There will be a runoff between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. [Now, there's a shock!]
Early voting for the December 2 runoff will start as early as Monday (November 17) in some counties and no later than Wednesday (November 19) according to Secretary of State Karen Handel's press release yesterday.
One other interesting fact about the rules behind the runoff system in Georgia is that when the 50% plus one vote threshold was reapplied to statewide races in 2005, the interim period between the general election and the runoff election was expanded from three weeks to four weeks. I suspect that is due in large part to the potential for overlap with the Thanksgiving holiday, but I can't verify that. One thing is for sure, the advance voting week will fall during Thanksgiving week and has been condensed from five days to just three as a result.
What's the difference between early and advance voting, you ask? Well, in Georgia it seems to boil down to a matter of the number of voting locations. Early voting is confined to one location per county but over an extended period of time (September 22-October 31 for the November 4 election), whereas advance voting has a greater number of polling places in the larger counties during just the business week (Monday -Friday) prior to the election.
Some of Jim Martin's success in the general election was dependent upon early and advance voting and that was driven in large part by the efforts of the Obama campaign to get out the (early) vote in Georgia. We have talked about Obama as a wildcard in this runoff race, but whether he appears in Georgia between now and December 2 -- John McCain and Mike Huckabee have already lined up stops to campaign for Chambliss -- may not matter as much as the remnants of the Obama campaign's infrastructure in Georgia (and from workers pouring into the state from other locales) banking those early votes for Martin as they did for Obama prior to November 4.
Question for the comments section: What impact might that extra week between elections have on the outcome? I can see it going both ways: the enthusiasm behind Martin dies down or another unintended consequence of the GOP-driven law change -- more time for Martin to mobilize -- coming back to haunt them. Thoughts?
Recent Posts:
A Check on Frontloading from the Courts?
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map: UPDATED
The R Word: Was 2008 a Realigning Election?
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Friday, November 14, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
How Stuff Works: An Alaska Vacancy in the US Senate
This seems silly, but I'll start another post by saying, in last week's post about the Georgia Senate runoff. Anyway, in that post, I discussed the other two uncalled Senate races, those in Alaska and Minnesota. Specifically I brought up the idea of Ted Stevens winning reelection but being forced out by the Senate and that opening the door to Sarah Palin appointing herself to fill the vacancy. As I said there, Alaska actually has two, somewhat conflicting laws on how to deal with such vacancies. But first, let's start with a time line of how the Last Frontier got to this point:
Prior to 2002
The governor had the ability to appoint someone to such a vacancy and the appointee didn't have to stand for election until the next election period.
|
|
|
2002
Frank Murkowski is elected governor, resigns his Senate seat and appoints his daughter to fill the Senate vacancy. Lisa Murkowski doesn't have to face the voters until 2004.
|
|
|
2004
The Alaska legislature acts to close the loophole, granting the governor the option of appointing a replacement on an interim basis until a special election can be held within 60-90 days.
|
Wanting to remove the governor from the equation altogether, a petition-triggered initiative (Prop 4) was, upon challenge, ruled sufficiently different from the original law by the Alaska Supreme Court and subsequently passed.
|
|
|
2008
Governor Sarah Palin is named vice presidential running mate by John McCain. Senator Ted Stevens is convicted of seven felony counts and the whole discussion begins as to what the correct senatorial succession procedure is.
Essentially what's at stake here is that if Stevens wins and is forced from his position in the Senate, Sarah Palin will have a decision to make: wait the 60-90 days until the special election is held, or test that initiative by appointing someone in the interim. It isn't a Florida 2000-type constitutional crisis, but it is an interesting constitutional situation, nonetheless. And when you throw in the possibility of the former vice presidential nominee appointing herself as a stepping stone to 2012, it gets even better.
For a more detailed explanation of the situation, see the following link.
