What will the outcome be of the mid terms?

[Lathum]

Brian is 100% spot on in his takes.

[Ksyrup]

I primarily depend on the words and actions of the party and its members as to what they are going to do and care most about. Yes, inflation is likely going to get the GOP elected along with a bunch of culture war BS, but it's not because they have a plan to solve it, it's because people who vote with their bank accounts and 401Ks are going to hold the party in charge responsible. As they almost always do.

Impeaching Biden, Fauci, Garland, etc., has a tangible benefit for the GOP going forward. They need to keep the hardcore base energized and extreme partisanship is the way to do it. It's no different than, as the minority, never attempting to offer or pass serious legislation but offering up performative BS bills and making non-sequitur speeches during serious debates so that Fox News and their own Twitter accounts have soundbites to play while ignoring other issues.

If you want to call any news source partisan for highlighting what the party or certain people are actually saying and doing, I guess that's cool. It's not exactly a secret that journalism, by its very nature, is progressive-leaning. In fact, that's kinda the point of a free press. So I'm not very persuaded by people who think this is some new idea that I've never given thought to before. I try my best to go in with open eyes and recognize spin when I see it. Hell, I still consider myself a moderate conservative, so some of it rings true to me, even to this day. But I can't ignore what the GOP is telling me they are about. That's partisan by definition, but that's not because of the reporting. It's from them!

What do you consider a non-partisan news source? I'm honestly curious, because I'm always looking for new sources of semi-balanced news.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If you want to call any news source partisan for highlighting what the party or certain people are actually saying and doing, I guess that's cool. It's not exactly a secret that journalism, by its very nature, is progressive-leaning.

What do you consider a non-partisan news source? I'm honestly curious, because I'm always looking for new sources of semi-balanced news.

I have a master's degree in journalism, and when I started out in the field, I didn't give this much thought. It's a progressive-leaning world, and you're trying to fit in.

When I had the role of editor, I was more aware that the bigger role the press plays is in deciding what to cover and what not to cover.

You're right, that the nature of the press makes partisanship easy. That doesn't mean the press doesn't have a responsibility to fight partisanship whenever possible. These days, the mainstream press does not even acknowledge that fight. "Fair and balanced" is a rather poor joke.

I'm struggling in finding sources. I look at some pieces on Substack. I really like Bari Weiss lately, because she goes out there and tries to find those sources. But no one's perfect. The key is to keep on trying, I guess. Or try and relax and spend less time reading stuff that's designed to raise your blood pressure.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't know what to say other than if you depend on partisan news sources or somehow see any nationally-known source as not heavily partisan, you're missing a lot of what goes on out there and attaching far more significance than you should to specific issues.

FWIW I empathize with this. I've often been accused of both-sidesism even when it's not what I'm actually doing, to the point where I don't post on certain issues anymore. I agree with you that there's a lot more going on than most media reports.

Where I think I differ is on the issue significance. I'm always open to being persuaded otherwhise, but I don't see how any other issue can be as important as election results denying. The issues I've voted on most of my life, I can't vote on any more - because either everyone has an equal voice in the government or they don't. I mean, I'm not even in favor of universal voting rights as a theoretical matter. But if you're saying other issues matter more than the foundational point of actually counting all the votes ... IMO that's like saying 'this airplane needs better seats' when somebody just ripped off the wings and drained the fuel tank. Without respect for the process of electing people and acceptance of the results, none of the rest of it even has a chance to be relevant.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't see how any other issue can be as important as election results denying. The issues I've voted on most of my life, I can't vote on any more - because either everyone has an equal voice in the government or they don't. I mean, I'm not even in favor of universal voting rights as a theoretical matter. But if you're saying other issues matter more than the foundational point of actually counting all the votes ... IMO that's like saying 'this airplane needs better seats' when somebody just ripped off the wings and drained the fuel tank. Without respect for the process of electing people and acceptance of the results, none of the rest of it even has a chance to be relevant.

As long as you acknowledge that election denial is universal these days.

Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’

There are many other examples. Each side feels the same way - the votes should be counted. But how is that done fairly, so that both sides accept the results? Lately, one side usually complains about ballot harvesting and the other side about voter suppression.

If your feelings about both of these potential issues is determined by the laundry you wear, I don't know how to respond.

For me, the only thing that matters is that every single person who has the right to vote has the opportunity to cast that vote and have it counted once and only once. And I think both sides would be happy to overlook shenanigans if they felt it would give them some temporary advantage.

[RainMaker]

I know that "both sides" stuff works on imbeciles on Facebook, but you can't honestly believe that both sides are treating elections the same way. One side has made it their entire platform to stand against voting, they stormed the Capitol and committed numerous felonies trying to overturn the election. Almost every Republican who loses today will claim it was stolen.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As long as you acknowledge that election denial is universal these days.

Nope. Hillary conceded the day after the election. Trump never did. Jan. 6th happened because of Trump. Trump tried to get people to overturn the results, he filed frivolous lawsuits that were all thrown out. Hillary did none of those things. What she said in that link was irresponsible. But a common question to candidates is 'will you accept the results of the election' or something similar.

Those in one party say yes far more often than those in another party. This is a matter of public record. This isn't about 'laundry'. I was a Republican most of my life, but I won't consider voting for any candidate who won't simply say 'yes' without qualification when asked that question, I don't care what the letter in front of their name is. It's not even a question that should need to be asked.

[JPhillips]

The intellectual right is full of musings on whether or not it's time to abandon democracy. This isn't a fringe movement.

In terms of today, it looks like there could be really wild swings in turnout from state to state. FL looks terrible for Dems, but WI shows some promise, for example.

[RainMaker]

Remember when all those Hillary supporters stood outside ballot dropboxes with AR-15s in the next election?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The intellectual right is full of musings on whether or not it's time to abandon democracy. This isn't a fringe movement.

In terms of today, it looks like there could be really wild swings in turnout from state to state. FL looks terrible for Dems, but WI shows some promise, for example.

Dems put out two of the most moderate candidates you could possible ask for in Florida. I was told that's what the voters want so we'll see how it goes.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Remember when all those Hillary supporters stood outside ballot dropboxes with AR-15s in the next election?

Or how about her plot in 2016 to send fake electors to Washington....good times.

[GrantDawg]

When she sued in Wisconsin to throw out the all the votes of only the redest counties in the state by showing problems that happened in blue counties?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[sterlingice]

Don't you remember when Al Gore asked his followers to threaten election officials? Or that time he installed a puppet and saboteur in the USPS to screw up mail in voting because it favored the GOP? Or that time he called up Katherine Harris to just find him some more votes?

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As long as you acknowledge that election denial is universal these days.

Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’

As with Stacy Abrams, these were certainly a poor choice of words and the wrong type of thing to say. With Abrams, it appeared to be from the perspective of race, which is understandable but still irresponsible. But that's as far as it went. Lashing out over shock of losing what should have been an unlosable race (Clinton) or attributing a loss to a history or racism (Abrams). I don't believe either of them even filed a single lawsuit. Both conceded fairly quickly.

You can call this "both sides" but you cannot argue the degree to which Republicans have taken this concept and, in continuing action and words, are attempting to set on fire the legitimacy of every election that does not end with them winning. They do it before the election even happens! Hell, Trump is still arguing that in 2016, A RACE HE WON, that he actually won by millions more votes because California allowed millions of illegals to vote Democrat.

The "both sides" are not equal - not even close. This is what is so frustrating to many of us. You're boiling down extremist words and actions as if you're debating free market health care and single payer system - both sides have a position.

[RainMaker]

He's downplaying the side he supports because he knows how extreme their views are. It's as simple as that.

[Brian Swartz]

That's not fair. People can look at the same facts and honestly come away with different conclusions. Assigning nefarious motives to them is presumptuous.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

As with Stacy Abrams, these were certainly a poor choice of words and the wrong type of thing to say. With Abrams, it appeared to be from the perspective of race, which is understandable but still irresponsible. But that's as far as it went. Lashing out over shock of losing what should have been an unlosable race (Clinton) or attributing a loss to a history or racism (Abrams). I don't believe either of them even filed a single lawsuit. Both conceded fairly quickly.

