Georgia's Very Own Megathread!

[Zaybay]

If Kemp wins, the suburbs will be up in arms and give Abrams the win. If Casey wins, the moderates will be up in arms and Abrams will win. This race is starting to look more like a tossup, but the 50%+1 rule could still give it to the Rep.

[Zaybay]

LOL. Cagle is stupid to be so candid with a former rival. I’m so conflicted. I dislike him a lot so I want him locked out of the General but he is starting to look so prime for an earth shattering defeat in November.

People here say that Kemp would hand it over to Abrams, but Cagle seems to only be a hair's stronger than him. He seems unlikable and establishment for most voters, and these allegations prove this. The rurals wont show up for him. Kemp, on the other hand, can get the rurals, but lose the burbs, which also causes him to lose. This race is pure tossup IMO.

[Zaybay]

Abrams raised $2.75 million from April 1-June 30.

She has about $1.6 million cash on hand which is double what she had three months ago.

https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/georgia-2018-abrams-reloads-her-gov-campaign-with-75m-haul/t00NbMTOoIpRUSOiSZz8qN/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=politics_fb

Look at all that Get out the Vote/Field money Not to mention she will have multiple outside groups spending for her on the air.

Do we have numbers on her opponents yet? How much money is Cagle/Kemp getting, and how? That can be a great indicator on who might be the tougher opponent.

[Zaybay]

Cagle raised $3.7 million, $1.3 million on hand

Kemp raised $1.6 million, $700,000 on hand

https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/georgia-2018-cagle-sharpens-fundraising-edge-over-kemp-gop-race/bHYERGhblkVNZ5CrTiN34N/

Hmmm, I see. Looks like I want Kemp to win the primary now.

[Zaybay]

The Academy Award for Best Actor goes to.....

https://youtu.be/rtRYWCYVuxY

LOL at words coming out of his own mouth being "fake news"

WHAT IS HE DOING?! Why? This makes no sense!
Kemp was positioning himself as the Firebrand before the primary and now, Cagle was suppost to be the moderate statesmen. Why is he doing this? Why is he discarding the brand he has made to appeal to the suburbs? The only reason must be hes down, but this will just get rid of the voters who didnt like Kemp's shotgun and son-in-law to be.

Now that I look at this primary, it is shaping up to be a repeat of the Dem primary. Two different candidates spar, one paints themself as the moderate, the other as the firethrower, then the moderate changes positions to be the firethrower and make the previous firethrower the moderate. Im thinking Kemp is gonna win this.

[Zaybay]

I feel like an idiot for asking this, but I can't remember whether it's Cagle or Kemp who is seen as the un-electable idiot who'd actually give Abrams a good shot at winning.

Gonna be honest with ya, they kinda both are at this point. Kemp is the one with the shotgun and son ads, and Cagle is the moderaconservatveestablishmentoutsider with all the scandals.

[Zaybay]

Nunn and Carter ran as moderates scared to declare position on the major issues.

Obama overperformed with blacks but got swamped in the white suburbs.

Hillary had poor black turnout and didn’t really contest it. Priorities USA ran ads on black/Urban radio telling people to vote against Trump.

Georgia has only gotten more diverse since 2008, Abrams will have massive investment in black voters and Spanish first language voters, a favorable national environment where whites in the burbs may break for the Democrat, and potentially a candidate who will depress rural turnout.

Abrams will overperform percentage-wise with her base and nationally, the trend is favorable to Democrats.  But the absolute numbers are critical, and her base doesn't turn out for mid-year elections. 

I have said this before--she needs to go to those hostile areas in the state and pick up votes.    This is how Obama won states like Iowa.And it's how Robert Kennedy won the Senate election in New York in 1964.  He was accused of being a carpetbagger and was running against a popular Republican incumbent and was no shoo-in to win.    He campaigned hard in the rural parts of the state and picked up enough support there and then provided his margin of victory by winning easily in New York City. 

Abrams has the capability to do the same--reduce the margin in those difficult areas and crush the Republican nominee in Atlanta.

I'm sorry, that really bothered me. Iowa is not hostile D territory. One election does not a state make.

