AOL Hot Seat Poll: What does the Chambliss landslide mean?
posted at 3:00 pm on December 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We’ve hit this ground before, but now we can see what you think! Cast your vote for the biggest reason Saxby Chambliss added 12 points to his margin over Jim Martin in just 28 days, and keep checking back for the results.
Michael Barone has his analysis — and as always, it’s a must read:
The bottom line: The Obama campaign did a magnificent job of turning out black voters in rural and small-town counties in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia for the November 4 election. But it was not able to replicate those results in the Georgia runoff. Black turnout pretty much matched white turnout in the inner Atlanta area, where black political organizations have been active for many years, but it failed to do so in the outer suburbs with increasing black majorities and in North Georgia counties with few blacks. Black turnout did match statewide levels in black-majority cities in southern Georgia, but not enough to outweigh similar white turnout in adjacent suburban counties. As the analysts at NBC News suggest, Obama coattails that were helpful to many newly elected Democrats in the South in November 2008 may not be so helpful to them in 2010 and any special elections that occur between now and then.
That suggests another hypothesis: that the Obama turnout effort among blacks may not be replicable. You can only vote to elect the first black president once.
In contrast, Republicans were able to produce good turnout in affluent suburban Atlanta counties, both those with few blacks and those with growing black populations. This is a countertrend to Obama’s good showings in affluent suburban counties in November—showings often far better than any previous Democrat has done since 1964. This occurred even despite Obama’s relatively moderate choices for top economic policy positions and his hints that he won’t seek tax increases on high earners anytime soon. To be sure, you won’t find any suburban counties outside the South that are as heavily Republican as some of the metro Atlanta counties. Forsyth and Cherokee counties voted more than 80 percent for Chambliss. I’m not aware of any suburban counties outside the South that vote 80 percent Republican, and even in 2004 George W. Bush did not win more than 80 percent of the vote in any congressional district in the nation. But the results here do suggest that other Democrats will have a hard time duplicating Obama’s percentages in affluent suburban counties. Note that this runoff took place when opinion is very favorable to Obama and when he has been getting credit for bipartisan or at least nonpartisan appointments (Robert Gates, Timothy Geithner).
In other words, in two years, Obama won’t be getting this kind of honeymoon feeling, and he can expect even tougher races if the Republicans can turn out the vote like this.
Mary Katharine Ham has a good roundup of reactions as well.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Where’s the poll?
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
other option not listed:
Sarah Palin said, “Vote for Saxby”….and so they did
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I voted other — meaning Sarah!
lodge on December 4, 2008 at 3:03 PM
also for why Obama voters didn’t turnout for this race:
http://howobamagotelected.com
Mindnumb idiot retards don’t know what the US Senate is, so why would they go out and vote in December for it?
jp on December 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Looks like ACORN is pretty much a single shot weapon with a long re-load time.
Fletch54 on December 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM
It means the GOP can win, it just takes energy. It also means that Democrats are all ready getting a little soft.
rob verdi on December 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Buyer’s remorse regarding Obama?
dc84123 on December 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
“First Black President of the United States of America” is pretty much a one time thing by definition.
Count to 10 on December 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM
lulz
pseudonominus on December 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Wasn’t he ahead in EVERY SINGLE poll in the state during the election??? It means nothing. It means he was going to win either way.
muyoso on December 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Voters wanted the filibuster, but I remember the Democratic primaries in Florida. Hillary Clinton won, but neither she or Obama campaigned there. She won by a landslide, but it was a beauty pageant. The base turned out faithfully to vote on the municipal issues like property taxes and to vote downticket. None of those were Obama supporters. He won with new voters and an apathetic Republican base (not including the so-cons.)
chunderroad on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Not true, i believe we were all told how Clinton was the first black president.
MDWNJ on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Thank you, Sarah!
infidel on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Barone is correct but Martin is an idiot. That helped Chambliss.
grdred944 on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
First, it’s Georgia. Second, no straight Democrat option.
SouthernDem on December 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM
According to too many dumba$$ pundits, it means the Obama win is null and void, and that this one single win means the entire nation leans right.
Dave Rywall on December 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM
I think it means diddley, pretty much. All the hypnotized obamatrons stayed home so the remaining grownups in Georgia could vote unobstructed.
