A Runoff in Georgia?

One storyline that is beginning to get more and more publicity is the possibility that the election many not end on November 4. Rather, there is now the very realistic chance that there will be a runoff for the United States Senate seat in Georgia, a seat which could very well determine whether the Democrats get to that magical 60-seat threshold needed to turn off Republican filibusters.

As late as just over a month ago, this was a race that received basically zero attention outside of Georgia. First-term Senator Saxby Chambliss, awash with case and facing an unknown and second-tier challenger in Jim Martin was heavily favored to win a second term. As we all know by now, in the aftermath of the Wall Street crisis, the race tightened dramatically, with Chambliss now barely clinging to a lead, and several points below 50 percent.

This is important because Georgia state law requires that the winner of a U.S. Senate contest receive 50 percent of the vote in order to be elected. With the last 11 polls showing an average of Saxby Chambliss 46, Jim Martin 44, both major party nominees are several points from that necessary 50 percent.

Further complicating the matter is the presence on the ballot of David Herbert, a Libertarian Party candidate who is garnering anywhere from one to five percent in polling. Given the tightness of the race, that there are anti-incumbent voters out there -- many of whom lean right in red Georgia and thus may have reservations voting for a Democrat -- the failure of Chambliss and Martin to get to 50 percent on Tuesday has risen, dramatically increasing the once-remote chance that there will be a runoff.

Which party would be favored if there is a runoff? That's the $64,000 question, and it could have potentially enormous implications if Democrats win eight Senate seats on Tuesday night. In that case, the outcome of a runoff would determine whether or not Democrats obtain a 60-seat majority. Even if this matter is settled November 4, a runoff would still carry huge importance, with a Senate deep in the heart of the South at stake. It would be a big deal either way.

The answer to which side would be favored by a runoff is difficult to figure out, and it would be impacted by numerous factors yet to be fleshed out. First, obviously, is whether the runoff would determine if Senate Democrats would obtain a filibuster-proof majority. Second, is what turnout would be; specifically, could huge black and first-time voter turnout that existed on November 4, be duplicated with these voters being coaxed to come out and vote again one month later, this time for Jim Martin in a race many of them probably have not followed as closely as the presidential? Third is the issue of the resources that would be at play in this contest and whether both sides could raise enough for one last, big election of the year. Finally comes the biggest wild card: what role, if any, would likely new President Barack Obama take in a runoff?

Considering these and other factors, I would like to try to make sense of a Peach State runoff to figure out how it might turn out and who would be favored.

Louisiana 2002. The potential runoff situation we talk about today is hardly unprecedented; in fact, an eerily similar situation played out just six years ago in the fall of 2002. At that time, Democrats held a bare one-seat majority in the Senate courtesy of then-Senator Jim Jeffords' party switch in the summer of 2001. Holding a slim majority, Democrats were able to block several of President Bush's initiatives and judicial nominations, infuriating the White House (at the time, the GOP still held the House). Riding strong favorables at that time, Bush decided to go all-in and campaign heavily in the midterm elections in order to elect a GOP majority in the Senate. Riding a series of successes in close and open seats, Bush and the Republican Party won out.

However, at the time, there was an interesting subplot going on. First-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu was running for re-election in the Bayou State's infamous "jungle primary" where candidates of both parties ran on the same ballot. Under this system, if no candidate got 50 percent, a December run-off was required. This was important at the time because the Senate was just about 50-50, and it was unclear leading up to the election if the Louisiana race would determine the balance of the Senate should a runoff be the deciding race. Indeed, with the presence of multiple candidates on the ballot, a runoff was very likely.

In the end, the outcome in Louisiana was not nearly as monumental as anticipated, as the GOP, riding President Bush's coattails, won a majority. (Incidentally, Landrieu won her runoff 52-48 in a month-long campaign that received far less attention than it may have under different circumstances; had the race been the decider in which party held the Senate, it is very likely Landrieu would have fallen). So, the potential for a runoff deciding the balance in the U.S. Senate is not at all unprecedented.

Senate in the balance. The biggest factor that would be at play in a runoff, in my opinion, is whether Georgia would potentially be the 60th seat for Democrats should Jim Martin win. Frankly, if Democrats win eight seats November 4 and the Georgia contest heads to a runoff, it would be one of the worst things possible for Jim Martin, and would make it much harder for him to win in December.

We need to keep in mind that as impressive as it would be for Martin to take Chambliss to a runoff, this is still Georgia we are talking about, a very Republican state. If the runoff heads to a showdown with Democrats holding a 59-to-40 advantage in the Senate, state and national Republicans would make the contest a referendum on giving national Democrats total control of the federal government. I feel confident in saying that it would be their number one issue from the morning of November 5 until the runoff. In a state as conservative as Georgia, such an argument would undoubtedly resonate with many voters.

Remember that in 2002, Mary Landrieu was, counter-intuitively, very lucky that her party was pushed out of the Senate majority on election night. Had her runoff been able to give the Democrats a majority again, she would have had big problems. Had that happened, the then-popular President Bush would have made Louisiana his second home for the next month, campaigning heavily and raising big money for Landrieu's opponent. He and others would have made the case that the GOP needed a majority to pass its agenda, and given Bush's high ratings at the time, such efforts well could have worked in a Deep South state like Louisiana. Landrieu was saved in great part because she did not have to contend with the nationalizing of her runoff, because once the GOP got back its majority on election night, the party (and the national media, for that matter), paid far less attention to the runoff.

