27% of voting-age Georgians are black. Let’s imagine that 2/3 of that number are energized enough to come to the polls for Majette. So there’s 18% of Georgia’s voting-age population.
Now let’s further assume that 17 out of 18 black voters also pull the lever for Kerry.
That starts us out with 17% for Kerry, 1% for Bush, and 9% staying home. (Out of Georgia’s total voting-age population.)
Now let’s look at the other 73% of the voting-age population. Let’s assume the rest of the voting population comes out in its usual numbers: 30% to 47%. In fact, let’s assume the high end: 47%. 47% of 73% is 34.31%. Let’s assume Bush gets 70% of that vote, and Kerry 30%. Roughly, that gives Bush an added 24% (of the total voting population) and Kerry another 10%.
Add those totals to the black voters and you get (very roughly) 25% (of the total eligible voting population) for Bush, 27% for Kerry, and 48% staying home.
Assuming I haven’t screwed up my math, a 2/3 turnout by eligible black voters could potentially swing Georgia to Kerry. Of course, it may be wildly optimistic to imagine a 2/3 turnout by potential black voters. I have no idea.
Really, Mullinator, how many African-Americans vote Republican nowadays? And why should they? No reason comes to mind. Roughly two-thirds (I think) of African-Americans are still jobless poor or working poor or working-class – at any rate, not middle-class or higher. What has the Repubican Party done for them, or even proposed doing for them? They might, just might, if they have entirely taken leave of their senses, vote (“solely based on skin color”) for a black Republican running against a white Democrat – say, if it were 2008 and Colin Powell were challenging President Kerry. But that’s not the choice they’ll be facing in this Senate election, is it?
Ah, I see that Mullinator has come up with some actual numbers.
But using those numbers, I’m not sure I follw your math, Mully. Do your numbers take into account the 20 to 30% (educated guesstimate) of non-black voters who will vote for Kerry?
Let me take a stab at the math with Mully’s hard numbers:
From 2000:
Total voted: 2,827,000
Total Black voted: 1,010,000
So this means that the total non-black vote in 2000 was 1,817,000, yes?
Let’s assume that of those 1,817,000 non-black voters, 75% go for Bush and 25% for Kerry.
Let’s use Mully’s guesstimate and assume that the black turnout increases by 20%, to 1,212,000. Let’s further assume that 93% of those voters go for Kerry and 7% go for Bush (which I think is a pretty typical ratio for black voters in the South).
By my math that yields:
Bush: 1,447,590 or 47.8%
Kerry: 1,581,410 or 52.2%
So a 20% increase in black voters (or even less) could turn the election here. (Or did I screw up my math?)
My predicted Bush/Kerry tally was nothing more than taking the 2000 Presidential results and adding in an extra 20% of black voters (1,010,000 X 1.2), all going to Kerry. Not even remortely scientific. My assumption is that the voting population has grown, and grown more Republican over the past 4 years, but I have no idea how to quantify any of that.
The US Census website has a plethora of stats to comb through. Those just happened to be the ones that seemed relevant for the post at the time.
Another point to ponder. According to this site, the total votes from Georgia in the 2000 Presidential election ended up at 2,596,791 which is obviously lower than the 2,827,000 mentioned earlier. I assume this means that not all people that cast some sort of vote actually voted for President. Makes sense I suppose, I just didn’t think about that. So, that probably needs to play some role in the numbers.
The only issue I would raise with your estimate is that over the 4 year period, Bush only gained 28,000 Republican votes in a Republican leaning state that has likely grown more so as evidenced by results in 2002. Again, no idea how to quantify that though.
I don’t think we NEED to take the minor parties into account. Surely their constituents don’t constitute more than 5% of the electorate, and pretty evenly divided along the political axis?
I don’t think you can even assume that. At this point you could say “If these particular items are positive for Kerry/Majette and we ignore all Democratic negatives and all Republican positives, than it will be close.”
