Is There a Meaning in Georgia?

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 23:18


Well it's official.  Though Jim Martin is a Better Democrat, Chris and I have been pretty much AWOL on this race.  That was not by design, we just sort of didn't feel it.  Personally, my belief was that Obama wasn't willing to risk his political capital for Martin despite Martin's request, the Senate Democrats had just betrayed on Lieberman, so there was limited upside for progressives.  I like Martin a great deal, but Georgia is Georgia, and I couldn't in good conscience ask people to support someone ardently under these conditions.  God bless those who can get up for every race where a Democrat is running, and God bless the organizers who went to Georgia to push for Martin, but I've never believed in the 60 vote threshold argument, and I go back and forth on whether to take risks simply to further establishment Democratic power when the existing establishment Democratic power base refuses to take risks themselves.

If there's some lesson from Georgia, the relatively low turnout despite great organizing work suggests whatever changes occurred to the map in November, 2004 have not really shifted voter allegiances in any firm ideological sense yet.  While the Democrats as a whole have changed the conversation somewhat, McCain nationally still got 46% of the vote, and that's only 4 points from a majority, or 1 in 25 Americans.  And Georgia is still Georgia.

... Martin also was behind in nine consecutive polls.  That was a big factor as well.  I couldn't ask people to plunk down cash in this economy for such a long-shot.

Matt Stoller :: Is There a Meaning in Georgia?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Is There a Meaning in Georgia? | 72 comments
supporting Democrats (4.00 / 3)
I don't understand this:

I go back and forth on whether to take risks simply to further establishment Democratic power when the existing establishment Democratic power base refuses to take risks themselves.

But you thought Martin would be a better senator than Chambliss. The furthering of "establishment Democratic power" would have just been a side effect of electing another Democrat. But that side effect results from the election of any Democrat. Presumably you want Democrats to win though, right? This site isn't going to become party-neutral just because the Democrats let Lieberman chair a committee, is it?

it's about risk (4.00 / 5)
Martin was a long-shot, with limited payoff.  Did you give?  Do you want me to ask you for money for opportunities like that?  Because I'm not going to plunk down money in that scenario, just as Obama didn't risk anything.
[ Parent ]
Matt... mark this day down... (0.00 / 0)
...for once... maybe the first time ever... I am in 100% agreement with you... when it became clear that Obama would not get involved, I decided to do the same thing you did.  Why throw money and time away that your party leader feels is a total lost cause?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
More excuses for Obama (4.00 / 2)
Yeah, Obama was right to stay in Washington reappointing Republicans and "center-right" Democrats, because Martin never had a chance.

Bullshit!

The Politico poll for November 24 showed Martin behind by 3 points!

Martin was behind by 3 points November 24, but Obama was absolutely right to stay in Washington, because...

Obama is always right!

But meanwhile, in the real world, down in Georgia...

Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss holds a narrow lead over Democrat Jim Martin in the Dec. 2 Georgia Senate runoff, according to a new Politico/InsiderAdvantage poll.

The poll shows Chambliss leading Martin by 3 percentage points, 50 percent to 47 percent, with 3 percent of respondents undecided. The first-term GOP senator's lead is within the poll's four-point margin of error. The Politico/InsiderAdvantage poll surveyed 523 likely voters on Nov. 23.

The poll numbers are almost identical to the general election results, when Chambliss fell just short of the 50 percent necessary to win the seat outright on Election Night. He led Martin 49.8 to 46.8 percent, with a Libertarian candidate taking three percent of the vote.

"This thing's going to be a nail-biter. We don't know who's going to turn out and we don't know how it's going to turn out, but it's going to be a close race," said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery.

With a recount underway in the too-close-to-call Minnesota Senate race, Georgia is the last election battleground in determining whether Democrats will be able to capture a 60-seat filibuster-proof Senate majority.

But Obama stayed away, African-Americans stayed home, Democratic turnout was low, and Democrats lost the chance for a 60 seat majority in the Senate.

But...

Hurrah for Obama!

And, what the heck, since almost everything posted in the so-called "liberal blogosphere" isn't saying anything except...

Hurrah for Obama!

It's probably worth shouting yet again and again and again!

Hurrah for Obama!

[ Parent ]
This guy was a long time troll over at MyDD (4.00 / 3)
Just a heads-up.
[ Parent ]
Good call (0.00 / 0)
He produced some of the strangest diaries I've ever read.  I guess he's keeping the hit streak alive.
[ Parent ]
"A Lost Cause" (0.00 / 1)
It was obviously so incredibly urgent for Obama to appoint the same insiders who broke the banks to take charge of the US Treasury that he can't spare 3 days to campaign in a run-off election for the crucial 60th seat in the Senate.

