New Poll: GAGOP could sweep to victory

From Aaron Gould Sheinin of the AJC:

The poll conducted for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Georgia Newspaper Partnership shows the Republican candidate holding a slight edge in the race for governor but huge leads in the races for U.S. Senate and lieutenant governor. The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., has Republican gubernatorial nominee Nathan Deal leading Democrat Roy Barnes, 45 to 41 percent.

While Deal’s lead is within the poll’s margin of error, Republicans U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson and Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle held bigger leads. Isakson leads Democrat Mike Thurmond, the labor commissioner, 52 to 33 percent, and Cagle leads Democrat Carol Porter, 47 to 28 percent.

If those results are consistent across the statewide ballot, Republicans could sweep to victory in every constitutional office. Democrats currently hold three statewide offices, all of which are being vacated by their incumbents.

Read the rest of the article here.

61 comments

  1. macho says:

    In short, you’ve got to be an F-Up of monumental proportions, if you’re running statewide with an “R” by your name, and you lose.

  2. So, Mason Dixon produces what is essentially a toss up. 45% Deal and the rest of the state is either for Barnes or undecided. But in the AJC followup interviews, everyone they manage to interview is for Deal!

    Except for, as far as I can tell, the only Republican who lives in midtown Atlanta (who is undecided) and a Handel voter who is leaning towards Barnes.

    Color me shocked that an 83 year old white guy from rural Ga who hates Obama says he doesn’t care about Deal’s financial disclosures…what about the rest of the state?

    I understand that “Republicans sweep the country/state” is the angle that the media understands right now. But come on, how about interviewing one person from the majority of the poll who did not say Democrats in Washington are making them less likely to vote for a Dem here.

    Or, here is a novel idea…of the majority that prefers divided government, maybe ask voters if they also feel that way about Georgia where the only way they would be happy about that would be voting for Barnes. Did they bother explaining that to anyone to see what they thought?

    It shows you how Republican the decision makers at the top of the AJC are. They polled the primary and found Oxendine in the lead, then when it looked like the race was changing and they paid for a new poll practically the next day to check it out. They poll the General with literally the worst timing ever – right before their paper breaks the biggest political story of the year and instead of going back in the field to see how it changes the race they just put out the poll and do one follow up interview with a Republican and insinuate that nothing has changed.

    If they had Barnes in the lead and after the poll was completed a huge story came out about him I guarantee they’d redo the poll.

    • Tyler says:

      45% to 41% is definitely a tossup. And losing the governor’s seat would hardly make it a sweep. That seat is viewed as the GAGOP’s top priority right now (I don’t think Thurmond has a chance).

    • macho says:

      Obviously, any “man on the street” interview is about as anecdotal as it gets, but it would have been nice to get the thoughts of a true swing-voter.

      • Lady Thinker says:

        What is your avatar? I am not into sports at all so it may be something that everyone knows, but I don’t get it. Help please!

          • Lady Thinker says:

            Thanks for telling me. I have got to get more interested in sports but it just isn’t ballet, which I could watch for hours. I still occasionally fall asleep listening to Swan Lake and imaging I am dancing a ballet on ice.

  3. fishtail says:

    One candidate that clearly outclasses his opponent is Darryl Hicks, the Dem’s candidate for Labor Commissioner. He appears to be very well-qualified and certainly is a better man than the ethically-challenged Mark Butler.

      • fishtail says:

        Totally agree about Everson. Mark Butler doesn’t deserve it but he will benefit greatly from the anti-Obama attitude that’s out there right now. the electorate doesn’t pay much attention to the down ballot races. Maybe Butler can give Richardson and Burkhalter jobs.

      • macho says:

        Didn’t matter who ran Melvin’s campaign. The actual strategy of a statewide campaign becomes irrelevant when you don’t have a minimal amount of money for execution.

        • Harry says:

          Let me be direct: I wonder if race played a role, seeing that no black has ever won a GOP statewide primary. Of course it works both ways. I’d say the 5% spread between Thurmond (33%) and Porter (28%) is race-based.

          • I’d say it’s that more people know who Thurmond is, and more people have an opinion on Senate race this far out than LG.

            But on your first point, yes absolutely. It was a combination of ballot order and the fact that let’s just gently say that Melvin doesn’t look like what the average voter in that primary is looking for. Not to say that they wouldn’t have voted for him if they knew more, but when they only know one thing…

            • Harry says:

              There’s a racial component on the Democratic side also. Look at what happened in SC with Alvin Greene. Greene evidently got the Democratic nomination based on his race alone.