You can call this "both sides" but you cannot argue the degree to which Republicans have taken this concept and, in continuing action and words, are attempting to set on fire the legitimacy of every election that does not end with them winning. They do it before the election even happens! Hell, Trump is still arguing that in 2016, A RACE HE WON, that he actually won by millions more votes because California allowed millions of illegals to vote Democrat.

The "both sides" are not equal - not even close. This is what is so frustrating to many of us. You're boiling down extremist words and actions as if you're debating free market health care and single payer system - both sides have a position.

As I said, I expected this reaction. Abrams never conceded, by the way, she made a declaration that Kemp would be certified as winner, but has never acknowledged it was legitimate. Clinton may have conceded, but her "poor choice of words" has been a consistent theme for years.

There have been numerous lawsuits, even active ones, from the Democratic side (Fetterman just filed one today). I'm not trying to say both sides are equal, just that both sides will use the courts, use the court of public opinion, violence, threats of violence, anything at all, to win.

You can, as I expect to read here, frame Hillary's behavior in as friendly terms as you like. Some can deny Antifa exists (I guess it doesn't have official ID cards, but it has been around since at least the WTO violence in Seattle) or that the guy who threw a can of some sort at Ted Cruz yesterday was simply aiming for a recycling bin. Whatever. This is all a function of a media that caters to the specific biases of its audience. It's not equal as in every tit has a tat, it's equal in the sense that both sides really suck, and cheat, and contribute to inflation and probably the decline of western civilization.

We should be better than that. We're not.

[NobodyHere]

I just spent an hour waiting to vote. Even when I left the line had only gotten longer. I heard some mutterings of "The line was nowhere near this long 2 years ago."

I live in what I believe is a very blue area so that's my anecdotal story for the evening.

ETA: Next time I'm getting an early ballot.

[larrymcg421]

Wait. What?

How do we get from election denial to antifa and WTO protests?

This is why I agree with Rainmaker. It's such a bizarre post that seems to be reaching so hard to find equality in the situations.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Wait. What?

How do we get from election denial to antifa and WTO protests?

Ksyrup brought Antifa (I'm assuming the claim that it doesn't really exist) in just a few posts back. They're known for violence intended to exert political pressure, and definitely on one side of the aisle. Seems relevant enough.

Think of it this way. You're circling the wagons against someone who hasn't even ever voted for a Republican for president. Don't you think there's a bit of a bubble here?

[Ksyrup]

I brought up Antifa as an example of something the GOP is going to waste their time with Congressional hearings on - as in, trying to build a public record that J6 was Antifa and not Trump supporters. Is this something you believe/support?

Stacy Abrams should have conceded - but guess what, she conceded in fact by her words and actions since. You're telling me she's the functional equivalent to Trump's election denial? I missed the riots at the GA capitol when Kemp was sworn in, damn national news media. I can't stand Hilary Clinton - what am I "framing?" The facts tell the story. There's Dem "election denying" and then there's what the GOP has done and is continuing to do years later - and will do, in multiple places, after tonight (depending on how well or poorly tonight goes for them).

I'm fine with pointing out "both sides" but it's an ineffective argument when the circumstances of each can't be remotely compared.

This is my brother's response - "both sides suck." Yeah, but one side has proven that it sucks so much more about such important, bedrock of Democracy issues, that it's a cop out.

[Butter]

This is the kind of mental gymnastics you have to do to continue to justify supporting the GOP.

"Both sides are the same". How can someone watch January 6th and honestly say that and even equate that with anything like BLM protests or lawsuits.

Even Dems acknowledge that the GOP had every right to use the courts to lodge legitimate challenges to election results. But none of their lawsuits after 2020 were legitimate. Not a single one.

