Huh. So this pretty critical piece of information seems to have escaped a lot of people’s attention – including, I must admit, mine:
One possible scenario, which seems somewhat likely based on poll data, is that Chambliss wins a slight plurality, but not the 50% plus one required for a majority.
If Chambliss and Martin go into a run-off, the race will likely garner national attention and financial resources from national Democratic and Republican parties.
Andre in Atlanta explains the backstory:
After Wyche Fowler was defeated by Paul Coverdell in 1992, the Democratic-led Georgia General Assembly changed lowered the threshold for electoral victory to a plurality rather than a majority. In 2005, the Republican-led General Assembly changed it back to a majority, 50% plus one, to win.
If necessary, a runoff would be held on Dec. 2nd, so props if you knew all this. Anyhow, with Libertarian candidate Allan Buckley in the race, a runoff is a definite possibility – Buckley’s been pulling about 5% according to the Pollster composites. What’s more, Georgia’s own Bob Barr at the, uh, top of the ticket on the Libertarian line, so that could draw in even more Lib votes.
The real question is whether a runoff would be a boon to us. On the one hand, you would no longer have Obama at the top of the ticket. On the other hand, you’d have the entire resources of what ought to be a pretty energized Democratic Party at the ready. Of course, the GOP thought the same thing in Louisiana in 2002 when they tried to eliminate Mary Landrieu. They had the hubris to call it “Operation Icing on the Cake” – but all they got was a pie in the face.
I’m very curious to hear what Swing Staters think about the likelihood of a runoff, and to whose benefit (if anyone’s) one would redound.
I think Martin would have as much money as he needed at his disposal if we get into a runoff. Tons of national attention just on this race would be a plus.
Look what happened in MS-01.
The black vote wouldn’t be as big, and the state’s natural lean is Republican, meaning those third party voters coming home would be voting GOP.
I don’t think it’ll help us.
I thought they had done away with it after that 1992 runoff. Apparently, I am wrong. I had no idea that the GOP reinstated. Yet another reason to loathe the bastards.
Oh, and I agree with wmlawman. It would benefit Chambliss.
That a runoff would be a tough, tough row to hoe. But a President-Elect Obama would be able to stump for Martin and drive up black turnout.
I’m just stunned that I hadn’t heard about this scenario–which looks pretty darn likely–before now.
First, Obama’s black support doesn’t show up; we get only whatever the “normal” black vote share would be in such a runoff, which is going to be much lower than on November 4th.
Second, as others have noted, the libertarian vote goes for Chambliss in a two-way.
Third, “change” will have been accomplished as far as most voters are concerned, and conservative Georgia has a lot fewer voters WANTING change in the first place than much of the country. It just isn’t much motivation for prospective Martin voters to make him the 59th or 60th or 61st Democratic Senator to help Democratic President Obama who also has a 255-seat Democratic House majority.
And regarding Martin being the 60th Senator in the Democratic caucus, with or without Lieberman, we’re going to finally start getting media reports after the election on the reality too many people don’t seem to realize: 60 members in our caucus MEANS NOTHING. Cloture votes are vote-by-vote, any Senator of either party can vote either way, and whipping the caucus is a lot harder in the Senate than in the House. There is no special privilege in having 60 Senators of the same party except that the odds of getting cloture are higher than if you have only 55 or 52. But the odds at 60 are barely any better than the odds at 59. It really comes down to cobbling together 60-vote coalitions on each vote separately. All this will start getting emphasized on November 5th or 6th or 7th, or a week later, but in any case some time before the Georgia runoff.
All that said, I can’t forget Ciro Rodriguez beat Henry Bonilla in a runoff a month after the 2006 general to give us a 30th pickup after voters already had been exhausted, so there’s something to be said for a voter morale gap helping us in a runoff and helping Martin’s turnout get him over the top.
let me tell, it’s a statistical fact that i cannot prove at the moment but I know it to be true.
anyways – the black vote issue – I think that a very strong GOTV effort could be put in place.
Secondly, we would have a number of national resources at our disposal.
I’d think we have a better shot in the GE. But it would be a top tier race in a runoff which I have to say seems like a likely outcome at this point.
By the way, we will also have a runoff in the LA-04.
Obama will be free to transfer cash to the Georgia Democrats, DSCC and DNC for an all-out assualt. The NRSC should be broke.
But who knows.
First, the DSCC could throw a ton of money into Georgia. I don’t think we are going to be able to fund Jim Martin this time around and having the delayed runoff would let the DSCC take full notice of this race.
Second, IIRC runoffs have much smaller turn-outs than general elections, especially in a presidential year. In short, I don’t think African-American and Libertarian turn-out will have quite the same effect in a runoff. Martin will have an opportunity to build a winning coalition from an entirely different electorate.
