Who will win in Georgia?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:08:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Who will win in Georgia?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: Who do you think will win the Georgia senate election?
#1
David Purdue (R)
 
#2
Michelle Nunn (D)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 64

Author Topic: Who will win in Georgia?  (Read 5282 times)
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2014, 06:41:53 PM »

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2014, 06:44:33 PM »

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2014, 07:01:12 PM »

Perdue's a good candidate, he wins somewhere around 53-45 on election night. 
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2014, 07:53:43 PM »

If Nunn loses, she'll go for Isakson's seat in two years, whether he retires or not.
Logged
NHLiberal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 790


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 23, 2014, 07:55:16 PM »

If Nunn loses, she'll go for Isakson's seat in two years, whether he retires or not.

Only if she loses by a narrow margin and retains dignity/good will among the voters
Logged
Dixie Reborn
BeyondTruthAndIdeals
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 817
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: July 23, 2014, 08:44:54 PM »

If Nunn loses, she'll go for Isakson's seat in two years, whether he retires or not.

She won't. Her funds would be exhausted by then, and going up against a well-funded, popular incumbent in an (atlas) Blue state during an election year is much harder than going up against a bruised opponent who just survived a competitive primary. Nunn is likely to lose that latter contest anyway.
Logged
illegaloperation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 23, 2014, 09:30:55 PM »

Tilt Perdue because of possibility of runoff.
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: July 23, 2014, 09:35:46 PM »

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

But these runoff rules were instituted when Democrats dominated the South.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 23, 2014, 09:54:02 PM »

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

Well, I guess it helps to know how to read a calendar: the Senate runoff (if needed) is in December. The Gubernatorial runoff would be in the new year. Bizarre, yes, but not as bizarre as having a Senate runoff after the new Congress is sworn in.
Logged
nolesfan2011
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,411
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.68, S: -7.48

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 23, 2014, 10:22:12 PM »

Perdue's a good candidate, he wins somewhere around 53-45 on election night. 

Perdue will crush her after she implodes in the debates
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: July 23, 2014, 10:29:05 PM »

If Nunn loses, she'll go for Isakson's seat in two years, whether he retires or not.

She won't. Her funds would be exhausted by then, and going up against a well-funded, popular incumbent in an (atlas) Blue state during an election year is much harder than going up against a bruised opponent who just survived a competitive primary. Nunn is likely to lose that latter contest anyway.

Let's say he retires, since he is about the same age as Saxby. That's a fun name. What then?
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: July 23, 2014, 10:31:25 PM »

Do any of you think Barrow would go for Isakson's seat?
Logged
Dixie Reborn
BeyondTruthAndIdeals
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 817
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 23, 2014, 10:34:32 PM »

Do any of you think Barrow would go for Isakson's seat?

Doubtful. He didn't go for the open seat (even though he would have been a much stronger candidate than Nunn), so he'll probably not want to challenge an incumbent.
Logged
Dixie Reborn
BeyondTruthAndIdeals
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 817
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 23, 2014, 10:41:21 PM »

If Nunn loses, she'll go for Isakson's seat in two years, whether he retires or not.

She won't. Her funds would be exhausted by then, and going up against a well-funded, popular incumbent in an (atlas) Blue state during an election year is much harder than going up against a bruised opponent who just survived a competitive primary. Nunn is likely to lose that latter contest anyway.
Let's say he retires, since he is about the same age as Saxby. That's a fun name. What then?

Part of the reason Saxby retired was because he would have faced a strong primary challenge if he didn't. Isakson, who is much more popular and much more conservative will not face that problem. But if he doesn't, the whole race will be a repeat of 2014's scenario, which no one, especially Isakson, wants. He'll run.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 23, 2014, 11:51:53 PM »

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

Well, I guess it helps to know how to read a calendar: the Senate runoff (if needed) is in December. The Gubernatorial runoff would be in the new year. Bizarre, yes, but not as bizarre as having a Senate runoff after the new Congress is sworn in.

Um, no.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

But these runoff rules were instituted when Democrats dominated the South.

Again, not really. The runoff threshold was at 50% for over 100 years, and yes, that was due to Democrats wanting a guarantee. In 1992, Wyche Fowler lost the run-off against Coverdell despite beating him in the general election.

The Democrats then changed the run-off requirement to 45% to begin with the 1994 elections, where it stayed at through 2004.

Once Republicans took control of the General Assembly in 2005, they changed the rules back to 50% (since it now benefited them). So at least in Georgia, the current runoff laws were instituted by Republicans.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2014, 06:53:35 AM »

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

Well, I guess it helps to know how to read a calendar: the Senate runoff (if needed) is in December. The Gubernatorial runoff would be in the new year. Bizarre, yes, but not as bizarre as having a Senate runoff after the new Congress is sworn in.

Um, no.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

But these runoff rules were instituted when Democrats dominated the South.

Again, not really. The runoff threshold was at 50% for over 100 years, and yes, that was due to Democrats wanting a guarantee. In 1992, Wyche Fowler lost the run-off against Coverdell despite beating him in the general election.

The Democrats then changed the run-off requirement to 45% to begin with the 1994 elections, where it stayed at through 2004.

Once Republicans took control of the General Assembly in 2005, they changed the rules back to 50% (since it now benefited them). So at least in Georgia, the current runoff laws were instituted by Republicans.

Well, I'd chalk it up to an error but for the SOS to have it listed that way, it would be a pretty massive error. In my defense, though, several reputable sites have stated that the Senate runoff is in December and the Gubernatorial runoff is in January.
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2014, 07:59:56 AM »

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

Well, I guess it helps to know how to read a calendar: the Senate runoff (if needed) is in December. The Gubernatorial runoff would be in the new year. Bizarre, yes, but not as bizarre as having a Senate runoff after the new Congress is sworn in.

