Two months ago, Republicans in Georgia won more votes for the Senate than Democratic candidates, even when Joe Biden defeated President Trump at the top of the ticket. On Tuesday, for runoff runs, Georgia’s constituency was very different; so was the result.
Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock prevailed in Georgia with the help of superior Democratic turnout, especially among black Georgians, which allowed them to overcome their disadvantage with voters who may have been decisive in Biden’s victory, but voted against the Republicans.
An authorized analysis of the results will not be possible until the state releases detailed data on exactly who voted and who stayed at home. But the data available so far shows that Democrats have benefited from a more favorable electorate, as a greater proportion of Democrats and especially black voters have returned to the polls than Republicans and white voters without a college degree. (The following map shows how the margins changed for Mr. Ossoff in his run against David Perdue; the map for Mr. Warnock against Kelly Loeffler, not shown, is essentially the same.)
Overall, participation reached a remarkable 92% of the levels of the 2020 general election in Biden’s districts in November, compared to 88% of the levels of general elections in the districts promoted by Trump. These counts include Upshot estimates of the remaining un counted votes by district, and suggest that almost all Democratic gains since the November election can be attributed to the relatively stronger Democratic turnout.
Most Democratic voters in Georgia are black – they represent about 30% of the general electorate – and it was these voters who drove the strongest Democratic turnout. Overall, participation reached 93% of 2020 levels in districts where black voters represented at least 80% of the electorate. By comparison, participation dropped to 87% of general election levels in white working-class districts.
In any election, it can be difficult to decide whether the result will be strong participation on the one hand as opposed to weak participation on the other. In this election, it is easier to argue that black and Democratic participation was strong than to say that Republican participation was weak. Republican turnout was extremely strong for a second round; if analysts had been told about the Republican Party’s participation in advance, the majority would have assumed that Republicans were on track to win.
The relatively strong participation of Democrats produced a marked change, in part because the November election featured relatively weak participation by blacks. In the November election, the black portion of Georgia’s electorate appeared to fall to its lowest level since 2006; The participation of blacks, although increasing, was to a lesser extent than the participation of non-blacks. Partly for that reason, Democrats had legitimate reasons to hope that they could enjoy a more favorable electorate in the second round than in general, although they have tended to do worse in Georgia’s second rounds in the past two decades.
It will take some time before the black portion of the electorate in the second round can be accurately counted, but results by district and early voting data suggest that it may rise two points more than in the general election, to an unseen level. in the state since Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection candidacy.
As a result, Democratic gains were concentrated in relatively black and Democratic areas, where top Democratic turnout outpaced Republican support.
Democrats have made their biggest gains in the predominantly black counties of the so-called Black Belt – a region named for its fertile soil, but now associated with voters whose ancestors were enslaved to cultivate it – as well as in the mostly black suburbs south of Atlanta.
Democrats have also made gains in the small number of Hispanic-majority areas in the state. Participation dropped much more in these districts than in other parts of the state. Democratic gains in these districts may have occurred because a decline in Hispanic participation increased black voter participation in relatively diverse but predominantly Hispanic districts, or because Latino voters who stayed at home would likely support Republicans in November.
At the same time, relatively limited Democratic gains in the Republican areas suggest that there has been virtually no change in voter preference since the November election, despite hundreds of millions of dollars in television ads.
Democrats had reason to hope that some ideas would change. Biden had run ahead of Democratic Senate candidates in November, and they sought to attract some of those voters to his side – especially after the president’s effort to raise doubts about the outcome of the November election. Instead, Republican candidates did even better in affluent districts – those with an average income above $ 80,000 a year – than in the general election and in districts where Republican candidates ran ahead of Trump in November.
It is difficult to say whether any Republican gains in these districts can be explained by underlying changes in participation or an intentional change to ensure divided government. If there is any silver lining for Republicans in the election, it is the possibility that these voters – who are decisive in many competitive electoral districts, even if not always in state elections – are inclined to serve as a brake on mid-term Democrats , as has often been the case in recent political history.
For now, it will not be much consolation.