The Runoff

Odds are beginning to look like Saxby will have one. I was talking to a friend yesterday about this and said it reminded me of the Coverdell race in 1992.

The Libertarian forced a runoff causing Coverdell to win then.

Of course if there is a runoff, we’ll see President-Elect Obama all over the state with Jim Martin. If Obama doesn’t win the state, and he won’t, I don’t know how much good that will do.


  1. What’s up with Randy Evans saying they expect turnout only to be at 3.4 million, which is just slightly higher than 2004. We have 850,000 more active voters on the rolls than we did that year (about 700k total increase but 150k inactives re-activated).

    Even if they only turned out at 50% we’d be closer to 3.8 million. Anyone else think that’s tricky? Also, Galloway’s doing math based on total registration at 85%, if you just looked at actives with that number you’d be at about 4.3 million – or 1,000,000 more than last time. Vote early people.

  2. Jmac says:

    The way that helps would be two-fold …

    – Continued enthusiasm and GOTV for young Democrats and African-Americans, which benefits Martin

    – Continued indifference to Chambliss from the base

    The latter, I think, will fade if Georgia becomes a firewall state for 60. The GOP will come out in force for him then.

  3. Icarus says:

    What you’re missing, Jmac, is that after the election, the dems at all levels won’t be able to resist rubbing Republican noses in their victory. (It’s normal and natural) And there will be no pretense other than was a victory over conservatism, and that America now demands “progressive” solutions.

    You won’t see a lot of talk of working together, reaching across the isle. The dems who are pretending to be centrist can let their guard down and party down.

    You’ll see the base come back to Saxby. You won’t see the Obama base for another 4 years.

  4. Jmac says:

    Unless you’re at 59 in the Senate, then I could see Obama coming here (which any president-elect would do if they were close to a supermajority), and he could drive up the vote totals for his base.

    The thing is that the GOP base, if it returns to Chambliss, is bigger than the Democratic base in Georgia. Sheer numbers work in the Republicans’ favor.

  5. Obama campaigning in a runoff for Martin would be huge. He could rally large numbers of African-Americans in a way Martin could not. That could very well put Martin over the top.

    Saxby better avoid a runoff.

    Look, I know lots of people are ticked off at Saxby but this election as about the choice between Chambliss and Martin, not the perfect conservative vs. Martin . It’s between a guy who conservatives disagree with maybe 30% of the time, or a guy who conservatives will disagree with 90% of the time.

    I’m ready for the lectures about how I’m enabling the destruction of the Republican Party and our great Nation, but I’ll say it again elections are about choices and despite my disagreement with Chambliss on some issues, I voted for him again.

  6. IndyInjun says:


    After Judas sold out Jesus for 40 pieces of silver, the disciples hid not welcome him back.

    The “filluster proof” Senate argument is a dodge for GOP partisans, who have totally lost all of their principles (y’all really do need to look them up), to somehow legitimize voting for this later day Judas, a man who will SELL HIS VOTE to whatever lobbyist owns him on a given vote.

    You don’t return a man like that to office.

    You really don’t and claim to have even one iota of principles.

    We have a conservative in this race, Allen Buckley, so what it comes down to is you put PARTY ahead of country, constitution and your own kids.

    Saxby must avoid a run-off because every time folks like me can get before a group of conservatives, we are changing minds to cast Judas Chambliss out.

  7. CHelf says:

    Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the threshold 45%? If this is the case, Buckley would have to have a HUGE turnout to drop both below 45. Someone enlighten me.

  8. atlantaman says:

    The Dems originally had it at 50% (after the Dem controlled legislature stepped over first place finisher Bo Callaway and voted for the second place vote total Lester Maddox for Governor), then lost Fowler’s seat to Coverdale and changed it to 45% – because from multi-member districts to dropping the threshold to 45% , the Dems were always trying to pervert election law to stop the dam from breaking. It made perfect sense for the GOP to return the number to 50%.

    Although there was a movement afoot to change it back to 45% as that number is generally viewed as more incumbent friendly.

  9. CHelf says:

    That’s right. Thanks for clarifying. Nothing better than all sides moving the goal posts to better their chances.

  10. Doug Deal says:

    It is amazing how people only seem to remember the last election and fail to consider the long term. Just because one side seemed to be the one “screwed” by the last election does not mean they will be the one the next time.

    Instead of trying to fix some partisan issue, they should look to what is right for the state.

    Pretty much anyone who plays games with election laws should be removed from office, and if the Republicans want to play the games that the Democrats have done throughout time eternal in Georgia, I may actually finally find motivation to vote for the Democrats.

    Nothing moves us further to tyranny and loss of freedom than the way that the legislature has legislated away competition in the races around the state. How many unopposed races are enough? Why not just give the incumbent 5,000 extra votes each election? It is about just as fair as most of our election laws.

  11. I think Saxby has it in a run off. Specifically with the base, who are going to be agitated when all those put-off Cleland supporters come down. Then all the big time DNC guys will come down. Then Obama will come down. Martin will be riding high all over the place, and these rural folks will be fussing about “ferners” interfering in State politics.

    If Martin wants to win a run off, he had best keep as few of those people out as he can. Bring in a few big hitters, parade Nunn around and maybe a few of the old guard of the party. Keep the real liberals out as to not rile up the conservative base.

  12. Jason Pye says:


    Both candidates suck. Chambliss is a big government Republican. Martin is a progressive on economic issues.

    Chambliss has voted for an expansion in government that would make Ted Kennedy blush.

    It’s depressing. Martin has taken a stand against Iraq, FISA and the PATRIOT Act. Chambliss supports those misguided policies.

    That was the toss-up for me. Martin wins my vote in a runoff.

  13. bowersville says:

    Martin wins your vote in a runoff, well just bless your heart. Both candidates suck, in which I am in agreement, yet Martin will contribute to the super majority in the Senate.

    Well, both have a ring in their nose, so which one can you survive under SCOTUS rulings over the next 30 years?

  14. IndyInjun says:



    When the GOP zombies tell me that my 2nd amendment rights are about to fall vicitm to the Dems, I tell them that said rights would be safe and secure, if not for the SCOTUS appointees of Ford and Bush 41.

    Both those presidents were moderates like McCain and look what we got.

    The cloture and SCOTUS themes being spouted by the GOPers are totally bogus and are being put forward by folks trying to RATIONALIZE treachery against their own interests, those of their children, and America.

    McCain is going to have to get SCOTUS appointess through a DEM Congress, so his appointees are NOT going to be conservatives.

    GOP partisans are not different than black folks voting for Obama because he is black.

    There is a conservative choice named Allen Buckley.

Comments are closed.