It’s easy for Democrats to get excited about Michelle Nunn (D): She raises a lot of money, has a last name famous in Georgia, and has had close to a year to build her campaign before the general election. But now that David Perdue (R) has (somewhat unexpectedly) won the Republican Party’s nomination for Senate, it’s time for a reality check. Is a Democrat really going to win in Georgia, and are they really going to do it in 2014? — Democrats haven’t won a Senate or gubernatorial race in Georgia since 2000, when Zell Miller claimed victory. The state’s changing demographics have nudged it toward competitiveness, but President Obama lost handily there in 2008 and 2012. We might soon talk about the Peach State as a presidential battleground, but it’s not quite there yet. — Consider, especially, that it’s a midterm year — when minority participation drops as a share of the electorate — in which Obama’s approval numbers are dismal. A poll commissioned by Democracy Corps and the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund released Tuesday found that in a dozen presidential battlegrounds (including Georgia), the president stood at just 37 percent. — Republicans eyeing the race believe it will be competitive but are confident that Perdue will ultimately prevail. Their big, early general election spending has not yet come to Georgia: No major outside group like the Chamber of Commerce or American Crossroads targeted Nunn in TV ads during the two-month runoff, the perfect time, in theory, to soften her up before the fall. It’s a sign Republicans aren’t feeling threatened by her, at least not yet. Perdue, a former high-flying CEO who Rep. Jack Kingston (R) knocked for living in a gated community, will be vulnerable to the same playbook Democrats so effectively ran in 2012 against Mitt Romney, and it would be foolhardy to write this race off yet. But as this race reaches the general election, it’s hard to consider Nunn anything other than a clear-cut underdog.— Alex Roarty
What We're Following See More »
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."
Today in bad news for Donald Trump:
- Newsweek found that a company he controlled did business with Cuba under Fidel Castro "despite strict American trade bans that made such undertakings illegal, according to interviews with former Trump executives, internal company records and court filings." In 1998, he spent at least $68,000 there, which was funneled through a consluting company "to make it appear legal."
- The Los Angeles Times reports that at a golf club he owns in California, Trump ordered that unattractive female staff be fired and replaced with prettier women.