Georgia's Very Own Megathread! (v2)

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Abrams needs to crack 30% with white voters in order to have a shot at winning, which she isn’t doing so far.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Harry Enten thinks Abrams could win in a run-off. This seems to make sense abstractly (drop-off from a Presidential election to a runoff is not the same as drop-off from a midterm to a runoff). But does it make sense in practice, my dear Gawgans?

I agree. First of all, black civic participation in Georgia was abhorrent up until the past decade. Second, in 2008 Obama won a commanding victory and had an enormous amount of seats in the House and the Senate. There was absolutely nothing consequential about electing Jim Martin (who probably would have obstructed Obama anyway) in the minds of voters.

The marquee race will be on the ballot, Democratic and progressive activist groups from all across the country will be squarely focused on Georgia, and she (Abrams) has a strategic field and political team.

Abrams needs to crack 30% with white voters in order to have a shot at winning, which she isn’t doing so far.

No she doesn't.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Harry Enten thinks Abrams could win in a run-off. This seems to make sense abstractly (drop-off from a Presidential election to a runoff is not the same as drop-off from a midterm to a runoff). But does it make sense in practice, my dear Gawgans?

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1037832535286456320

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the analysis is reasonable and this is certainly plausible, but not a sure thing.  I do agree that black turnout wouldn't drop off drastically in the runoff like some people automatically assume will happen in Georgia, but I don't know if it would actually benefit Abrams. 

[Virginiá]

Personally, I'm inclined to think that winning a presidential race let the wind out of the Democrats ever-expanding electoral balloon, and it was enough to reduce their margin in a runoff, and in a state that wasn't yet "ripe" for Democrats.

Compare that to a midterm under a deeply polarizing and deeply offensive president, where a runoff would simply be another consequential election with the same fired-up base held under the same polarizing president.

I dunno if they'd have an advantage, but they'd certainly have a good shot at a runoff, imo.

[QAnonKelly]

This poll is pretty much right at what I’d think it is atm

[libertpaulian]

Black voters will NOT be sitting out a mid-term with Drumpf the Dump in the White House.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Abrams needs to crack 30% with white voters in order to have a shot at winning, which she isn’t doing so far.

No she doesn't.

Except she does... According to this poll, she’s getting 45% of the vote statewide and only 27% of white voters. Yknow how well Michelle Nunn did statewide 4 years ago? 45%. She won 27% of white voters according to exit polls. Those numbers sound familiar?

Abrams needs that white vote total higher if she wants a shot at a majority in November. Even if she does boost black turnout higher, I don’t think she’s got enough support for an outright majority with that 27%.

[Adam Griffin]

Harry Enten thinks Abrams could win in a run-off. This seems to make sense abstractly (drop-off from a Presidential election to a runoff is not the same as drop-off from a midterm to a runoff). But does it make sense in practice, my dear Gawgans?

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1037832535286456320

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The primary problem with this analysis is that we don't need to look at 1992 or 2008 (or a hypothetical midterm...or Louisiana) for comparable climates - though they are potential data-points in reinforcing a broader trend/likelihood (and ones which I've mentioned in the past).

Democratic turnout in special elections in Georgia in 2017-18 has been lower than in 2016 in real terms (in other words, margins swinging to the GOP). The only other state where this has occurred is CT, which has some pretty unique and obvious trends afoot there causing Democrats to underperform (i.e. voters there hate CT Dems right now). I'd also point out that with the data that was publicly available (which was incomplete), LA looked pretty bad, too - though Enten et al probably have access to more detailed and complete data-sets regarding turnout and presidential performance by legislative district.

Essentially, when broken down by HD/SD, you see a tale of two states in Georgia: that Democrats are actually improving in GA in areas where whites and/or old voters still make up a reasonable share of the electorate, but plummeting in areas where blacks and/or young voters are a huge share.

* Incomplete results; do not have data for Clinton margins in all special elections

Is it possible for Abrams to do better in a runoff than in a general election? Yes, absolutely - it could very well happen, based on her specifically and the power of her campaign. But to assume before anything else that all of the evidence that points to a clear track record and likelihood of underperformance should be dismissed in favor of what we'd like to see happen simply because one candidate is good is reckless IMO.

[Adam Griffin]

Abrams needs to crack 30% with white voters in order to have a shot at winning, which she isn’t doing so far.

No she doesn't.

Except she does... According to this poll, she’s getting 45% of the vote statewide and only 27% of white voters. Yknow how well Michelle Nunn did statewide 4 years ago? 45%. She won 27% of white voters according to exit polls. Those numbers sound familiar?