Sadly, the remaining US grownups are dying off now, and will soon no longer have any effect on elections. The demise of the USA will proceed at a quickened pace. Cling, people. Cling.
Fishoutofwater on December 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM
If the question was why did Saxby win: because Georgia is a red state and didn’t want a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But if they question was why did Saxby win by 15 points rather than 5 points (RCP 5.3 Nov. 30) it’s called Palin power. I have no doubt about that.
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Is Martin black?
Was their a black candidate on a ticket?
No and No?
Enough said.
Rocks on December 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/georgia/election_2008_georgia_senate
Chambliss was always ahead, why does him winning mean something special? Was it Palin that pushed him ahead, no. Was it people voting against a supermajority, no. Was it people rebelling against Obama, no. It was people voting the same way they voted before, just less democrats voting.
muyoso on December 4, 2008 at 3:16 PM
“About two-thirds of the new voters were under 30, twenty percent were black and another twenty percent were Hispanic. They went overwhelming for Obama. However, the percentage of new voters only went up a point or two from 2004.”
chunderroad on December 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Seeing Jim Martin, the nervous looking white dude on stage with a bunch of gangsta rappers didn’t help his cause either.
Just A Grunt on December 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Um, hey, fellow conservatives?
The Chambliss landslide was due to many factors. Can we really afford to isolate or discount ANY of them?
Let’s use them all, recognize them all, DUPLICATE them all.
gippergal1984 on December 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM
And as for the whole first black president thing, and only being able to vote for the first black president once.Well it all depends on peoples definition of black too. I believe we were told at one time that Both Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, were not black enough. So hypothetically speaking, If Obama governed conservatively , the more militant people in his party, and electorate could claim he wasn’t black enough, or a sell out. And then get ready for J.Jackson Jr. The real first Black President.
MDWNJ on December 4, 2008 at 3:24 PM
You mean less black people voting. This was special because it shows that Obama vaulted turnout effort amounted to nothing but blacks coming out in droves to vote for a black person.
They were voting for his skin, not for him. If they really cared for or believed in him they would support a candidate with the same enthusiasm if Obama said to. They didn’t and especially not a white man.
Who are the real racists in America today? Blacks. There is a far higher percentage of blacks who will not vote for anyone but a black person than there is of any other ethnic group only supporting their own.
Rocks on December 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Saxby was the LEAST socialist!
grapeknutz on December 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Hey, I’ve got an idea! Lets use a Georgia runoff election as a microcosm for the entire United States! Republicans will be awesome in 2010! Just wait and see!!!
Nonfactor on December 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Took a rare cruise through the adolescent postings at Kos today and ran across one that said the Dems had said Chambliss was going to win originally anyway—long before the run off. Talk about sour grapes–no where do they mention why there was a NEED for a run off. After reading that, I am more convinced more than ever that much of the make up of the Hill today is made from the wake behind the Obama ship.(It’s my day for ship metaphors LOL)Still leaves me wondering just why that wake was so big though. What IS it about that man–whatever it is, I fail to see it.
jeanie on December 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Oh God. I agree with you Dave. Lemme take a breath. Ok.
First of all, congratulations on being right about which guy won. I know we don’t agree on why he won– you think his positions/abilities are good, I don’t. I think he estimated the voters’ abilities brilliantly. Either way,he won. And Chambliss doesn’t mean squat to me. Obama’s not even inaugurated yet.
JiangxiDad on December 4, 2008 at 3:37 PM
LOL! Me too.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 3:38 PM
If Obama not being on the ticket is helpful to Republicans, that bodes well for 2010.
backwoods conservative on December 4, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Following up from Barone’s analysis, with Sarah’s greater sway among the voters in 2010 in the Congressional races, I firmly believe that many national races will be competitive especially those races where the Democrats are not running African-American candidates.
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 3:42 PM
What does the Chambliss “landslide” mean? Absolutely nothing. So the GOP avoided the “veto proof majority”. THE DEMS DON’T NEED IT!! Now the pukes at the GOP will go back to thinking that they’re right because they won ONE election, and they’ll lose more seats next time because they won’t change anything.
