by publius
As expected, Chambliss held on in Georgia. I suppose there will be some grumbling that Obama could have done more for Martin, but I think Obama made the right call by staying out of it.
Let's face it -- it was pretty much hopeless from the moment in went to the runoff. There was simply no way that black turnout levels today would match election night. Plus, the fact that Martin was even close had more to do with the freakish timing of the financial meltdown in September. If the election had taken place three weeks earlier, Martin would probably have won. But with that fever subsiding (i.e., people are now more reconciled to intervention), Martin's cause was hopeless.
In addition, I think it would have been somewhat distasteful for Obama to spend his post-election honeymoon in a partisan political campaign -- particularly given the various emergencies the nation is facing. If Obama could have actually made a difference, then maybe it's worth burning the capital and alienating Republicans. But given that it was a hopeless cause, I think this was a no-brainer.
On to Minnesota, where it's lawyers, guns, and money time.
It seems peculiar that they keep finding new uncounted ballots in Minnesota.
Posted by: d'd'd'docile dave | December 02, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Reluctantly agree about Obama's staying out. But, oh! does losing Senate seats hurt. As we know, even a single Senator can screw up countless things in six years.
Posted by: jonnybutter | December 02, 2008 at 10:37 PM
No, no, you're getting the script wrong. Here, allow me to demonstrate: (clears throat, assumes theatrically loud voice) Darn it, Jim Martin had this one in the bag until Sarah Palin came down and campaigned for Chambliss. I tell you, that woman is electoral dynamite! We'd better hope the R's don't make her the face of their party!
Posted by: Warren Terra | December 02, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Repubs guaranteed always to win big in states where the average voter's waistline is numerically slightly larger than his/her IQ.
Posted by: barrisj | December 03, 2008 at 01:17 AM
There's also the fact of Buckley's 3.5% that had to go somewhere else in the runoff, and I think it's safe to assume that a large majority went to Chambliss. Martin was already running uphill, but spotting Chambliss another 3 points probably put it out of reach.
Also, victor fatigue. Democrats are feeling pretty magnanimous these days.
Posted by: sidereal | December 03, 2008 at 02:01 AM
I don't think the cost to Obama of showing up, perhaps by giving one gigantic stadium speech in mid-November, would've been that great. Even with Martin still losing.
Posted by: Neil Sinhababu | December 03, 2008 at 02:55 AM
Okay, now that "60 seats" is out of the question can we now cut Lieberman's throat (metaphorically)?
I agree that a president (or president-elect) should not campaign for a partisan candidate (as opposed to non-partisan positions or inner-party elections) and that Obama acted correctly (if only others would follow).
I hope that there are enough GOP "deviationists" (i.e. people sane and moderate) that the GOP leadership cannot torpedo and obstruct anything that moves.
Posted by: Hartmut | December 03, 2008 at 04:48 AM
That does not mean that I in any way have respect for Chambliss, who should be flogged daily for that Rovian anti-Cleland ad.
Posted by: Hartmut | December 03, 2008 at 06:13 AM
the fact that this seat was likely the firewall against a Dem filibuster-proof majority probably had a lot to do with it, too. the threat of the Dems going unchecked gave Republicans a hell of an incentive.
Posted by: cleek | December 03, 2008 at 09:01 AM
Keep in mind that the current balance demands that the Republicans have to walk in a lock-step, fully partisan, obstructionist fashion for EVERYTHING for two years. How many dozens of filibusters can they pull off before they are politically expired? They have power, all right- the power to make themselves look like complete unrepentant bastards.
Forget Lieberman - along this path, we're going to discover a few go-to Republicans to break deadlocks, for their own local political expediencies.
Posted by: jingokillah | December 03, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Did anyone honestly think Martin had a chance in this race after the November election? Because I want to meet those people and offer them the deal of a lifetime.
Posted by: Incertus | December 03, 2008 at 11:48 AM
If indeed the Rethugs are going to filibuster everything, then Harry Reid should make them actually do it. Make them stay up late and read from phone books, every damn time. Please.
Posted by: Lizzy L | December 03, 2008 at 03:38 PM
Martin was a rather uninspiring candidate running an uphill battle in a red state. McCain easily won Georgia--it's not like it's a state Obama won that he could've handed to Martin if he'd made the effort. Martin was likely to lose with Obama campaigning.
We need a much better candidate in six years, though, because Chambliss is an awful human being.
Posted by: Sarah J | December 03, 2008 at 04:46 PM
On to Minnesota, where it's lawyers, guns, and money time.
I don't know about guns, but I do want to know where Jes is on this, as she takes such a strong interest in stolen elections. :)
Posted by: bc | December 04, 2008 at 01:21 AM
Martin was a rather uninspiring candidate
Well, I'm pretty impressed with the fact that he managed to hold Saxby under 50 the first time around.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 04, 2008 at 02:48 PM
It seems peculiar that they keep finding new uncounted ballots in Minnesota.
Yeah, and there are still plenty of unanswered questions surrounding Obama's birth certificate. Sounds like someone's got something to hide, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: Johnny Pez | December 04, 2008 at 06:13 PM
Sounds like someone's got something to hide, if you know what I mean.
the results from the "found" ballots seem to be statistically impossible to me. Curious what some of our local statisticians think.
But if you want a look at the future . . .
Posted by: bc | December 04, 2008 at 06:28 PM
"the results from the 'found' ballots seem to be statistically impossible to me. Curious what some of our local statisticians think."
Clearly you haven't been reading Nate Silver.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 06, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Particularly for instance. And.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 06, 2008 at 09:30 PM