Georgia's Very Own Megathread! (v2)

[Bidenworth2020]

Surprising to see Catalist data showing Abrams underperforming Clinton among non-white voters...

couldn't that just be errors in the exit poll? There isn't really another explanation.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Did Catalist do anymore races? I want to see Pennsylvania if so.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Did we have numbers for voter turnout by race and gender? And do we have anything from 2014 to compare it to? Wondering if there was any significant uptick in black women vs other demographics.

[Adam Griffin]

Did we have numbers for voter turnout by race and gender? And do we have anything from 2014 to compare it to? Wondering if there was any significant uptick in black women vs other demographics.

Do you mean turnout as a % of registered voters? That info should be available via SoS; I'll check. It's possible black female turnout increased, but in all honesty, it's been the highest turnout group by race and gender (in presidential elections, anyway) for some time. Such a comparison (2014-2018) may prove to be unhelpful if not adjusted given the huge difference in overall turnout between the two cycles.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Did we have numbers for voter turnout by race and gender? And do we have anything from 2014 to compare it to? Wondering if there was any significant uptick in black women vs other demographics.

Do you mean turnout as a % of registered voters? That info should be available via SoS; I'll check. It's possible black female turnout increased, but in all honesty, it's been the highest turnout group by race and gender (in presidential elections, anyway) for some time. Such a comparison (2014-2018) may prove to be unhelpful if not adjusted given the huge difference in overall turnout between the two cycles.

Yes. I thought I read an AJC analysis after the last Prez election that black women fell behind white men and white women in 2016, or maybe that was nationally and not in Georgia. A comparison to 2016 would probably be better all things considered.

[Adam Griffin]

Obviously all groups saw increased turnout as a share of RVs, but determining how best to adjust this given the huge discrepancy in turnout between the two is tricky.

On the right, there are two columns: the first is a simple shift in overall turnout (for example, black male turnout went from 35.11% to 46.75%, for an straightforward increase of 11.75 percentage points). However, such a comparison may not be truly fair nor equal given that some groups (i.e. white and black voters) have naturally higher turnout and therefore cannot increase their nominal turnout in theory by as much as other groups, some of which doubled their turnout compared to 2014.

The second column simply looks at relative shifts; what their 2018 turnout looks like as a share of 2014. For example, if a group went from 25% turnout in 2014 to 50% turnout in 2018, their 2018 turnout would be 200% of their 2014 total.



Using an average of sorts to consider both the increase in turnout for each race/gender group AND its previous turnout share (i.e. weighing and controlling for groups that already had higher turnout; for example, whites and blacks couldn't realistically double their turnout share like Latinos and Asians), this is more or less how I'd rank the improvement of each group relative to 2014 (from least to most impressive):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Did we have numbers for voter turnout by race and gender? And do we have anything from 2014 to compare it to? Wondering if there was any significant uptick in black women vs other demographics.

Do you mean turnout as a % of registered voters? That info should be available via SoS; I'll check. It's possible black female turnout increased, but in all honesty, it's been the highest turnout group by race and gender (in presidential elections, anyway) for some time. Such a comparison (2014-2018) may prove to be unhelpful if not adjusted given the huge difference in overall turnout between the two cycles.

Yes. I thought I read an AJC analysis after the last Prez election that black women fell behind white men and white women in 2016, or maybe that was nationally and not in Georgia. A comparison to 2016 would probably be better all things considered.

You're probably right: at least in 2008 and 2012 (and maybe even one of the midterms in there), I'm pretty sure black females had the highest turnout of any group, but 2016 was a pretty rough year for black drop-off in GA.

Anyway, numbers are posted above showing overall turnout for each group: the black female figures relative to whites are probably similar to 2016 in all likelihood (black females just barely fell below whites as a share of RVs turning out).

[Adam Griffin]

And wow: just noticed that black male turnout wasn't appreciably any better than Latino and Asian (female) turnout, as well as the unknown/others. That's gotta be a first.

Not surprising, though: I did some analysis a few weeks ago and determined that among eligible voters, there are 85,000 black males who should be voting if they merely participated at rates equal to their female peers.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Thanks.

And wow is right re: black male turnout compared to Asian and Hispanic females. I hope the campaign Abrams ran inspires these voters to remain civically engaged the way Obama’s candidacy did for black voters here.