RWLA on December 4, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Even though O will not be on the 2010 ticket, the Dems still have that effective “get out the vote” machine and if the GOP wants to erase many Dem gains, they NEED ONE TOO. The GOP msut work and donate if they want to make in-roads. Complacency is dangerous.
jeanie on December 4, 2008 at 3:48 PM
I live in GA in a strong republican county. But I do business in a blue county (yes we have a few). After assessing both liberals and conservatives, Saxby won because :
1) Blacks did not come out in numbers because they couldn’t be bothered for a special election and Martin (although liberal, isn’t black)
2) conservatives here are PETRIFIED by Obama and do not believe he will govern from the middle no matter whom he appoints!
3) conservatives took time out to vote eventhough Saxby is not conservative and does not listen to his constituency. We are pissed off more that Obama and the libs are taking over than we are about Saxby (hard to believe)
4) Sarah turned out some numbers.. but she did not cover a large portion of this very large state…so, as much as I like her, she really had no effect except giving Saxby the attention he would otherwise NOT deserve.
This is not rocket science.. The very reason I moved here from LA is because it is a solid conservative state, and let’s not forget that as impressive as the get out the vote for Obama was a month ago, McCain won by a wider margin than even expected.
Bottom line… do not underestimate the power of GOD and GUNS.
beththebaker on December 4, 2008 at 3:50 PM
There were several other factors that assisted Saxby. Everybody wants to concentrate on the metro Atlanta area but the truth is there was good turnout in rural Georgia. Rural areas which benefitted from a mega millions farm bill that was passed this summer.
True not having Obama on the ticket left many Dems at home but also Obambi had already made some cabinet picks and it was already apparent he was not going to do for the liberals what they hoped he would, so it was them that got apathetic and stayed home.
Palin proved she could turn out a crowd but I have to wonder how many of those that went to see her then turned around and voted for Saxby, since ideologically they are far apart.
Saxby simply won beccause there was no body else to vote for. We get stuck with a ‘reach across the aisle, bipartisan” Senator for another 6 years.
Just A Grunt on December 4, 2008 at 3:52 PM
This. I live in a northern Atlanta suburb and the number of black people voting in the November election at my polling place was substantial. I saw none during the special election.
Queasy on December 4, 2008 at 3:54 PM
I am south of Atlanta… here they feel they have already “won” and quite frankly I don’t believe they knew,cared or understand the fillibuster…
As for the idea that they are apathetic due to Obama’s “moderate” appointments… poppycock! Harsh as it is, I bet the majority of those that voted for the one don’t have any idea who his appointments are!
beththebaker on December 4, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Of course anti-Palin haters or those with PDS will try to argue that Martin’s black vote was down and that accounts for Saxby’s ‘landslide’ win, but fail to note that pollsters took that into account and still predicted (RCP-5.3 points-Nov. 30 and Insider Advantage 4 points-Dec. 1) only a narrow Chambliss victory which would have been less than the same totals on election night if the Libertarian vote had been added to Saxby’s vote. So Saxby on the surface appeared to be slipping in support. The only intervening events in between Nov. 30 and vote day Dec. 2 were the appearance and barnstroming of Sarah Palin throughout Georgia for Chambliss and Ludicrus, the rapper, for Martin. On Dec.2 as we know the vote was taken and Saxby won by 15 points. To deny Sarah her due in increasing the margin of victory is as ludicrous as Martin thinking Ludicrus was going to turn out more votes for him.
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM
OT 6 gunmen shot New Delhi airport
faraway on December 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM
It means didley & squat. He should have won and he did.
The Republican Party should be afraid, very afraid, if this is a big deal.
Bruno Strozek on December 4, 2008 at 4:15 PM
It’s not the fact that he won. He won the first time as well. It’s the fact that he won by so much more than anyone expected. This is the true story and that means something.
Dritanian on December 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Bruno Strozek: I agree that Saxby should have won and he did, but the question was what contributed most to the landslide when it was expected he would win by about 5-6 points. the answer is not entirely Sarah Palin, but she had a lot do with it. Even Saxby admitted that much, that Sarah has coattails. Remember Confucius said: “A journey of thousand miles begins with the first step.”
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Why would a state that voted for the uninspiring McCain not pick a Republican incumbent for Senate?
I am positive that Sarah Palin helped run up the points spread and sure hope that Ludicrus hurt Martin but the odds had to favor Chambliss.