Um, no.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

But these runoff rules were instituted when Democrats dominated the South.

Again, not really. The runoff threshold was at 50% for over 100 years, and yes, that was due to Democrats wanting a guarantee. In 1992, Wyche Fowler lost the run-off against Coverdell despite beating him in the general election.

The Democrats then changed the run-off requirement to 45% to begin with the 1994 elections, where it stayed at through 2004.

Once Republicans took control of the General Assembly in 2005, they changed the rules back to 50% (since it now benefited them). So at least in Georgia, the current runoff laws were instituted by Republicans.

Okay, I see what you mean now, but the Democrats setting the precedent surely made it easier for the Republicans to revert back to the old runoff rules. It seems like the Republicans just ripped a sheet from the Democrats' playbook down in Georgia.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2014, 11:29:29 AM »

Nunn leads with a plurality and loses to Perdue in the run-off.  However, I also think Jason Carter will win and avoid a run-off by the skin of his teeth.
Logged
JRP1994
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,045


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: July 24, 2014, 12:08:27 PM »

Carter's chances are better than Nunn's at this point.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: July 24, 2014, 12:25:28 PM »

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

Well, I guess it helps to know how to read a calendar: the Senate runoff (if needed) is in December. The Gubernatorial runoff would be in the new year. Bizarre, yes, but not as bizarre as having a Senate runoff after the new Congress is sworn in.

Um, no.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait... Why the hell is the runoff scheduled for after the new Congress is sworn in? Was I reading that correctly??

Yes. This is what happens when you let Republicans make calendars.

But these runoff rules were instituted when Democrats dominated the South.

Again, not really. The runoff threshold was at 50% for over 100 years, and yes, that was due to Democrats wanting a guarantee. In 1992, Wyche Fowler lost the run-off against Coverdell despite beating him in the general election.

The Democrats then changed the run-off requirement to 45% to begin with the 1994 elections, where it stayed at through 2004.

Once Republicans took control of the General Assembly in 2005, they changed the rules back to 50% (since it now benefited them). So at least in Georgia, the current runoff laws were instituted by Republicans.

Well, I'd chalk it up to an error but for the SOS to have it listed that way, it would be a pretty massive error. In my defense, though, several reputable sites have stated that the Senate runoff is in December and the Gubernatorial runoff is in January.

According to Green Papers there was a ruling by a Judge in 2013 that changed the Primary and Runoff dates.  It was made official in January when Deal signed it into law.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1ptkJLSpqqXAMftLUYJ-Qd1hlt-z3nfyGpTno1UVoniH1rGLXDpgcFxpjMeFk/edit?usp=sharing

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G14/GA
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: July 24, 2014, 12:29:34 PM »

Carter's chances are better than Nunn's at this point.

They always were.

If Nunn loses, she'll go for Isakson's seat in two years, whether he retires or not.

She won't. Her funds would be exhausted by then, and going up against a well-funded, popular incumbent in an (atlas) Blue state during an election year is much harder than going up against a bruised opponent who just survived a competitive primary. Nunn is likely to lose that latter contest anyway.

Let's say he retires, since he is about the same age as Saxby. That's a fun name. What then?

If we get another open seat in 2016 then the GOP primary is going to be rather chaotic like the one that happened this year.  I could easily see Kingston making another go in 2016, maybe Handel as well.

If Nunn loses in 2014 (and I suspect she will, and not by a respectably close margin either) then the Democrats better wise-up for their own good in time for 2016.  Its no use wasting resources in ruby red Georgia during a presidential year when there will be much more vulnerable Republican incumbents up in states like Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin. 
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: July 24, 2014, 09:25:30 PM »

Well, I'd chalk it up to an error but for the SOS to have it listed that way, it would be a pretty massive error. In my defense, though, several reputable sites have stated that the Senate runoff is in December and the Gubernatorial runoff is in January.

I've checked around online and I can't find a source that shows the opposite. My home county and another county are showing what the SoS is showing. It's also what the party and campaigns are conveying. If the SoS has made a typo that's led to this, then it'll the biggest election calendar flub of the century...

And yeah, the original set of dates were ruled invalid due to not having enough time to mail out absentee ballots 45 days before an election, which is why the federal ruling/suggestion was issued in 2013; pretty sure Judge Jones' ruling prevailed on the general election runoff, which was Jan 6. The GA could have moved it up a week or two, though, but didn't. 
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2014, 07:01:40 AM »

Well, I'd chalk it up to an error but for the SOS to have it listed that way, it would be a pretty massive error. In my defense, though, several reputable sites have stated that the Senate runoff is in December and the Gubernatorial runoff is in January.

I've checked around online and I can't find a source that shows the opposite. My home county and another county are showing what the SoS is showing. It's also what the party and campaigns are conveying. If the SoS has made a typo that's led to this, then it'll the biggest election calendar flub of the century...

My point was that I'd normally consider it a mistake/typo but for something like this, it would be a rather massive mistake so I'm not chalking it up to an error especially when other sources (like Green Papers) are confirming the SoS. 

By the way, Politics1 has it listed as December or at least did as of two days ago. And maybe this isn't much of a defense but Politico (the site, not the former poster Wink ) mentioned the December runoff in a write up about Perdue vs. Nunn.
Logged
ShadowRocket
cb48026
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,456


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2014, 05:23:26 PM »

I'd lean towards Perdue due to the possibility of a run-off.
Logged
I Will Not Be Wrong
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2014, 06:15:35 PM »

David will obviously win.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« 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 0.063 seconds with 14 queries.