It was incredibly urgent for Obama to hand over the State Department to Hillary Clinton, whose foreign policy credentials consist of voting for the War Powers act because she thought Bush planned to pursue a "diplomatic solution!"

It was incredibly urgent for Obama to reappoint Bush's Secretary of Defense!

So obviously Obama couldn't spare one minute to campaign for Jim Martin, much less a couple of days to get out the vote!

But down here in Georgia it wasn't obvious to anybody that Martin was destined to lose, until Obama decided to blow off the Senate race, and discourage out-of-state donors like Matt Stoller from supporting Martin.

"I couldn't ask people to plunk down cash in this economy for such a long-shot."

What makes Jim Martin "such a long shot" when he's 3 points behind in the polls a week before the run-off?

Obamabots don't even have to dream up an answer to this awkward question, because nobody in the mainstream media or so-called "liberal blogosphere" questions the Cosmic Wisdom of Barack Obama, except maybe the last few actual progressives who still pay a little attention to the Democratic Party.

Why didn't Obama campaign for Martin?

Was it really "a lost cause" on November 24, when Martin was 3 points behind in the polls?

Here in Savannah none of us could quite understand why Obama blew off the chance for a filibuster-proof majority, and with no real money for TV ads against a $2 million onslaught from the RNC, and low Democratic turn-out, some of the young volunteers in Georgia even expressed a wee bit of disapproval, and maybe loss of faith in the cosmic wisdom of their made-for-TV Messiah Barack Obama.

But let's quickly forget about the lost chance for a 60 seat Senate majority that Obama threw away without a fight, and get back to the only legitimate business of the "liberal blogosphere," which is cheering for Barack Obama!

Hurrah!


[ Parent ]
OK (4.00 / 2)
So you attack his character rather than respond to his (legitimate) criticism?
[ Parent ]
First, his criticism is not legitimate (0.00 / 0)
And second, people here should be aware of this guy's history when reading his posts. He is not a progressive dissatisfied with the direction Obama has taken since winning the election; he is a longtime anti-Obama PUMA troll.
[ Parent ]
no blacklist (4.00 / 1)
As far as I know, there is no blacklist in the blogosphere, or at Open Left.  His criticism is legitimate, in the sense that it is not incendiary, it offers a contrasting point of view, and it challenges the conventional wisdom of many here, within the bounds of what can be considered 'left.'  Finally, he can dislike Obama all he wants, for whatever reason he wants, and still be progressive.  But by all means, keep closing your eyes to the fact that not everyone is in love with our Dear Enlightened Leader.
[ Parent ]
I believe the left should have a "big tent" policy (0.00 / 0)
But the tent should not be big enough to include trolls. And that's what "Jacob Freeze" is. One look at his history over at MyDD will tell you this. He does not share progressive values; he is only pretending to in order to get people here to listen to him when he attacks Obama.

He is not our friend. His goal with his "criticism" is not to push Obama to embrace progressive policies; his goal is to put Sarah Palin in the White House in 2013.

[ Parent ]
ok, so... (4.00 / 1)
if he says something legitimating a troll rating, then troll rate him, but it's a bad precedent to set to automatically troll rate commenters based on what you know of them from the past and from other sites.  his comment here was within the bounds of rational discussion, so i see no problem with it.  it's difficult to read motives into a blog comment.  of course, i'm sure if someone repeatedly is disrupting the site, they would get banned.
[ Parent ]
You don't think (0.00 / 0)
that calling Obama a "self-centered prick" is disrupting the site?
[ Parent ]
What was Obama doing? (2.40 / 5)
What did Obama do in the last month that was so important he couldn't spare 3 days to campaign for Martin?

Does it take a month to re-appoint a Republican Secretary of Defense and pick Hillary Clinton for State?

3 days, 3 appearances to get out the African-American vote and energize the rest of the base!

The RNC poured $2 million into the run-off! If it was all a foregone conclusion, why did the almost-broke RNC spend $2 million on it?

What was Obama doing with the huge left-overs of his buy-the-election $600 million?  What's he saving it for?

Obama paid for a few mailings, while the RNC flooded TV with ads attacking Martin!

Not even Bill Clinton was such a self-centered prick that he didn't campaign for Wyche Fowler in 1992!

[ Parent ]
why troll rate? (4.00 / 1)
Again, this is a legitmate criticism, if voiced in strong language.  It doesn't attack anyone here.  If the word 'prick' set you off, you should develop thicker skin.  Oh wait - robots don't have skin.
[ Parent ]
Hi (0.00 / 0)
You and your friend should go back to No quarter and PUMA PAC where you serial O-Haters belong. Let the adults do the legitimate criticisms or praises.

