So You’re Telling Me There’s A Chance…

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me… ending up together?
Mary: Well, Lloyd, that’s difficult to say. I mean, we don’t really…
Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I’d say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you’re telling me there’s a chance… *YEAH!*

I feel bad for Michael Thurmond. He seems like a nice guy, but FiveThirtyEight gives him a 1% chance of defeating Johnny Isakson. (Hat Tip: Political Insider)

FiveThirtyEight’s assessments of other Georgia races are:
Governor: Deal 74.9% chance of winning.
CD 1: Kingston 100%
CD 2: Bishop 82%
CD 3: Westmoreland 100%
CD 4: Johnson 100%
CD 5: Lewis 100%
CD 6: Price 100% (qualified write-in opposition)
CD 7: Woodall 100%
CD 8: A. Scott 55%
CD 9: Graves (unopposed)
CD 10: Broun 100%
CD 11: Gingrey (unopposed)
CD 12: Barrow 100%
CD 13: D. Scott 100%


    • David,

      For a reality check, see the Rasmussen Poll out today and posted on another PP post. Roy Barnes has a 50% unfavorable rating. What can a well known, former governor, who has already been voted out of the very office he is seeking, get people who don’t like him to change their mind?

      It’s not gonna happen.

      • luke, to continue your reality check, notice that Deal only has a 49% favorable rating. Yeah, there’s a lot of difference between a 49% favorable and 50% unfavorable, right?

        • Rick Day says:

          the difference is an interesting thing called “margin of error”.

          Wonder why these people are not voting for something other than the Duopoly?

          Oh real alternatives yet….

  1. slyram says:

    Drift: they need to let us do redistricting. I can say that I actually agree with Rep. Westmoreland about these federal requirements/involvement.

  2. hannah says:

    Who cares? The candidates are not important. Neither are the pundits opinions. What’s important is that the voters have a choice. If the political parties were doing their job, then all candidates would at least be qualified for the positions they are seeking. Letting the chamber of commerce do the screening is not likely to produce either qualified candidates or candidates keen on serving the public. Why? Because the chambers of commerce are full of people whom their employers would just as soon not have around the office or the factory floor.
    Plutarch identified busybodies as a plague in the first century.
    Why does the party of business routinely produce business failure? Perhaps it’s because they champion busybodies, rather than talented businessmen.

  3. Baker says:

    I’m with oompa. Wouldn’t you think any district that had a Bluedog in it Repubs would be all over? You don’t hear diddly about the McKinney campaign. Is there not enough local support? What about this vaunted tea party that I keep hearing about?

    • Insider Mike says:

      McKinney’s an even worse candidate than John Stone (who?). Barrow won this seat for good (at least til redistricting) when Max Burns moved to Dahlonega.

      • Baker says:

        Wild. That is amazing to me that they couldn’t at least compete a tiny bit, 100% chance of Barrow win? I check Savannah and Augusta papers’ sites everyday and you don’t ever see a story about this race. Apparently theres nothing there. Pitiful Repubs.

        And by the way, not that this needs saying bc everyone knows it, but redistricting is bulls*&^. Ballot access and redistricting are mighty powerful tools for the monopoly of power by the two parties.

  4. macho says:

    I wish they would have said that Lewis had a 99.999% chance of winning so at least Fenn Little could quote Lloyd as well.

  5. jm says:

    Isn’t the most likely outcome a runoff? They didn’t seem to factor that in…it becomes a whole new ballgame after a runoff.

Comments are closed.