[RogueBeaver]

AJC on Senate: Abrams seems likelier to seek a rematch with Kemp than run for Senate, but no one will move till she formally announces something. Other potential Senate candidates are Tomlinson, Nunn, Carter, Holcomb, Ossoff, but they believe the nominee is likelier to be Tomlinson or Nunn.

[Storr]

AJC on Senate: Abrams seems likelier to seek a rematch with Kemp than run for Senate, but no one will move till she formally announces something. Other potential Senate candidates are Tomlinson, Nunn, Carter, Holcomb, Ossoff, but they believe the nominee is likelier to be Tomlinson or Nunn.

Having the person (Nunn) that lost to Perdue in 2014 as the 2020 Democratic nominee doesn't strike me as all that energizing, exciting, or inspiring.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Teresa Tomlinson will be the Senate nominee.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Teresa Tomlinson will be the Senate nominee.

I think so too, assuming Abrams doesn't run for it.

[Oryxslayer]

Surprised this list doesn't include Yates. After her stint in Washington she came away with plenty of anti-Trump bonifides.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Teresa Tomlinson will be the Senate nominee.

I think so too, assuming Abrams doesn't run for it.

Abrams is running against Kemp in a rematch after she fights for electoral reform in federal court. Our state senator was at our county party Christmas banquet and said Abrams told her that she's letting Tomlinson take on Perdue.

Surprised this list doesn't include Yates. After her stint in Washington she came away with plenty of anti-Trump bonifides.

Yates has made it abundantly clear that she wants nothing to do with electoral politics

ETA: Hopefully Isakson does Georgia Democrats a favor and retires so Scott Holcomb can run for an open seat in 2022. Abrams said she planned to run for Governor even in a Clinton midterm so I'm not too phased about what the national environment might be for them.

[Podgy the Bear]

For the Democrats to even have a chance in 2020 to pick up the Senate seat. they need to do the following:

1) Pick the consensus candidate early (which has happened over the last few years because available Democrats have been few and far between).  We don't need a protracted primary fight--which I fear may happen in the presidential race.  Teresa Tomlinson comes with excellent credentials and is very eloquent when I have seen her on television.

2) Get the Abrams voting bloc in metro Atlanta to come out (and especially south metro--where they didn't do so in the Barrow runoff).  And this means that Abrams has to be active and not sit this out (I don't think she would do this).

3) Have a strong presidential ticket to maximize #2 and have broad appeal to the statewide vote.  Even if Georgia stays Republican at the presidential level in 2020, there could be trickle down effects in the downballot races in favor of the Democrats (similar to what happened in 1996).

[GeorgiaModerate]

Abrams to decide on next move by end of March

[Del Tachi]

If I were Abrams I'd hold out and wait for a John Lewis retirement in 2020 or 2022.

[Zaybay]

For the Democrats to even have a chance in 2020 to pick up the Senate seat. they need to do the following:

1) Pick the consensus candidate early (which has happened over the last few years because available Democrats have been few and far between).  We don't need a protracted primary fight--which I fear may happen in the presidential race.  Teresa Tomlinson comes with excellent credentials and is very eloquent when I have seen her on television.

2) Get the Abrams voting bloc in metro Atlanta to come out (and especially south metro--where they didn't do so in the Barrow runoff).  And this means that Abrams has to be active and not sit this out (I don't think she would do this).

3) Have a strong presidential ticket to maximize #2 and have broad appeal to the statewide vote.  Even if Georgia stays Republican at the presidential level in 2020, there could be trickle down effects in the downballot races in favor of the Democrats (similar to what happened in 1996).

I dont believe this reason is actually that valid. Having no competition in a primary is much worse than having a brutal primary, for it airs out a candidate's dirty laundry. As an example, VA-05 had this problem on both sides, with it coming out during the campaign that Riggleman wrote Bigfoot fanfiction, and Cockburn sided with BDS on many issues. Now, lets take the opposite. To contrast, look at the GA-GOV primary. Many people wanted to clear the way for Abram's opponent, Stacy Evans, and many in the GADEM didnt want Abrams to run and disrupt the primary. But the deadly primary allowed Abrams to emerge, and also aired out the dirty laundry that was found out about Evans.

Same with the presidential primary. If we just allowed a candidate through with no primary fighting, say Joe Biden, and then all this information comes out and he falters, then keeping Joe safe from a challenge actually hurt the Ds, not helped them.

