Runoff: Chambliss vs. Martin
I can’t find a confirming media report, but the GA Secretary of State website has Chambliss under 50%.
We’ll see if Obama’s ground game can be restarted. Predictions?
-
Your ad here.
Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.
21 Responses to “Runoff: Chambliss vs. Martin”
|
If Martin wins IMHO it will be because of the Buckley contingent (of course) which is a group of fiscal conservative/Libertarians. Add some other factions and some anti-incumbency sentiment and you have people who want “change” which has nothing to do with Obama’s change. Overall these people don’t want a Bush clone or an Obama clone.
Chambliss got 180,830 fewer votes than John McCain…he only needs about 7000 to avoid a runoff.
Buckley had minimal effect on the race at 3.6% w/126,003 votes.
All Saxby had to do was vote NO on the bailout and this is a non-story. He waited to cast his vote on the bill until after enough votes had been cast for passage, yet still voted YES. I’m sorry, but anybody that f’n stupid does not deserve another term in the U.S. Senate.
According to GA Sec State website, there are still precincts to be counted (96% in). Fulton County still has 12,000 absentee ballots being counted.
well bb,
I agree with you. Chambliss doesn’t deserve another term. He’s done nothing but ram his head up Bush’s behind the entire time he’s been in the senate. If he had shown some independence he might have had a chance.
Obama’s ground game won’t be reactivated. He was all about getting himself elected nothing more, nothing less. He wouldn’t even share his money with downtickets. It will all depend on who shows up if the runoff happens.
caroline,
Actually Chambliss and Bush were on opposite sides a few times this past two years, i.e. Farm Bill (Bush vetoed, Chambliss voted to override), Gang of 10 non-sense, and a couple of others I don’t remember right now. But he voted to override Bush on bills that Bush thought were too expensive.
The problem with this race is the same as the presidential dilemma many conservatives faced. Do you hold your nose and vote for a RINO to maintain a semblance of balance between political parties, or write-in a name in protest. If Jim Martin wasn’t such a doofus, it wouldn’t be tough to decide.
I personally am inclined to write-in Herman Cain again as I did last week.
FYI
Georgia’s low voter turnout baffles some
74 percent cast ballots, down from 77 percent in 2004
Despite the buzz surrounding this year’s election and heavy early turnout, a lower percentage of Georgia voters actually turned out this year than in 2004, according to the Secretary of State’s office.
So far — and there are still absentee ballots outstanding — 74.1 percent of active
registered voters cast ballot in this election, said Matt Carrothers, spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office.
In the 2004 presidential election, 77.3 percent voted, he said.
As of early afternoon Wednesday, 3,852,636 of Georgia’s 5,184,000 million “active” voters cast ballots in the presidential election, according to the Secretary of State’s office. About 2 million, or 53 percent of those who voted this year, did so before Election Day, officials said.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/11/05/georgia_voter_turnout.html
John,
I heard that earlier on the radio, interesting.
But with media basically anointing Obama, I’m sure that had some effect on diminished turnout.
Bart
I think you are right.
Bart
I was at my son’s practice on Monday night and all the parents felt Obama would win easy.
The GOP had a bad candidate who created zero buzz. Now we learn today that nobody could get along within the campaign. Throw in media bias and it is amazing McCain carried the states he won.
bb,
Well no one was crying when the media brought us Bush. We have a corrupt and craven media controlled by a few elites. Obama ran Bush’s “it’s inevitable” campaign from 2000. Now you get a taste of your own medicine.
How does 2 or 3 weeks of long lines translate to lower than expected voter turnout?
How was the media supportive of Bush in 2000? Are you kidding me?
And as I’ve repeatedly stated, I blame the GOP for this election and the one in 2006…not Bush, not the media, not anybody…just the arrogant aholes running the GOP.
Saxby blames voter turnout for his runoff situation saying:
Chambliss expressed disappointment in Republican voting strength on Tuesday. “There was great turnout in early voting. Frankly, I think it was fairly evident that there was not the expected turnout yesterday that a lot of folks thought would be there,” he said.
“Voter fatigue” with the presidential race, and the bitterness of the final weeks of the Senate campaign could have been among the reasons, he said.
“Certainly, everybody in Georgia was ready to get this race over with. It’s been the longest presidential campaign in my memory. And I do think the tone of the campaign probably may have even turned a lot of people off.”
RRREEEAAALLLLLYYYYY?
No Saxby, turnout was fine…it was you.
For example, had Saxby gotten the same amount of votes in conservative Cherokee County as John McCain, he would have added 5810 votes to his total, just short of enough to avoid a runoff.
Even better, had Saxby done as well as McCain in conservative Gwinnett County, he would add 8259 votes ending any chance for a runoff (conservative Cobb County difference of 8677).
If Saxby could have picked up just 5% of the difference between him and McCain (180831 statewide), he would not be in a runoff.
So Saxby, it was not turnout or anything else. It was you and your voting record that caused Republicans to vote against you while voting for McCain. Just admit the obvious truth Saxby, you f’d up on the farm bill, gang of 10, bailout bill and overiding Bush vetoes.
The numbers don’t lie, just the candidate.
For me it was the fact that our family has been personally affected by the Bush administration policies – job loss to cheaper H1B visa holder and finally got another at less than half of previous pay; loss of my pets to poison Chinese pet food; inability to find toys for our grandchildren other than made in China and potentially lead based; communities and schools overrun with illegals; and the obvious result of corporate takeover of politicians on all levels. Job protection is non-existent next to profits, and when I heard Saxby criticize a whistle blower at the sugar plant that it was HIS fault for not speaking out before the accident, the farm bill, the gang of 10, his participation in the amnesty sham and then finally the bailout. To me, he represents the worst of both parties. And I do not agree with Martin’s policies. I voted for Buckley although I was completely unimpressed with him. I guess I will wait until a party finds someone to run who is worth the trip to the polls.
bb,
There were plenty of journalism studies that showed that the media was way more positive towards Bush than Gore. It’s the same “inevitable” meme from 2000 that Obama used. The media went along then and they went along this year too.
How do you blame the GOP but not Bush? Is he not the head of the party during that time. Frankly, Obama seemed to mostly forget about McCain and focused on Bush during this election.
caroline,
Provide one credible study from 2000 race showing Bush was favored by MSM…good luck.
Here you go:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_200009/ai_n8914455
caroline,
That’s the best you can do…stories making fun of AlGore’s vivid imagination compiled by the liberal Columbia Journalism group?
Good try, not buying it.
From a media study poll conducted after the 2000 election — “Twenty-eight percent of citizens nationwide believe news coverage of this year’s fall campaign has been biased against an individual candidate, while 58 percent do not. When asked which candidate received the most biased coverage against him, 49 percent believe Bush has received the most biased coverage against him, 25 percent name Gore, 17 percent claim Nader, 8 percent mention Pat Buchanan, and 1 percent are unsure.”
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/PressAd00.html
You are out of your mind if you think Bush or any other GOPer ever recieves favorable media coverage against a dem.
bb,
You link to an article that isn’t even sourced? LOL! It seems to only cover a few weeks of the campaign too. LOL.
and even your article says that the coverage was NOT biased against Bush. According to it, 58% think the coverage was fair to both candidates.