Recent Posts:
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Omaha to Obama
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
The governor had the ability to appoint someone to such a vacancy and the appointee didn't have to stand for election until the next election period.
|
|
|
2002
Frank Murkowski is elected governor, resigns his Senate seat and appoints his daughter to fill the Senate vacancy. Lisa Murkowski doesn't have to face the voters until 2004.
|
|
|
2004
The Alaska legislature acts to close the loophole, granting the governor the option of appointing a replacement on an interim basis until a special election can be held within 60-90 days.
|
Wanting to remove the governor from the equation altogether, a petition-triggered initiative (Prop 4) was, upon challenge, ruled sufficiently different from the original law by the Alaska Supreme Court and subsequently passed.
|
|
|
2008
Governor Sarah Palin is named vice presidential running mate by John McCain. Senator Ted Stevens is convicted of seven felony counts and the whole discussion begins as to what the correct senatorial succession procedure is.
Essentially what's at stake here is that if Stevens wins and is forced from his position in the Senate, Sarah Palin will have a decision to make: wait the 60-90 days until the special election is held, or test that initiative by appointing someone in the interim. It isn't a Florida 2000-type constitutional crisis, but it is an interesting constitutional situation, nonetheless. And when you throw in the possibility of the former vice presidential nominee appointing herself as a stepping stone to 2012, it gets even better.
For a more detailed explanation of the situation, see the following link.
Recent Posts:
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Omaha to Obama
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
More on the Georgia Senate Runoff
Late last week, we examined the Georgia counties where both Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin did well in Tuesday's Senate race election. That investigation provided an idea as to where each of the candidates may be focusing between now and the December 2 runoff and where either may be vulnerable. But let's look at some of the other numbers from last Tuesday's vote and see if there are any other clues to whether Martin actually has a chance or if Chambliss is something of a foregone conclusion.
One thing that I was interested in seeing was the amount of ballot roll-off* from the presidential race to the Senate race. In other words, who voted for president and then just skipped voting for the Senate race and/or all the other down-ballot races? The idea here is that if there were a significant number of Obama voters that didn't vote for Martin, then he 1) is already starting with a smaller base or 2) has some other potential voters to mobilize for the runoff election.
What we see is that overall there were approximately 169,000 fewer votes cast in the Senate race than in the presidential race. But how we get to that 169,000 figure is an interesting sidenote. There were about 182,000 fewer Chambliss voters than McCain voters and 86,000 fewer Martin voters than Obama supporters. In the best case scenario for Martin, if he was able to mobilize all those Obama voters behind him, the former stateSenator representative would gain almost 100,000 votes on Chambliss. That would bring the margin between the two candidates down to less than 25,000 votes. That's certainly closer, but not close enough to make Chambliss really sweat it out.
There are three wildcards here, though. First, we know that turnout is likely to be far lower on December 2 than it was on November 4. The above is a better (not best) case scenario for Jim Martin. But we know that all those voters aren't going to come back to the polls for the runoff. That means that attempting to handicap that turnout will help us to better understand how competitive the runoff will actually be. The other two wildcards will help us there.
What about those Libertarians? Native son and Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, wasn't able to sway all that many voters over into his corner. Barr was seen as a major potential factor in bringing Georgia into play for Obama, but after polling well over the summer, Barr's support wavered in the polls down the stretch. In fact, the Libertarian's senate candidate, Allen Buckley, polled much better on November 4, totalling about 100,000 more votes than Barr did in the presidential race. That can be chalked up to strategic voting. Buckley, slim though his chances were, had a better chance of winning that Senate seat than Barr did of winning the presidency.
For comparison's sake, I looked at North Carolina as well. Here's a state that had a competitive Senate race as well and has a pretty good base of Libertarian support. The outcome was very similar in the Tar Heel state. McCain and Obama crowded Bob Barr out in the presidential race, but Libertarian, Chris Cole did comparatively better in the Dole-Hagan Senate race. The roll-off in North Carolina was about a third of what it was in Georgia, but the Libertarians did around 100,000 votes better on the Senate level in both states' Senate races.
