Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

GA-Sen: Chambliss Leads By 6

by: Crisitunity

Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 1:34 PM EST


Research 2000 for Daily Kos (11/17-19, likely voters, 11/10-12 in parentheses):

Jim Martin (D): 45 (46)
Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 51 (49)
(MoE: ±4%)

The newest R2K poll of the Georgia senate runoff shows Jim Martin falling further behind incumbent Saxby Chambliss at 51-45, but Markos points out an interesting detail: the previous week's poll, which was 49-46, found that the respondents had voted 49-47 for Chambliss in the general election (which closely mirrored the actual 49-46 result). This sample, however, finds that the respondents voted 52-44 in the general, suggesting a more Republican-leaning batch.

The fluctuation may also reflect some difficulty in pinning down who exactly fits the 'likely voter' mold for a runoff election: is it anyone who voted in November, or only someone who votes with regularity? Martin probably owes his close showing in the general to high turnout from young and/or African-American voters with sporadic voting track records but who were highly motivated to come out for Obama... and Obama seems hesitant to expend too much political capital on this race right now. On the other hand, with Republicans probably demoralized and undermotivated to return to the polls, and with a lot of Obama staffers deployed to the state, it's at least possible Martin could pull out the upset through disparities in ground game.
Crisitunity :: GA-Sen: Chambliss Leads By 6
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
GA-Sen: Chambliss Leads By 6 | 44 comments
I guess...
But I still find it frustrating that we're stalled at best... Or possibly falling behind further. Is there anything we can do to convince Obama to stop thinking about raiding Red State electeds & start doing something to get another Dem elected to the Senate to actually implement his agenda?

C4O Democrats: A Place for All Democrats
It would put the wind at Republicans backs and encourage them to fight
Even after they got their asses handed to them in the national election.  They would see this as an immediate disapproval of Obama's cabinet and agenda.  It isn't worth it at this point.  He already sent out his staff, I would have preferred him to send a fundraising e-mail for Martin.  The media would play it up as a big loss.  
[ Parent ]
It's Georgia
Obama didn't win Georgia...Martin will probably get the same percentage Obama did...or close to it.

If this was, say, Iowa, North Carolina or Colorado, then yeah, but the Republicans can't make that argument when they held on to a Senate seat by roughly the same margin their Presidential candidate carried the state.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Bill Clinton tried this in 1992
He went down to GA to help Wyche Fowler, and when Fowler lost it was seen as a slap against the new president. Of course, I thought the rally with REM in such a deeply southern state was silly to begin with.
[ Parent ]
umm....
They are from Athens, GA.

"Keep the Faith"
[ Parent ]
Good point
It's not as if Athens is somehow different from the rest of the state.
[ Parent ]
Clinton won Georgia that year n/t


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Likely because of Perot
Georgia, Ohio, Nevada, and Montana were four states that would have almost certainly gone to Bush in 1992 without Perot on the ballot.  
[ Parent ]
Certaintly
but because he won Georgia, whatever reason it was that he did, Republicans were able to parade Fowler's loss as a repudiation of Clinton.

They won't be able to do that this year because Obama lost Georgia. If Martin manages to get 45%-47%, which I think he will, it means he did as good as Obama and the status quo is still the same and Democrats are still in the same position they were in on election day, despite you're feeling that we're suddenly inexplicably falling apart like a wet paper towel.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Vast majority
of votes for Libertarian candidate must go this time for  Chambliss. EVEN if he himself prefers Martin. So - i am not surprised. Martin put up great fight and forced Chambliss into run-off (great achievement for modern Georgia), but his chances of winning are far from great...
We've got like a 20% shot at this, at best

agreed
20% at best.
[ Parent ]
I'm not holding my breath
At the peak of Obama's victory, martin only managed 46%, and with him about to be sworn in and Democrats holding solid majorities, the only incentive is on the part of Republicans keep Obama from having a bigger majority. Energy tends to shift to the other side as we witnesses in LA in 2002. However, I'm still optimistic about LA-04.
Agreed on Carmouche
I never expected to win Georgia but then I never thought Ciro would win in 2006 overtime. And I believe the polls were just as ugly then.
[ Parent ]
They were way off on TX-23
The last SUSA poll had Bonilla winning something like 53-47.  Ciro won easily, 54-46.  Low turnout specials are hard to be certain on.
[ Parent ]
Absolutely the point I was trying to make
Chambliss will probably win but polls are pretty useless and it is still possible Martin can do it if everything breaks his way.
[ Parent ]
I think statewide may be different though
A small congressional district probably has much more chance of a big swing on election day than an entire state like Georgia.
[ Parent ]
True but still
Turnout will likely be tiny and thus anything can happen.
[ Parent ]
We are not going to win this
I dont think we will win much of anything for the next few years.  Suddenly it seems that Republicans are more energized than Democrats.  I just get the feeling that this going to be like that 1992-1996 period where we didnt win anything and were always on the defensive.  Now, I almost wish McCain had one.  I hate being on the defensive.  
Give it a rest Bill
It aint even been three weeks since election day yet and this race certainly isn't any kind of barometer of things to come just as victory here and/or in Louisiana would not signal continued Democratic dominance. Still, the cyclical nature of politics suggests the Republicans will bounce back but Obama would really have to screw it up for anything like the kind of meltdown you are concerned about.
[ Parent ]
Seriously
BillNolen is a good poster but lately he's just been overly worried about anything and everything.  Come on Bill, revel in the glow of victory!  Last I checked the party was in the best shape it's been in since possibly the 70's.
[ Parent ]
I like to be cautious
Everyone just went crazy after 1992 because we all assmued that Democratic control of Congress was assured and it killed us.  
[ Parent ]
They didn't have good reason to be
And the Democrats are, despite everything, in better shape this year than they were in 1992 (unlike Clinton, Obama won a majority of the popular vote, the Democrats had made real gains in congress). Comparing this year to 1992 is comparing apples and oranges, they aren't the same thing.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm
[ Parent ]
Are you saying that apples are better?
Because oranges are better, and they're also more like 2008 than 1992--we won Florida!