Abrams needs that white vote total higher if she wants a shot at a majority in November. Even if she does boost black turnout higher, I don’t think she’s got enough support for an outright majority with that 27%.

Technically, both Nunn and Carter got the standard 23% (as did Obama 08 and Kerry) that GA Democrats have tended to hit in recent cycles. To be fair, she could probably win with 27% of whites if the electorate looks more like a presidential one than a midterm one:

Whites: 60% @ 0.27 D = 16.2
Blacks: 31% @ 0.93 D = 28.8
Other: 9% @ 0.60 D = 4.5

Total 100% @ 0.504 D = 50.4%

I recall my projections for potential presidential outcomes in 2016 having Clinton being able to pull off a win with those kinds of white figures; basically, if Clinton had done as well as Obama 08 with the 2016 electorate, she would have won.

[QAnonKelly]

Kemp’s new ad with his wife is pretty good

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I just realized I missed john barrah and tabitha johnson green by 30 minutes last saturday......

i happened to be in that exact area of campus at 11:30 and they came at 12 pm


edit: i also missed the lt gov candidate

[QAnonKelly]

I’ve been on my way to Dahlonega today and have yet to see an Abram’s sign.

Well I guess she will lose by 40 points then

[Alabama_Indy10]

I’ve been on my way to Dahlonega today and have yet to see an Abram’s sign.

Well I guess she will lose by 40 points then

Hopefully so.

[Rookie Yinzer]

She is not investing her money in yard signs. She is investing in field. People have been calling voters and knocking doors for months. Things will be ramping up soon. The only thing Kemp yard signs show is that he has money to spend on them.

Cagle had a lot of signs leading up to the run off too. So there's that.

ETA: Gente 4 Abrams have launched their General Election operation. They will be pushing out the vote in the Latinx communities in DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, Fulton, and Hall counties. Excited to see all these grassroots organizations investing in communities both sides have written off and getting them to the polls themselves.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I just got a live caller poll from the Abrams campaign (identified at the end of the call) with these questions:

1. Do you plan to vote in the November general election?

2. Who do you plan to vote for: Democrat Stacey Abrams or Republican Brian Kemp?

3. Which is the most important issue to you: health care, the economy, Georgia's roads, or <something else>?  (I said health care.)

4. How certain are you to vote in November: absolutely, somewhat, or not very?

[henster]

She is not investing her money in yard signs. She is investing in field. People have been calling voters and knocking doors for months. Things will be ramping up soon. The only thing Kemp yard signs show is that he has money to spend on them.

Cagle had a lot of signs leading up to the run off too. So there's that.

ETA: Gente 4 Abrams have launched their General Election operation. They will be pushing out the vote in the Latinx communities in DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, Fulton, and Hall counties. Excited to see all these grassroots organizations investing in communities both sides have written off and getting them to the polls themselves.

I think people underestimate how important yard signs can be. Sometimes undecideds will vote for the candidate with the most signs in their neighborhood because they feel that is who everything else is comfortable with.

[GeorgiaModerate]

She is not investing her money in yard signs. She is investing in field. People have been calling voters and knocking doors for months. Things will be ramping up soon. The only thing Kemp yard signs show is that he has money to spend on them.

Cagle had a lot of signs leading up to the run off too. So there's that.

ETA: Gente 4 Abrams have launched their General Election operation. They will be pushing out the vote in the Latinx communities in DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, Fulton, and Hall counties. Excited to see all these grassroots organizations investing in communities both sides have written off and getting them to the polls themselves.

I think people underestimate how important yard signs can be. Sometimes undecideds will vote for the candidate with the most signs in their neighborhood because they feel that is who everything else is comfortable with.

I don't think yard signs do a whole lot (or we'd have Congressman Ossoff), but I agree that they may at least get the candidate's name out there.  Something I've complained about recently is that Abrams seemed to have gone quiet -- no TV or radio ads, signs, or other outreach that was visible to me.   Kemp has been mostly unopposed with TV ads during the times/stations I watch, although last night I did finally see an Abrams ad on channel 11.

[Adam Griffin]

I’ve been on my way to Dahlonega today and have yet to see an Abram’s sign.