Oh and how is that brith certificate thing coming? I am sure you are following it closely when the it is thrown out by supreme court in 2 days.

[ Parent ]
sit, Ubu, sit... (4.00 / 1)
(sigh)
[ Parent ]
Troll rated for the "robots" crack (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
touche! (4.00 / 1)
am i going to have to put smiley faces after my jibes?
[ Parent ]
Troll rating removed (0.00 / 0)
It's hard to tell what's snark and what's not these days.
[ Parent ]
Please provide evidence in support of this statement: (0.00 / 0)
"Hurrah for Obama!

And, what the heck, since almost everything posted in the so-called "liberal blogosphere" isn't saying anything except... "

I see plenty of posts and diaries saying pretty much the opposite. As evidence I cite those posts on this very site.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
To be fair (0.00 / 0)
Obama didn't risk "anything"? he sent out fund raising mail to his supporters (millions) cut a radio ad and send his organizers there. That is not everything but defiantly not "anything". As for visiting the country is in a bad shape so he might not have wanted to play politics right now by visiting a divisive race.
[ Parent ]
No, that's nothing (4.00 / 2)
He didn't say Obama didn't do anything; he said he didn't risk anything. Cutting a radio ad was pretty low profile. Sending organizers didn't expose him at all.

I'm not criticizing; obviously, Obama made the right call because this was clearly a lost cause.  

[ Parent ]
how does the outcome have any bearing on... (4.00 / 4)
...this being "clearly a lost cause"

the margin in November was pretty slim, to say it was a lost cause based on the tallies one month later is absent logic.

Saxby had the leaders of his party backing him heavy for the full month, Martin had a couple visits from prominent Democrats, but the leader of his party was notably absent.  Had Obama, like McCain, made an early call to action in support of his candidate, the end results could have been drastically different.

I don't know why Obama chose to stay away, I'm not going to question the politics of that, at least not today.  I'm just saying that saying the outcome justifies the decision is wrong.  Special Elections are freak shows, you never know what is going to happen or how things will play out, you put your best people on the field and do your damnedest to put the ball in the endzone as many times as possible...while doing so, you don't get to see a scoreboard or see the other offense playing...it's a big surprise when the results come down.

The smallest changes at the begin of a special election could have major impacts on the remaining campaign and results, speculation and prediction thereupon is just crazy talk.

[ Parent ]
I just find it very, very hard to believe (0.00 / 0)
that Obama's mere presence in Georgia for a day would have made up a 14-point difference in the polls. When you lose by that kind of margin, there's not much you could have done to avoid it. I know it's a special election and all, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of elections.

Martin was going down today. He lost in November. He was behind in every single poll. There was simply nothing, not one thing, that indicated that he had any chance to win at all. And then came the day of the election and he lost by 14. If this wasn't a lost cause, I don't know what is.  

[ Parent ]
okay (4.00 / 1)
That makes sense. I always thought Martin was a real long shot to win the recount, too; and I hear you on the Obama thing. Just so long as you're not saying you'd never take risks to elect a Democrat for the reason that you don't always approve of the party establishment, which would be counter-productive.
[ Parent ]
Risk to whom? (4.00 / 1)
This post is essentially a one-sentence admission that you fell down on the job, and then at least six self-justifying shrugs as to why it didn't matter anyway: essentially a corroboration of the 'pajamas' media caricature of basement brats that shout from the laptops while shying away from the doorknockers and phonebanks when the real work needs to be done.

Jim was a Better Democrat, meaning that a great many of this site's readers endorsed him as a solid progressive (which he is), and he was running against one of the most vile and venal members of the Senate. But who cares, right? Even though your audience demonstrated they wanted to go to the mat for this guy, you couldn't bring yourself to ask them to commit as a community, because, well, "Georgia is Georgia" and you just weren't feeling it. Ah, sweet bravery.

If the quality of your engagement is determined by the quality of Obama's at any one point, all of your chatter about progressive movements distinct and separate from party bosses seems inconsistent at best, and opportunistically avant-gardiste at worst.

[ Parent ]
are you saying (4.00 / 1)
Martin lost because openleft failed to ask it's powerful readership to chip in that extra bit of time and money? If only Matt Stoller had done something!  
[ Parent ]
Agreed with your call. (0.00 / 0)
I donated to Martin just before he was a Better Democrat, and again just after (small donations).  I don't get to donate to very many campaigns, so I really did believe it was a wise place to spend money at that time.  For the runoff though, I wasn't going to waste my money if Obama and the DNC and DSCC weren't willing to play hard, so once they decided to sit out, I did too.  It sucked, but I can't make the DSCC drop $5 million with my 40 bucks.