Laurence on December 4, 2008 at 4:27 PM
McCain was not on the ticket this time. Period.
doufree on December 4, 2008 at 4:28 PM
I voted “wanted a filibuster” but in reality it the margin was due to Sarah Palin. How else can you explain a 10 point jump in the margin from the pre-Sarah polls?
Btw, most all the national polls/senate polls had the margin correct for the general election. If voters had itended to vote for Chambliss due to the filibuster or some other reason, it would of course had been reflected in the pre-election polls.
It was all about Palin Power.
Norwegian on December 4, 2008 at 4:34 PM
doufree: and a true conservative Sarah Palin declared to Georgians that Chambliss would start voting like a conservative and that his victory would be the first step in rebuilding the party (and therefore underlying his victory launching her own 2012 Presidential bid-two for the price of one.)
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 4:35 PM
That was yesterday……………………
………… tomorrow when Mr. Obama can sign the legislation passed in the dark of night that perminately funds ACORN and La Raza to the tune of Billions per year, we won’t see another Republican elected for at least two generations…………………..
Just like the Community Reinvestment Act, as everyone was going about their daily lives for the past twenty years, did anyone really realize that Democratic Government policies and regulations were working in the background, forcing banks to loan money to people that could not pay it back, even to illegal aliens, putting the ever increasing burden on the American Tax Payer until it exploded?
I didn’t……….. even though auditors tried to warn everyone what was coming, the Democrats blocked that, and where was the Press? Where was Hollywood? Where were the Educational Elite? Where were the late night jokes? Where were the politically charged speeches during award ceremonies? Where was the cool punk band turned mainstream singing the song with the video?
All of these people that you see, hear, and read about today, hand wringing over the current crisis……… the pias Dodd and Frank, Pelosi and Reid, throwing our children’s finances at a problem they created, changing the very fabric of our society right in front of our eyes………… and the silence is deafening!
All of these “experts” who second guessed every move President Bush did in the War on Terror to try to keep us safe, leaking one piece of intelligence after another, giving one defeatist sound byte after another, only giving aide and comfort to our enemies………. ALL for just political gain.
Where are they now?
As Trillions are being spent………… with no Audit……….. no Accountability……….. no Oversight.
Where are they now?
This should be the message screamed at the American people for the next two to four years until they finally get it!
Seven Percent Solution on December 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Sure you can. In 2012.
Beo on December 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Believe me folks the powers to be in the GOP, especially the Conservatives, have noticed the difference between the expected and real result. This rarely happens in any political race; in this modern world the pollsters usually come pretty close. The Dems will now come at Sarah will both barrels of their gun.
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 4:39 PM
We didn’t need this election for that. A comparison between Obama now and the Obama of October ‘07 will confirm it, as will a look at Obama’s prospective Cabinet.
ddrintn on December 4, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Better question:
What downticket races would the Democrats have
last month had Obama not been on the ticket?
Liddy Dole lost badly, and VA wasn’t close either. Alaska went blue because of Stevens.
What will hurt the Democrats in 2010 (if anything) is not the no-Obama factor, but the no-Bush factor.
YYZ on December 4, 2008 at 4:42 PM
I expect black turnout to fall in 2012.
When all the hype is over, when the realization comes that a black president does not translate into better lives for black people, when the newness of a black president wears off, expect a drop in voter turnout and an uptick in AA Apathy.
Just look at polls for Deval Patrick in Massachusetts. First black governor, but way down in polls even among African Americans who helped get him elected.
Norwegian on December 4, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Dick Morris wrote a good article about this today.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
reshas1 on December 4, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Dick Morris runs the Republican Party? Who knew?
YYZ on December 4, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Rather than apathy, what I’d like to see in the African-American community is the realization that the Democrats have been using them for quite a long while now.
ddrintn on December 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Obama got millions of Democrats out to vote who otherwise wouldn’t have. These people votes straight party line and a lot did not come back out to vote again.
