Some Runoff Numbers

I know the runoff was nearly a week ago – an eternity in political time – but I found some numbers interesting on runoff night at around 2 AM that are still of interest to me today and nobody has really commented on them.  Going into the runoff, I actually predicted a Deal win of 51-49 and made a few nominal bets around the office that will probably never be collected on.  So I was right about that, and so were a lot of people out there who sensed that Deal had the momentum.  But one thing I was wrong about was how I internally calculated that result.  I assumed Handel would win the core metro counties of Atlanta by a huge margin and that Deal would roll up a similarly huge margin elsewhere.

In reality, Deal won the counties that contained all or portions of his Congressional district with 61%.  Counties not in the 9th district he actually lost with 48%.  What about Handel’s base?  I define that as Fulton and DeKalb, two counties that had huge Republican turnout for Karen.  She got a whopping 68% in these two counties, and similar to Deal got 48% in the other 157 counties.

And when you look at each of their bases above and then all the parts of the state that weren’t in each’s respective base, you see Deal getting 61% in his base, Handel getting 68% in hers, and the rest of the state splitting 51/49 for Deal.  Even though my topline prediction was right, Georgia Republican voters took a route to get there that was much different than what I, and I assume many others, had imagined.  What about y’all?

47 comments

  1. I actually thought Deal was underperforming a bit in his CG, and internally called it for Karen early. The inaccuracy in that predicition confirmed that I chose the right career path. I’m curious as to what made Deal so strong in GwinCo. Maybe some PP commenters can shine some light

    • I think Deal did well in Gwinnett because of the run-off in the 7th. Although they had distinct supporters, Woodall and Hice both appealed to conservatives & drove up their turnout. That favored Deal in the end, not Handel.

  2. fishtail says:

    All these numbers are very interesting, but ignore the elephant in the room.
    It’s pretty stunning, but there’s someone in the comments who keeps asking what law Nathan Deal has broken. I’m almost loathe to address this, because it strikes me that someone could only ask that question if they were willfully ethically blind – as if using your position as a Congressman, and your Congressional staff and resources, in order to preserve a taxpayer-funded monopoly for yourself, is not the sort of thing we’d want to be illegal. Nonetheless, here goes.
    What laws has Nathan Deal broken?
    Short and simple answer: Many
    Short but more technical answer: 31 USC 1301 (a) and 18 USCA 1001, for starters
    Detailed Answer (first of several potential installments, because we’re talking about a lot of laws):
    31 USCA 1301 (a) prohibits the use of federal funds for unauthorized purposes: “Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.” (Duh.)
    The House Ethics Manual, which every staff member is required to learn in formal training sessions that they must certify, in writing, that they have attended, says:
    Prohibition Against Use of Congressional Office Resources. Pursuant to federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1301(a)), official funds may be used only for the purposes appropriated. Thus, House resources acquired with such funds – including the office telephones, computers fax machines and other equipment, office supplies, office space, and staff while on official time – are to be used for the conduct of official House business. Those resources may not be used to perform or in furtherance of any outside employment of any Member, officer, or employee.
    18 USCA 1001 says, in relevant part:
    [W]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully– …
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. …
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to–
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch …
    Every month, Nathan Deal signed a pay sheet and a non-personnel expenditure sheet certifying that the funds spent by his office – which are listed on the sheets — have all been spent for official purposes. If you don’t sign them, your people and your bills don’t get paid any more. Deal’s office kept running, so obviously after he spent money on Chris Riley, and phones and email accounts, that were all used to personally enrich himself, he signed a false statement saying that he didn’t do any such thing. That’s enough to get Deal and Riley joint accommodations in the federal pen for up to five years. This ain’t just paperwork, folks. This is the way the government tries to ensure that our tax dollars are not used to line the pockets of our elected officials. It’s how they brought down Danny Rostenkwski, RIP. (That’s the sound a stamp makes when you tear it off a roll, like the ones Rostenkowski illegally bought with taxpayer funds before returning them for cash that went into his own pocket.)
    All of the above also applies to Deal and Riley’s conspiring to illegally pay Riley an extra $90K in taxpayer money. We will of course leave out Riley’s violent criminal past because the record has been sealed and … shhhhhh … it’s like it never happened!
    Now, if anyone still hasn’t gotten the point, they can look forward to future tutorials on wire fraud, the Hobbs Act, Georgia RICO statutes, and honest services theft (yes, Georgia, it does still exist for truly egregious cases like this one!)
    Just by way of example, Georgia has a similar crime for state employees. In O.C.G.A. 16-10-4 states any employee of the state who receives anything of value for trying to influence the passage or defeat of legislation or action by the governor is guilty of a felony. A former member of the Pardon and Paroles Board was sentenced and served 1 year when he had a consulting contract with a private probation company. This was not a crime, but when he asked a state employee to help pass a certain law, this became a crime. Similarly if Nathan Deal had been a member of the General Assembly and used his staff to help him obtain or keep a no bid contract this would have been a crime under this statute.
    What laws did Nathan Deal break? Many.