Don't even know why you're posting here. You're not going to change any minds and we're not changing yours.

[Brian Swartz]

If all we want to do is just salute each other for being on the 'right' side, why are any of us posting here?

[sterlingice]

I look forward to Katie Hobbs finding a Four Seasons Total Landscaping to announce her lawsuit against Kari Lake.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There have been numerous lawsuits, even active ones, from the Democratic side (Fetterman just filed one today).

Also, let's compare what the typical lawsuit is about - Dems largely are looking to ensure votes are counted, Rs are trying to invalidate ballots. My opinion - the law (whatever it is) should apply, and if that means something like a wrong date on a ballot received on or before election day is still valid, then count the vote. You're going to get no sympathy from me with the argument that elections should be decided by the fewest technically valid ballots possible. If counting a ballot affects security/integrity, then throw it out.

Maybe Fetterman's lawsuit has no merit, I don't know. If not, he shouldn't have filed/joined it. But he's fighting to allow people's votes to count, which is not what Rs lawsuits are largely about.

[GrantDawg]

And the guy threw the beer can at Ted Cruz? He should be locked up. I'm not seeing Democractic congressmen out defending that guy, and he won't be speaking at the next Progressive convention. Would the same be true if someone threw a beer can at AOC? We can already see the conservative reaction to attack on Paul Pelosi. One side is definitely not the same.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If all we want to do is just salute each other for being on the 'right' side, why are any of us posting here?

I'm trying to understand Jim's position here. It's not enough to default to "both sides suck." I think most of us would agree with that general proposition, in terms of the base partisan politics. But we're dealing with clear light/dark shades of gray differences that I am trying hard to understand the argument for how they are equal.

Hilary groused for a few hours about losing, conceded the night of the election and said the next day, quote, "We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead" ... but "both sides" election denial.

[GrantDawg]

"How can you judge me for plowing through that group of school children? You once got a parking ticket."
"Oh, well. Both sides are bad."

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm trying to understand Jim's position here. It's not enough to default to "both sides suck." I think most of us would agree with that general proposition, in terms of the base partisan politics. But we're dealing with clear light/dark shades of gray differences that I am trying hard to understand the argument for how they are equal.

Hilary groused for a few hours about losing, conceded the night of the election and said the next day, quote, "We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead" ... but "both sides" election denial.

Hillary has been steadfast since 2016 that Trump was not the legitimate president.

Are there gray-area differences as to who sucks more at any given time? Of course. I'm just saying that both sides suck so much that weighing suck on any specific complaint is not worth the trouble.

Originally Posted by Butter

Don't even know why you're posting here. You're not going to change any minds and we're not changing yours.

That's a good illustration of where we are right now. Obviously, the conservative posters at FOFC have stopped posting about politics or disappeared entirely. I'm not a conservative, but I am of the opinion that mostly economics matters when it comes to the role of a government, so I will seem like one at times.

So, we don't discuss things when we don't agree? That's a bubble. That's CNN or Fox News. And that's exactly where the suck is.

[larrymcg421]

Early numbers seem decent for Warnock. PredictIt is moving his direction a bit.

[Lathum]

Rubio crushing early vote in Miami Dade, Florida is done...

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I just spent an hour waiting to vote. Even when I left the line had only gotten longer. I heard some mutterings of "The line was nowhere near this long 2 years ago."

I live in what I believe is a very blue area so that's my anecdotal story for the evening.

ETA: Next time I'm getting an early ballot.

No line here when I went about 4:00. My wife had to wait about five minutes when she went this morning.

I wanted to vote absentee, but my letter was rejected. I must have transposed the digits on my driver's license, but they let me know early enough so that I could vote in person.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Hillary has been steadfast since 2016 that Trump was not the legitimate president.

Has she continually said he wasn't legitimately elected? I believe she has complained that foreign powers have interfered with the politics of the situation but not that the vote count was illegitimate. Is that what you are referring to? Or is there something else?

SI

[larrymcg421]

Warnock running ahead of Biden in the early vote for Fulton and Richmond counties.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Hillary has been steadfast since 2016 that Trump was not the legitimate president.