I don't enjoy seeing Martin lose, but until we in the grassroots are in a position to compel a figure like Obama to participate, then there's not much to do.  GA-Sen ain't NC-08, or a MT-Sen primary.  Thirteen congressional districts = BIG dollar figures involved.

[ Parent ]
Matt, you seem to be forgetting (4.00 / 5)
that Obama LOST Georgia. It's not as if a few visits would have produced a victory for Martin. He lost by such a margin that even if we'd had black turnout in DeKalb and Fulton at 11/4 levels, he still would have gotten beat. The margins by which he lost in the rest of the state were too huge, and Obama would not have helped with that (in fact, he might even have made it worse).

Obama does not have magical powers that can turn a 14 point loss into a win for a Senate candidate. Especially not in a red state in the South.

[ Parent ]
What's this Crap About 4 percent? (4.00 / 3)
Nate Silver is right. This was a total blowout election. In terms of the popular vote as a percentage of total population, the second biggest landslide in history: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...


Obama has received at least 68,724,397 popular votes for the Presidency. I say "at least" because they're still counting in California and several other states, and so Obama's total should wind up comfortably over 69 million; 70 million appears unlikely, but is not entirely out of the question.

This total represents 22.62 percent of the Census Bureau's 2008 estimate of United States population, which was 303,824,640. That figure doesn't sound that impressive at first glance -- fewer than one in four Americans actually voted for Barack Obama -- but it's actually the second-highest percentage ever, trailing only Ronald Reagan in 1984:

If you look only at eligible voters instead of as a percentage of the entire population, Obama's victory is still in the top FIVE since Roosevelt '36:


As some have noted - this is probably better using a somewhat more appropriate denominator. Using Professor McDonald's "Voting Eligible Population" numbers, the percentage of possible voters who voted for each President is

'64 Johnson 38.32
'56 Eisenhower 34.52
'52 Eisenhower 34.50
'72 Nixon 34.11
'84 Reagan 33.62
'08 Obama 32.26

Notice that Obama as a percentage of eligible voters did better than Reagan '80, and just behind such massive landslides as Eisenhower, and Nixon (1.85% less than Nixon '72). The ONLY post-war Presidential election that is really significantly greater was Johnson in '64.

So, to talk about "just 4% difference" makes no sense.

Chambliss certainly won on the back of "stop the liberal takeover!" and "Don't let Atlanta Blacks win the election!" http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

He got a massive White Backlash vote against Obama and the Democrats from Georgia's crackers.

The Old South may be cracked in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, but it's alive and well in Georgia and the deep South!

[ Parent ]
Some Historical Perspective (4.00 / 3)
While the Democrats as a whole have changed the conversation somewhat, McCain nationally still got 46% of the vote, and that's only 4 points from a majority, or 1 in 25 Americans.

Matt, you're really selling Obama short here.  When you look at this election from a historical perspective, what Obama accomplished by getting almost 53 percent of the total popular vote was nothing short of astonishing.  Bill Clinton, for all of his considerable political skills, never won a majority of the popular vote.  This hasn't happened for a Dem since 1976 in fact.  And it should be noted Jimmy Carter just barely cleared the 50 percent threshold just two years after the elected Republican president was forced to resign his office in total disgrace.  The last Democratic presidential nominee to get better than 53 percent was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.  Throw out that election and you have to reach back to freakin' FDR in 1944 to find a Democrat pulling in more than 53 percent of the popular vote.  FDR!  And he very narrowly came in over 53 percent in that year.  

well (4.00 / 1)
Matt, you're really selling Obama short here.

How?  His victory wasn't wide by Presidential standards.  Most Democrats have not done well on the national level, but that doesn't mean he had a blow-out realigning election.  We won't know that for some time.

[ Parent ]
He won by almost 7 percent and won the highest (4.00 / 4)
percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat since the 1960s.

Only in an electoral college since can one argue your position- maybe. Maybe only because Clinton was able to win with similar numbers of electoral votes, but Clinton had certain advantages Obama did not.

As Schaller points out- the part of the country you are discussing is solidly Republican due to race. It's  only part of the country in which race seemed to have played a big role.

In a modern since, what Obama did is a realignment for Democrats in Presidential politics because of the states Obama won were and had moved into the solid Republican column.

More importantly, realignment is not merely about the Presidential race, but what's happened in the Congressional races.