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...
[ Parent ]
I don't want us to be
complacent.  Bill Clinton received only 43% of the vote in 1992.  Obama received 53%.  Obama and his administration must build trust with the American public and not rest on the results from the 2006 and 2008 elections.  From what I have seen from Obama, complacency will not happen.  President Bush won 51% in 2004, but now his disapproval rating is 76%.  Some of this (not all) can be tied to complacency.
[ Parent ]
Since when?
We just had an election like 18 days ago and suddenly Republicans got more energized? That was fast.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
So...
What you're saying is that there is now going to be a third wave election where the Republicans will take everything back in 2010 and that, even though the Senate races in 2010 are, on balance, more favorable to the Democrats than the Republicans (we can probably make serious plays for senate seats in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, Louisiana, and Kentucky; while the Republicans will probably only be able to make serious plays in Nevada and Colorado, and if they can get really good recruits, California, North Dakota, and Arkansas [and that would be completely contigent on ONE person running in all three of those states, which would mean a ridiculous recruitment coup for the Republicans])

Of course, nothing is impossible, but what you're saying is based really on nothing but "we won, ergo that means we're going to do poorly in the future" based on very little.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
Im sorry, but
Look at this new Rasmussen poll.  http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

It gives Democrats a paltry four point lead in the Congressional ballot.  I dont know what Democrats have done to   sink here so quickly but if this happened because we won the White House, I am really going to be pissed.  I never really wanted the White House anyway and I now I am worried we will suffer at every other level because of it.  

[ Parent ]
Are you honestly telling me that the presidency is less important than the legislature?

Because if you are, then you are quite ignorant of just how powerful the presidency is. Democratic control of Congress couldn't stop the Bush administration from doing a whole lot of things (wireless warrants, keeping troops in Iraq, etc.)

"a paltry four point lead in the Congressional ballot" huh? first of all, on the week of the election (11/02), Rasmussen showed Democrats with a "paltry" 6-point lead on the generic ballot, the exit polls from the election tell us that Democratic house candidates won 10.5 points more of the vote than Republican house candidates (which is a full 4.5 points better than what Rasmussen showed just two days before the election). I don't doubt that we'll probably lose some house seats in 2010, that's just what happens when we win a lot of seats in red districts. But there is no reason to assume that, at the drop of a hat, we're just going to be decimated in the House, Senate, Governorships, and everything else, it's just laughable.



Your go-to source for great sarcasm
[ Parent ]
The one reason to have the Presidency
will be if we can pass universal healthcare.  If we cannot get that done by 2010, everything will be for nought.  
[ Parent ]
Fine
In 2010, we're going to lose every single competitive or possibly competitive House, Senate, and Gubernatorial seat in the country. Illinois, Delaware, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Nevada, Colorado, Washington State will all be swept away in this huge reverse wave that will happen immediately after people roundly rejected the Republican party (and if you throw 2004 in my face, I'd remind you that almost every senate seat the Republicans took that year were heavily Republican states; South Carolina (Bush won by 18 points), North Carolina (Bush won by 11 points), South Dakota (Bush won by over 20 points), Georgia (Bush won by 16 points), Louisiana (Bush won by 15 points), Oklahoma (Bush won by 33 points!); the only exception was Florida, which Bush still won by about 5 points; the only reason the Republicans made ANY gains in the House was because of DeLay's redistricting, in fact outside of Texas, the Democrats made GAINS in the House)

You're being unreasonably pessimistic very early, you need to be a better long-term strategist than saying "we're just going to get our asses handed to us now that we've won the presidency, and so we're all DOOMED!" Give me a f***ing break.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
It's not all or nothing
Would I like universal healthcare in the first two years?  Hell ya!

