Two months ago, Republicans in Georgia received more votes for the Senate than the Democratic candidates, even when Joe Biden defeated President Trump at the top of the list. The election in Georgia on Tuesday was very different for the playoffs; so was the outcome.
Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock triumphed in Georgia with the help of a better Democratic turnout, especially among Black Georgians, which enabled them to overcome their disadvantage against voters who would possibly be decisive in the victory of Mr. Biden, but who preferred the Republican ballot.
An authoritative analysis of the results will only be possible before the state releases detailed data on exactly who voted and who stayed at home. But the data available so far shows that Democrats benefited from a more favorable voter, as a larger portion of Democrats and especially black voters returned to the ballot box than Republicans and white voters without college degrees. (The accompanying card shows how the margins shifted for Mr Ossoff in his race against David Perdue; the card for Mr Warnock against Kelly Loeffler, not shown, is essentially the same.)
Overall, the turnout reached a remarkable 92 percent of the general election levels in 2020 in the areas that Mr. Biden wore in November, compared to 88 percent of the general election levels in the areas that Mr. Trump wore. These scores include estimates of the survey of the remaining uncounted vote per district, suggesting that almost all Democratic gains since the November election can be attributed to the relatively stronger Democratic turnout.
A majority of Democratic voters in Georgia are black – they are about 30 percent of the general electorate – and it was the voters who drove the stronger Democratic turnout. Overall, the turnout reached 93 percent of the 2020 level in areas where black voters represented at least 80 percent of the electorate. By comparison, turnout dropped to 87 percent of the general electorate in the working-class white areas.
In any election, it can be difficult to decide whether to set the result as a strong turnout for one side, as opposed to a weak one on the other. In this election, it is easier to argue that the Black and Democratic turnout was strong rather than to say that the Republican turnout was weak. Republican turnout was extraordinarily strong for a run-off election; if the analysts had been told in advance of the rise of the GOP, most would have assumed that the Republicans were on track to win.
The relatively strong Democratic turnout caused such a clear shift in part because the November election had relatively poor black turnout. In the November election, the black share of voters in Georgia apparently dropped to the lowest level since 2006; The black rise, although increasing, did to a lesser extent than the non-black rise. Partly for this reason, the Democrats had a legitimate reason to hope they could enjoy more favorable voters in the run-off than in general, even though they have tended to fare well in Georgia’s run-off over the past two decades.
It will be a while before the Black share of the run-offs can be nailed down with precision, but the results according to data and early voting data suggest that it could rise two points higher than in the general election, to a level not in the state has not been seen. since the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012.
As a result, Democratic gains were concentrated in the relatively Black and Democratic areas where better democratic turnout overwhelmed Republican support.
Democrats achieved their greatest gains in the predominantly Black provinces of the so-called Black Belt – a region named after its fertile land but now linked to the electorate whose ancestors were enslaved – as well as the growing majority of blacks suburbs south of Atlanta.
Democrats also made profits in the small number of Spanish territories in the state. The turnout has fallen to a much greater extent in these areas than elsewhere in the state. The Democratic gain in these areas could be because a decline in Spanish turnout increased the black share of voters in relatively diverse but predominantly Spanish areas, or because the Latino voters who stayed at home in November were relatively likely to Republicans would support.
At the same time, the relatively limited Democratic gains in Republican areas indicate that there has been virtually no shift in voter turnout since the November election, despite hundreds of millions of dollars in television commercials.
Democrats had reason to hope they would change their minds. Mr. Biden nominated the candidates for the Democratic Senate in November and they wanted to lure some of these voters to their side – especially after the president’s attempt to raise doubts about the outcome of the November election. Instead, Republican candidates fared even better in affluent areas – those with an average income of more than $ 80,000 a year – than they did in the general election, and in the areas where Republican candidates fared the most in November. Mr. Trump ran.
It is difficult to know whether any Republican gains in these areas can be explained by underlying shifts in the rise or a deliberate shift to ensure divided government. If there is a silver lining for Republicans in the election, it is possible that these voters – who are decisive in many rival congressional districts, even if they are not always eligible in the country – may be inclined to cast a check against to serve the Democrats in the middle. , as has often been the case in recent political history.
For now, it will not be much comfort.