Knowing some of the inside workings of both campaigns, IMO it was Ossoff. A lot of the coordination, structure, and planning was provided by Ossoff's campaign, especially in the general election. And I'm almost certain Warnock doesn't hold Perdue under 50% in November.
https://twitter.com/CautiousLefty/status/1347984214168383489
Absolutely none of this is to say Warnock was not a good candidate, so I'm not claiming that at all.
But how do we define candidate quality? Is it based on coordination, hires, and strategy? Or on some nebulous "I like this person better"? If the former, Ossoff pips Warnock.
But how do we define candidate quality? Is it based on coordination, hires, and strategy? Or on some nebulous "I like this person better"? If the former, Ossoff pips Warnock.
There's no question Warnock turned out Black voters like nobody's business, and Ossoff needed that.
But Warnock's campaign was lagging badly in August and he was once in danger of missing the runoff entirely.
Meanwhile, Ossoff had the best statewide digital strategy around.
But Warnock's campaign was lagging badly in August and he was once in danger of missing the runoff entirely.
Meanwhile, Ossoff had the best statewide digital strategy around.
Neither could have won without the other. But IMO, the stronger candidate was Ossoff.
It's not really accurate to look at margins and say that Warnock was better.
As I've explained many times, Loeffler is absolute electoral poison in Georgia. If you time-traveled from June to January, you'd expect the gap between Perdue and Loeffler to have been a lot bigger.
As I've explained many times, Loeffler is absolute electoral poison in Georgia. If you time-traveled from June to January, you'd expect the gap between Perdue and Loeffler to have been a lot bigger.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