              • Eh maybe. I don’t think think people in South Carolina knew who either candidate was. Neither one spent anything. The other guy (who happened to be white) assumed that he would win and wanted to save his resources for a general election that never came.

                Greene was first on the ballot, just like Butler but didn’t win nearly as big as Butler did.

                I’d say the biggest difference between the races is Alvin Greene and Vic Rawl would both lose in the general election no questions asked. Here in Georgia though, the Republican nominee is definitely favored in a down ballot race – and the R’s chose a corrupt white guy over a black guy that everyone in the know likes. Maybe there was a tea party FU to the establishment since the establishment liked Everson, but I still lean on my first explanation as the guiding one.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  My guess is that Rep. Butler did a better job of selecting who to robo call and overwhelmed them. I didn’t care for 7 calls from Rep. Butler, but I think it stuck in the minds of the voters.

                  • Howard Roark says:

                    Bingo on the robocalls. I believe GOP voters in urban would be more likely to vote for a black candidate over white to make a statement.

                    If Eaverson had done targeted mailers to 4 out of 4 voters in urban GOP areas he would have done better. He had a majority of GOP representatives and Senators endorsing him. They knew the value of electing Melvin. I don’t understand how we missed an opportunity to elect him.

                    I don’t believe it was racial.

                  • Hi Doug,

                    I think there were several factors involved in Butler’s win:

                    1 – Butler definitely paid for a lot of robo-calls.

                    2 – It was a down-ballot race and “Butler” comes before “Everson”.

                    3 – “Mark” is a more common name than “Melvin”.

                    4 – Melvin should have focused more on fundraising and marketed his campaign better. If there were any Everson yard signs below Macon, then I didn’t see them.

                    5 – And I still worry that race played a role in this primary election, and if it did it makes me sick. We cheated ouselves because the best man didn’t win the GOP primary for labor commissioner.

                    Melvin was a far better candidate and, in my opinion, a far better man. I won’t slam Butler here because it’s not relevant, but people who pay attention know why many of us are not Mark Butler fan.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I will agree with all of that, but I think race was one of the lessor causes of the results of that race. I say that because all things being equal, most poeople didn’t know who either candidate was. I’d also add that most people like the name Mark Butler more than the name Melvin Everson. Name likablity is a kooky factor, but it may have helped make a difference in this race.

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      Everson was a great candidate. So is Hicks. I will definitely be voting for Hicks…

      In an extremely strong Republican landslide year, we’ve nominated some of the worst Republicans in recent memory (Deal, Cagle — not that we had a choice there, Butler and Echols). Who woulda thunk Isakson, Olens and Barge would be the shining stars of the ticket?

  4. Bill30097 says:

    Was the poll before or after Isakson kowtowed to Obama and Putin and voted for the traitorous START Treaty in committee because Lugar’s band-aid amendment was passed? He lost my vote. Won’t vote for a Demoturd but don’t have to vote GOP when it is a RINO like Isakson.

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      I don’t know what races you’ve been following, but Isakson is one of the better ones on the ticket this fall… If Isakson was running for governor or Lt. Gov he’d have my vote in a heartbeat.

        • ZazaPachulia says:

          If a good government conservative is now called a “RINO who supports Obama” then yes, I do. Like I said, have you seen our ticket this cycle? There’s not a whole lot to get excited about. I’m much more happy about voting Isakson over Thurmond than I should be… but this is what we have going for us this time around.

          Who should I support? Chuck Donovan? The Labor Commissioner? Should I write in Lynn Westmoreland because Johnny’s not conservative enough?

          • Bill30097 says:

            Why are you avoiding the issue of Isakson’s support of the insidious America harming START treaty pushed by Obama and Putin? Not smart enough to understand or just a blind party hack?

            • polisavvy says:

              I have to admit that I am concerned about this whole START thing and the future repercussions and implications. Personally, I don’t have a huge amount of trust where Putin is concerned.

                • polisavvy says:

                  I guess my age is my problem with it all. I remember the concern we had as a nation where Russia was concerned. The time of unrest with Nikita Kruschev. I guess it goes back to that with me — not fully being able to trust them. The quote by Kruschev of, “You will be destroyed from within” has always resonated with me. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a time of great worry — I remember the drills under our decks when we were in elementary school. Some things you never forget. I just worry that we will become vulnerable to them attacking with the least amount of provocation. That’s my reasoning, USA1. I have no idea what Bill’s worry is. You may think I’m nutz, but you asked for an answer (I presume an honest one), and I just gave it to you.