And, if you take Nate Silver's theory- we will know if its a realignment after Obama's adminstration. Not before.

[ Parent ]
He had the largest popular vote margin ever... (4.00 / 2)
...by a non-incumbent candidate. Also, the second largest popular vote margin ever. And the second highest fraction of the eligible American population ever.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

So what is your empirical basis that his victory wasn't wide or deep?

[ Parent ]
Lack of coattails? (0.00 / 0)
Someone please explain to me how Dan Seals lost by an even bigger margin than in 2006, when he had better messaging and funding this time around.
[ Parent ]
Yea (4.00 / 1)
Good points, 53% and 9.2 million more votes doesn't happen every day esp for the dems. Obama and Lyndon Johnson were the only candidates that got more than 50.1% since WWII.
[ Parent ]
Dukakis also got 46% of the vote too (4.00 / 3)
Lets not give the repugs a leverage they don't deserve. They got trounced and that is pretty much what they have to live with right now. A successful or improving economy/government in 010 is going to be 10 times as big of a help then any campaigning or structural growth will. (not to dismissive of the party growth, they matter a LOT but not nearly as much as competent governance that makes a difference in people's lives).
yes (4.00 / 3)
They got trounced and that is pretty much what they have to live with right now.

Yes, they did.  But let's not assume that we have persuaded the country of anything except that Republicans suck.  Yet.

[ Parent ]
100% (4.00 / 1)
Agreed on that point. He has to deliver or all these gains will be lost (or narrowed). But the win it self as far as popular vote (even EV somewhat) goes was huge historically for dems.
[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 8)
Hasn't our ability to convince the country that Republicans suck actually lagged behind our ability to persuade the country of the wisdom of progressive policies? If you look at the polling for issues like Iraq, health care, energy, the environment, etc., the progressive position routinely out-polls the Democratic Party.

I think we have largely convinced people on the substance of most things. What we haven't really persuaded people of is that Democrats will really deliver on these issues. People want universal health care but they don't believe the Dems will give it to them.  

[ Parent ]
Though now that I read it again (0.00 / 0)
maybe that's precisely what you're saying.
[ Parent ]
Dukakis and realignment (4.00 / 4)
The argument for realignment is based on two consecutive thumpings in the elections for the House and Senate as well as the typical 36 to 40 year alignment cycle.  It is not based on the size of Obama's electoral college or popular vote win.  Obama's win, btw, is near the top end for a realigning election, clearly exceded only by FDR's 1932 blowout.

After the electoral college pastings Democrats took in 1980 and 1984, Dukakis was a huge step forward.  We competed on even terms for most of the election losing due to dirty tricks (Willie Horton ad, debate question about the rape of Kitty Dukakis) as much as anything.  We won the next elections if you remember.  Republicans in 2008 did not move forward; they moved backwards.  The momentum and direction need to be taken into account.

One other thing.  With the start of the recession now dated firmly at December 2007, it is easy to peg a projected end point.  The last five or six recessions all lasted from 22 to 25 months.  It is morning in America by October 2009 to January 2010.  We may have a full year of recovery under our belts by the midterms.  This is astoundingly good news.

Since realigning elections usually last four, not two, cycles and 1/3 of the senate is still Republican-heavy, we have excellent chances for another 5 or 6 Senate pickups and 10 to 15 House seats.  Maybe more House seats if California demographics kick in and we pick up the same 5 seats at end of decade that we did in 2000.

[ Parent ]
realignment (4.00 / 3)
If there was any sort of realignment from the 2008 presidential race, that realignment is focused on western states and in Virginia...Places like Georgia will not suddenly turn blue because of Obama.  
revisionist (4.00 / 1)
Places like Georgia will not suddenly turn blue because of Obama.

That's easily breezily said.  But Obama sunk huge resources into Georgia this cycle, and it didn't pan out.

[ Parent ]
The reason why matters, and you do not know the reason why (4.00 / 1)
My guess- is the reason that Schaller (if I got the name right) states. In fact, much of the argument about the outer South and Western states is exactly what we saw this cycle as per Schaller's argument. States like Virginia, etc, but not states like GA.  
[ Parent ]
Abit of revisionism on your part too Matt (4.00 / 2)
"But Obama sunk huge resources into Georgia this cycle"

No he didn't, show me the stats on this "Huge" resources sunk in there relative to there states. how many times he campaigned there? other than one or two stoops in early GE cycle (june) none. In fact he pulled his staff and ads out of there early (same with ND) in the GE cycle until the last two weeks when the race narrowed in the polls (and he pushed in Arizona in the same period).

don't forget he lost by only 5% in Georgia without much campaigning where Karry lost by 17%. Thats a BIG improvement for a solid red state and only to his credit (since Jim martin seem to have lost in the same Kerry margins).

