Michelle Nunn, Jack Kingston, and the city of Savannah

[JRP1994]

Question. Could Jack Kingston effectively end Nunn's campaign by depriving her of a win in the city of Savannah (Chatham County)? I just looked through Atlas maps for the past two and a half decades, and discovered a few things:

1) The last President to win Georgia without winning Chatham County was Bill Clinton in 1992.
2) Since 1990, NO Democrat candidate for Governor or Senator has won an election without winning Chatham County.

Kingston is, judging by his performance in the primary, extremely popular in southern Georgia, and Savannah has been his home district for 21 years. If he emerges victorious from the runoff against David Perdue, which seems likely, will he:

1) Win Chatham County, and
2) Thereby make a win for Nunn virtuously impossible?

[Never]

If Kingston can keep Nunn from making inroads in the South Georgia cities and isolate Nunn to the more urban Metro Atlanta counties, then yes, he will win. Savannah is a sizeable city, and if Kingston is nominated as the GOP Senate candidate, he will probably perform better there than most Republicans.

1) Yes, he will win Chatham county.
2) Indeed, if he does, Nunn would very likely lose.

[Gass3268]

Obama won Chatham County by 12% so no and no.

[Never]

Obama won Chatham County by 12% so no and no.

Republican Sen. Isakson isn't even from Chatham, and he still won there in 2010. I understand that this is not 2010, but presidential and midterm electorates are very different, and Kingston also has the advantage of representing Savannah.

[DrScholl]

Kingston only won by 5% Chatham in his last house race and I would imagine most Democrats skipped over that race, since the district is not competitive. Much of the reason Chatham is so Democratic is because it's 41% Black and there is zero evidence to support any notion (and it will be made) that Kingston is overwhelmingly popular with black voters. In order to win it, he'd need low turnout, because crossover support is limited.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Actually Chatham voted for Kerry over Bush in 2004

[Never]

Kingston only won by 5% Chatham in his last house race and I would imagine most Democrats skipped over that race, since the district is not competitive. Much of the reason Chatham is so Democratic is because it's 41% Black and there is zero evidence to support any notion (and it will be made) that Kingston is overwhelmingly popular with black voters. In order to win it, he'd need low turnout, because crossover support is limited.

So his last House race was in 2012, when Obama was winning Chatham County by twelve points, yet Kingston still won by five. That means he was running ahead of Romney by double-digits. If he can win by five points in Chatham with a presidential electorate, he should do better than that against Nunn this year if he ends up as the nominee. It seems quixotic to say that Kingston will lose a county in 2014 that he won in 2012.
 
Don't we generally expect low turnout in midterm elections?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Kingston only won by 5% Chatham in his last house race and I would imagine most Democrats skipped over that race, since the district is not competitive. Much of the reason Chatham is so Democratic is because it's 41% Black and there is zero evidence to support any notion (and it will be made) that Kingston is overwhelmingly popular with black voters. In order to win it, he'd need low turnout, because crossover support is limited.

So his last House race was in 2012, when Obama was winning Chatham County by twelve points, yet Kingston still won by five. That means he was running ahead of Romney by double-digits. If he can win by five points in Chatham with a presidential electorate, he should do better than that against Nunn this year if he ends up as the nominee. It seems quixotic to say that Kingston will lose a county in 2014 that he won in 2012.
 
Don't we generally expect low turnout in midterm elections?

Nunn is a serious opponent, but the point is well taken.

[DrScholl]

Kingston only won by 5% Chatham in his last house race and I would imagine most Democrats skipped over that race, since the district is not competitive. Much of the reason Chatham is so Democratic is because it's 41% Black and there is zero evidence to support any notion (and it will be made) that Kingston is overwhelmingly popular with black voters. In order to win it, he'd need low turnout, because crossover support is limited.

So his last House race was in 2012, when Obama was winning Chatham County by twelve points, yet Kingston still won by five. That means he was running ahead of Romney by double-digits. If he can win by five points in Chatham with a presidential electorate, he should do better than that against Nunn this year if he ends up as the nominee. It seems quixotic to say that Kingston will lose a county in 2014 that he won in 2012.
 
Don't we generally expect low turnout in midterm elections?

Statewide and against a well funded, serious opponent, there's no reason to think Kingston would carry it. A 5% win against a non-serious opponent doesn't suggest that he has any unusual sway over voters, in fact, many Democrats probably skipped over the race. Seeing as Isakson only carried it by 3% while winning by 20% statewide, I'd say that Chatham doesn't vote for Kingston, barring a wave.

[Never]

Kingston only won by 5% Chatham in his last house race and I would imagine most Democrats skipped over that race, since the district is not competitive. Much of the reason Chatham is so Democratic is because it's 41% Black and there is zero evidence to support any notion (and it will be made) that Kingston is overwhelmingly popular with black voters. In order to win it, he'd need low turnout, because crossover support is limited.

So his last House race was in 2012, when Obama was winning Chatham County by twelve points, yet Kingston still won by five. That means he was running ahead of Romney by double-digits. If he can win by five points in Chatham with a presidential electorate, he should do better than that against Nunn this year if he ends up as the nominee. It seems quixotic to say that Kingston will lose a county in 2014 that he won in 2012.
 
Don't we generally expect low turnout in midterm elections?

Statewide and against a well funded, serious opponent, there's no reason to think Kingston would carry it. A 5% win against a non-serious opponent doesn't suggest that he has any unusual sway over voters, in fact, many Democrats probably skipped over the race. Seeing as Isakson only carried it by 3% while winning by 20% statewide, I'd say that Chatham doesn't vote for Kingston, barring a wave.

I'm not discounting that Nunn is a serious opponent, I just want to point out that Kingston will probably run strongly in South Georgia in the general. We can't really use results from a year in which Pres. Obama was on the ballot to tell us about a midterm in which African-American turnout will likely drop, which could make it hard for Nunn to defeat Kingston in places like Chatham.

[Badger]

I'd agree Nunn needs to win Chatham to win at all.