Anyway, your partially right on the strategy needed by Abrams. But the most important part is to get the suburbs on her side. These areas have the most votes and were the R base. If she can flip counties like Cobb, then she is golden.
Also, AAs have rather good turnout in midterms. Its mostly Hispanic voters that drop off.

[Zaybay]

Nunn and Carter ran as moderates scared to declare position on the major issues.

Obama overperformed with blacks but got swamped in the white suburbs.

Hillary had poor black turnout and didn’t really contest it. Priorities USA ran ads on black/Urban radio telling people to vote against Trump.

Georgia has only gotten more diverse since 2008, Abrams will have massive investment in black voters and Spanish first language voters, a favorable national environment where whites in the burbs may break for the Democrat, and potentially a candidate who will depress rural turnout.

Abrams will overperform percentage-wise with her base and nationally, the trend is favorable to Democrats.  But the absolute numbers are critical, and her base doesn't turn out for mid-year elections. 

I have said this before--she needs to go to those hostile areas in the state and pick up votes.    This is how Obama won states like Iowa.And it's how Robert Kennedy won the Senate election in New York in 1964.  He was accused of being a carpetbagger and was running against a popular Republican incumbent and was no shoo-in to win.    He campaigned hard in the rural parts of the state and picked up enough support there and then provided his margin of victory by winning easily in New York City. 

Abrams has the capability to do the same--reduce the margin in those difficult areas and crush the Republican nominee in Atlanta.

I'm sorry, that really bothered me. Iowa is not hostile D territory. One election does not a state make.

Anyway, your partially right on the strategy needed by Abrams. But the most important part is to get the suburbs on her side. These areas have the most votes and were the R base. If she can flip counties like Cobb, then she is golden.
Also, AAs have rather good turnout in midterms. Its mostly Hispanic voters that drop off.

Read the article in the Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/guy-iowa-knows-democrats-can-win-back-rural-america/) and you'll see what I'm talking about.

"When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, he took 45 percent of the rural vote nationwide. In Iowa, a state that is often seen as a bellwether for measuring the sentiments of farm country and small-town America, Obama carried the rural regions of the state. Of the state’s 99 counties, Obama won 53.

When Hillary Clinton lost the presidency in 2016, she secured just 33 percent of the rural vote nationwide. In Iowa, Clinton lost the rural regions of the state by 30 points. The Democrat carried just six of the state’s 99 counties.

Obama knew this about Iowa--campaigned in all 99 counties and did well.  Hillary and her out of touch handlers did not.  That's what I am happy to see what Stacey Abrams is doing.  Campaigning in places like Dahlonega (Lumpkin County where Hillary received a pathetic 17 percent of the vote when her husband won the county 24 years earlier) will go a long way to win a difficult race.

Sorry, this is my bad. I thought you said that the state of Iowa was hostile to Democrats.

[Zaybay]

I still see this as Lean R.

As do I. I think Abrams is running a great campaign, but 50+1 will be tough

TBH with you, I think the 50%+1 is a bit overplayed. Yes, its an obstacle, but its not an electoral wall. All you need is the more enthused base on a special election, and if its held in 2018/2019, the advantage goes to the Dems.

I rate this race as pure tossup, as I dont know the R, and how strong each R would be in the general.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/PhilKentAtl/status/1018491048643956737

The link also says Hunter Hill will be endorsing Kemp this week.

So as soon as Cagle goes down the far-right, Martha McSally moderate hero/Conservative firebrand route, he gets endorsed by the popular, moderate R governor. Cagle is a mess.
I dont think the endorsement will get him far, though, in fact I think Hill's endorsement is actually worth more. Those are the voters he needs to win, not the moderates who were going to vote for him anyway.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/CaseyCagle/status/1018889973389504515

Governor Deal endorsed Cagle today. I can’t imagine the Governor backing someone who could potentially lose. They must know something we don’t. It’s going to be a long wait until next Tuesday night.

I agree, having to bring the governor out, after he seemed to be pretty ambivalent, shows weakness in Cagle. Its not like this will help, anyway.

