New York Times has called it for Warnock, and estimates that the final tally will have him up by about 3%.
AP has called it for Warnock with 94% reporting.
But still a squeaker of a win.
The electoral map shows most of Atlanta not counted yet (and pretty much the rest of the state done) so yeah, Warnock is winning.
I can exhale now. Still, it was way too close for comfort.
Yeah, 5 minutes before they called it Walker was ahead!
BREAKING NEWS
Senator Raphael Warnock held on to his seat, fending off Herschel Walker to give Democrats a 51-49 Senate advantage.
(NYTimes)
That’s what he’s winning by at the moment too.
Congratulations, America!
Only 48% of Georgia voters are deplorable. Hurrah
And 51% of Wisconsinites, alas.
To give him his due, he conceded when the writing was clearly on the wall. I suppose a sense of good sportsmanship is one thing he took away from his football career.
I find this very concerning. These days, even when democracy and decency win out over what has become the deplorable alternative, it isn’t by very much. One wonders if victory will inevitably become defeat and our democracy a thing of the past.
One of us, one of us! And there’s no need to insult our stony Americans.
This one wonders if the people voting in the GOP primaries will notice that if they stopped nominating absolute shitbags, they might have an actual shot at winning. They got 48% with one of the worst candidates imaginable; it’s not hard to imagine that even an Average Joe candidate could have won outright.
In very mild defense of Georgia Republicans, I tried to think of an analogous situation.
In my congressional district, Chuck Edwards ran against Jasmine Beach-Ferrara. Jasmine was the obviously superior candidate: she’s brilliant, she’s hard-working, she led some of the most significant work on behalf of same-sex marriage in the South, and I agree with her on almost every issue. Chuck Edwards is hard-working and competent, but he’s wrong on all the issues.
Jasmine got my vote. But what if, instead of Jasmine, the Dems had run a candidate like Andrew Cuomo? Cuomo is right on almost all the issues, but he’s a terrible human being who sexually assaults women.
I’m genuinely unsure what the right thing to do would be. Would I vote for Edwards–the better human–and thereby advance policies that genuinely hurt people? Or would I vote for Cuomo–a terrible person–and thereby advance policies that genuinely help people?
Thinking about it from this perspective, I can better understand Republicans who vote for Walker.
Except Cuomo, a reprehensible human being and something of a major-league bully, is actually competent and intelligent. Walker, in addition to being unqualified, is clueless and dumb as a box of whatever.
I’m not sure that works in the way you’re suggesting. I prefer my villains–or even my opponents–incompetent.
In this scenario (and the Georgia R scenario) the Democratic Party didn’t run him, the Democrats voted for him to be their candidate. The blame lies in the primary, not the election. Walker won the Republican primary by a landslide, and he was every bit as bad a person then.
They chose him to be the person they would inevitably have to vote for in the election.
Are you saying you’d be more likely to vote for Cuomo if he were less competent and less intelligent than he is?
Oh. I think I was, but only because I got things backward. I do think that it’d be hard for me to vote for a competent, effective adversary over even an incompetent, ineffective ally.
Excellent point, and I can’t defend the Republican primary voters. I’m more talking about folks who didn’t vote for him in the primary but voted for him in the general, because they believe he’d advance policy that they believe is critical. They’re wrong about the policy, but given that they don’t believe that, their actions seems understandable to me.