                  • USA1 says:

                    I appreciate your reply and your honesty.

                    What did you think about Reagan’s decision when he proposed the first START in 1982?

                    • polisavvy says:

                      We definitely needed the ally of Israel and always will. We should never alienate them. For that reason, I grow concerned when anyone openly criticizes them speaking on behalf of the U.S. BTW, I’ll probably always be cautious and suspicious where Russia is concerned. BTW, I’ll always give as honest a reply as possible.

                    • polisavvy says:

                      Sorry, my bad. I was meaning that Reagan saw the importance of Israel being our staunch ally and that he was considering their views in reaching START. As he said, “Only by full appreciation of the critical role the State of Israel plays in our strategic calculus can we build the foundation for thwarting Moscow’s designs on territories and resources vital to our security and our national well-being.” That’s all I was meaning. As I said to you yesterday, I will always be suspect of Russia and their intentions.

                    • USA1 says:

                      OK, but you still never said what you thought about Reagan’s proposal. Did you think he was wrong to initiate START? Are you opposed to any and all nuclear arms monitoring and reduction treaties with Russia? Would your suspicion of Russia be assuaged more by a U.S. position of “trust, but verify”, or just hoping Russia does what we want them to?

                    • polisavvy says:

                      Reagan was correct in trying to maintain control of the nuclear situation with Russian. That was just attempting to be prudent. There definitely should be monitoring. As far as reduction goes, that’s where I will remain suspect of Russia. Will they do exactly as they say? How will be ever know that there has been a reduction? Will we actually stay on top of the situation? I think that Reagan would. Sorry, but I’m not as confident at the present. A verification system would be great; however, can they totally be trusted? I will never just hope that Russia does exactly as they say. Once again, that goes with my age.

                  • USA1 says:

                    I don’t see any logical reasoning or fact-based evidence to be opposed to this START, or the whole process for that matter. Monitoring and reductions have already taken place in the previous treaties.

                    While I didn’t live through the “communist threat,” my father did and has a totally different viewpoint regarding Russia, as do many other Americans from that age. So you can’t really excuse your suspicion of Russia (or maybe you still view them as Soviets) as age-based. For example, I have lived during a time of many acts of violence committed by Muslims, including the biggest one of them all on 9/11. However, I don’t hold an irrational fear of them nor do I forsee doing so in 10, 20, or 30 years.

                    Again, I appreciate your honesty and willingness to explain your beliefs. I imagine Bill30097 was just regurgitating talking points from the Limbaugh Letter.

                    • polisavvy says:

                      That was terribly uncalled for. I do not now nor have I ever listened to Limbaugh. I am not spoon fed by anyone. You asked my opinion. I gave it to you. I feel one way, your dad feels another. It doesn’t mean that either one of us are wrong to feel the way we feel. Just please, don’t equate me with Limbaugh now or ever. Also, please leave out Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity, too. Plus, I’m not a Palin lover either.

                    • USA1 says:

                      If you will reread what I wrote you will see that I suggested that Bill30097 was the one being a Limbaugh Dittohead, not you. Bill30097 was the one who seemed absolutley livid about the treaty and called Isakson a RINO and referred to Democrats as “Demoturds.” He never stated his problems with the treaty, and when I asked for his specific objections he never responded. That to me is usually a sign of someone who is influenced by too much political spin and propaganda.

                      I wrote that I appreciated your willingness to share your reason for being concerned about the treaty. I explained my view and also offered an insight as to why fear causes us to make bad decisions.

                      You’re free to feel however you’d like, but I honestly don’t know why you’re upset with my last post.

                    • polisavvy says:

                      Oops. Sorry USA1. I misunderstood you. I thought you were accusing me of being a Limbaughhead. I misread your post and apologize to you.

  5. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Was there ever any question that GA would elect all GOP state constitutional officers when there are zero incumbent democrats in the gen. election?

    The answer should be no…but then again there is no shortage of fear-mongering in the GOP. Be afraid. Be very afraid. If Barnes is elected he will be making most of same decisions Deal would, but there would be an authority preventing the GOP from doing what ever it wants. Maybe the budget will be less of a problem since Barnes has zero incentive to give the GOP all their pet projects.