You're not going to see many (if any) signs in Deliverance Country because people are literally terrified that their homes, properties and selves will be targeted. When I was putting out signs for Clinton in 2016, I had multiple instances of people yelling "F[INKS] THAT B[INKS]H" out of car windows passing by - and I'm in one of the more friendly and civilized parts of the state. I was pretty much expecting to be hit in the head with a bottle or ran over by some bubba truck driver. I know organizers who insist on carrying guns whenever canvassing or doing visible Democratic work in public in North Georgia. The fact that it's a black woman running will only heighten these fears by the minority and these aggressive behaviors by the majority.

Besides, the Abrams campaign has put the least amount of effort into signs of any campaign - presumably because they understand it's a waste of money. There have been periods where people couldn't even buy their own overpriced signs for $10 through the website. Signs are good for identifying potential hardcore supporters, volunteers and donors (and may be good at giving people reassurance/knowledge of like-minded people at a granular level), but if you're already accomplishing the former via field work, it's pretty unnecessary. I hate the sign game and I hate being nagged about keeping them in supply, but I do admit that for county parties and the like, they provide more benefit than for statewide campaigns with massive resources.

And for those wondering, past precedent/studies suggest that having a 2:1 sign advantage in a particular area can affect the margin by around 1 point in urban areas, 2 points in suburban areas and 3 points in rural areas. It's tangible, but not the most efficient way to achieve those gains.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't think yard signs do a whole lot (or we'd have Congressman Ossoff), but I agree that they may at least get the candidate's name out there.  Something I've complained about recently is that Abrams seemed to have gone quiet -- no TV or radio ads, signs, or other outreach that was visible to me.   Kemp has been mostly unopposed with TV ads during the times/stations I watch, although last night I did finally see an Abrams ad on channel 11.

Pretty much from the beginning, Abrams herself has said that this campaign wouldn't be one won or ran based on TV ads, radio spots and so forth. The reason so many areas are getting field organizers and energy pumped into them is because that money isn't being pumped into expensive ATL media market ad buys. There will come a day where both can happen, but a win statewide will be needed before that happens. Much like with the sign stats I posted above, TV and radio spots are essentially a never-ending black hole of resource entrapment for campaigns; as long as you can keep the disadvantage to 2:1 or less, there's arguably no negative impact (or positive impact if you're on the winning side of those odds). Even if you're outside those odds, effective field and abundant enthusiasm can easily overcome deficits created by it.

Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious that the campaign is also pursuing (or at least benefiting from) a stealth approach alongside this; they don't want the extent of their investment to be immediately known or visible to every GOP operative and voter. Based on the universe of voters being targeted, it's not difficult for that to be the case. While I still disagree with the strategy of effectively abandoning persuasion efforts, they are reaching out to large numbers of registered voters.

[Yellowhammer]

I’ve been on my way to Dahlonega today and have yet to see an Abram’s sign.

Yeah, I have yet to see a single Abrams sign despite driving throughout GA a dozen or so times in the past few months. In fact the only physical trace of her campaign I’ve seen so far has been a single bumper sticker in Athens.

[KingSweden]

I don't think yard signs do a whole lot (or we'd have Congressman Ossoff), but I agree that they may at least get the candidate's name out there.  Something I've complained about recently is that Abrams seemed to have gone quiet -- no TV or radio ads, signs, or other outreach that was visible to me.   Kemp has been mostly unopposed with TV ads during the times/stations I watch, although last night I did finally see an Abrams ad on channel 11.

Pretty much from the beginning, Abrams herself has said that this campaign wouldn't be one won or ran based on TV ads, radio spots and so forth. The reason so many areas are getting field organizers and energy pumped into them is because that money isn't being pumped into expensive ATL media market ad buys. There will come a day where both can happen, but a win statewide will be needed before that happens. Much like with the sign stats I posted above, TV and radio spots are essentially a never-ending black hole of resource entrapment for campaigns; as long as you can keep the disadvantage to 2:1 or less, there's arguably no negative impact (or positive impact if you're on the winning side of those odds). Even if you're outside those odds, effective field and abundant enthusiasm can easily overcome deficits created by it.

Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious that the campaign is also pursuing (or at least benefiting from) a stealth approach alongside this; they don't want the extent of their investment to be immediately known or visible to every GOP operative and voter. Based on the universe of voters being targeted, it's not difficult for that to be the case. While I still disagree with the strategy of effectively abandoning persuasion efforts, they are reaching out to large numbers of registered voters.

Abrams deciding on no persuasion gives me serious pause

[ON Progressive]

I don't think yard signs do a whole lot (or we'd have Congressman Ossoff), but I agree that they may at least get the candidate's name out there.  Something I've complained about recently is that Abrams seemed to have gone quiet -- no TV or radio ads, signs, or other outreach that was visible to me.   Kemp has been mostly unopposed with TV ads during the times/stations I watch, although last night I did finally see an Abrams ad on channel 11.

