Primary night results mostly follow expectations

posted at 8:48 am on August 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Despite a couple of nailbiters overnight, the narrative ran pretty close to expectations in the four primary states contested yesterday.  The big news today will be the results in Georgia, where it appears that Nathan Deal may have edged out Karen Handel for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.  The race became a proxy fight for Republican presidential contenders, with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney backing Handel, and Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich backing Deal:

The Georgia Republican runoff for governor remained undecided Tuesday night, with former Rep. Nathan Deal holding a lead of less than 1 percent over former Secretary of State Karen Handel.

With 99.9 percent of precincts reporting, Deal was ahead by a narrow margin of 50.2 percent to 49.8 percent – just under 2,500 votes.

Under state law, a candidate can request a recount when a race is decided by less than 1 percent, and Handel’s campaign gave no indication on Tuesday she would step aside.

“It’s just too close to call. We’re waiting and watching, and we’ll see what it looks like tomorrow,” Handel spokesman Dan McLagan told POLITICO.

A recount could string this out for a couple of more weeks, but it’s not likely to change the outcome with that amount of votes in play.  It would have to get within a few hundred votes to seriously put the Deal victory in jeopardy.  The recount likely won’t change the chances of Republicans in the general election, either, but it will certainly eat up resources that could better be used for running against the Democrats.  If the margin remains 2500 votes, I’d expect Handel to concede.

Of course, we Minnesotans know far too much about recounts to cheer anyone into demanding one unless absolutely necessary.  Mark Dayton won’t face one, although he almost managed to lose last night’s DFL primary, beating the endorsed candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher by just 5200 votes after spending millions directly and indirectly on the race:

Minnesota DFL voters on Tuesday narrowly decided that gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton has the right combination of money, message and political miles to lead them to victory.

After an achingly close night touched off fears of a recount, Dayton pulled ahead of Margaret Anderson Kelliher in the primary and now moves on in the race to be Minnesota’s next governor. After midnight, with 98 percent of the vote counted, the former U.S. senator led Kelliher by about 5,000 votes — enough that no recount would be needed.

But even as Dayton’s margin grew, the House speaker did not concede.

“We’re not making any decisions,” Kelliher told supporters in the early morning hours. “Hang in there.”

The close race was unexpected.  It pokes a big hole in the Star Tribune poll of just ten days ago, which had Dayton up by 10 points against Kelliher, and which ridiculously put Dayton into a double-digit lead against Tom Emmer.  Dayton spent most of the night behind the state House Speaker despite the money dump over the summer.  He has eked out a win — there is no way Kelliher will demand a recount, not in this state — but it leaves both his credibility and that of the Strib poll in tatters.

Meanwhile, Connecticut showed the power and the limits of self-funding.  As expected, Linda McMahon easily beat Rob Simmons and Peter Schiff for the nomination in the US Senate race, but didn’t get to 50%.  Shira Toeplitz thinks this is a big deal at Politico:

Wrestling maven Linda McMahon easily captured the GOP Senate nomination in Connecticut Tuesday, but if she thought free spending in a deep-blue state was the sole path to November success, her results showed that money isn’t everything.

McMahon spent $22 million for a come-from-behind convention victory, but still fell just short of topping the 50 percent mark in Tuesday’s three-way Republican primary.

Maybe Toeplitz meant to write that about Dayton instead.  McMahon didn’t break a sweat, but the real story about the limits of self-funding comes from the deep blue portion of deep-blue Connecticut:

Self-funding businessman Ned Lamont has lost another bid for public office in Connecticut.

Lamont fell short is his bid for the Democratic nomination for governor Tuesday. Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy bested Lamont easily–58 percent to 42 percent.

Lamont, who defeated then-Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Senate Democratic primary but lost to him in the general when Lieberman ran as an independent, opened his wallet big for this race, too.

He spent more than $9 million of his personal funds on the primary. Back in 2006, Lamont spent upwards of $17 million in his race against Lieberman.

Does this mean we won’t have Ned Lamont to kick around any more?

Meanwhile, in Colorado, the proxy war between the Clintons and Barack Obama is over … and Obama won.  However, that’s not all good news for Democrats:

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet fended off a fierce challenge from Andrew Romanoff on Tuesday, earning the chance to win his appointed seat in November and extending the power of President Barack Obama’s brand at least a few more weeks.

Bennet led handily in early returns — 54 percent to 46 percent — quickly overcoming a Romanoff lead in the former state House speaker’s home turf of Denver. Romanoff called Bennet to concede and congratulate him before 8 p.m., less than an hour after polls closed in the mostly mail election.

If Bennet wanted to back away from the White House embrace now that he’s facing Republican Ken Buck, it would be hard to now: Obama called Bennet with congratulations early in the victory party.

It’s good news for the White House, who got to see that they haven’t become box-office poison in the primaries.  Now, with Bennet carrying the White House endorsement in a state increasingly reverting to its Republican roots, we’ll get to see whether Obama is box-office poison in the general election.  Bennet will be an incumbent defending his seat in an anti-incumbent and anti-Democratic cycle, carrying the endorsement of an unpopular President.  He’ll face a Tea Party candidate in Ken Buck, who defied the GOP establishment and won massive grassroots support despite getting outspent by over $2 million.  What could go wrong for Democrats?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Didn’t take you that long to inject the man’s race into this didn’t it? And you wonder why blacks will never accept you tea billies hate the man simply because he’s a black man occupying the “people’s” house.

HotAirLib on May 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.

Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2