If we are at 59-40 in the Senate, that would not be the case in Georgia for a runoff. The race would be nationalized, and voters would be well aware of the stakes of giving Democrats greater control via a Martin win. It would be a very difficult thing for Jim Martin to deal with.

Resources. To me, this would be the smallest issue for both Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. In the aftermath of November 4, there is little question that the national parties and their staffs will be dog tired, and none of them will want to have to wage a month-long Senate battle. However, many of them will likely dust themselves off after a night of partying or crying, and jump into the runoff.

Of course, both the NRSC and DSCC will be very low on funds, but I am guessing that they will have a little left lying around on both sides. Besides, even if they don't, Chuck Schumer, John Ensign, and others would start hitting the pavement and they would likely be able to raise quick cash for one last race in the cycle. It goes without saying that if this is the potential 60th seat, both sides will be able to raise even more: Schumer using a positive pitch, and Ensign using gloom and doom. One wild card is the next President. Assuming Obama wins, he would probably be able to raise more than enough to fund the runoff with one fundraiser or a single e-mail over his titanic listserve.

Duplicating Nov 4 turnout. This is another big hurdle that would face Jim Martin in a runoff. Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that Georgia is not the 60th seat for Democrats. Martin then must find a way to get all of the black and first-time voters who went out for Obama to come out one more time a month later to vote for him. This will not be a given. If the race does not have huge implications for the balance of the Senate, the contest may not have the juice to attract the attention of many casual voters, most of whom, it can be assumed, are Democratic-leaning.

Jim Martin cannot win without high black turnout. Georgia might not be Mississippi in its polarized racial voting patterns, but it still a state where Democrats have a hard time getting widespread white support. As a result, garnering big support in the black communities is crucial. The largest question, then, is if and how Martin can get not just high black support, but also wide turnout.

Engaging Obama. Barack Obama could have a big say in this matter. In fact, it is not complete hyperbole to say that a President Obama could be one of the key deciding factors in a runoff contest. As the new President, Obama could take a big lead in helping raise money, support, awareness, and enthusiasm for Jim Martin. If Obama were to do some campaigning and a couple of appearances for Martin, he could help close that enthusiasm gap and spur to the polls many of the casual voters who came out for him on November 4. It would be a very big deal. Conversely, Saxby Chambliss really would be out there on his own. He would not have a President with him, and Lord knows that he would not want to be anywhere near President Bush. Plus, as a loser, John McCain would be worthless to Chambliss. It would be a big advantage Chambliss would not be able to match.

The largest issue here is Obama himself, and whether he and his handlers would want to get very involved in the race. Naturally, if Obama were to jump into the contest in some way and help get Martin elected, he would get another vote for his caucus in the Senate, no small matter. However, there are clear perils as well. If Obama were to get involved and Martin went on to lose, and it would be a little black mark on Obama, and it would hurt his credibility and electoral cache some even before he takes office. His advisers might want to avoid that scenario.

Furthermore, as President, Obama would have to place himself above politics. I know that coming off a presidential contest where he has been campaigning nonstop for over a year this suggestion seems silly, but a President is more a statesman and a leader than a politician, and this is a framework that he would have to consider. This would thus limit Obama's level of participation in the runoff. In other words, you would not see Obama down in Georgia 10 times (and also because he will be busy transitioning into the federal government, no tiny matter).

Still, I think that with a Senate seat in Georgia at stake, and a seat which means a great deal to many grassroots Democrats given how Chambliss got elected in 2002, Obama would be involved here, especially if this is the 60th seat, in which case his hard work is a given. This will be a huge factor in Jim Martin's favor.

Other factors. With no libertarian on the ballot, it is very likely that most voters who cast a ballot for David Herbert on November 4 would go to Chambliss in the runoff. How much thiswould matter depends entirely on how many votes Herbert gets. The fewer, the better for Martin in the runoff.

And if Obama and the Democrats end up scoring big national wins across the country on November 4, you might see a "changed out" factor come into play in December, with many of the voters who were upset about GOP rule and voted to send a message on November 4, deciding to vote for Chambliss to balance things out. This could come into play whether or not the runoff would potentially decide the 60th seat.

Outlook

I guess that the biggest thing right now is whether or not there is actually going to be a runoff -- if not, I just wasted a lot of time writing this!

Consider not just at the closeness of all of the Senate polls but also at how neither candidate is at 50 percent. Complicating this is the libertarian candidate, and how much support he gets will play a big part in this equation. Of course, the undecideds could break enough for one candidate to get him to 50 percent.

For his part, the incomparable Nate Silver this morning discusses his view that many of the pollsters in this race are showing a huge slice of still-undecided black voters, a group which should break heavily for the Democrat. This is an issue we have raised with regards to the Mississippi Senate race, and it is no less important in a contest this close. Therefore, Martin getting to 50 percent might be a bit less likely than the polling averages are today showing.

If a runoff does come to fruition, we know the key factors that will be at play. My view is that Chambliss would be favored, especially if the Senate is 59-40 on November 5, but also if it is not. In a regular race with fewer monumental implications and national coverage, Chambliss would still be running in Georgia. Still, Martin could have advantages with an enthusiastic base that is still happy over a good November 4. Not to mention that Barack Obama could play a big part in getting Martin over the top if he so decides.

We'll see if any of this happens. I am not sure a lot of people could handle another month of politics, but if we are at 59-to-40, we may get another 30+ days of delicious political subplots and bare-knuckle campaigning.