeven and Cramer.

[ProgressiveModerate]

If one side wins both runoffs, they will have gotten extremely lucky with winning narrow senate races to form this congress, especially if they both break narrowly for Republicans.

Also, if both seats flip, it kind of destroys the "structural likely R senate" meme.  Biden won 25 states.  If Senate Dems can defeat GOP incumbents in Biden's narrowest state, they are in much better shape than anyone thought after 2018.

There is a error on your list

Lol I can’t find it and I’m going insane at this point. Any care to tel me what it is?

ND-SEN 2018 ; you have mixed Hoeven and Cramer.

Oops, thanks for letting me know I’ll change it ASAP

[Skill and Chance]

I might just be a political oddball but I do actually care about the deficit and responsible spending and I'm not convinced a blanket $2,000 stimulus check is good policy. I'd much prefer the Dems take some time to lay out all the different options for stimulating the economy (e.g., infrastructure spending, tax credits for parents that need child care for the pandemic), rather than just jump on the more checks for everyone train.

We're in a recession, the deficit doesn't matter right now (and barely matters during times of economic expansion). The best stimulus for this pandemic would be lockdowns coupled with direct aid to businesses to keep them open and direct checks to families/individuals so that they can afford to stay home and keep the virus in check.

Half the population is working from home already according to the polls and doing better financially than ever. Do they really need direct checks?

I disagree the deficit doesn't matter. We're financing all of this in the form of debt that carries interest that the Government will have to pay each year until that debt is paid off.

Who says we have to pay?

Well, as I see it, there are 3 options:

1) Government borrows more money to pay off the interest, resulting in ever higher interest payments. This just kicks the can down the road for options 2 and 3 below.

2) Government cuts spending or increases taxes to pay off the debt. I imagine both would be just as politically unpopular as the stimulus checks might be popular.

3) Government defaults on the debt or prints money to pay off the debt. See Venezuela for why this is a bad idea - hyperinflation, currency would become worthless, bank runs.

Option #4 is that government spending increases future incomes relative to the baseline significantly more than its cost, increasing tax receipts that pay off the debt incurred by spending or at least keep debt neutral compared to the no-stimulus scenario (which may be ugly regardless given the current state of things - or may not be, I remain optimistic about a rapid economic recovery). This may not be the case during a boom period, but it's clearly a very relevant factor in an economic downturn.

Option 4 is plausible and even likely during a historic plague, but it's highly implausible during good economic times like 2017-19, and there is no sign of countercyclical belt tightening during booms.

[Pollster]

I might just be a political oddball but I do actually care about the deficit and responsible spending and I'm not convinced a blanket $2,000 stimulus check is good policy. I'd much prefer the Dems take some time to lay out all the different options for stimulating the economy (e.g., infrastructure spending, tax credits for parents that need child care for the pandemic), rather than just jump on the more checks for everyone train.

Yeah, exactly, from a European perspective the debate which is taking place in the US is pretty weird, I mean, it's logical to compensate the loss of income for the people who are forced to shut down their business, who have lost their job or who are facing reduced working hours because of lockdown and anti Covid measures but giving a $2000 check to everybody, including the federal and state workers who are unaffacted by these measures is wasteful.

The problem is that this could potentially run into a 5th/14th amendment issue - fully employed people could make the argument that being denied stimulus checks is a violation of their due process rights.

There's also the idea that more money directly put in people's pockets pays economic dividends in the longrun, which is the same reasoning past administrations have given for cutting payroll taxes.

The political power behind both, though, is that people having more money is popular.

