• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Jawja Specials

DeacWatcher said:
If she does in fact run for Gov in 22 I would imagine this vastly increases the chances that Warnock holds his seat and gets a full term.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It’ll be all about GOTV in 2022 and Abrams has shown she can do that.
 
Gooner said:
Only real question remaining is GOP E-Day turnout. If it is close to November, Perdue wins. I think Warnock can breathe fairly easy either way though.
Click to expand...

image__5_.png


Turns out this was correct, roughly half of GOP counties from November had around 12.5% or lower turnout compared to November where all Democratic counties had surprisingly high turnout compared to November. I wish that 538 also had a similar chart that was related to raw totals of turnout for those counties but I imagine we won't get definitive numbers on that for a few days.
 
What needs to happen to permanently strip a senate majority leader's power to unilaterally decide what gets a vote and what doesn't?
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Agreed. It’ll be all about GOTV in 2022 and Abrams has shown she can do that.
Click to expand...

I think it'll also be a referendum on what the Dems can get done now that GA gave them the Senate. If the Dems can pull off the $2000 relief bill and potentially more relief bills, get vaccinations rolling at a high enough clip to get most of the country reopened, and get some other basic, common sense things done (black woman on SCOTUS, for example), then I think that you are correct that Abrams and Warnock could have a good 2022. However, if the Dems do their usual shit of being really, really bad at actually governing when they have the power to do so out of some terror that it will have political ramifications because some prominent Pubs yell at them, then I imagine 2022 will be rough.
 
That’s still extremely high turnout for a special election. It’s hard to argue that Trump hurt turnout when it was still very high.

Mississippi elected two Black Senators during Reconstruction. White people threw a fit about all the Black people elected to the House and State legislatures and used violence, prison, and new Jim Crow laws to restrict Black voting rights.
 
Last edited:
Manchin should have his mega-wish list and should get it to vote to end the filibuster and vote for DC and Puerto Rican statehood.
 
PhDeac said:
That’s still extremely high turnout for a special election. It’s hard to argue that Trump hurt turnout when it was still very high.
Click to expand...

It's not that he hurt turnout in raw totals, it's that Dems (for once) had organized enough that any sort of lowered turnout would hurt the GOP. And it's early days but 538 and a few other places have mentioned that there was a slight shift on Dec 30 (Hawley announcing he would object to electors) and that Trump using the last few days of rallies to whine about November didn't help either. Again, I think you'll have to look at raw totals when they come in and compare them as best you can to similar runoffs or special elections (a small sample, admittedly), but it might have been just enough to get Ossoff over the line.
 
PhDeac said:
No. It was Hiram Revels from Mississippi.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So Revels (R) was elected by the Mississippi state senate to finish the last two year of a term left open by the Civil War.

Scott (R) was the first in the South elected by popular vote, after first being appointed by Nikki Haley to finish Jim DeMint's term.

Warnock is the first in the South elected by popular vote without the benefit of being an incumbent and is also the first black democratic US Senator from the South.
 
Gooner said:
It's not that he hurt turnout in raw totals, it's that Dems (for once) had organized enough that any sort of lowered turnout would hurt the GOP. And it's early days but 538 and a few other places have mentioned that there was a slight shift on Dec 30 (Hawley announcing he would object to electors) and that Trump using the last few days of rallies to whine about November didn't help either. Again, I think you'll have to look at raw totals when they come in and compare them as best you can to similar runoffs or special elections (a small sample, admittedly), but it might have been just enough to get Ossoff over the line.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It will be fascinating to see the final numbers here. I just don’t think the narrative should be Republican low turnout. A 15-20% drop from high turnout general election is incredible even if Democrats only dropped 10-15%.

CNN showed last night that Warnock and Ossoff consistently outperformed Biden in urban counties and rural predominantly Black counties by 2% or more and drew even with Biden in rural red counties.
 