Well, what does all that mean? For starters, there are likely a sizable number of people who voted for McCain and Buckley who Chambliss could target in some way. I would imagine some reprise of the McCain campaign's socialism, big government, big spending liberal arguments could persuade some of those voters to participate in the runoff and vote for Chambliss.
The other wildcard will affect the turnout Jim Martin is likely to expect. And we talked about this one at the close of the previous post on this race. Very simply, how involved will President-elect Barack Obama be. Are 58-59 seats in the Senate better than 57, or does it even matter since 60 seats are basically off the table for the Democrats. If the 44th president feels like getting involved, Georgia is a place where there's the most potential for impact. Counting and recounting in Alaska and Minnesota, respectively, aren't arenas where Obama can make all that much difference. In a campaign, a newly elected president could make a difference.
And as we saw, there were a fair number of Obama voters who dropped off after that vote and didn't cast a vote in the Senate race. If the primary/general election campaign infrastructure that Obama had in place can be recharged to some degree, Jim Martin figures to be the beneficiary in the December 2 runoff.
And what about those McCain voters? Chambliss could activate some of those, right? Sure, I just think it is less likely than Obama voters who rolled off turning out for the runoff given the enthusiasm gap that was present before the election and the actual cumulative results from November 4. In any event, we aren't talking about a ton of voters here, but in a close race, those voters at the margins could prove consequential.
In the end, we can add a few more parts to the equation. We already knew about the likely turnout drop between the general election and the runoff, but now we can factor in -- at least in our thinking if not statistically in some way -- the possible influence those Libertarian and Obama voters from the original vote.
*One other cause for this ballot roll-off might have been the negative tone of the Senate campaign over the final weeks. There is some research to suggest that this has happened before. It could also be argued that the presidential race was also negative, but it isn't a stretch to say that it was outpaced in negativity by the Chambliss-Martin Senate race. Also, though Georgia got some last minute attention from the presidential candidates, neither campaign was focused too heavily on the Peach state despite the shrinking polling gap during the final week. That wasn't the case in the Senate race.
Recent Posts:
Omaha to Obama
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
Frontloading and The Rules in 2008: The Maps
| 2008 Presidential Vote: Georgia | ||||
| McCain (R) 2,046,419 | Obama (D) 1,840,397 | Barr (Lib) 28,771 | Totals 3,915,587 | |
| 52.3% | 47.0% | 0.7% | 100.0% | |
| *Source: Georgia Secretary of State | ||||
One thing that I was interested in seeing was the amount of ballot roll-off* from the presidential race to the Senate race. In other words, who voted for president and then just skipped voting for the Senate race and/or all the other down-ballot races? The idea here is that if there were a significant number of Obama voters that didn't vote for Martin, then he 1) is already starting with a smaller base or 2) has some other potential voters to mobilize for the runoff election.
| 2008 Senate Vote: Georgia | ||||
| Chambliss (R) 1,864,909 | Martin (D) 1,754,108 | Buckley (Lib) 127,785 | Totals 3,746,802 | |
| 49.8% | 46.8% | 3.4% | 100.0% | |
| *Source: Georgia Secretary of State | ||||
What we see is that overall there were approximately 169,000 fewer votes cast in the Senate race than in the presidential race. But how we get to that 169,000 figure is an interesting sidenote. There were about 182,000 fewer Chambliss voters than McCain voters and 86,000 fewer Martin voters than Obama supporters. In the best case scenario for Martin, if he was able to mobilize all those Obama voters behind him, the former state
There are three wildcards here, though. First, we know that turnout is likely to be far lower on December 2 than it was on November 4. The above is a better (not best) case scenario for Jim Martin. But we know that all those voters aren't going to come back to the polls for the runoff. That means that attempting to handicap that turnout will help us to better understand how competitive the runoff will actually be. The other two wildcards will help us there.