Primaries are safe areas for Democrats and Republicans, where an electorate of like minded thinkers can pick a candidate out of a field, and any problems can be aired out against an audience that doesnt despise your guts. By clearing a field, you have these issues bundled up until the general, when not just your party, but the whole electorate, are watching.

[Adam Griffin]

For the Democrats to even have a chance in 2020 to pick up the Senate seat. they need to do the following:

1) Pick the consensus candidate early (which has happened over the last few years because available Democrats have been few and far between).  We don't need a protracted primary fight--which I fear may happen in the presidential race.  Teresa Tomlinson comes with excellent credentials and is very eloquent when I have seen her on television.

In regards to #1, I imagine the only way this is guaranteed is if Abrams herself runs. Otherwise, there very well may be a clowncar of candidates jump in due to the close nature of last year's contest, all believing they have a real shot at winning now.

2) Get the Abrams voting bloc in metro Atlanta to come out (and especially south metro--where they didn't do so in the Barrow runoff).  And this means that Abrams has to be active and not sit this out (I don't think she would do this).

Unless Abrams is on the ballot, I'd say her influence in the race (outside of a potential primary endorsement) will be minimal. In terms of turnout, the "Abrams voting bloc" was in reality just a presidential-year voting bloc more or less (and countering that, Kemp managed to turn out his voters at similar levels, too, rendering the turnout operation more or less moot).

Where Abrams actually generated a difference (that isn't entirely built upon simple demographic turnover) was via persuasion of white suburbanites and turnout improvement among non-black, non-white voters, and neither of those voters groups are going to simply support a Democratic Senate nominee just because she tells them to do so.

At any rate - at least in raw numbers - the people who came out in a midterm to support Abrams will definitely come out in a presidential. There may be a few who were simply inspired by her and don't otherwise vote, but they'll be cancelled out by first-time voters and demographic turnover; if a midterm is your first time voting, there's a very high chance that you'll continue voting in presidential elections.

[Rookie Yinzer]

To contrast, look at the GA-GOV primary. Many people wanted to clear the way for Abram's opponent, Stacy Adams, and many in the GADEM didnt want Abrams to run and disrupt the primary. But the deadly primary allowed Abrams to emerge, and also aired out the dirty laundry that was found out about Adams.

Who? What? That is not how the Governor primary transpired at all. Abrams announced first and was the frontrunner the entire time. There were obviously people skittish about her chances (me included) but an Abrams victory was never in doubt. There was no "dirty laundry" exposed in the primary either other than Abrams writing the Op-Ed about her own debt.

Anyway a primary for Senator won't do any damage to the eventual nominee. There is nothing about Teresa Tomlinson, Scott Holcomb, Jon Ossoff and their potential candidacies that will cause deep divides in the state party. They'll be riding the coattails of the POTUS nominee anyway.

[Zaybay]

To contrast, look at the GA-GOV primary. Many people wanted to clear the way for Abram's opponent, Stacy Adams, and many in the GADEM didnt want Abrams to run and disrupt the primary. But the deadly primary allowed Abrams to emerge, and also aired out the dirty laundry that was found out about Adams.

Who? What? That is not how the Governor primary transpired at all. Abrams announced first and was the frontrunner the entire time. There were obviously people skittish about her chances (me included) but an Abrams victory was never in doubt. There was no "dirty laundry" exposed in the primary either other than Abrams writing the Op-Ed about her own debt.

I may have not had the best grip on the GA-Gov primary, and I apologize. But i feel that my point is still basically the same.

(Also, I was talking about the problems that surfaced with Evans, which quelled the idea that she was the candidate who should win and the stronger candidate)

[Podgy the Bear]

For the Democrats to even have a chance in 2020 to pick up the Senate seat. they need to do the following:

1) Pick the consensus candidate early (which has happened over the last few years because available Democrats have been few and far between).  We don't need a protracted primary fight--which I fear may happen in the presidential race.  Teresa Tomlinson comes with excellent credentials and is very eloquent when I have seen her on television.

I dont believe this reason is actually that valid. Having no competition in a primary is much worse than having a brutal primary, for it airs out a candidate's dirty laundry. As an example, VA-05 had this problem on both sides, with it coming out during the campaign that Riggleman wrote Bigfoot fanfiction, and Cockburn sided with BDS on many issues. Now, lets take the opposite. To contrast, look at the GA-GOV primary. Many people wanted to clear the way for Abram's opponent, Stacy Adams, and many in the GADEM didnt want Abrams to run and disrupt the primary. But the deadly primary allowed Abrams to emerge, and also aired out the dirty laundry that was found out about Adams.

