Tuesday will finally give us a complete picture of the Senate races (at least once Al Franken drops his increasingly long shot challenges in Minnesota), as Georgia stages its runoff between Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin. Chambliss came a few thousand votes shy of winning outright in November, leading Martin 50-47. Martin's vote tracked Barack Obama's almost perfectly, while Chambliss seemed to lose about 2-3% to the Libertarian candidate.
Historical evidence suggests that turnout will be way off from the November levels. As turnout from this year was not out of the ordinary (contrary to popular belief), I have no reason to expect this to change this year. Obviously, the shape of the decline will be important. If Martin retains an increased black turnout from November, he could win. He could also benefit from a mass Republican loss of morale after a terrible election, like Representative Ciro Rodriguez did in the special election runoff in TX-23 two years ago. Truthfully, Martin needs both things to occur to win.
Both sides have taken steps to get their votes out. John McCain and Sarah Palin have stumped for Chambliss. Democrats are really feeling their oats as even Al Gore has come to Georgia to stump for Martin. You may recall that since 2000 Gore and other national Democrats have been a millstone for Southern Democrats, something Zell Miller ruefully noted in his 2003 book A National Party No More (how'd that work out for you, Zell?). Martin stumped today with rapper/actor Ludacris, a highly questionable choice which I can only assume is meant to target younger black voters.
This is one of the most generic elections I've ever seen. Neither Chambliss or Martin have much to distinguish them from their parties. I can't detect much enthusiasm for this race among the citizenry of Georgia. In such a circumstance, I'd expect turnout to be way down across the board.
A generic election clearly favors Chambliss. Georgia is now an extremely Republican state in national politics, as it comfortably favored McCain even in a horrible Republican year. Georgia Democrats have been failing badly the entire decade, and it's hard to see what Martin has that people like Roy Barnes and Max Cleland didn't, especially since he trailed Chambliss in what were possibly the best possible circumstances for a Democrat.
This is not the sort of runoff where a third candidate with a substantial bloc of votes can help the second place finisher pull out the election. Chambliss has led this race throughout, with definite but not overwhelming margins. Recent polls have consistently shown Chambliss with a 4-7 point lead. Martin needs the shape of the electorate to change in his favor, but this is not likely. If anything, I'd expect the excited Democrats to come out relatively less than Republicans. It won't be a blowout, but there is no evidence Martin is going to win.
Prediction: Sen. Chambliss (R) 53%, Martin (D) 47%
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Georgia Senate Runoff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Why on earth are you talking about Franken "dropping" his so-called "long-shot" challenges? If you were in his position, would you quit before making sure all legal votes were counted? They are hand-counting votes and will try to determine the intent of each voter. Then, there will be litigation to determine which absentee ballots legally merit being counted. And unless you have some surprising inside knowledge, you have no reason to believe that either Franken or Coleman is a long-shot at this point. The election is simply too close to call, until all the votes are counted and all the challenges and litigation are finished. I wouldn't be surprised if either candidate was determined to be the victor in the end, nor should you be.
Well, I didn't suggest that Franken should drop his challenge. I merely note that since Coleman will almost certainly be ahead at the end of the recount, Franken faces long odds in picking up the victory.
Franken is depending on challenges to individual voters, which given the nature of his challenges and Minnesota election history is not a good bet to put him over the top. I'm sure he will file lawsuits, but I have no reason to believe that he can overturn the results with such means. The success rate of such suits are quite small.
I'm not surprised that Franken is fighting to the end, and despite his claims on Election Night, I would expect Coleman to do the same. Realistically, the leader at the end of the recount (almost certainly Coleman), has a 95% chance of taking office on January 3.
I don't see how you can put such percentages up. What are you basing that on? There may be hundreds of absentee ballots that were erroneously not counted, in addition to challenges, which I agree will mostly be denied in favor of counting votes (I clarify that, because I understand some of Franken's challenges are to count, rather than not count ballots). I really don't think any of us knows enough to have a clear idea of just how many ballots will be counted and what the margin of victory will be for whom.
And, for the record, here's what you posted:
"[...]at least once Al Franken drops his increasingly long shot challenges in Minnesota[...]"
He won't and shouldn't drop it. The process should play out until a definitive winner is determined.
Also, remember that the Senate ultimately has sole authority over who it seats. If they determine that a sufficient number of votes were in their view improperly excluded from tallies, they could do various things including launching an investigation, at the end of which they might seat Franken or require a new election. These things are not unprecedented in either House of Congress. But for the record, I expect that the Senate will accept the decisions of the Minnesota Secretary of State and state courts and that the final result will be based on the best effort to count all votes with reasonably discernible intent.
Here's what I know. The person ahead at the start of the recount process usually wins. Secondly, Coleman's lead actually grew during the recount, to the point that he'd still lead even if 100% of the "missing ballots" go to Franken. Third (and belive it or not, I have experience working election law in Minnesota), the odds of Franken winning enough on challenges and rejected absentee ballots are extremely long, given Minnesota precedents in those areas. 300 votes is a tiny number in general, but it is actually a large number in the context of a recount.
95% is an estimate, but only very rarely do challenges and litigation overturn a lead. Franken is now in a position where he needs the highly unlikely.
I do agree with you that the votes should be counted and the process respected. That said, Franken needs to stop publicizing his "internal tally" like it's a leaked internal poll during campaign season. This is vote counting, not campaigning, and confusing the two is one of my pet peeves.
Post a Comment