What about those Libertarians? Native son and Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, wasn't able to sway all that many voters over into his corner. Barr was seen as a major potential factor in bringing Georgia into play for Obama, but after polling well over the summer, Barr's support wavered in the polls down the stretch. In fact, the Libertarian's senate candidate, Allen Buckley, polled much better on November 4, totalling about 100,000 more votes than Barr did in the presidential race. That can be chalked up to strategic voting. Buckley, slim though his chances were, had a better chance of winning that Senate seat than Barr did of winning the presidency.
For comparison's sake, I looked at North Carolina as well. Here's a state that had a competitive Senate race as well and has a pretty good base of Libertarian support. The outcome was very similar in the Tar Heel state. McCain and Obama crowded Bob Barr out in the presidential race, but Libertarian, Chris Cole did comparatively better in the Dole-Hagan Senate race. The roll-off in North Carolina was about a third of what it was in Georgia, but the Libertarians did around 100,000 votes better on the Senate level in both states' Senate races.
Well, what does all that mean? For starters, there are likely a sizable number of people who voted for McCain and Buckley who Chambliss could target in some way. I would imagine some reprise of the McCain campaign's socialism, big government, big spending liberal arguments could persuade some of those voters to participate in the runoff and vote for Chambliss.
The other wildcard will affect the turnout Jim Martin is likely to expect. And we talked about this one at the close of the previous post on this race. Very simply, how involved will President-elect Barack Obama be. Are 58-59 seats in the Senate better than 57, or does it even matter since 60 seats are basically off the table for the Democrats. If the 44th president feels like getting involved, Georgia is a place where there's the most potential for impact. Counting and recounting in Alaska and Minnesota, respectively, aren't arenas where Obama can make all that much difference. In a campaign, a newly elected president could make a difference.
And as we saw, there were a fair number of Obama voters who dropped off after that vote and didn't cast a vote in the Senate race. If the primary/general election campaign infrastructure that Obama had in place can be recharged to some degree, Jim Martin figures to be the beneficiary in the December 2 runoff.
And what about those McCain voters? Chambliss could activate some of those, right? Sure, I just think it is less likely than Obama voters who rolled off turning out for the runoff given the enthusiasm gap that was present before the election and the actual cumulative results from November 4. In any event, we aren't talking about a ton of voters here, but in a close race, those voters at the margins could prove consequential.
In the end, we can add a few more parts to the equation. We already knew about the likely turnout drop between the general election and the runoff, but now we can factor in -- at least in our thinking if not statistically in some way -- the possible influence those Libertarian and Obama voters from the original vote.
*One other cause for this ballot roll-off might have been the negative tone of the Senate campaign over the final weeks. There is some research to suggest that this has happened before. It could also be argued that the presidential race was also negative, but it isn't a stretch to say that it was outpaced in negativity by the Chambliss-Martin Senate race. Also, though Georgia got some last minute attention from the presidential candidates, neither campaign was focused too heavily on the Peach state despite the shrinking polling gap during the final week. That wasn't the case in the Senate race.
Recent Posts:
Omaha to Obama
A Slideshow Chronology of the Electoral College on Election Night
Frontloading and The Rules in 2008: The Maps
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Georgia Senate Runoff
There hasn't been a whole lot of talk around here during this cycle devoted to races other than the presidential race. [I don't think there are too many people that are complaining about this.] However, with the Senate race here in the Peach state heading for a December 2 runoff between incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin, I thought it appropriate to shift the focus to the one remaining high profile race anyone's campaigning for.
[It certainly isn't the only undetermined race at this point. There will be a recount in Minnesota's senate race and the Ted Stevens' situation in Alaska makes that one worth watching if only for more speculation about who would potentially fill his shoes if he were to win and be forced out of office. Sarah Palin, I'm looking in your direction. The former VP choice on the GOP side won't have direct appointment powers on a replacement because the two conflicting laws Alaska has on the books call for a special election within 90 days. However, what is not known is if the governor has the power to appoint someone on an interim basis for that period of time. We'll have to hold off on that speculation for now, but part one -- Stevens winning -- looks likely.]