Same with the presidential primary. If we just allowed a candidate through with no primary fighting, say Joe Biden, and then all this information comes out and he falters, then keeping Joe safe from a challenge actually hurt the Ds, not helped them.

Primaries are safe areas for Democrats and Republicans, where an electorate of like minded thinkers can pick a candidate out of a field, and any problems can be aired out against an audience that doesnt despise your guts. By clearing a field, you have these issues bundled up until the general, when not just your party, but the whole electorate, are watching.

The difference between last year and next year's Senate race is that the Democrats will be taking on a fairly tough incumbent in David Perdue.  What you're proposing happened here in 2006 governor's race with a bruising primary fight between Mark Taylor and Cathy Cox--running against the incumbent Sonny Perdue.  Taylor barely won--too much bad blood between him and Cox (she didn't endorse him)--and he was slaughtered against Perdue in November.  And remember 2006 was a big Democratic year--everywhere except Georgia.

The Democratic Party statewide doesn't have the resources to have a protracted fight in the primaries to take on David Perdue.  It would otherwise be multiple candidates and then a prolonged runoff period.    It will have to be the 3 issues I brought up earlier for them to have a chance.

[Adam Griffin]

To contrast, look at the GA-GOV primary. Many people wanted to clear the way for Abram's opponent, Stacy Adams, and many in the GADEM didnt want Abrams to run and disrupt the primary. But the deadly primary allowed Abrams to emerge, and also aired out the dirty laundry that was found out about Adams.

Who? What? That is not how the Governor primary transpired at all. Abrams announced first and was the frontrunner the entire time. There were obviously people skittish about her chances (me included) but an Abrams victory was never in doubt. There was no "dirty laundry" exposed in the primary either other than Abrams writing the Op-Ed about her own debt.

I may have not had the best grip on the GA-Gov primary, and I apologize. But i feel that my point is still basically the same.

(Also, I was talking about the problems that surfaced with Evans, which quelled the idea that she was the candidate who should win and the stronger candidate)

You're not inherently wrong (though it was never really public). The state party apparatus - or rather the overwhelming majority of its individuals - was heavily in favor of Evans over Abrams (which I'd say was a good part of why Evans outraised Abrams at various points). This was, from what I gathered, mainly due to a perception of Abrams as being selfish, abrasive, etc by those who worked within her orbit in the past, perhaps in combination with a belief that Abrams also couldn't win.

While I certainly didn't conduct a universal poll, I never encountered somebody within the inner workings of the party who had nice things to say about her in the years before her campaign. However, given the legislative caucus' endorsements in the primary, I'd say the sentiment was accurate by and large.

[Badger]

To contrast, look at the GA-GOV primary. Many people wanted to clear the way for Abram's opponent, Stacy Adams, and many in the GADEM didnt want Abrams to run and disrupt the primary. But the deadly primary allowed Abrams to emerge, and also aired out the dirty laundry that was found out about Adams.

Who? What? That is not how the Governor primary transpired at all. Abrams announced first and was the frontrunner the entire time. There were obviously people skittish about her chances (me included) but an Abrams victory was never in doubt. There was no "dirty laundry" exposed in the primary either other than Abrams writing the Op-Ed about her own debt.

I may have not had the best grip on the GA-Gov primary, and I apologize. But i feel that my point is still basically the same.

(Also, I was talking about the problems that surfaced with Evans, which quelled the idea that she was the candidate who should win and the stronger candidate)

You're not inherently wrong (though it was never really public). The state party apparatus - or rather the overwhelming majority of its individuals - was heavily in favor of Evans over Abrams (which I'd say was a good part of why Evans outraised Abrams at various points). This was, from what I gathered, mainly due to a perception of Abrams as being selfish, abrasive, etc by those who worked within her orbit in the past, perhaps in combination with a belief that Abrams also couldn't win.

While I certainly didn't conduct a universal poll, I never encountered somebody within the inner workings of the party who had nice things to say about her in the years before her campaign. However, given the legislative caucus' endorsements in the primary, I'd say the sentiment was accurate by and large.

When you say her in this second paragraph, do you mean Abrams?

I guess that leads me to question asked you if Abrams was / is such in a brace of a****** who's Rob most of her legislative colleagues the wrong way, how did she ever wind up minority leader?