Yeah, Mully, you’re probably right. That being the case, he won’t need your vote. No reason you can’t just sit this one out…
More seriously, you keep talking about all the Republican positives, but I see a lot of negatives. Like I said earlier, while Republicans I know support Bush, they don’t seem especially enthusiastic about him. Georgia Republicans just don’t seem excited about the election this time.
That contrasts with 2000, when Republicans were fired-up (angry, even) and determined to end the Clinton/Gore era. They don’t have that Clinton hatred to stoke their fires this time around.
Isakson is presumed a shoo-in for Senate, so not much reason there for them to turn out for him.
The only thing that might get Republicans to the polls in numbers (or at least the Christian conservative segment) is the proposed gay marriage ban.
10% margin though? That’s a bold prediction. Perhaps we might fashion a friendly wager of some sort.
Well, that’s what this board is for, right? I was going to say I would need some sort of favorable odds on bet like this, but if I’m bold enough to make the statement I should be bold enough to stand by it. Feel free to come up with betting terms. Of course, I reserve the right to refuse and adjust, but maybe we can work something out.
FWIW, http://www.electoral-vote.com still has Georgia as a solid “red” state, with the latest poll (August 2, by Strategic Vision) showing 52% support for Bush, 41% for Kerry, 1% for Nader. Seems like a really tough margin to beat, even if all the black voters in GA do turn out and do vote for Kerry.
I agree. Metro Atlanta and the rest of GA are two very different political animals.
Edwards was gearing up a decent following in the Georgia primary and the winwithedwards group is remobilizing for Kerry-Edwards. Georgia is certainly not a battleground state but there does seem a lot more buzz about turning it Blue this year. Might just be the election night surprise. And I am well aware that it would be a surprise.
I still don’t think these polls tell us much, as I think there will be an unexpected surge in black voters. (The paper reports today that Majette has begun work on the same sort of grassroots effort that helped her beat a much better-funded opponent in the primary and runoff.)
Georgia is such a low-turnout state that it wouldn’t take too much of a surge among black voters to put it in play, IMO.
I really doubt the polls are taking this potential phenomenon into account. But I suppose we shall see come November.
Mully, what sort of liquor do you like? I’m thinking you win if Bush wins by 10%, I win if the margin is less than 4% (even fractionally less), and anything in between is a wash. Feel free to suggest an adjustment to those numbers, but I think that’s a fair approach.
True, sort of. Democratic Atlanta is surrounded by a “Republican donut” in the suburbs. On the other hand, rural Georgia is not a monolithic entity. There is a so-called “black belt” south and east of Macon that will likely produce a lot of Majette (and Kerry) votes. And then there are the smaller cities. Columbus, Albany and Savannah all have significant black populations. We’ll see how it turns out.
Even though I’m a resident of the Twilight Zone currently, I’m from Atlanta and I can attest to the Democratic-filled Republican donut of which spoke speaks of. But I don’t think the presence of a black Senatorial candidate is going to significantly increase the number of people getting out to vote. Most voters are most apathetic when it comes to local and state politics. National politics get a lot more coverage when you factor in the glurge from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. on top of the stuff from local affiliates. Also, to the average Joe, national politics appear to have more impact on reality (even when this is not the case).
So my opinion is that if voters (be they black or white) aren’t impressed enough by the impending Bush versus Kerry showdow to go to the polls, a senatorial race won’t much move them either. Remember, most people can’t even name their state senators. But most of us know who the president is.
The above is just conjecture, though. I don’t have any fancy-schmancy cites.
It should also be noted that we are using Diebold touch screen voting machines in Georgia. So even though I fully intend to vote for Kerry, I have NO idea for whom my vote will be cast.
I think that the OP is incredibly racist. It paints blacks as unthinking, stupid, drones. Why should Atlanta blacks vote for Kerry just because there’s a black senatorial candidate? Would you expect women to vote for Majette just because she’s a woman? Surely they can think for themselves? If she energises them to go out and vote, that’s good, and that’s where it ends.