Last edited:
Gooner said:
image__5_.png


Turns out this was correct, roughly half of GOP counties from November had around 12.5% or lower turnout compared to November where all Democratic counties had surprisingly high turnout compared to November. I wish that 538 also had a similar chart that was related to raw totals of turnout for those counties but I imagine we won't get definitive numbers on that for a few days.
Click to expand...

Like I've been saying, the way the Republicans led by douche bag Dump handled the post election caused many Republicans to say f it, they get what they deserve and not vote.
I also believe it increased Dem turn out as in "let's stick it to these crazy MF'ers".
Instead of putting party first, they focused on being ripped off in an election they had no chance of winning from the beginning. Embarrassing.
And it continues today with he charade going on in the Senate. I wonder how many of those 74 million who voted for that asshole would also do so today.
Now, Biden and the Dems will now promptly stick it up their asses the next two years. :rimshot:
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. It will be fascinating to see the final numbers here. I just don’t think the narrative should be Republican low turnout. A 15-20% drop from high turnout general election is incredible even if Democrats only dropped 10-15%.

CNN showed last night that Warnock and Ossoff consistently outperformed Biden in urban counties and rural predominantly Black counties by 2% or more and drew even with Biden in rural red counties.
Click to expand...

I was just looking at the current numbers. Warnock is outperforming Ossoff by .8%, which I expected. But that is a pretty small amount of crossover voting. The current totals are Ossoff 2.211mil to Perdue 2.194mil for a combined 4.405mil total voters, and Warnock 2.230mil to Loeffler 2.176mil for a total of 4.406mil. So there were slightly more total voters in the Warnock race. I thought it would be the other way around with more Pubs showing up for Purdue and not voting in the Warnock race. Does this mean a few folks showed up for Warnock and not Ossoff? The other thing I noticed last night when Kornacki was going through numbers, he said Warnock and Ossoff were outperforming Biden's numbers in a lot of red counties. So even though overall turnout both ways was pretty good, that suggests some of those Trumpites stayed home. Trump's behavior the last few weeks and his bogus voter fraud claims to an extent helped to in Loeffler and more so Perdue, given that race was closer. Will that clear the way for more DC Pubs to take Trump to task? I'm guessing not given the overwhelming support Trump has with the current Pub base.

The nice story I just heard about this a.m. on ESPN was that the Atlanta WNBA team helped campaign for Warnock against their boss. It's not like WNBA players make a ton of cash either, so good for them.
 
cville deac said:
I was just looking at the current numbers. Warnock is outperforming Ossoff by .8%, which I expected. But that is a pretty small amount of crossover voting. The current totals are Ossoff 2.211mil to Perdue 2.194mil for a combined 4.405mil total voters, and Warnock 2.230mil to Loeffler 2.176mil for a total of 4.406mil. So there were slightly more total voters in the Warnock race. I thought it would be the other way around with more Pubs showing up for Purdue and not voting in the Warnock race. Does this mean a few folks showed up for Warnock and not Ossoff? The other thing I noticed last night when Kornacki was going through numbers, he said Warnock and Ossoff were outperforming Biden's numbers in a lot of red counties. So even though overall turnout both ways was pretty good, that suggests some of those Trumpites stayed home. Trump's behavior the last few weeks and his bogus voter fraud claims to an extent helped to in Loeffler and more so Perdue, given that race was closer. Will that clear the way for more DC Pubs to take Trump to task? I'm guessing not given the overwhelming support Trump has with the current Pub base.

The nice story I just heard about this a.m. on ESPN was that the Atlanta WNBA team helped campaign for Warnock against their boss. It's not like WNBA players make a ton of cash either, so good for them.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that happened to a small degree. Apparently, one of Loeffler's attack adds used clips from Warnock's sermons to accuse Warnock as being a socialist. This became an attack on black churches which was not taken well. Think there were some voters (not many, but some) that otherwise were not inclined to vote, and voted for Warnock on that issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top