Today, Jim Martin goes head-to-head with sitting GOP Senator Saxby Chambliss, to reclaim the honor of Georgia’s congressional delegation from the man who ran one of the Senate’s nastiest campaigns – ever. As the good people at Daily Kos point out, even FOX NEWS is willing to criticize him on a gaffe that, in any other state, would be a campaign-ender:
For a Republican politician, after all, the greatest insult that Fox News can hand you is to not cover up for your little accidents.
But let’s be honest. I don’t expect Jim Martin to win tomorrow. If you’re a Georgian, though, for the love of God, his only hope is high turnout, so stop reading this post and hop in your goddamn car!
If Martin does eventually lose, though, we can expect the Republican spin to be immediate, withering, and traditionally dishonest. Here’s preview: “Obama’s first defeat.” “A referendum on the President-Elect.” “Proof of Palin’s campaign prowess.” “Voters Put the Brakes on the Democratic Juggernaut.” Please: don’t believe it.
For one, let’s remember what Georgia is. It’s a deep-South state that’s long been regarded as one of the bulwarks of Republican power. I grew up in Atlanta, and even in “the big city,” the state’s conservative bona fides were quite obvious: from rampant gay-bashing to thousands of reminders about “Fellowship of Christian Athletes” meetings, let’s just say, it ain’t Virginia. ((Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE Atlanta. Its political climate, though, leaves much to be desired.)) Keeping that in mind, quite apart from a “defeat” or a brake on growing Democratic power, the mere fact that there’s a runoff in this state is testament to what could – we hope – be a nascent Democratic realignment. If Martin loses, that loss won’t be able to hide the fact that Martin got closer than any Democrat since Max Cleland’s last re-election, in 1992.
Second, if Chambliss wins, the media will try to hand Sarah Palin the Civic Crown, and credit her with singlehandedly averting Republican disaster in Georgia (she’s already the focus of mainstream media coverage of the Georgia runoff). This, too, would be an error. Polls have shown Martin down in this election for a long time. Giving Palin the credit for a Chambliss victory would rather be like giving Pompey a Triumph for “defeating” Spartacus’ rebels, when all he did was “mop up” after Crassus’ important victories. No matter who wins tomorrow, Palin will still be a loser. SO – if Martin loses – CHILL.
The possibility that the media or Republican strategists, desperate for good news, could read too much into a Martin defeat is, I expect, what prompted Obama to stay out of this election in the first place. The last thing the new administration needs is a perception that somehow Obama loses if Martin loses, despite the uneven playing field and warped game of expectations.
Of course, let’s hope it doesn’t come to pushing back against agenda-driven “Why Martin Lost” narratives. Chambliss – I’ve got my eye on you.
From Ames: Keeping that in mind, quite apart from a “defeat” or a brake on growing Democratic power, the mere fact that there’s a runoff in this state is testament to what could – we hope – be a nascent Democratic realignment.
I don’t see any kind of ‘re-alignment’ happening in Georgia. Virginia? Yes. Northern VA pulled the state into the win column for Obama and that base is likely to grow.
Obama’s success in Georgia was predicated on one thing: he’s black. It’s not racist to say that. The truth is that whites in Georgia remain a solid voting block for the GOP. But Georgia also has a large black population, especially in Atlanta, and that puts the state in play.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 2, 2008, 10:04 amDefinitely not racist to say that; I agree. I think black turnout, and its effects in southern states, justifies the primary-era prediction that Obama was the “more electable” of the candidates. God willing, we can bank on that turnout for years to come; it’s nice to see political minorities taking back power :)
Posted by Ames | December 2, 2008, 12:07 pmWhat’s going to be eve more interesting is seeing what changes come with the eventual emergence of a latino majority.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 2, 2008, 1:14 pmThat will be interesting PC. Right now they are siding with Democrats primarily out of necessity with regard to economic and immigration issues. However, past elections have shown that socially they are more conservative. It will be very interesting to watch American politics change as the white supermajority dissolves. We may see a decrease in the influence of white evangelicals but an increase in conservative catholic political power, which may not be any better.
Posted by Jello | December 2, 2008, 3:18 pmAbout the Hispanic plurality, then majority:
The larger a group gets, the less of a voting bloc it can be.
Posted by Kris | December 2, 2008, 6:09 pmKris, I don’t know if blacks have proved that theory correct. What i would suggest is that the worst thing a group can do though is to become too dependable of a voting bloc.
Posted by Obama Faces Regional Challenges | December 2, 2008, 7:00 pmAaaaaaaaaaaand Chambliss wins. CURSE YOU GEORGIA.
Posted by Ames | December 2, 2008, 10:24 pm