[Zaybay]

Trump endorsed Kemp. It’s gonna be Kemp vs. Abrams in the Fall!

Did he really? Welp, looks like this race is tilt Abrams now.

Wonder if Cook will finally move it from Safe R? Nah.

[Zaybay]

Trump endorsed Kemp. It’s gonna be Kemp vs. Abrams in the Fall!

Did he really? Welp, looks like this race is tilt Abrams now.

Yep:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1019664477162278918

Thanks Trump! Your going to hand us two South Eastern State governorships this November!

[Zaybay]

To be honest, Kemp being the nominee is a huge win. If he wins, he will likely be a moderate, compared to Cagle. And he is weaker, because he has a hard time appealing to the suburbs. Cagle could appeal to them, not Kemp. If Abrams can get the primary performance, and just squeeze some extra votes out of the suburbs, then she becomes governor-elect.

[Zaybay]

Just went back to check, and yep: this week was basically the height of Carter's performance in polling (in terms of margin; of course, they weren't the best pollsters):

I think that has to do more with how the 2014 wave occurred. The Dems were leading in 2014 for most of it, and were ahead around now, before dropping. I would say that the opposite would occur this time, the Dem would gain as time goes on, due to the nature of the wave.

[Zaybay]

Forget everything if Cagle is the nominee, but since Kemp is looking better and better to grab the GOP nom, I am moving this from likely R---> lean R. Abrams has a narrow but very possible uphill path against Kemp. One biggie is that Kemp is rather poor in the Atlanta area in primary performance, and he also fits the region very poorly. Due to his crazy campaign, the staying of suburbs in our column in elections even since Trump 2016 victory, and a reinforcement of the previous point given by Kemp and his outrageous personality, campaign tactics, and stances, seeing them stay with Abrams on a level similar to Hillary, if not even expanding a little like Northam is not out of the picture. If she can have good turnout here, that is a bonus too. If she can also have weaker turnout in rednecky areas due to lower enthusiasm and satisfaction in the Trump era, as well as siphoning just a couple points or so better from these areas due to her not being Hillary, that puts her in a decent spot. What would then seal the deal would be a higher black turnout and 94-96% of them in her column. If she does this, I believe she will be the winner by an incredibly slim margin on election night.

Tossup is more appropriate. The primary, which was competative on both sides, was won by Rs by a margin of 53-47. That is extremely close. If Ds can improve just a little, and have Kemp drag the suburbs to Abrams, then its hers for the win.

I don't know why people are already declaring Stacey Abrams as this amazing candidate, the ads against her haven't even started. It'll be interesting how she handles the impending attacks on her money issues and how voters react to it.

Because she is. Think about it. She is a charismatic, AA, woman candidate who appeals to the suburbs and Atlanta, progressives and centrists, and is practically barnstorming the state. She is also going after the rural vote, which is a good move that most forget. Its also important to note that she is building a GOTV machine for AAs and Democrats, something never done by a GA Democrat before.

The money issue might sting, but the opposition will just keep them in the Abrams camp. Cagle is the despised, unenthusiastic, scandal-plagued, establishment choice, and Kemp is a firebrand, 2A, fake southern accented, demagogue that will no doubt try to move to the center, and fail miserably, that is despised in the Atlanta Metro. Both are pretty terrible candidates.

[Zaybay]

Something several of y'all need to remember is that Georgia isn't first past the post. It's a runoff state in the general unless the winning candidate gets 50% + 1. And the Libertarian candidate usually gets somewhere around 2-3% of the vote in Georgia.

If election night looks like this:

Abrams: 49%
Kemp: 47%
Libertarian: 3%
Other/Write In: 1%

Abrams probably loses because runoffs have been a political death sentence for GA Dems recently. The question isn't whether Abrams can get more votes, it's whether she can get a majority the first time with third party candidates included.

This is not necessarily true. If a runoff were to occur, only voters who are enthusiastic, or regular voters would show up. Its quite possible that, due to the nature of the Trump era, it will be Abrams' voters who will show up. In special elections in GA, Dems have over preformed in runoffs, so I dont see why that would change for Abrams.

