No reason to, even if DSY’s assessment is an accurate assessment of today’s odds.
After all, “more likely than not” is anything >50%. He’s saying ‘Handel is at least a slight favorite in the runoff.’ Slight favorites lose nearly half the time, and slight underdogs win nearly half the time.
There’s probably less to that than meets the eye.
Price was a multi-term incumbent. Multi-term incumbents tend to do better on average than new candidates. But Price’s margin of victory has been declining over the years. So it’s likely that the benefits of incumbency have tended to mitigate the demographic changes in the district, but that the current Republican lean in that district is a lot less than would be indicated by Price’s margin of victory in 2016.
That might bode well for Ossoff in this runoff, but would make it less of a predictor for overall D prospects in 2018.
I don’t know about you, but I’m throwing in the chicken.
Regards,
Shodan
I think ‘demographic changes’ are being a bit too heavily leaned on by folks here. It’s still a 70% white district. The difference is that the GA-6 is your old school rich establishment Republican type of district. In the 2016 primaries it was solidly Rubio country. They aren’t usually a fan of the populist sort of Republican.
That makes sense - after all, there’s supposed to be a chicken in every pot. 
nm
Under federal law, anyone who is registered to vote thirty days prior to an election must be allowed to vote in that election. Georgia is trying to claim that the runoff election is just a continuation of the original election, and not a separate election, so nobody can vote who was registered after March 22. A lawsuit has been filed to allow anyone who registers thirty days before the runoff be allowed to vote, on behalf of the Georgia NAACP, Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda, ProGeorgia State Table, Third Sector Development and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta.
That seems incomplete and thus a bit misleading.
According to your article, existing Georgia law states that anyone not eligible to vote in the original election is not eligible to vote in the runoff. The lawsuit position is that this law is in conflict with federal law and thus void. But it’s not like the Georgia people made up this interpretation for purposes of this runoff election. They’re just applying existing Georgia law, which has to this point not been struck down in court.
How are you getting your information that the Georgia law says that, when it’s a clear violation of federal law, which specifically mentions runoffs?
It says so in your cite:
So it’s claimed - and conceded - that state law mandates the Georgia stance, and the lawsuit is over whether this state law is pre-empted by federal law.
Of related interest for the congressional election, there is a state senate runoff in the district. Georgia law does not allow sitting election officials to run for congress, so Judson Hill gave up his seat to run (he did not make the runoff).
There was not an outright majority for his replacement, so today is the runoff between Kay Kirkpatrick ® and Christine Triebsch (D). The senate seat covers part of Cobb county, so it’s fairly conservative, and the most conversative part of the Sixth Congressional District. I doubt Triebsch will win (although I did vote for her) but the percentage that goes for her vs Dr. Kirkpatrick may have some predictive effect for how the runnof between Ossoff and Handel will go.
Or it won’t. I thought it was interesting.
Just to follow up:
In the Jungle primary, all the D candidates total had 40%, while all the R candidates total had 60% (duh)
Final numbers for the runoff were 43% D, 57% R.
Not a surprising result given the area, and I would be cautious about reading a 3% swing into the tea leaves.
Shame though. The Triebsch campaign did a good job overall. I got two postcards, I saw yardsigns everywhere, and a mailing went out with some policy positions. From the Kirkpatrick campaign all I saw were a few yardsigns. Oh well.