[ Parent ]
ad buys at the end of the campaign... (4.00 / 3)
...is not sinking huge resources...

tv ads are one of the poorest methods of persuasion.  They are more likely to deter voting than activate voting, the best hope is they deter the opponents voters more then they deter your own voters.  The rare top notch ad might have a significant positive impact (Udall's disabled vet ad was pretty damn spectacular, but he was going to win big anyway)...those kind of ads happen in maybe 3 out of 435 house races in a ge cycle.

95% of challenger candidates would be better off reducing their media/ad budget by 2/3 and spending all of that money on field.  The catch is that field takes time, and most of the challengers are unable to raise money until the end of the cycle where they have little choice but to dump it on tv and wish against logic magic happens.

[ Parent ]
tv (4.00 / 2)
Sitting up here in North Georgia watching one Karl Rove/Lee Atwater level ad after another, I decided this race was almost 100% ad driven. They were nasty, untrue, and relentless. Jim is a friend, and though I enjoyed seeing his ads, they didn't do much about the poison that streamed in over the tube from Chambliss. And there was little other Statewide format for anything else.

But mostly - "And Georgia is still Georgia."

[ Parent ]
Disagree... (0.00 / 0)
McCain's relentless "celebrity" ads in August had a profound affect on Obama's popularity...  If there is saturation, over and over... it starts to take effect...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
What's "revisionist" about boomersun's statement? (4.00 / 3)
Saying that Obama sunk resources into Georgia in the last cycle doesn't admit defeat nor should it have guaranteed victory. And boomersun did not suggest otherwise. Howard Dean sunk a lot of money into places that will not see major Dem electoral victories in the first or second cycles, either. It's part of movement and party building.

Kerry lost Georgia in 2004 by almost 17 points. Obama lost by five. That's marked improvement, and justified the attempt. The failure to sustain the momentum with Jim Martin is a failure of progressive engagement and commitment to building sustaining infrastructure in the state.

Open Left also contributed to that failure. Let's have more candor and less self-petting justifications, for goodness sakes. Your voice will ring truer for it.

[ Parent ]
Over at Daily Kos (4.00 / 1)
there were people openly advocating for withholding support for Martin as payback for the Dems letting Lieberman keep his chairmanship.

If the left doesn't smarten up, and fast, we're looking at a long four years, and a strong possibility of President-Elect Sarah Palin in 2012.

[ Parent ]
um (0.00 / 0)
Did you give to Martin this time?
[ Parent ]
"And Georgia is still Georgia" (4.00 / 3)
That may be the key.  If Max Cleland couldn't hold onto a seat there, could we really expect Jim Martin, who is arguably more progressive, to succeed where he couldn't?  Georgia is still the Deep South.  The DSCC didn't focus on this race, perhaps with good reason, until too late in the game to really make a difference.
A Schumer Problem more than an Obama Problem (4.00 / 2)
I agree with mullsinco.  The DSCC does not deserve the credit this cycle.  The fact is, they ignored the possibility of this race for far too long.  They let Martin fester with an inexperienced campaign team, and then, in the final month, they expect to win because they bring adults into the Martin operation and Obama's Ohio field operation.  

Look they brought in Jay Howser to manage, one of the best in the business.  Not to mention Merley's press secretary.  But the DSCC continues to ignore potential races until it's too late.

This is a Schumer problem, not an Obama problem.

[ Parent ]
I'm going to pick at the statement re: organizing work... (4.00 / 7)
...not to take anything away from the effort or quality thereof undertaking in GA for the special election...

that is NOT a measurable demonstration of field work/organizing.  It is a demonstration of a focused GOTV effort in a very short period of time.  Field organizing takes time, not the 2-3 months most campaigns try to cram it in and expect it to work...this was the biggest failure I saw as I traveled to so many different campaigns this cycle.  The expectations for poorly implemented field programs were astronomical while the resources dedicated to those same programs were both minimal and flawed.

You want the unlikely voters to turnout like they did for Obama?  You need an organizer on the ground in the community for several (3+) months in advance of the election.  The people need to be so enamored with their local organizer that they ignore the media stories of who is winning or losing, what the margins are, etc - they aren't voting for the candidate, they are voting for Bobby the organizer and Susan their neighborhood captain...this is the best mechanism to deter lost votes due to "my guy is going to win, I don't need to go to the polls" and "my guy isn't going to win, I don't need to go to the polls."  They need to vote so Bobby can make his goals, they want Bobby to succeed.