    • AnyoneElse2010 says:

      You spent a lot of time writing out something that will reach out to 20 people. You are now 20 people closer to your goal of reaching out to close to a million people. What a fantastic waste of time.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      fishtail,

      Thanks for the time and effort it took you to write your post. What you said makes perfect sense and makes a case for not voting for, as Mama Grisly said, “Let’s make a deal Deal.”

      As for the runoff numbers, in talking with the professors teaching Political Science, we think if Karen had ignored Deal and let him sling the gay and abortion mud while she focused on what she was going to do for Georgia, she would have won by a landslide.

      • Doctor Death says:

        LT just called Sarah Palin a piece of fatty meat that one chokes on! “Mama Grisly” I agree wholeheartedly!
        The rest of her post is so ridiculous I can not comment.

        • Lady Thinker says:

          DD,

          I never said that about Sara Palin, you chose to make that negative interpretation just like you did with your riduclous comment. I did mispelling “Mama Grisly” but your posts are not always grammatically correct. I don’t know what your problem is and I really don’t care but bite me and I will bite back.

        • Monica says:

          How so Doctor Death? Everything that you said, how so? How did she call Sarah Palin “a piece of fatty meat that one chokes on” and how is the rest of her post ridiculous? If you have nothing to say, don’t post anything. What you said is insulting to the person who actually bothered to explain her point of view, which by the way makes perfect sense since a lot of people thought Handel needed to just let go of Deal’s “I hate gay people and she doesn’t – so vote for me” campaign. What you said also points to the fact that you’re unable to offer any legitimate argument as to why Lady Thinker is incorrect.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      This seems to be a thread jack, but a sanctioned one. As a poster who has asked the question of “what crime?,” let’s take a look at your laws you cite and see if they are applicable.

      31 USC 1301 (a) (Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.)

      In short, you are trying to tie this law into Chris Riley’s use of an e-mail. If you read the Report, Congressman Deal was not just checking on the status of this program because it interested him, he had constituents interested as well. No one has issue with the subject of the first two meetings with Graham. In the report, it is stated that he had constituent calls. Now let me know if I understand you correctly, constituent services ARE NOT part of the normal use of congressional office equipment and use of e-mails? And even if any other law enforcement official agreed with you, it was Riley, not Congressman Deal who sent the e-mail.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1301.html

      18 USCA 1001, you have already cited portions you think are relevant. Let me explain to you why they are not. Your premise is that he used his office staff to “enrich” himself. Point one: He had this business BEFORE he was elected to congress. Point two: Nothing that was said or done that caused Congressman Deal to receive a single penny more than he would have if he were not a Congressman. The general premise of the code is not to lie. Your OPINION that he lied, doesn’t make it so. You can’t find a single fact that was submitted that was not a fact.

      http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1001

      O.C.G.A. 16-10-4, as you stated, this does not apply to Congressman Deal.

      The examples you cite are unrelated and not applicable. Just because you came close to being able to spell Rostenkowski, doesn’t mean it’s an apple to an apple.

      I am waiting on the next set of laws you think are applicable.

    • Doctor Death says:

      The Elephant in the room is your twisted lying a$$.

      All of your information is distorted and biased.

      • Monica says:

        To Doctor Death – I replied to your post above, you can just disregard it. It’s clear you’re not able to offer any intelligent arguments – “all of your information is distorted and biased,” really? All of his information is distorted and biased, all of it? Care to point out how ALL of the information is distorted and biased? You simply come on here to call people names. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were Nathan Deal, you sound just like him 🙂

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Puh-lease. Really? That makes about as much sense as me thinking you are Gov. Sarah Palin. By all means, feel free to call him out when he makes a post he can’t back up, but you think he might be Congressman Deal? Really?

  3. Gwinnett was the biggest surprise of the night for me. I was worried about Fulton, until I learned that the Secretary of State’s website wasn’t showing the “princincts reporting” correctly (by the way, what’s up with that and are they going to fix this?), but Gwinnett was huge. When you look at the July 20 numbers, I never thought Deal would have done so well.

    • fishtail says:

      Luke…I did not intend to threadjack your post. I believe my comments are germane to your post. I simply want to point out that the GOP has nominated a crook as its gubernatorial candidate. And all those thousands of gullible voters that you mention in your excellent analysis deserve a better candidate than what they wound up with. For the good of the GOP, perhaps Nathan ought to step down while he faces these charges. Not to do so will surely get Roy Barnes elected.

      • I am not Chris Huttman and it is not my post. However, your comments are most certainly a “threadjack” as I understand PP rules. However, sometimes they enforce it and sometimes they don’t.

        • fishtail says:

          Luke…sounds a bit like censorship to me. But I guess that’s the result of saying what needs to be said. The GOP better get its head out the sand fast. I can see the lights of the oncoming freight train…why can’t you?

          • fishtail says:

            All this talk about threadjacking, and the bottom line is that you have no rebuttal. Don’t feel bad. There isn’t any. This is pretty cut and dried.

            You can see why they don’t want to address this on the front page … any more.

            Deal and Riley really are “partners in crime”, aren’t they?

            • Progressive Dem says:

              fishtail,

              Copy your post and crack it over the head of one the Deal apologists when they raise that question. Well done.

        • Provocateur says:

          The enforcers are:

          1) “Gone fishin'”
          2) Even if they hadn’t gone fishin’, they would still act as though this was an ongoing primary/run-off, and not care about the party’s successes.

    • Chris says:

      I’m inclined to agree that this post is a threadjack. However it does answer a question that keeps coming up in the comments, so perhaps it deserves front page status.

  4. What is the “threadjacking” policy again Moderators?

    Perhaps you could start a “jackleg prosecutor” thread for fishtail and let him lay out his brilliant case against Nathan Deal.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      So am I TPN. We ended up with a GOP crook and Barnes will become governor because so many of us simply cannot vote for Barnes or Cagle. I will vote for Barnes and Porter, then Republican for the rest of the ballot with the exception of Kira Willis for education.

  5. bgsmallz says:

    The percentages mask the relatively low turnout in Dekalb and Fulton. I think the issue is that the Handel campaign lost focus…they stopped talking about the issues that face metro Atlanta like Water, Transportation, Economy/Education and started running a circus with a Deal impersonator in the dunk tank and Palin as the emcee.

    When Deal is asked what he will do about Atlanta’s traffic issues, he says build an interstate from Columbus to Savannah and throws in buses as an aside. Handel should have killed that. She should have killed water issues. The US Congress has the power to solve our water issues, but how many times did Nathan Deal introduce legislation to solve the current dispute? Or did he just duck and run just like he did when ethics questions arose?

    “If I choose to switch during the term, I think the honest thing to do is resign and have a special election.” -Nathan Deal

    On April 10, 1995, back home in Gainesville, Deal announced that he was switching to the Republican Party-but he did not resign and run in a special election.