[wbrocks67]

VBM + IN PERSON EARLY
Nov GE: 4.03M (56.5% white, 27.7% black) ---> +28.8 white
12/15: 483K (53.9% white, 33.4% black) ---> +20.5 white
12/16: 715K (54.5% white, 33.1% black) ---> +21.4 white
12/17: 914K (55.0% white, 32.5% black) —> +22.5 white
12/18: 1.12M (55.4% white, 32.0% black) —> +23.4 white
12/19: 1.34M (55.6% white, 31.6% black) —> +24.0 white
12/21: 1.47M (54.4% white, 32.4% black) —> +22.0 white
12/22: 1.68M (54.8% white, 31.9% black) —> +22.9 white
12/23: 1.88M (55.0% white, 31.6% black) —> +23.4 white
12/24: 2.06M (55.5% white, 31.5% black) —> +24.0 white

VBM requests
Nov GE: 1.78M (51.2% white, 31.4% black) ---> +19.8 white
12/10: 1.17M (53.6% white, 31.2% black) ---> +22.4 white
12/13: 1.25M (53.0% white, 31.6% black) ---> +21.4 white
12/17: 1.28M (52.2% white, 32.0% black) —> +20.2 white
12/18: 1.30M (52.0% white, 32.2% black) —> +19.8 white
12/19: 1.31M (51.8% white, 32.4% black) —> +19.4 white
12/21: 1.32M (51.7% white, 32.4% black) —> +19.3 white
12/22: 1.33M (51.6% white, 32.5% black) —> +19.1 white
12/23: 1.34M (51.5% white, 32.5% black) —> +19.0 white
12/24: 1.35M (51.6% white, 32.7% black) —> +18.9 white

VBM accepted
Nov GE: 1.32M (53.0% white, 30.3% black) ---> +22.7 white
12/16: 379K (56.9% white, 30.7% black) ---> +26.2 white
12/17: 427K (56.5% white, 31.0% black) —> +25.5 white
12/18: 481K (56.3% white, 30.9% black) —> +25.4 white
12/19: 525K (56.1% white, 30.9% black) —> +25.2 white
12/21: 570K (55.5% white, 31.3% black) —> +24.2 white
12/22: 621K (55.4% white, 31.2% black) —> +24.2 white
12/23: 679K (54.9% white, 31.4% black) —> +23.5 white
12/24: 722K (54.9% white, 31.6% black) —> +23.3 white

IN PERSON EARLY votes
Nov GE: 2.69M (58.2% white, 26.4% black) ---> +31.8 white
12/16: 336K (51.9% white, 35.8% black) ---> +16.1 white
12/17: 487K (53.7% white, 33.9% black) —> +19.8 white
12/18: 642K (54.7% white, 32.8% black) —> +21.9 white
12/19: 812K (55.3% white, 32.0% black) —> +23.3 white
12/21: 902K (53.8% white, 33.1% black) —> +20.7 white
12/22: 1.06M (54.4% white, 32.4% black) —> +22.0 white
12/23: 1.21M (55.0% white, 31.7% black) —-> +23.3 white
12/24: 1.34M (55.9% white, 31.5% black) —> +24.4 white

[Bootes Void]

Christmas Eve really slowed down the turnout. Let's see if turnout shoots up after Christmas

[forsythvoter]

Christmas Eve really slowed down the turnout. Let's see if turnout shoots up after Christmas

One important point - most of GA is now closed for early voting until Monday, 12/28. The only counties I believe that are open are Fulton, DeKalb and Gwinnett this weekend.

[MT Treasurer]

Also, if both seats flip, it kind of destroys the "structural likely R senate" meme.  Biden won 25 states.  If Senate Dems can defeat GOP incumbents in Biden's narrowest state, they are in much better shape than anyone thought after 2018.

Said Biden state not only has an incredibly small segment of actually persuadable voters but also happens to be the most rapidly D-trending state of any remotely competitive state (i.e. not CO/VA) in the entire country. If Democrats win these races, it will tell us more about GA's political future and further underscore the fact that GA is rapidly turning/has already turned into a reliably Democratic state than it will about Democrats' prospects in the Senate after 2021 (I could certainly see Democrats losing all of NH/NV/AZ/WV/OH/MT in 2022/2024, all of which might be more competitive than GA at this point, which would still make the Senate somewhat uphill for them in the long run, for instance).

The only reason the GA runoffs even matter is because Republicans were too incompetent to win a Senate race in a Trump +42 state (in addition to losing other winnable races such as MT 2018, MI 2020, etc.). Democrats still have to overcome some serious structural challenges in the Senate.