But back to Georgia...
So what do we know about this race? I could tell you, but I better show you with a map first.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
Sure, that doesn't tell you anything more than you already knew. Chambliss spent the evening of November 4 watching his percentage in the vote returns creep closer and closer to the 50% plus one vote mark that the candidates had to avoid in order to prevent a runoff. And the incumbent Republican missed it by .2%. That aside, though, Georgia likely won't become the center of the political universe for the next month since the Democrats won't get to 60 seats in the Senate, and unless the Minnesota recount overturns the apparent result -- and I can't think if a case where a recount led to a anyone other than the original projected winner winning -- then the best the Democrats can hope for is 59. And Ted Stevens will have something to say about that.
Like Al Franken in that recount in Minnesota, Jim Martin will have a difficult time getting over the hump in Georgia. But let's talk a little about where the former state senator will have to do well between now and December 2. The first thing we can do is look at where the race was close but favored Chambliss on Tuesday. But let's filter that through where Lt. Governor Mark Taylor did well in 2002. Why Mark Taylor and not Max Cleland? To start, Taylor won in 2002 when Cleland did not. But Taylor was also the last Democrat to win a statewide office this high. Where the former lt. governor did well six years ago -- in a Republican-leaning election -- would add quite a few more counties to the map, but when you factor in how well Martin did on Tuesday in some of those south Georgia counties, you only end up with a handful of additional areas to potentially target. If you look at the map below, those are the counties in white. And all of them share a border with a county that went for Martin (except Turner County which borders another potential target county, Ben Hill County).
[Click Map to Enlarge]
Well, let's not leave that 2002 Cleland-Chambliss senate race out of the equation altogether. We can add one other layer to this by asking where Chambliss won on Tuesday that he did not six years ago. Again, we can add a few more counties to the list (the ones in gray above), but none of them, other than Seminole County in the far southwest corner of the state were within 13 points on Tuesday night. In other words, they just aren't viable targets for Martin.
The flip side of the coin on this is that there are also areas where Martin outperformed Cleland and could be vulnerable in the runoff. Oddly enough, there are six counties in this category (those in light blue) to counterbalance the six counties where Chambliss exceeded his own numbers from 2002. That is somewhat problematic for Martin and throws it back to those white counties. The problem there is that while there were seven close counties that favored Chambliss a couple of days ago, there were 18 close counties where Martin edged out the incumbent. And as we saw in the presidential race, if any momentum develops toward the end of the race, the potential that all the close areas break for the momentum-possessing candidate increases. By that measure, Martin clearly had some level of momentum on Tuesday; if only Obama's coattails.
But Martin won't have those coattails on December 2, but he will have to face the challenges described above as well as to overcome what is likely to be a rather significant drop in the turnout rate. The last time that there was a Senate runoff in Georgia under this 50% plus one vote law was the Wyche Fowler-Paul Coverdale race in 1992. Fowler, an incumbent Democrat, won the first round, but lost to Coverdale in the runoff when turnout decreased by 44.31%. Not only will Martin have to gain ground on an incumbent in some of the counties above (and likely more), but he'll have to get out the vote in a more efficient way than Saxby Chambliss. Paul Coverdale did come from behind, but for Martin, the state isn't trending toward the Democrats in 2008 the way it was moving toward the Republicans in 1992.
President-elect Obama could still be the wildcard here. But will the incentive be there to intervene without a 60th, filibuster-proof seat on the line?
Recent Posts:
Obama is the Unofficial Winner of North Carolina
More on North Carolina: UPDATE
What's the Matter with North Carolina?