Third, Democrats know how to win special elections in the South. We’ve done it recently and we can do it again. I’m of the opinion that wedge issues lose traction without a presidential race. We can make the GA Senate race about the economy and define Chambliss before he can even say “God, guns and gays”.
Overall, it’s looking good. Hopefully Martin will either get close enough to prevent %50+1 for Chambliss or win outright himself. I think we can win either way.
They are now on TV in Georgia.
The likelihood of Georgia being a tipping point state in the presidential election is pretty slim. But what if McCain get 49 to Obama’s 46 and Barr gets 5%. Would that go to run-off?
In 2006, I predicted Jefferson and Rodriguez would lose their run offs, so I’ll avoid hazarding a guess on this. I think, however, that any Martin victory will need strong black turnout, which in turn probably depends upon Obama personally making the pitch. Would this be enough to turn out the black vote? Would it drive away a small but crucial portion of the black vote?
Right now with the Libertarian on the ballot, the polls indicate a runoff likely will need to happen.
And without Obama’s name on the ballot vastly energizing the AA vote, Martin probably loses the runoff.
Also, the RNC and RNSC are really stretched thin playing defense in so many races. But with just one election to focus on Dec 2nd, that advantage for us goes away.
So Martin really has to aim for 50%+1.
BTW, a plug for DemConWatch. They wrote this about this earlier today: Georgia Senate race could go to December.
but I had fogotten about the runoff deal.
Being pushed into a runoff would take some ‘luster’ off Chambliss’ incumbency, but I think overall it would help him. Obama campaigning in GA would motivate the OPPOSITION as well as the D base.
to avoid a runoff is a remnant of the old Jim Crow laws, designed to keep black people from winning elections. It is incredible that the GOP-controlled GA legislature would have reinstated this requirement a decade after Democrats had removed it.
And some people wonder why African-Americans are so firmly in the Democratic camp.
the run off usually favors Democrats, who are more likely to show up to vote.
which was the certain result a couple of weeks ago. but it looks like a runoff is the most likely result – though african american and youth turnout may make for an extra point or two which might be enough.
the childers race does seem the most similar and we were all so sad at “the one that got away” that day he just missed the outright win the first time – and he went on to crush davis. and i wouldn’t put the libertarians into chambliss’ column quite so fast either. they are voting against the incumbent.
will the RSC take out another loan for this? will voters still be mad at the GOP, will Obama be able to move more voters for the month of November?
at this point winning on nov 4th is the better way, but all is not lost in a runoff.
This same thing happened to us in 2006. We led in the PSC District 3 race on Election Day, 49%-46%, but lost the December runoff 52-48%.
http://sos.georgia.gov/electio…
http://sos.georgia.gov/electio…
Is this complication another good reason for the DSCC to borrow another $15 million and throw it into Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and maybe Idaho or Tennessee? I’d say the odds of winning at least one of those states after $15 mil on TV are about as good as our chances of winning Georgia in a runoff.
He’s pretty darn progressive, by most reports, and a big part of me thinks that would be a liability in a runoff. Once there’s an enormous focus on this race as the only one left in the nation, I think the race shifts from its current status as Chambliss vs generic Democrat to a new paradigm of Chambliss vs this Democrat. And Martin is great, but I’m afraid he’ll have some positions that will go over like a rock with the Georgia electorate, or that at the very least will be subject to some pretty rough 30-sec ads.
On the other hand, Chambliss’ record is absolutely awful too. So a month-long Chambliss v Martin race would just be completely different than the one we have so far. It would be national Democrats vs national Republicans (b/c Martin is NOT a “southern Democrat” a la Childers), but fought out statewide in Georgia. I think we could win, but the odds are with the GOP.
And if the DSCC plays too heavily, Chambliss gets to run Schumer ads, which might actually work in Georgia. On the other hand, who knows what the economy will do between now and then.
I think a plurality win on Nov 4th was the most realistic win-scenario though, and I’m pretty frickin bummed that it doesn’t actually exist.
A runoff ALWAYS favors the 2nd-place candidate. Why?
Because without a runoff system, the 2nd-place finisher would’ve already lost outright in the first round.
Too cute by half, I know. Here’s how I really think it plays out:
In a runnoff, the Republicans will go nuclear tying Martin to Obama, saying Chamblis will “block the liberal agenda” and the like. There’s just one problem – America tends to give newly-elected presidents the benefit of the doubt (see the “100 days” concept), and even the right-of-center electorate in Georgia won’t take kindly to the image of their senator plotting and scheming to make sure nothing gets done over the next 4 years. And the African-American electorate that just elected the first African-American president in history won’t like a white Republican bragging about how he’ll tear that new president down.