[Zaybay]

Something several of y'all need to remember is that Georgia isn't first past the post. It's a runoff state in the general unless the winning candidate gets 50% + 1. And the Libertarian candidate usually gets somewhere around 2-3% of the vote in Georgia.

If election night looks like this:

Abrams: 49%
Kemp: 47%
Libertarian: 3%
Other/Write In: 1%

Abrams probably loses because runoffs have been a political death sentence for GA Dems recently. The question isn't whether Abrams can get more votes, it's whether she can get a majority the first time with third party candidates included.

This is not necessarily true. If a runoff were to occur, only voters who are enthusiastic, or regular voters would show up. Its quite possible that, due to the nature of the Trump era, it will be Abrams' voters who will show up. In special elections in GA, Dems have over preformed in runoffs, so I dont see why that would change for Abrams.

That's fair, but even in incredibly favorable environments for Democrats with extremely high enthusiasm, runoffs in Georgia have been huge disappointments. See: 2008 general election vs runoff here in Georgia

2008 was 8 years ago. Georgia was still Likely R, while it was MT, MO, ND, and SD that were close. GA has been trending pretty D for a while, it voted R+4 in a D+2 year.

[Zaybay]

Something several of y'all need to remember is that Georgia isn't first past the post. It's a runoff state in the general unless the winning candidate gets 50% + 1. And the Libertarian candidate usually gets somewhere around 2-3% of the vote in Georgia.

If election night looks like this:

Abrams: 49%
Kemp: 47%
Libertarian: 3%
Other/Write In: 1%

Abrams probably loses because runoffs have been a political death sentence for GA Dems recently. The question isn't whether Abrams can get more votes, it's whether she can get a majority the first time with third party candidates included.

This is not necessarily true. If a runoff were to occur, only voters who are enthusiastic, or regular voters would show up. Its quite possible that, due to the nature of the Trump era, it will be Abrams' voters who will show up. In special elections in GA, Dems have over preformed in runoffs, so I dont see why that would change for Abrams.

Dems have done horribly in state legislative specials in GA outside the Nov 7, 2017 elections though. They got creamed in both January specials. We couldn't even force a runoff in the 111th House District, a 50-47 Clinton seat, and way underperformed Clinton in SD-17 (she lost it 56.5 to 40.8, we lost overall 65.6 to 34.4 in the special).

We also didn't improve on Clinton at all in SD-32 in 2017, and underperformed Clinton in HD-175 in Feburary (Clinton got 36.6% in 2016, and we only got 23.5% in the special).

Low turnout elections like runoffs and special elections hurt Dems in GA, plain and simple.

We have preformed, on average, worse in GA and other southern states, than in the Rust Belt, or great plains.

But Im not talking about special elections, where the average overpreformance for Dems is D+3-4, Im talking about runoffs. In every single one, the Dem has overpreformed the R results. And when we are likely to see large D turnout for the gubernatorial race, especially against a heavily damaged candidate, then the Ds could lose the general, and win the runoff, its not that out of the question.

Also, I would be careful comparing Clinton numbers to the special elections. Clinton over performed in many suburban areas in the South, mostly due to Trump, and these voters may not be Democrats deep down. For instance, Clinton won the FL senate chamber, both PA chambers, and many others, because these Suburbanites voted for her. The Rust Belt has seen the opposite, where these voters who voted against Hillary are going back to the Democrats. It would be better to use both Obama'12 and Clinton'16 numbers, as that illustrates that, yes, while these were under performances for Ds, they were over performances of Obama in 2012, indicating that there is still a shift.

[Zaybay]

Im interested to see the runoff numbers for this race, and the retention from the original election. Could be great insight into what would occur from a general election runoff.

[Zaybay]

Awesome, the time is now!

Time was changed, results on NY released at 730 now.

[Zaybay]

We got some results now!

Cagle in the lead

55.1% C
44.9% K

Its time!

[Zaybay]

Kemp has the lead with 2314 votes, against 1719. 57.4%/42.6%

[Zaybay]

LG vote is surprisingly close.

[Zaybay]

Margin is now

K-21,006 60.8%
C-13,528 39.2%

This is rather disappointing for Cagle.