[Skill and Chance]

Also, if both seats flip, it kind of destroys the "structural likely R senate" meme.  Biden won 25 states.  If Senate Dems can defeat GOP incumbents in Biden's narrowest state, they are in much better shape than anyone thought after 2018.

Said Biden state not only has an incredibly small segment of actually persuadable voters but also happens to be the most rapidly D-trending state of any remotely competitive state (i.e. not CO/VA) in the entire country. If Democrats win these races, it will tell us more about GA's political future and further underscore the fact that GA is rapidly turning/has already turned into a reliably Democratic state than it will about Democrats' prospects in the Senate after 2021 (I could certainly see Democrats losing all of NH/NV/AZ/WV/OH/MT in 2022/2024, all of which might be more competitive than GA at this point, which would still make the Senate somewhat uphill for them in the long run, for instance).

The only reason the GA runoffs even matter is because Republicans were too incompetent to win a Senate race in a Trump +42 state (in addition to losing other winnable races such as MT 2018, MI 2020, etc.). Democrats still have to overcome some serious structural challenges in the Senate.

I agree the bolded states are sure losses, and the other 3 are not sure wins.  However, bouncing back in New England and to a lesser extent Michigan + alleviating CA/NY vote sink concerns in the medium/long run + Alaska and Kansas/Nebraska looking attractive by the middle/end of the decade + Florida potentially becoming a big state GOP vote sink by then are why things look more even now than in 2017 or 2019.  They will be in a hole come 2025, but it would be a lot more manageable with this coalition than the 75% Dem CA, 55% Dem TX, and 55% GOP Midwest/New England world it looked like we were careening toward in 2016/18. 

[MT Treasurer]

I agree the bolded states are sure losses, and the other 3 are not sure wins.  However, bouncing back in New England and to a lesser extent Michigan + alleviating CA/NY vote sink concerns in the medium/long run + Alaska and Kansas/Nebraska looking attractive by the middle/end of the decade + Florida potentially becoming a big state GOP vote sink by then are why things look more even now than in 2017 or 2019.  They will be in a hole come 2025, but it would be a lot more manageable with this coalition than the 75% Dem CA, 55% Dem TX, and 55% GOP Midwest/New England world it looked like we were careening toward in 2016/18. 

MT is definitely not a sure loss, and I wouldn’t completely write off Brown either although he’s almost certainly the underdog. I also don’t see NH/ME/MI/KS/NE being nearly as promising for Democrats as long as they actually control the White House (which they probably will until 2028 at the very least), although I agree on AK. The GA seats are probably gone for the GOP before the end of the decade regardless of which party occupies the White House.

Even with GA firmly in the D column, there are still a lot of potentially vulnerable Senate seats Democrats currently hold in competitive/-ish states (Tester, Manchin, Brown, Stabenow, Peters, Baldwin, Sinema, Kelly, Rosen, Cortez Masto, Hassan, Shaheen, King, arguably one or two of the NM/MN seats as well but that’s stretching it), so some combination of one or two Republican-friendly midterms in 2022/2026 + a rapid decline in split-ticket voting and/or a national GOP victory in 2024 could wipe most of them out. GA is definitely not going to be part of the GOP's path of least resistance after 2021.

[Catalunya]

I agree the bolded states are sure losses, and the other 3 are not sure wins.  However, bouncing back in New England and to a lesser extent Michigan + alleviating CA/NY vote sink concerns in the medium/long run + Alaska and Kansas/Nebraska looking attractive by the middle/end of the decade + Florida potentially becoming a big state GOP vote sink by then are why things look more even now than in 2017 or 2019.  They will be in a hole come 2025, but it would be a lot more manageable with this coalition than the 75% Dem CA, 55% Dem TX, and 55% GOP Midwest/New England world it looked like we were careening toward in 2016/18. 

MT is definitely not a sure loss, and I wouldn’t completely write off Brown either although he’s almost certainly the underdog. I also don’t see NH/ME/MI/KS/NE being nearly as promising for Democrats as long as they actually control the White House (which they probably will until 2028 at the very least), although I agree on AK. The GA seats are probably gone for the GOP before the end of the decade regardless of which party occupies the White House.

Even with GA firmly in the D column, there are still a lot of potentially vulnerable Senate seats Democrats currently hold in competitive/-ish states (Tester, Manchin, Brown, Stabenow, Peters, Baldwin, Sinema, Kelly, Rosen, Cortez Masto, Hassan, Shaheen, King, arguably one or two of the NM/MN seats as well but that’s stretching it), so some combination of one or two Republican-friendly midterms in 2022/2026 + a rapid decline in split-ticket voting and/or a national GOP victory in 2024 could wipe most of them out. GA is definitely not going to be part of the GOP's path of least resistance after 2021.

This is why PR and DC statehood need to happen. If not Democrats will be blocked out of the senate for at least two decades, despite probably winning the Popular Vote in every nationwide senate election (even if you don’t include one of the California candidates).

[ProgressiveModerate]

I agree the bolded states are sure losses, and the other 3 are not sure wins.  However, bouncing back in New England and to a lesser extent Michigan + alleviating CA/NY vote sink concerns in the medium/long run + Alaska and Kansas/Nebraska looking attractive by the middle/end of the decade + Florida potentially becoming a big state GOP vote sink by then are why things look more even now than in 2017 or 2019.  They will be in a hole come 2025, but it would be a lot more manageable with this coalition than the 75% Dem CA, 55% Dem TX, and 55% GOP Midwest/New England world it looked like we were careening toward in 2016/18. 

MT is definitely not a sure loss, and I wouldn’t completely write off Brown either although he’s almost certainly the underdog. I also don’t see NH/ME/MI/KS/NE being nearly as promising for Democrats as long as they actually control the White House (which they probably will until 2028 at the very least), although I agree on AK. The GA seats are probably gone for the GOP before the end of the decade regardless of which party occupies the White House.

Even with GA firmly in the D column, there are still a lot of potentially vulnerable Senate seats Democrats currently hold in competitive/-ish states (Tester, Manchin, Brown, Stabenow, Peters, Baldwin, Sinema, Kelly, Rosen, Cortez Masto, Hassan, Shaheen, King, arguably one or two of the NM/MN seats as well but that’s stretching it), so some combination of one or two Republican-friendly midterms in 2022/2026 + a rapid decline in split-ticket voting and/or a national GOP victory in 2024 could wipe most of them out. GA is definitely not going to be part of the GOP's path of least resistance after 2021.

This is why PR and DC statehood need to happen. If not Democrats will be blocked out of the senate for at least two decades, despite probably winning the Popular Vote in every nationwide senate election (even if you don’t include one of the California candidates).

I wouldn’t go as far as to say that. Things can change relatively rapidly; remember in 2008 when Republicans fell deep into the minority and worried they would lose the body for a political generation? The real issue for Ds was they didn’t have the traditional 2 wave years in their favor to rebuild their senate majority, they only had 1 because Trump lost re-election. Had Trump won in 2020, they could’ve got into the mid 50s in 2022.

Furthermore, 2020 actually spelled some reviving news for Ds in the senate. In 2016 and 2018, people thought the main re-alignments were urban-rural, but now that seems to be shifting into an argument educational divide, and there are a lot of well educated small states, especially in the North East and West. The real fear was Democrats would only gain GA/TX/NC but lose the rust belt and north east, but that doesn’t seem to be where we’re heading.

It seems like they will still be slight underdogs in the senate, but it seems to me their current problems won’t get worse than they are now. The real issue for the was the break in the 2-term Presidents rule depriving them of a wave year to build up downballot.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I agree the bolded states are sure losses, and the other 3 are not sure wins.  However, bouncing back in New England and to a lesser extent Michigan + alleviating CA/NY vote sink concerns in the medium/long run + Alaska and Kansas/Nebraska looking attractive by the middle/end of the decade + Florida potentially becoming a big state GOP vote sink by then are why things look more even now than in 2017 or 2019.  They will be in a hole come 2025, but it would be a lot more manageable with this coalition than the 75% Dem CA, 55% Dem TX, and 55% GOP Midwest/New England world it looked like we were careening toward in 2016/18.  

MT is definitely not a sure loss, and I wouldn’t completely write off Brown either although he’s almost certainly the underdog. I also don’t see NH/ME/MI/KS/NE being nearly as promising for Democrats as long as they actually control the White House (which they probably will until 2028 at the very least), although I agree on AK. The GA seats are probably gone for the GOP before the end of the decade regardless of which party occupies the White House.

Even with GA firmly in the D column, there are still a lot of potentially vulnerable Senate seats Democrats currently hold in competitive/-ish states (Tester, Manchin, Brown, Stabenow, Peters, Baldwin, Sinema, Kelly, Rosen, Cortez Masto, Hassan, Shaheen, King, arguably one or two of the NM/MN seats as well but that’s stretching it), so some combination of one or two Republican-friendly midterms in 2022/2026 + a rapid decline in split-ticket voting and/or a national GOP victory in 2024 could wipe most of them out. GA is definitely not going to be part of the GOP's path of least resistance after 2021.

This is why PR and DC statehood need to happen. If not Democrats will be blocked out of the senate for at least two decades, despite probably winning the Popular Vote in every nationwide senate election (even if you don’t include one of the California candidates).

I wouldn’t go as far as to say that. Things can change relatively rapidly; remember in 2008 when Republicans fell deep into the minority and worried they would lose the body for a political generation? The real issue for Ds was they didn’t have the traditional 2 wave years in their favor to rebuild their senate majority, they only had 1 because Trump lost re-election. Had Trump won in 2020, they could’ve got into the mid 50s in 2022.

Furthermore, 2020 actually spelled some reviving news for Ds in the senate. In 2016 and 2018, people thought the main re-alignments were urban-rural, but now that seems to be shifting into an argument educational divide, and there are a lot of well educated small states, especially in the North East and West. The real fear was Democrats would only gain GA/TX/NC but lose the rust belt and north east, but that doesn’t seem to be where we’re heading.

It seems like they will still be slight underdogs in the senate, but it seems to me their current problems won’t get worse than they are now. The real issue for the was the break in the 2-term Presidents rule depriving them of a wave year to build up downballot.

You keep saying it's gonna be an R wave yr and split party Delegations have gone out the window.  Rs had a R favored map in 2014 won MT, IA, KY, and LA. 2018, D's won the House but Rs IN, MO, ND

In 2022, to be competetive races are in AZ, NH, GA, NC, WI, PA and NV, Cook hasnt downgraded ant D Seat and in every competetive race aside from NC, Biden won.  


Rs haven't cracked the blue wall since 2016, with Benghazi Hillary and Gary Johnson.

[NewYorkExpress]

Loeffler took more than $28,000 in donations from family who's company hired illegal immigrants and got fined for it.

Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who has maintained a strong anti-illegal immigration stance during her short tenure in office, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for her Georgia Senate runoff campaign from donors linked to a family owned company that was forced to pay out more than $95 million in fines for unlawful immigration practices and alleged hiring discrimination, disclosure records show.

Between late November and early December, Loeffler's campaign received more than $28,000 in contributions from at least 11 members of the Asplundh family, according to new campaign finance reports filed to the Federal Election Commission. The Asplundh family owns and operates the large, privately held Asplundh Tree Expert Company, which has done work for the U.S. Department of Energy.

In 2017, the Pennsylvania-based tree-trimming and vegetation management company had to pay the largest civil settlement ever levied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a yearslong investigation resulted in the company pleading guilty to "unlawfully employing aliens." Additionally, in January 2019, Asplundh agreed to pay $55,000 in back wages to settle hiring discrimination allegations stemming from one of its facilities in Georgia.

None of the donations to Loeffler from the family members properly listed their association with the company as required by the FEC, and instead, the Loeffler campaign wrote under the employer and occupation sections: "INFORMATION REQUESTED PER BEST EFFORTS."