Pretty much from the beginning, Abrams herself has said that this campaign wouldn't be one won or ran based on TV ads, radio spots and so forth. The reason so many areas are getting field organizers and energy pumped into them is because that money isn't being pumped into expensive ATL media market ad buys. There will come a day where both can happen, but a win statewide will be needed before that happens. Much like with the sign stats I posted above, TV and radio spots are essentially a never-ending black hole of resource entrapment for campaigns; as long as you can keep the disadvantage to 2:1 or less, there's arguably no negative impact (or positive impact if you're on the winning side of those odds). Even if you're outside those odds, effective field and abundant enthusiasm can easily overcome deficits created by it.

Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious that the campaign is also pursuing (or at least benefiting from) a stealth approach alongside this; they don't want the extent of their investment to be immediately known or visible to every GOP operative and voter. Based on the universe of voters being targeted, it's not difficult for that to be the case. While I still disagree with the strategy of effectively abandoning persuasion efforts, they are reaching out to large numbers of registered voters.

Abrams deciding on no persuasion gives me serious pause

How many persuadable voters are there in GA though? It's a state where the overwhelming majority of voters are either evangelical whites or black voters.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't think yard signs do a whole lot (or we'd have Congressman Ossoff), but I agree that they may at least get the candidate's name out there.  Something I've complained about recently is that Abrams seemed to have gone quiet -- no TV or radio ads, signs, or other outreach that was visible to me.   Kemp has been mostly unopposed with TV ads during the times/stations I watch, although last night I did finally see an Abrams ad on channel 11.

Pretty much from the beginning, Abrams herself has said that this campaign wouldn't be one won or ran based on TV ads, radio spots and so forth. The reason so many areas are getting field organizers and energy pumped into them is because that money isn't being pumped into expensive ATL media market ad buys. There will come a day where both can happen, but a win statewide will be needed before that happens. Much like with the sign stats I posted above, TV and radio spots are essentially a never-ending black hole of resource entrapment for campaigns; as long as you can keep the disadvantage to 2:1 or less, there's arguably no negative impact (or positive impact if you're on the winning side of those odds). Even if you're outside those odds, effective field and abundant enthusiasm can easily overcome deficits created by it.

Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious that the campaign is also pursuing (or at least benefiting from) a stealth approach alongside this; they don't want the extent of their investment to be immediately known or visible to every GOP operative and voter. Based on the universe of voters being targeted, it's not difficult for that to be the case. While I still disagree with the strategy of effectively abandoning persuasion efforts, they are reaching out to large numbers of registered voters.

Abrams deciding on no persuasion gives me serious pause

How many persuadable voters are there in GA though? It's a state where the overwhelming majority of voters are either evangelical whites or black voters.

I mean, the argument can be made in almost every state: persuadable voters are a tiny minority of voters overall. Certainly they're a smaller share in GA than in most other states, but, to abandon persuasion in GA in 2018 essentially means that:

1) You're fine with the fact that Clinton did substantially worse than both Carter and Obama in a large portion of the state, with said under-performance yet to be baked into a midterm

2) You're taking at face value that slippery, treacherous GA suburbrons who have been strong GOP supporters consistently until Clinton aren't going to stab you in the back after a one-time defection; that they're more valuable and reliable than various rubes who have generally voted D until 2016

3) You're betting on low-propensity voters (who are much more the definition of "low-propensity voter" in GA than in many other states) to make or break your campaign

4) You're going to need twice the number of irregular and first-time voters to cancel out the effects of those lost via persuasion, since "+1 D is only half of "+1 R, -1 D"; only after negating all of that can the reduction of the 250k vote deficit truly begin

Perhaps the data suggests that a huge gender bias is going to raze Democratic support in some of these places and it's impossible to overcome via persuasion: it wouldn't be the craziest thing I've heard (especially after comparing Nunn and Carter support in some areas), but I don't think racial bias alone would merit abandoning persuasion (again, both Obama and Carter carried tens of thousands of - if not more than 100k - Georgia Democratic voters who Clinton lost).

[Rookie Yinzer]

I’ve been on my way to Dahlonega today and have yet to see an Abram’s sign.