On the other hand, I would think there were more Republicans who supported Chambliss and McCain was secondary and those voters came back out again.
cadams on December 4, 2008 at 4:52 PM
metro Atlanta is hard to tell on turnout since it’s the county (Fulton) contains the city of Atlanta and a very large northern suburb due to funny districting. They really need to separate the northern suburbs back into its own county (Milton) but then Atlanta would probably lose a good deal of its revenue. I imagine a large number of the Chambliss vote came from the north. Compare to the results of Dekalb county which is also a good chunk of Atlanta (and used to be Cynthia McKinney’s district, enough said).
lilliew on December 4, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Do you see what we mean??111eleventy!! If Chambliss would have alienated the religious wackos he would have won by 40!!11
Signed
Allah
/Sarc
broker1 on December 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM
It simply means that Chambliss won’t have to pack up his office and leave his cushy job with smelly tourists wandering around in the Summer. Harry Reid’s a douche bag and deserves flogging in the public square.
Jarhead68 on December 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Turnout was way down relative to the original three-candidate election, and most of the Libertarian votes shifted to Chambliss in the runoff. On an equal-turnout basis, Chambliss should have won by 6%, but Democrats were not as enthused by Martin as by Obama, while the GOP base still turned out en-masse to ensure the filibuster against Obama. Sarah Palin might have helped, but Chambliss got fewer votes in the runoff than in the original election, so it’s really hard to tell.
If Sarah Palin is still in the news by 2010, and doesn’t have too much competition for re-election in Alaska, maybe she could come down “south” and campaign for Republican challengers for competitive House and Senate seats. Some more national exposure would help her if she wants to run for President in 2012.
Steve Z on December 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Now THAT was the comment of the day….
Jarhead68 on December 4, 2008 at 5:37 PM
His change in the polls could just be because the media, in the area, started covering the two candidates instead of The Big O. Once people started getting educated on the two they chose more wisely.
SkyWatch on December 4, 2008 at 5:37 PM
It is really pretty simple. Just do the math. Chambliss was up by 5 pts over Martin prior to Sarah Palin campaigning for him. It really is not that difficult to figure out. I wonder why that was not one of the choices.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 4, 2008 at 6:46 PM
In the general the votes went as follows:
Chambliss 49.9
Martin 47
Buckley (Libertairan) 3
This week the votes went as follows:
Chambliss 57
Martin 42
All that happened was Chambliss won his orginal share of the vote, won the Libertarian votes and a couple of % points from Martin. That can be attributed to the fact fewer Obama voters even bothered to vote.
In other words, not much of anything happened that didn’t happen before. Saying Palin had anything to do with anything is ridiculous.
angryed on December 4, 2008 at 7:26 PM
57-43 is what I meant.
angryed on December 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM
bus system failed
marklmail on December 4, 2008 at 7:29 PM
If Chambliss had won by only a couple of percentage points, Sarah Palin would’ve been condemned. Why did fewer Obama voters bother to vote this time around?
ddrintn on December 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM
It means Obama is an empty suit and when Gov Sarah Palin speaks, people listen.
Geochelone on December 4, 2008 at 8:41 PM
We don’t believe you. To say that Sarah had no effect is absurd and childish. Everyone knows she made a HUGE difference.
Geochelone on December 4, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Fillibuster? Isn’t that something like a Dust Buster?
Pelayo on December 4, 2008 at 8:56 PM
OK, so, if the final result is 57 to 42, so what? What if some RINOs in the Senate decide to vote to end debate on certain bills? There is no guarantee that all 42 Republicans will vote the way we expect them. I’m thinking of Specter and McCain.
Pelayo on December 4, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Sarah yields the power!
Scott on December 4, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Come on Ed! Where was the choice of “He Was The Conservative Candidate”?
IMHO, Rush is right again.
DannoJyd on December 4, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Rush is right 98.6% of the time. This is no surprise.
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Your point about Palin power also has merrit as it again points out that conservativism is continuing to show its power in American politics.
IMHO, McCain doomed the RNC when he dissed conservatives and they coddled up to him after the fact.
DannoJyd on December 4, 2008 at 11:05 PM
To remind you all about who Chambliss is:
– voted for TARP
– originally supported McCain’s amnesty before changing his mind after being inundated with phone calls
- was a member of Gang of 14
- started the bailout ball rolling with his proposal with the original $300B mortgage bailout last summer
This man is the definition of RINO.
angryed on December 5, 2008 at 7:49 AM
Chambliss on the issues.
Calling him a RINO is a huge stretch.
DannoJyd on December 6, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Comment pages: