Just did a quick google to see why a whole separate election is needlessly staged when it could be decided on the day by preferences. Apparently ranking three candidates 1,2,3 will cause “voter confusion”
Here’s a succinct explanation from FiveThirtyEight:
Earlier this evening, a new batch of votes from Clark County (Las Vegas) narrowed Laxalt’s lead to just one-tenth of a percentage point. Since then, we’ve gotten more results from light-blue Washoe County (Reno) and solidly red Douglas County. Washoe reported about 11,000 votes, which broke about 55 percent to 44 percent for Cortez Masto, and Douglas County reported about 5,000 votes, which broke 61 percent for Laxalt and 38 percent for Cortez Masto. As a result, we’re back to where we started earlier today, with Laxalt leading 48.5 percent to 48.4 percent. But there aren’t many Douglas County-style vote updates left to help Laxalt, as an estimated 85 percent of the remaining vote will come from Clark and Washoe. Barring a surprise, they will favor Cortez Masto by some margin and likely put her in the lead.
Apparently it’s okay to confuse overseas voters, including The Troops. (Georgia moved the runoff from January to December by giving instant runoff ballots to overseas voters only. This means there doesn’t have to be a 45 day wait, as required by federal law, after certification of the first round.)
Run-off elections in the South were originally instituted to protect white political power after the Civil War. With newly emancipated Black citizens making up 30-40% of the population in some southern states, the powers that be recognized that in a multi-candidate election Black voters could elect one of their own with a plurality. And so the run-off ensured there would always be the opportunity for whites to consolidate behind a single candidate.
Became less of an issue as Black citizens were systematically stripped of their rights.
Not so sure about your thinking here. The Libertarians I know tend to pick Republican if they are going to go with a major party. I think this is because Republicans push for lower taxes for rich people and corporations, and less regulation for corporations. It’s not a perfect match – I think Libertarians would say all the bigotry is bad, for instance, even if only because it’s bad for business. But overall I think Libertarians shift to Republican easier than Democratic votes.
All the same, I think Warnock’s chances are a bit better.
In a simplified example, 40% vote black, and 60% evenly split between two whites, one white is eliminated, their preferences go to the other white, who wins.
Agree on libertarians. The right has taken over the Libertarian Party nationally.
Balanced against that: Warnock beat Walker by almost 1 percent of votes cast. If I had to say, I would say that Warnock will win, but it will be even closer than last time. However, I’m so totally unsure I did not vote for this thread.
The argument here is that if they were concerned about Senate control, they would already have voted for Walker, rather than “throwing away” a vote on the Libertarian. Yes, if they vote in December they’ll most likely vote Republican, but they might not bother to vote at all.
Yes i voted for Walker in the poll. It was not snark. It was pessimism about the voting laws in GA, and the number of MAGAs there.
I hope I am wrong. I would love for my neighbors to the south to prove me wrong like they did in 2020.
In 2020, during the general, total votes for the Republican and Democratic candidates were basically the same - like, within a tiny fraction - if you counted Libertarians with the GOP.
But then in the runoff, Warnock won by two points.
Well, now it looks like we have one more piece of the puzzle, which is that Nevada’s Masto has beaten Laxalt. (This is a pleasant surprise to me. I’d have thought the Laxalt name would have carried him to a win, but the fact it didn’t could be evidence that (a) I’m way too old and the Laxalt name no longer carries the power I associate with it; and/or (b) a Trump endorsement really can be toxic).
I’d like to think that Georgia Democrats will be energized by the win, and will be MORE likely to vote because with a razor thin majority, there is hope, but every Senator counts. I guess time will tell if that optimistic scenario is true or not.
Well, if your own Laxalt family comes out against you…
LOL. I wasn’t following the race very closely and didn’t know that. I imagine that was a factor. Good for those other Laxalts!
Both true. In another thread, someone also mentioned c): the Culinary Workers union in the Vegas area got their act together and did some effective work this time.
Ok, so now that the dems will hold the senate, i doubt the Republicans will care a lot about electong Walker. I would change my vote to Walker now.
Did you mean Warnock at the end of your post there?
Anyway, with control no longer in question, Warnock seems like a shoo-in to me. It’s not like the Republicans actually wanted Walker to be the nominee – he’s a terrible nominee.
I remained stunned that the party that claims to the be party of family values and that caters to evangelicals could line up behind Walker.
I’m not. They don’t actually care about those things. They never did.
I know. George Bush ran on opposing gay marriage and the first thing he did when re-elected was to try and privatize social security.
The Republicans blew it this time – they talked about gutting social security and medicare before winning their seats. Usually, they run on social issues and, only after winning, switch to tax breaks for the wealthy and cutting help to the middle class and poor.
Keeping it to a 50-50 Senate isn’t worthless to Republicans. It was mentioned in the other thread that Republicans were able to insist on equal ratios on committees this session, which has allowed them to bottle up or delay some nominees and bills through tie votes or boycotting committees so they can’t establish a quorum. It also preserves the nuclear option of denying a quorum for the full Senate to do anything – it takes 51 Senators to establish a quorum and the VP doesn’t count.
Politically, they pretty much have to fight for Walker. It would send a terrible message to their donors and their base if they seemed to just give up after this shellacking. They also need to position themselves for 2024, when they have several excellent pickup opportunities and even an outside shot at a filibuster-proof majority. That gets easier if they can pocket GA this cycle.
OTOH.
Fighting for Walker risks fighting and losing. They’ll throw some money his way but the big names won’t invest much political capital, they’ll likely try to thread of needle of downplaying it (expecting a loss) and encouraging turnout as it still matters some. Trump there can do at least as much harm as good. And if he shows and Walker loses his brand gets harmed marginally more. Desantis won’t see it as a good bet for him to show at rallies of a loser. Less gain in a win than harm in a loss for him.