Runoff elections could be bad news for GOP – FederalNewsRadio.com

2
May

Runoff elections could be bad news for GOP – FederalNewsRadio.com

DAVIDSON, N.C. (AP) — As Republicans try to win control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, they may be forced to confront runoffs in key states that could expose conservative-vs.-establishment rifts and allow relatively tiny numbers of voters to pick the nominees.

In Georgia, a large field of Republicans makes a runoff election likely, potentially helping Democrat Michelle Nunn in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1996. And in Iowa, the winner of a crowded GOP Senate primary on June 3 will need to capture 35 percent to avoid a state GOP convention, a process that often favors the most conservative candidate.

The outcome of the three Senate campaigns could help determine whether Republicans gain Senate control during President Barack Obama’s final two years. They need to pick up six seats for a majority in the 100-member chamber.

A North Carolina runoff would fall on July 15, and Georgia’s would come a week later. Given the timing, “if you had a 15 percent turnout, that would be miraculous,” said Marcus Kindley, a former Republican Party chairman for North Carolina’s Guilford County, which includes Greensboro.

Results of low-turnout elections are harder to predict. The most motivated voters — who can include tea partyers and other strongly ideological conservatives — tend to have proportionately more influence in such elections.

In Georgia, Republicans concede a two-month runoff campaign is likely to follow the seven-candidate May 20 primary.

At the state party’s most recent debate, Martha Zoller, a popular conservative talk radio host, warned Republicans that the primary and runoff campaign would yield a nominee who is “battered, bruised and broke.”

If the leading contender fails to win 50 percent, the candidate will be forced into a runoff against the second-place finisher.

via Runoff elections could be bad news for GOP – FederalNewsRadio.com.

Comments ( 0 )