You're not going to see many (if any) signs in Deliverance Country because people are literally terrified that their homes, properties and selves will be targeted. When I was putting out signs for Clinton in 2016, I had multiple instances of people yelling "F[INKS] THAT B[INKS]H" out of car windows passing by - and I'm in one of the more friendly and civilized parts of the state. I was pretty much expecting to be hit in the head with a bottle or ran over by some bubba truck driver. I know organizers who insist on carrying guns whenever canvassing or doing visible Democratic work in public in North Georgia. The fact that it's a black woman running will only heighten these fears by the minority and these aggressive behaviors by the majority.

Besides, the Abrams campaign has put the least amount of effort into signs of any campaign - presumably because they understand it's a waste of money. There have been periods where people couldn't even buy their own overpriced signs for $10 through the website. Signs are good for identifying potential hardcore supporters, volunteers and donors (and may be good at giving people reassurance/knowledge of like-minded people at a granular level), but if you're already accomplishing the former via field work, it's pretty unnecessary. I hate the sign game and I hate being nagged about keeping them in supply, but I do admit that for county parties and the like, they provide more benefit than for statewide campaigns with massive resources.

And for those wondering, past precedent/studies suggest that having a 2:1 sign advantage in a particular area can affect the margin by around 1 point in urban areas, 2 points in suburban areas and 3 points in rural areas. It's tangible, but not the most efficient way to achieve those gains.

This! The main reason I am ready for this election to be over is so I can stop being nagged about yard signs.

I don't think yard signs do a whole lot (or we'd have Congressman Ossoff), but I agree that they may at least get the candidate's name out there.  Something I've complained about recently is that Abrams seemed to have gone quiet -- no TV or radio ads, signs, or other outreach that was visible to me.   Kemp has been mostly unopposed with TV ads during the times/stations I watch, although last night I did finally see an Abrams ad on channel 11.

Pretty much from the beginning, Abrams herself has said that this campaign wouldn't be one won or ran based on TV ads, radio spots and so forth. The reason so many areas are getting field organizers and energy pumped into them is because that money isn't being pumped into expensive ATL media market ad buys. There will come a day where both can happen, but a win statewide will be needed before that happens. Much like with the sign stats I posted above, TV and radio spots are essentially a never-ending black hole of resource entrapment for campaigns; as long as you can keep the disadvantage to 2:1 or less, there's arguably no negative impact (or positive impact if you're on the winning side of those odds). Even if you're outside those odds, effective field and abundant enthusiasm can easily overcome deficits created by it.

Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious that the campaign is also pursuing (or at least benefiting from) a stealth approach alongside this; they don't want the extent of their investment to be immediately known or visible to every GOP operative and voter. Based on the universe of voters being targeted, it's not difficult for that to be the case. While I still disagree with the strategy of effectively abandoning persuasion efforts, they are reaching out to large numbers of registered voters.

This! And we have to understand she is going after low propensity Democratic voters. A single mother with two jobs in Colquitt County is not going to take time out of her day to stand in line to vote for someone because she saw a sign or saw her on television.

I do disagree that she is abandoning persuasion efforts. She is banking on issues like Medicaid Expansion, public education, and jobs being things that people of different ideologies can line up behind while also not abandoning progressive views on guns, women's right to choose, and immigration.

[Adam Griffin]

I do disagree that she is abandoning persuasion efforts. She is banking on issues like Medicaid Expansion, public education, and jobs being things that people of different ideologies can line up behind while also not abandoning progressive views on guns, women's right to choose, and immigration.

I'm just going off of what I've seen and been told. Abrams herself told me this back in July or August of last year at an intimate gathering in Dalton. I was basically asking her about our area specifically ("this area's Democratic base doesn't look like the rest of the state: it's pretty much all blue-collar whites and low-propensity Latinos, and needs tending from cycle to cycle to maintain it, and so any potential message focused at galvanizing 'Georgia's Democratic base' might not work as well here; we used persuasion to great effect in 2014; what is your plan for this part of the state campaign-wise?") and she essentially said that it wasn't her plan to persuade voters to vote for her but that it was her job to turn out those who already support us. The broader message from here ever since has generally matched that.

Along with that, her campaign manager (who was nice enough to make a contribution to our county party - glory!) has said in one of those interviews for the campaign that turnout in South Georgia and Metro ATL is the focus. That of course has been a repeated point from the campaign many times. Individual conversations with various staff have all been focused on turnout, turnout, turnout. Additionally, the field work is entirely - at least right now - based on turnout.

I'd point out that Q3 in the current script (what I believe you're referring to about the issues) isn't true persuasion in that it's not designed to persuade voters to vote differently, but is information being gathered to regurgitate to those voters at a later date to convince him to turn out.