Special Elections offer very little for application to normal campaigns, turnout models are all more variables than anything else, it is a crap shoot of who actually shows up for the odd day election.  The most organized certainly has the advantage in this case...but that isn't accomplished by organizing over those short 3-4 weeks...it is done months or years in advance.  This is something the GOP has an advantage over us in nearly every district/state in the country, they have a far better infrastructure nearly everywhere.  They continue to invest in that infrastructure, while we do not.  Some orgs (moveon for one) are trying to do some of this kind of work, but it is very challenging to start from scratch and funding is scarce.  Moveon is additionally hampered by their image, which has been hijacked pretty hard by the right and in some cases the org itself has made some (daring) moves that have cast it in an unappealing light to would be members of a lefty infrastructure.

Props to all those who did GOTV work in GA, all those who helped the Martin campaign at any point, it's a shame the  people who vowed to avenge Max Cleland never stepped up for Martin, this was a winnable race in the general.

2/3 vs 50% (4.00 / 4)
Chambliss got 1,220,854 votes.  That's about 2/3 of the 1,867,090 he got in the general election.  By contrast, Martin managed just 905,637.  That's barely half of the 1,757,419 of the general election.

The polls, all the polls were massively wrong.  They all predicted numbers remarkably similar to the general election instead of a blowout.  Every single one was blowing the margin by 10 points.

The truism that special elections are all about turnout was sure true in Georgia and we were horrible at turnout this time.

Republicans ran this as a holy crusade from Dick Morris on Fox News all the way down.  They had Sarah Palin at the close.  We had Ludacris.  That's Ludacrous.  Palin got a lot of street cred here.

[ Parent ]
The rightwingers agree with Sirota (4.00 / 3)
Some frontpager at NextRight quotes David Sirota for the proposition that Obama got elected by creating a robot army that will do anything Obama says, progressive or not:

So when the Democrats try to push through outrageous things like card-check, significant tax-increases, etc., all we need to do is point to tonight. When progressives were on the ballot, not just a celebrity, the progressives were roundly rejected.

That's what comes from people like Bowers, Greenwald and Sirota arguing that Obama's supporters aren't real true progressives, like them. Thanks, guys!

Too much (0.00 / 0)
Only person that qualifies the description is Sirota. The rest have been critical but in a reasonable manner (Matt was worse during the GE itself than after GE as far as Tone is concerned).

Chris made a idiotic post IMO where he compared obama's win to dukakis but he has been reasonable overall.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, thanks you jerks (4.00 / 1)
Now some frontpager at some crappy wingnut blog knows that the entire liberal legislative agenda can be defeated simply by whispering the name: Saxby Chambliss . . .  
[ Parent ]
So right-wingers can make self-evidently false attacks? (0.00 / 0)
Oh no, I'm quaking in my boots.

Who cares what kind of rubbish they spew? The truth is that this is Georgia, a red state with racialised voting patterns that only appeared less red because Obama was able to get levels of turnout amongst the black community that will probably never be replicated.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
The meaning was that "90 percent of politics is showing up" still applies (4.00 / 2)
Chris and I have been pretty much AWOL on this race.

So was everybody else

Progressive GA voter here, and I really have to (4.00 / 8)
...agree with much of what you've said.  

It is great to stand up for every last Dem that runs, and goodness knows Martin is both a stand up guy and a truly progressive Dem. I gave, I made phone calls, I wanted this to be the upset of all upsets, but my confidence never quite crossed the threshold into believing that he would win, whether outright on Nov 4 and certainly not in the runoff, simply because I know the electorate. I live in the beautiful, largely bright blue oasis of Atlanta now, but I'm from the reddest of red GA, and Saxby had a laundry list of advantages. The generally red-leaning overall electorate, the name recognition, on and on.

Georgia is, for better or worse, Georgia, and if Obama couldn't carry it in the tidal wave of Nov 4, it was always a bit of a pipe dream for Martin to carry the state in a low-to-moderate turnout runoff. It pains me to say it as someone who worked for and believed in Jim Martin, but it's the sad truth. I also hate to admit it but the post-Nov 4, anti-Obama, keep-the-libruls-in-check line really resonated with GOP voters here.  I'm sure more than a few "moderates"/blue dogs voted Chambliss out of some twisted sense of fairness. You know the type ("That Obama's nice enough, but we can't let'em have everything, y'all.")  

Still, I can't help but think 2008 had done great things for GA. It may not pay off for a few cycles, but there're definite cracks in the GOP stranglehold.  