This is true, and she wasn't alone; John Henry Lewis also said it. So did Jimmy Carter.

But that's just not in the same area code as the assault on the Capitol or the actions Trump personally took trying to have the results overturned. It's also not in the same conversation as what has continued on after that.

Look at the prominent races this time around; senators and governors. I don't know of a single Democrat - not one - who has not said they will accept the results of the election. Many Republicans have. Others have refused to answer the question. It's not one or two here and there, it's roughly half of them from what I've seen. And this pattern continues into the 'downballot' candidates.

This is not an anomaly. It's not just that it isn't an even split. It's not even a 80-20 split. It's 'one party is doing this thing, and the other isn't'.

[Solecismic]

I don't know. The talking point has always been "he is not the legitimate president." I think if you search on the phrase Hillary and "legitimate president" you can get some insight as to why. But she has maintained this stance since 2016.

I'm not really seeing much of interest on PredictIt. A couple of hours ago there seemed to a run on Tudor Dixon in Michigan. Now a bigger run on Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Hillary has been steadfast since 2016 that Trump was not the legitimate president.

Are there gray-area differences as to who sucks more at any given time? Of course. I'm just saying that both sides suck so much that weighing suck on any specific complaint is not worth the trouble.

And again, she conceded the day after and did not do one thing to attempt to affect the transition of power. Bitching to friends or on The View about sour grapes losing is not the same as what Trump (and way too much of the GOP) did and continues to do. I don't care if she shows up on this board in this thread right now and says she thinks Trump is illegitimate, it doesn't matter because she settled the matter of who was the next president by her actions (or lack of other actions).

That's a good illustration of where we are right now. Obviously, the conservative posters at FOFC have stopped posting about politics or disappeared entirely. I'm not a conservative, but I am of the opinion that mostly economics matters when it comes to the role of a government, so I will seem like one at times.

So, we don't discuss things when we don't agree? That's a bubble. That's CNN or Fox News. And that's exactly where the suck is.

Hey, guess what? I was a registered R from 1989 until 2021. I'm now registered as an independent. I stopped voting GOP for President around 2004 by voting Libertarian, and didn't vote for a single Dem for national office until 2018.

If the GOP came back to its senses, or a legit third party sprung up out of this mess, I'd likely only vote Dem on a case-by-case basis because I'd feel like I have other, better options. Right now, Dem is the only option and I don't even see a reason to care about the normal issues you would typically vote on, because these are not normal times.

I think the issue is, we're in the process redefining what a conservative is. There's really no room for a social moderate, fiscal conservative in today's GOP. Aside from "lower taxes for me = good," on economic issues, the GOP does not care about spending or the deficit or most of anything that used to define us.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is true, and she wasn't alone; John Henry Lewis also said it. So did Jimmy Carter.

But that's just not in the same area code as the assault on the Capitol or the actions Trump personally took trying to have the results overturned. It's also not in the same conversation as what has continued on after that.

Look at the prominent races this time around; senators and governors. I don't know of a single Democrat - not one - who has not said they will accept the results of the election. Many Republicans have. Others have refused to answer the question. It's not one or two here and there, it's roughly half of them from what I've seen. And this pattern continues into the 'downballot' candidates.

This is not an anomaly. It's not just that it isn't an even split. It's not even n 80-20 split. It's 'one party is doing this thing, and the other isn't'.

Not to mention the grassroots effort to find election denying candidates to install as SOS and elections officers in swing states to do exactly what Trump was prevented from doing in 2020. The GOP candidate for governor in WI said that when he wins the GOP will never lose another election. He's not bragging about being a great candidate - he's clearly saying, we are going to "win" whether or not we have the votes.

Where are the Dems taking these same positions? Over 300 GOP candidates are on record as denying Biden won the election.