    Handel’s inexplicable refusal to focus all of energies on getting out the vote in Fulton and DeKalb cost her the runoff. Unless the Palin rally was supposed to accomplish that…durrr.

    • macho says:

      The turnout in Fulton in the Regular Primary was 42,407 and Hall was 19,557. In the Runoff it was 40,460 and 20,852 respectively. So you had a slight decrease in Fulton and a slight increase in Hall.

      Now, when the difference in the runoff is only 2,400 votes you can pretty much point to anything as being the margin of victory, including the slight increase in votes in Hall and the slight decrease in Fulton. Even Tim Echols could take credit for Deal’s victory if he was so inclined. But, I’m not sure as I would characterize the Fulton County “turnout decrease,” from Regular to Runoff Primary, as relatively low.

      • Provocateur says:

        What you can probably attribute some of the loss in Fulton is that it is due to the North Fulton legislators working hard to get previous Handel supporters to switch to Deal, and succeeding in doing so.

  6. rightofcenter says:

    fishtail,
    I am no lawyer and frankly don’t have the time to research your post to verify it for accuracy, but if it is so “cut and dried” that criminal laws were broken, then every other Republican candidate should be sued for negligence for not making that case in the primary (realizing that ethical issues are different than “federal pen” offenses). Methinks you are a tad overzealous.

  7. rightofcenter says:

    As I stated, and which is obvious, I am not a lawyer. As should also be obvious, I was not seriously suggesting a lawsuit. I was merely pointing out to imply that anything is cut and dried is somewhat silly.

  8. mountainpass says:

    I really, wanted to vote for Handel, but she wouldn’t go the extra mile concerning my carry rights. Some will say I’m a 1 issue voter, guilty, we lose 2A the rest will fall….

  9. B Balz says:

    “GOP has nominated a crook as its gubernatorial candidate.”

    Some of y’all are actually law makers, others like myself,
    citizen-advocates, and more than a few are pol operatives. To that latter distinction, the balance of us can smell a rat.

    For the love of all that represents good taste, credible writing, and common decency, is it possible that the pol operative ‘brain trust’ might refrain from calling our GOP nominee for Governor a ‘crook’ before a Judge has done so?

    Obscenity has a variety of forms.

      • Ambernappe says:

        Poli,

        Have you wondered, as have I, whether former Representative Deal is still a principel in the auto salvage business? Is so, why? and when will he extricate himself?

        • polisavvy says:

          To be quite frank, no I haven’t, so I can’t answer your questions. I guess we should ask that question of the Deal Camp for clarification, right?

          • polisavvy says:

            As an aside, Deal was not my first choice for Governor — Austin Scott was. When Austin swtiched to the 8th Congressional race, Karen became my candidate of choice. I voted for her twice — that’s all I could do. As far as Deal goes, well, until there is proof and prosecution of any of the allegations, I am going to have to take him at his word. In other words, until some court makes a determination, I am not going to second guess the allegations. Positive proof could change that — not innuendo.

            I held by nose for several of the votes I cast during the primary and the runoff. I guess I’ll be holding it again in November for a few more. Barnes is not my choice for Governor — he had his chance and pretty well blew it, in my opinion, the last time around. The phrase: “Been there, done that, didn’t get a t-shirt comes to mind.”

            • Ambernappe says:

              I asked the question in hopes that someone will be able to answer it. Do not remember making any comment regarding guilt of anything, regardless of unspoken personal opinion.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                As far as I know, Congressman Deal still holds an ownership interest in the salvage yard, but they stopped doing inspections in August 2009. I didn’t answer before because you asked Polisavvy directly.

                • polisavvy says:

                  Thanks for answering her. I had no clue and had really never given it a whole lot of thought in the first place.

              • polisavvy says:

                Didn’t say you did say anything like that and hope you didn’t take it that way. I was simply saying that that is how I intend to handle the whole situation.

Comments are closed.