[Frenchrepublican]

Also, if both seats flip, it kind of destroys the "structural likely R senate" meme.  Biden won 25 states.  If Senate Dems can defeat GOP incumbents in Biden's narrowest state, they are in much better shape than anyone thought after 2018.

Said Biden state not only has an incredibly small segment of actually persuadable voters but also happens to be the most rapidly D-trending state of any remotely competitive state (i.e. not CO/VA) in the entire country. If Democrats win these races, it will tell us more about GA's political future and further underscore the fact that GA is rapidly turning/has already turned into a reliably Democratic state than it will about Democrats' prospects in the Senate after 2021 (I could certainly see Democrats losing all of NH/NV/AZ/WV/OH/MT in 2022/2024, all of which might be more competitive than GA at this point, which would still make the Senate somewhat uphill for them in the long run, for instance).

The only reason the GA runoffs even matter is because Republicans were too incompetent to win a Senate race in a Trump +42 state (in addition to losing other winnable races such as MT 2018, MI 2020, etc.). Democrats still have to overcome some serious structural challenges in the Senate.

TBH, with hindsight this race was not winnable considering how Trump underperformed in Michigan compared to his 2016 performance, in order to win James needed Trump to keep his losing margin under 1%, Peters was never going to underperform Biden by much more than 1 point.

[Brittain33]

Loeffler took more than $28,000 in donations from family who's company hired illegal immigrants and got fined for it.

Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who has maintained a strong anti-illegal immigration stance during her short tenure in office, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for her Georgia Senate runoff campaign from donors linked to a family owned company that was forced to pay out more than $95 million in fines for unlawful immigration practices and alleged hiring discrimination, disclosure records show.

Between late November and early December, Loeffler's campaign received more than $28,000 in contributions from at least 11 members of the Asplundh family, according to new campaign finance reports filed to the Federal Election Commission. The Asplundh family owns and operates the large, privately held Asplundh Tree Expert Company, which has done work for the U.S. Department of Energy.

In 2017, the Pennsylvania-based tree-trimming and vegetation management company had to pay the largest civil settlement ever levied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a yearslong investigation resulted in the company pleading guilty to "unlawfully employing aliens." Additionally, in January 2019, Asplundh agreed to pay $55,000 in back wages to settle hiring discrimination allegations stemming from one of its facilities in Georgia.

None of the donations to Loeffler from the family members properly listed their association with the company as required by the FEC, and instead, the Loeffler campaign wrote under the employer and occupation sections: "INFORMATION REQUESTED PER BEST EFFORTS."

Can we hold her accountable for this? She’s raised enormous amounts of money, she can’t possibly check every person who donates.

[brucejoel99]

Loeffler took more than $28,000 in donations from family who's company hired illegal immigrants and got fined for it.

Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who has maintained a strong anti-illegal immigration stance during her short tenure in office, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for her Georgia Senate runoff campaign from donors linked to a family owned company that was forced to pay out more than $95 million in fines for unlawful immigration practices and alleged hiring discrimination, disclosure records show.

Between late November and early December, Loeffler's campaign received more than $28,000 in contributions from at least 11 members of the Asplundh family, according to new campaign finance reports filed to the Federal Election Commission. The Asplundh family owns and operates the large, privately held Asplundh Tree Expert Company, which has done work for the U.S. Department of Energy.

In 2017, the Pennsylvania-based tree-trimming and vegetation management company had to pay the largest civil settlement ever levied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a yearslong investigation resulted in the company pleading guilty to "unlawfully employing aliens." Additionally, in January 2019, Asplundh agreed to pay $55,000 in back wages to settle hiring discrimination allegations stemming from one of its facilities in Georgia.

None of the donations to Loeffler from the family members properly listed their association with the company as required by the FEC, and instead, the Loeffler campaign wrote under the employer and occupation sections: "INFORMATION REQUESTED PER BEST EFFORTS."

Is this the kind of oppo that's being published in the hopes of turning Republican-leaning Georgians against her? Because newsflash: they don't give a sh*t how hypocritical she is. Stop expecting them to be reasonable people who care about hypocrisy. Trying to appeal to their decency is a fruitless effort.