Another progressive GA voter (4.00 / 2)
and I have to agree.  I gave money to Martin in the general, but if he was going to win, that was his best chance. In addition to what you said there were a few other things Martin had trouble with in the runoff.
Everything was going against Saxby before the general... gas shortages, the $700B bailout... I had convinced several Republican friends and family members to vote for Martin in the general based on that bailout vote. The farther away we got from those things, the more those people were willing to go back to being Republicans and voting for "checks and balances".
That and Martin really didn't have the gravitas of someone like Saxby. There was a Saxby commercial here that showed Martin dancing around with a Women for Obama sign that really made him look bad. Meanwhile I heard a radio announcer calling Saxby "Sexy Chambliss". For those voters that want their leaders to be made for TV there was a pretty sharp contrast that never really came out during the general when everyone was focuses on Obama and McCain.
In 2010 Dems will have to figure out how to run against the Checks and Balances argument, but otherwise I don't think there were any big surprises for Dems in this runoff. That it was so close in the general election was more the oddity.
[ Parent ]
Saxby Chambliss as a sex symbol? (0.00 / 0)
Something is clearly very wrong with Georgia...

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
I voted for Martin and gave money and I was hoping for the upset of upsets but I just didn't see any enthusiasm for Martin. When the radio stations where who were all-in on Obama fell back into the "whoever you vote for" mode, I pretty much knew that the turnout was going to be low. What was interesting when I went to vote in my town(Fairburn) alot of folks were asking me where to vote because they didn't see any signs up.
[ Parent ]
I found it interesting (4.00 / 5)
To me it seems like Republicans have a much more reliable base turnout.  Obama won because he got the unreliables.

So when Obama wasn't gonna come I knew it was over.

I think that it was probably a smart idea.  Currently there is a narrative that Obama has such star power that he can change things by just showing up.  If he had shown up and the African American vote still hadn't shown up that myth would have been busted and people would realize that he is actually just skilled at building an organization over several months.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

It's rather worrisome... (0.00 / 0)
...I hope this isn't a bad omen for 2010...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Not really in my opinion (0.00 / 0)
The idea that Georgia would ever have had a real race for their senate seat would have sounded pretty absurd a couple of years ago.

Right now people were worried about what democrats would do with all that power.  The next thing that has to be done is the creation of a big program like healthcare done well.  That is the only way you are going to see states like georgia electing progressives.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

[ Parent ]
This was a Democratically held seat just 6 years ago. (4.00 / 2)
Nothing absurd about it.

We lost this by not playing for it when it counted (Jun/July/Aug/Sept).  Compete for every seat, every time.  This was an incumbent ripe for defeat with a high quality candidate running against him.  No one cared.  All the energy and $$ was focused on Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen, who didn't need nearly the level of help they got from outside the state in $$ and media (especially online) attention.

People frequently argue about putting resources where they matter most and use that as a reason not to compete for "red states."  This is backwards, if you put the resources in red states, it forces the opposition to defend those states, it awakens dormant supporters long ignored/marginalized and returns them to the fold of supporting Dems nationally as well as at home.  Here is simple math for you, most of the traditional red states have small/inexpensive media markets and col's, battlegrounds/blue states have higher media costs/cols - a $125k ad buy in Memphis or Salt Lake City is equal to a $1M buy in Philly or Miami.  The big city buy may be seen by more people, but the small market buy will likely be seen by more persuadable voters.

The outcome of this race, nor the "georgia is georgia" theories are valid as statements of understanding this election.  Run good campaigns, beginning to end and you will see results.  Try and buy the win with media buys in the last 3 weeks and you find out what every political science student learns in college...most voters decided who they were supporting more than 3 weeks out.  The only change to be made in that last 3 weeks is whether or not they actually cast a vote.

[ Parent ]
6 years ago was a very different time (4.00 / 1)
2002 and 2004 was the end of statewide Southern Dems. People like Max Cleland were much more conservative and had different sorts of networks than Jim Martin.

That's gone now. You can't win Georgia as a Democratic good ole boy and in 2006 the state looked to be trending away from us whilst almost the entire rest of the country came towards us.

That was probably slightly illusory as Metro Atlanta is growing and the suburbs won't be as blood-red as they used to be forever, but Georgia being close this year was massively unexpected.

November was a perfect storm, and even then we couldn't close the deal. With a bit less enthusiasm, we fell back into standard territory, where a Dem, especially a progressive Dem by national standards, cannot win statewide.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Georgia remains Republican (0.00 / 0)
Surprised?

Not me.

And he had Palin, who is very good at turning out the base.

Is There a Meaning in Georgia? | 72 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox