I don't totally like living in Georgia (want to go back to my hometown of NYC soon) but...it is tolerable due to rejecting trump from by voters choosing the Secretary of State and Governor who did stand up to him.

I gives credit where it is due.

His picks didnt just lose, they got demolished. Add to Biden and the two Senators winning. My brain is like "hmmmmmm....okay, maybe this is real?"

Herschel Walker and Marjorie Taylor Greene ?

Governor Kemp and Secretary of State Raffensperger.

So....

Georgia LIKING trump would have been doing what trump wanted to those 2.

if all trump's ads yelling and blaming them for "taking away Georgian's 'freedom'" were not representative of trump's prioritizing them in his "thing"

there's still a lot of trump love in this state. you can see yards signs and flags even in Atlanta for trump.

Kemp and Raffensperger were incumbents that most repubs were going to vote for anyway.

Its halfway thru the season and Trump still crying about losing the first game of the season..

I think if Trump runs in 24 and is on some “2020 wuz stolen” he will lose.. people aint trying to hear that old shit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/trump-voters-big-lie-stolen-election/629572/

He laid the ground work in 16

"Trump began spreading the notion that America’s elections were “rigged” in 2016—when he thought he would lose. Many Republicans firmly believed that the Democrats would steal an election if given the chance. When the 2020 election came and Trump did lose, his voters were ready to doubt the outcome."

but in 2022 its not going to be enough to vote out an incumbent who checks off all the other boxes that the GOP loves and just stays silent on the steal

including marjorie taylor greene.

which is what people typically do (eg - theres an avg of 2 house incumbents being unseated per party per primary cycle...out of 430+ contests).

the media still playing into their own 'republican party is moving past trump' narrative that theyve been tryna sell the public on for 6 years now.

in the senate race...with no incumbent...trumps pick easily cruised to victory.

Trump was dedicated to destroying these two guy's careers. And he thought he could do so at the snap of his fingers.

The margin of victory given the circumstances is a real story

Trump won 60/40 and that was with historic highs for Dems in Omaha and Lincoln. Ricketts was adamantly opposed to Trump's pick, Herbster, and Herbster had pretty serious sexual misconduct allegations brought against him by multiple state senators and aides in the weeks leading up to the vote, but this is very much Trump country in that it's still very easy to see t-shirts, yard signs and more in the most blue portions of Omaha let alone the state as a whole but even a Trump appearance for Herbster just before the vote and Pillen was still able to pull out a 4 point victory that was never in serious doubt.


It sucked because Pillen promises to just be a Ricketts re-run which is still a really bad look for the state, but there was a collective sigh of relief in our little blue dot that Trump didn't get his pick here.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

by and large.

its something the media never really includes when placing elections in their proper context. because they wanna focus on the more entertaining angles and individual dynamics of elections to rope the audience into horse race fascination.

the ultimate result of 2016 was consistent with incumbent parties rarely getting a 3rd term. the ultimate result of 2018 was consistent with the incumbent party president taking a shellacking in the midterms. the ultimate result of 2020 was consistent with a president who had the type of net approval/disapproval as the incumbent.

the current presidents party will most likely face a brutal midterm. not because of crt, or abortion, or whatever. but because incumbent presidents party takes a beating in the midterms historically. reagan and nixon were nationally popular presidents and their party still got that ass rocked in the midterms. its just what voters do historically.

even tho the trump/repub intra-party battle makes for great storylines...voters acted the way they overwhelmingly act historically. which is why previous presidents dont tend to endorse against incumbents in primaries. because its almost always a losing proposition (along with disrupting party governing coalitions).

incumbents ran in party primaries in georgia and incumbents won. nothing about georgia was special or significant. the individual 'pecularities' of the races dont supersede decades of human behavior.
things played out the way they usually do historically.

trump is a previous president who endorsed against incumbents.

Yay, voters are historical zombies who repeat historical patterns.

Let trump gyrate and contort over his attempt to fight history and do more things previous presidents don't tend to do for further contortions and fulminations.


yeah...historically previous presidents contort and gyrate over miscalculations and then adjust to getting in-sync with typical historical voter behavior


yay.

that's surprising...

edit: 2/party/cycle is probably wrong. Maybe an average of 20-30?

2018, for example: https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_battlegrounds,_2018#Battlegrounds

youre referencing party flips in *general* elections.

the elections taking place right now are *intra-party* primaries. where incumbency and name recognition are even stronger advantages than in generals (party voters tend not to vote against the people they voted for last time).

which is why its shocking/huge news when an incumbent loses in a primary. like when eric cantor lost to dave brat in 2014. or when joe crowley lost to aoc in 2018.

here is a tweet from 2018 listing the amount of house incumbents who lost their primary races each election cycle for the past decade.
https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1037152313406889984

the avg is about 4.3 combined total between the parties. if you know the specific races where incumbents got beat (like the ones i listed above)...its roughly a 50/50 breakdown per party. so 2.15 incumbents unseated per party per primary cycle.

hope that helps.

I'm guessing a lot of incumbents who are *about* to be defeated, or otherwise fall out of favor just retire.

But if you make it back on the ballot with party support, you're tough to beat.

Wondering how the percentage of retiring incumbents has changed over the last few cycles.

are redistricting (newly drawn district now less favorable for the general, incumbent forced to run against incumbent in primary, etc) and rough environment for upcoming midterms (likely to lose seat against other party).

excluding scandals and just outright betrayal of your party (relatively rare in both cases)...the advantage of incumbency is just firmly entrenched in voters when choosing party nominees.

the reasons you cited make sense. just curious.

still low, though that's 4 flips out of 33 races.

and are more loyal to the guy who already defeated her.

Kemp and em. “We still want/need Trump fans to like us” so they are saying everything but “stop the steal” to draw as many in as possible.

But Perdue probably never should've run bc Kemp already had all the professional political support sewn up .... even some people that likey would've supported Perdue if he'd declared earlier.

Plus, what do you really get with a Trump endorsement? A couple dollars (he's notoriously stingy) and a couple shout outs from Trump and his cronies?

It's not like he's actually providing a political machine to help people get elected. He operates his politics just like the rest of his business now... he's just a brand. It's all marketing. He's a strong brand but good politicians can out maneuver him.