    Push comes to shove…at least Barnes will not pocket $1.4 million in tax funds.

  6. Jessica J says:

    Really? You mean people are still willing to vote for Deal after this latest disclosure? Gosh! If Deal is the next Governor, whatever happens to Georgia, we asked for it!! No complaining!!

    • Bill30097 says:

      Gee he lent money to his daughter for a risky investment. Maybe he loves his daughter and was willing to take a chance? I can see why you libtard would not understand. Would you have preferred he acted like a Democrat and had her murdered in her mother’s womb?

      • It was an extremely risky investment. The store could have started small and grown into a larger operation if the business plan proved successful – as many small businesses do. Instead, they decided to open a large store on an expensive piece of property. Anyone with a minimum amount of business / financial sense should have been able to tell you their plan of starting with a large operation was not a good idea.

        Being that he was providing a large portion of the investment / backing, he should have had enough common sense to require as part of his investment that a smaller location be chosen instead. He didn’t. I’m not terribly surprised that a high end outdoors store didn’t make it in a bad economy in Gainesville.

        • Lady Thinker says:

          And those types of financial decisions are not what we need in Georgia at any point but especially now, in this economy. Actually, we could use a Dale Peterson on our team.

  7. Changeling says:

    All the bad news coming out about our Republican Candidate for Governor harkens me back to a point when Richard Nixon said “I am not a crook.” If the right candidate was in this race, Karen Handel or Eric Johnson, this race would not even be close. Pathetic that we have chosen a candidate that is so00 flawed that it may allow the return of King Roy even with all his “warts!” The only bright spot if King Roy wins the Governor’s race is that we can count on gridlock, and that may not be such a bad thing!

    • Three Jack says:

      the deal nomination demonstrates perfectly what happens when all the anti-choice, gay bashing homophobes get riled up. those folks always show up to vote and become significantly more powerful in a runoff situation.

      • Actually, the Deal nomination demonstrates what happens when a female candidate kicks of her campaign by calling every male conservative in the state a whore-mongering good ole boy.

        • Three Jack says:

          truth hurts pp. but she did not call out “every male conservative in the state..”, just the big spending, ethically challenged gop whore mongers under the gold dome.

              • Lady Thinker says:

                Exactly! And it was deal trashing Karen with the gay stuff and then encouraging his posters to make hurtful comments about her inability to have a child.

                The was cruel to her and she was gracious to him by not demanding a recount that could have made her the candidate.

            • polisavvy says:

              I voted for Karen Handel twice. I do think that it’s time for people to realize that yes, Nathan Deal’s supporters made some very tacky comments about her — things that should have never been said. Rather a woman has a child or not should not have become political fodder.

              Having said that, I do feel that Karen Handel had the election in the bag until that debate on Sunday where she referenced the “big boy pants.” At that point, I think she turned off potential voters for her. She had been hammering home the problems with the good ‘ole boys and then she took a page from their political playbook and went negative with attacks. As long as she was focused on the issues that Georgians were interested in, she was really connecting with the voters. When she strayed from that message, she starting losing support. I know I’ll be crucified for saying this, but that’s how I see it.

              • Lady Thinker says:

                No, after thinking heavily about it, I think the second half should have been spent on the issues and ignore everything else.

                Although Karen when very far on so little money, voter still have a double standard. Men can do and say anything because they are men but women are expected to be different in their behavior in every level of the spectrum.

                I think when she did the early attack, it worked but the end attacks were not what the voters wanted, they wanted reassurance on the issues.

                • polisavvy says:

                  No one can deny what she accomplished on so little money. The whole getting off track thing with the issues caused the most damage to her. I think that what you said about men and women is true to a point; but, people still expect women to always act like ladies (as archaic as that sounds). It will be perceived that way in the South for many years to come. When she started her attack, her appeal slipped. In my opinion, her demise was the attack ads. You can’t “unring” a bell; but, if you could, I’m sure she’d try her hardest to do just that. I’m certain we’ve not heard the last of her, that’s for sure.

  8. MediaGuyAtl says:

    I’ll be shocked if Deal wins now. It’s sad that he can’t step aside and allow a better candidate to run against King Roy. You know Barnes has to love the latest news on Deal.

    How about Deal runs and then resigns after he is sworn in as Governor? Since State law will not allow the Repubs to change the candidate within 60 days of election.

Comments are closed.