But the political reality is it's unlikely.  The rage against our current healthcare system is building, but doesn't appear to be sufficient to get our legislators to act just yet.  That is why I'm still one of those who support going at it piece by piece.  A massive expansion of SCHIP should be easy to pass.  Then take it from there.

Universal Healthcare should be studied seriously, but it doesn't look like the votes are there.  We have 58 or 59 Senators, but it doesn't appear that there are any republicans who would break from a filibuster to get us the additional votes we would need.

[ Parent ]
We can put it in the budget
Which cannot be filibustered.  
[ Parent ]
Which would probably cause serious backlash
I hate slipping big pieces of legislation in the budget.
[ Parent ]
It can be done
and is probably the only way to do it if we cannot get at least one Republican to break the filibuster.  There must be at least one Republican out of Specter, Snowe, and Collins that would vote with us.  
[ Parent ]
Never really wanted the White House anyway?
You like Republican SCOTUS appointees? you like Republicans having veto power over all of our ideas. You like Republicans being in charge of recess appointments, executive orders, etc?

cause if not, I can't understand why you would never really want the White House anyway

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
yeah
god....  It's great to have a Democratic Congress and a Republican President.  It has worked BEAUTIFULLY for us.  Instead of any actual progress,  Bush says, f you I don't think so.  

That is what Obama can do to a Republican Congress.  It is obviously WAY more important for us to have the presidency, that is the final say on what gets passed as policy.  Obama will simply say, no, veto that crap.

Seriously, start talking about new stuff, I swear I've seen people get banned for being even less like a concern troll.

[ Parent ]
But then
when you get a Republican back in the White House, he will have a Republican Congress to ram through anything he wants.  Just look at George W. Bush in 2000.  
[ Parent ]
Then how about
we govern competently, make progress and the Republicans won't win elections and will have neither Congress or the White House.

Just because we control everything doesn't mean they'll win two years from now. Lest we forget, Democrats spent 14 years controlling both branches in the 1930's and 1940's and eight years controlling everything in the 1960's.


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
The majorities were much more stable then
In 1932, Democrats came in with 313 House seats and even when they lost a bunch of seats in 1938, they had 262, which is still a couple more than what we will have now.  

In 1960, we came in with the same number and we only lost four seats in 1962, but probably would have lost a lot more if the Cuban Missile Crisis had not happened a few weeks before the election.

We can do alright in 2010 only if we can pass universal health care and pump enough money into the economy to at least make it so it feels like things are improving.  Democrats need to keep in mind that now is not the time to be cutting spending or raising taxes.  In a recession like this, either of those things would likely lead to a depression.  

[ Parent ]
Big problem with that
Democrats didn't lose any seats in 1934 or 1936, in fact right before the 1938 elections, the Republicans only had 88 seats in the House. There was only one place for the Republicans to go at that point (and, I'd add that they're gains in 1938 were largely a push-back to Roosevelt's court-packing). Yes, the Republicans took 81 seats at the time, but you forget that between 1930 and 1936, the Democrats won a massive 170 seats. To put this another way, in 1928 the Democrats controlled 164 seats, in 1938, the Democrats controlled 262, meaning that ten years after, and even during a pretty bad mid-term election, the Democrats STILL had nearly 100 more seats in 1938 then they had 10 years earlier.

Oh, and just so you know, using elections from the 1930s is extremely dubious, since back then, what we consider a "wave" was pretty much an average election back then. To illustrate my point, between 1920 and 1940, the winning party gained an average of about 42 seats (the median being 32). Between 1940 and 1960, the average vote went down to 31 seats (with a median of 22 seats). Between 1960 and 1980, the average winning party gain was about 21 (with a median of 15). Between 1980 and 2000, that average dropped to 13 (with a median of 8).

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
To be blunt
Who the hell cares?  The American people handed President-elect Obama and both houses of congress to the Democratic Party in a landslide stamp of approval only a few weeks ago.  The majority of the country is on OUR side, not theirs.  We won't be having congressional election for another 2 years.

Right now this is the number that matters most:
Obama's approval/disapproval numbers from Rasmussen as of today:
Approve - 62%
Disapprove - 35%

The country is behind Obama and congressional Democrats.  They want change starting in January and the only risk they run is not doing enough.

[ Parent ]
I'm not giving up on this race
anything can happen in a runoff. usually the incumbent is at a disadvantage in a low turnout runoff.

I agree.
I very agree.
[ Parent ]
GA-Sen: Chambliss Leads By 6 | 44 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Follow Us

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

SSP's Frappr Map

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

Partisan Voting Index

House Open Seat Watch

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

2010 Political Calendar

SSP Race Ratings

Senate Race Ratings

Gubernatorial Race Ratings

House Vulnerability Index

Blogroll

Daily Kos
DemConWatch
DLCC Blog
Five Thirty Eight
From The Roots (DSCC)
Hotline On Call
Kicking Ass (DNC)
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Project 2010 (DGA)
The Next Hurrah
The Stakeholder (DCCC)
The Thicket (NCSL)
Powered by: SoapBlox