[It certainly isn't the only undetermined race at this point. There will be a recount in Minnesota's senate race and the Ted Stevens' situation in Alaska makes that one worth watching if only for more speculation about who would potentially fill his shoes if he were to win and be forced out of office. Sarah Palin, I'm looking in your direction. The former VP choice on the GOP side won't have direct appointment powers on a replacement because the two conflicting laws Alaska has on the books call for a special election within 90 days. However, what is not known is if the governor has the power to appoint someone on an interim basis for that period of time. We'll have to hold off on that speculation for now, but part one -- Stevens winning -- looks likely.]
But back to Georgia...
So what do we know about this race? I could tell you, but I better show you with a map first.
[Click Map to Enlarge]Sure, that doesn't tell you anything more than you already knew. Chambliss spent the evening of November 4 watching his percentage in the vote returns creep closer and closer to the 50% plus one vote mark that the candidates had to avoid in order to prevent a runoff. And the incumbent Republican missed it by .2%. That aside, though, Georgia likely won't become the center of the political universe for the next month since the Democrats won't get to 60 seats in the Senate, and unless the Minnesota recount overturns the apparent result -- and I can't think if a case where a recount led to a anyone other than the original projected winner winning -- then the best the Democrats can hope for is 59. And Ted Stevens will have something to say about that.
Like Al Franken in that recount in Minnesota, Jim Martin will have a difficult time getting over the hump in Georgia. But let's talk a little about where the former state senator will have to do well between now and December 2. The first thing we can do is look at where the race was close but favored Chambliss on Tuesday. But let's filter that through where Lt. Governor Mark Taylor did well in 2002. Why Mark Taylor and not Max Cleland? To start, Taylor won in 2002 when Cleland did not. But Taylor was also the last Democrat to win a statewide office this high. Where the former lt. governor did well six years ago -- in a Republican-leaning election -- would add quite a few more counties to the map, but when you factor in how well Martin did on Tuesday in some of those south Georgia counties, you only end up with a handful of additional areas to potentially target. If you look at the map below, those are the counties in white. And all of them share a border with a county that went for Martin (except Turner County which borders another potential target county, Ben Hill County).
[Click Map to Enlarge]Well, let's not leave that 2002 Cleland-Chambliss senate race out of the equation altogether. We can add one other layer to this by asking where Chambliss won on Tuesday that he did not six years ago. Again, we can add a few more counties to the list (the ones in gray above), but none of them, other than Seminole County in the far southwest corner of the state were within 13 points on Tuesday night. In other words, they just aren't viable targets for Martin.
The flip side of the coin on this is that there are also areas where Martin outperformed Cleland and could be vulnerable in the runoff. Oddly enough, there are six counties in this category (those in light blue) to counterbalance the six counties where Chambliss exceeded his own numbers from 2002. That is somewhat problematic for Martin and throws it back to those white counties. The problem there is that while there were seven close counties that favored Chambliss a couple of days ago, there were 18 close counties where Martin edged out the incumbent. And as we saw in the presidential race, if any momentum develops toward the end of the race, the potential that all the close areas break for the momentum-possessing candidate increases. By that measure, Martin clearly had some level of momentum on Tuesday; if only Obama's coattails.
But Martin won't have those coattails on December 2, but he will have to face the challenges described above as well as to overcome what is likely to be a rather significant drop in the turnout rate. The last time that there was a Senate runoff in Georgia under this 50% plus one vote law was the Wyche Fowler-Paul Coverdale race in 1992. Fowler, an incumbent Democrat, won the first round, but lost to Coverdale in the runoff when turnout decreased by 44.31%. Not only will Martin have to gain ground on an incumbent in some of the counties above (and likely more), but he'll have to get out the vote in a more efficient way than Saxby Chambliss. Paul Coverdale did come from behind, but for Martin, the state isn't trending toward the Democrats in 2008 the way it was moving toward the Republicans in 1992.
President-elect Obama could still be the wildcard here. But will the incentive be there to intervene without a 60th, filibuster-proof seat on the line?
Recent Posts:
Obama is the Unofficial Winner of North Carolina
More on North Carolina: UPDATE
What's the Matter with North Carolina?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)