[GrantDawg]

Walker is getting g about 92% of Kemp voters. Warnock getting 98% of Abram voters. Warnock and Kemp look likely to win.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't know. The talking point has always been "he is not the legitimate president." I think if you search on the phrase Hillary and "legitimate president" you can get some insight as to why. But she has maintained this stance since 2016.

You don't know? What don't you know? Hillary talking about Trump not being legitimate (likely due to Russian collusion, I'm guessing) after conceding is in the equivalent to Trump pressuring officials to "find" him votes, formulating a plan to have the DOJ seize voting machines, filing baseless lawsuits that have gotten some of his lawyers in disbarment proceedings, stoking the J6 riot and continuing to promote these baseless claims? You don't know?

Hillary's comments are the functional equivalent, in terms of effect, of people claiming the Astros are illegitimate 2017 world series champions.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by KSyrup

The GOP candidate for governor in WI said that when he wins the GOP will never lose another election. He's not bragging about being a great candidate - he's clearly saying, we are going to "win" whether or not we have the votes.

This is right up John 'I voted for it before I voted against it' Kerry territory. It's gotten a lot of play, but if you look at the context of what he was saying, he wasn't talking about cheating future elections. I'm with you on the larger point of course, but I think it's still important to be accurate in what people are doing.

Originally Posted by Tim Michels

’They tell us to vote for the Democrats all the time ... but I tell you what: I’m voting for you, and everybody at work I know is voting for you because the Democratic Party has left us. It’s all about the acronyms. It’s all about LGBTQ and CRT and BLM. I just want to go to work, raise my family, go to church on Sunday, go to my kid’s ballgame, and the Democratic Party doesn’t care about any of that.’ Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor.

[Solecismic]

I don't know meaning not dialed in on her claim. If you want me to defend Trump, you're looking in the wrong place. But a major party candidate claiming the opponent is illegitimate? Excusing that seems like part of the problem.

Kemp looked very safe the last few weeks. The question is how far behind him Walker is running. But the real race is to 50%. Nothing else matters.

[GrantDawg]

Florida is no longer a swing state.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't know meaning not dialed in on her claim. If you want me to defend Trump, you're looking in the wrong place. But a major party candidate claiming the opponent is illegitimate? Excusing that seems like part of the problem.

No no no! I'm not asking you to defend Trump. There is no defending him. However, it's important to point out that it's not just him anymore, so this isn't totally about Trump which is why I'm so adamant about voting Dem this time around. I'm asking you to explain how you can compare what he/they have done with some of the examples you have pointed out above.

I'm not excusing what Hillary said. I think in the first post I made about her and Abrams, I said neither of them should have said what they said. But the facts are the facts - she conceded and made no effort to challenge the election, regardless of what she said, how many times she said it (I certainly don't remember her calling press conference after press conference or going on a Twitter storm claiming she was the winner), or if she's still saying it. There's just no comparison.

But yes, I agree on the basic point that a major party candidate for national office should not be loosely throwing around those types of claims. After that, the paths diverge widely on what they said/did.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Florida is no longer a swing state.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Should take the opportunity to free Cuba.

[Brian Swartz]

Everything looking good that I'm seeing for Warnock. It appears the Republicans did manage to find a candidate bad enough to lose a very, very winnable Senate seat.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is right up John 'I voted for it before I voted against it' Kerry territory. It's gotten a lot of play, but if you look at the context of what he was saying, he wasn't talking about cheating future elections. I'm with you on the larger point of course, but I think it's still important to be accurate in what people are doing.

Thanks for the clarification. I've seen the quote, but not the context. The issue for him is that it's 50/50 (maybe that's charitable) as to what he really meant by that, given the way the GOP talks these days. Heck, maybe he intended for it to have a double meaning, wouldn't surprise me.

[larrymcg421]

PredictIt really likes the current numbers for Fetterman.

They still have 60-40 for Walker-Warnock.

[larrymcg421]

However, the needle (narrowly) likes Oz and Walker so far.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-forecast.html

[Brian Swartz]

538 saying Walker-Warnock is super-close.

I really, really don't want a runoff there. I've never cared more about a race for a politician that doesn't represent me personally.