Who do you figure wins if (a) nothing else changes, but (b) the libertarian voters from the first round show up to break two-to-one in favor of the Republican candidate?
Third party voters are generally those who are so disgusted with both candidates that they opt to basically throw their vote away in protest rather than vote for one of the major parties. If they preferred Walker over Warnock enough that they would make a special trip to the polls to vote for him specifically in a runoff they probably would have voted for him the first time around.
Assuming all the republicans and democrats show up and vote the same way they did in the mid term election and then the libertarians all voted my guess would be your number at least 2-1 for the republican, then I’d think based on the slim margin of victory the first time, the republicans would win this by-election.
If Ralph Nader doesn’t run for president in 2000 and those otherwise Nader votes went 2-1 in favour of Gore, then Gore wins the 2000 election.
Let’s hope this is accurate:
And, as far as I can tell, you’d be incorrect; Warnock apparently got 1,946,117 in the first go-round, with Walker getting 1,908,442 and the libertarian candidate getting 81,365 — and, if I’m doing the math right, that means Warnock would win (1,973,238 to 1,962,686) if the only change involved picking up 27,121 of those libertarian votes while Walker got the other 54,244.
(Heck, even going 70-30 for a Republican over a Democrat would AFAICT still put Warnock ahead.)
But none of this is relevant. Georgia doesn’t do Ranked choice voting so it isn’t just a matter of keeping all the Warnock and Walker votes the locked in place moving the Libertarian voters to their second choice.
There is a whole new election with an entirely different turnout dynamic, not to mention that Walker seems to have gone further off the deep end with his recent comments. The dynamic effect of these difference are going to be much larger than the secondary preferences of the 2% of Libertarian voters who apparently didn’t like either candidate enough to vote for them.
Exactly. As an anecdote, the libertarians I know lean to the right and in a ‘generic’ R vs D election would likely vote R. But they aren’t bought into the Trump-driven whack-job right that Walker represents. In a best case scenario (IMO) the libertarians represent a more rational, logical approach to things than Walker and would likely vote for Warnock. In reality, I suspect they just wouldn’t vote.
I’m going to make an overly broad generalization and feel free to call me out on it but IMHO, Libertarians tend to also be more educated than members of the other parties and I can’t see them voting for someone as abjectly unqualified as Walker.
Also, Libertarians are a weird mix. Some want no regulations on business and would tend to vote for the GOP candidate. Others want no regulations on civil rights/personal choice and would tend in the other direction. I was the second group in my youth and would always vote Libertarian unless it was going to be a close election and would vote for the Dem.
It was known at least since voting began in the original election that this one was going to be fairly close. That being the case, I can’t see anyone voting third party unless they genuinely didn’t care all that much which of the two candidates with an actual chance to win came out on top. That being the case, I expect that the Libertarian voters are mostly not showing up for the runoff.
I don’t think they can vote third party in the run-off - just the two top of the ballot from the first vote ?
Correct. So the question is who will the Libertarians move their vote to, if they choose to vote at all.
I feel like the significance of D and R turnout will dwarf whatever Libertarians do.
Absolutely — whether Libertarian voters break for Walker or Warnock will be inconsequential to the outcome.
Precisely my point – if they voted third party in the general election (presumably because neither of the major party candidates met with their approval, even to the point of wanting to tip the scales toward one or the other), I don’t expect they’ll be motivated to vote in a runoff where they don’t have that option.
Usually — especially at the state level — the polls are off, by a few points, in one direction or another.
If off in way that Republicans will like, it will be extremely close, and anything relevant will be consequential.
If polls have understated Warnock’s support, not much was consequential beyond the GOP nominating a weak candidate.
With 38% reporting, Warnock is up 56.1%-43.9. I don’t feel very good about this.
It’s better than the reverse would be.
Meantime, ABC News has this to say:
"Warnock, in his second consecutive runoff election in less than two years, has campaigned heavily in recent weeks on the theme of “character.”A reverend at Martin Luther King Jr.'s former church and Georgia’s first Black senator, Warnock also pitched himself to the battleground state’s voters as a pragmatic, experienced leader.
“I’ll put my character up against Raphael Warnock any day,” Warnock told ABC News on Tuesday.
Well alrighty then. 
Why not? That’s a pretty big lead compared to most races these days.
Because I’m paranoid. Also, I’m afraid that the early voting lead wasn’t as high as I’d hoped. But mostly it’s the paranoia.