Georgia, Oregon, Idaho and Kentucky primaries 2024: Willis, McAfee win; tough night for progressives

Abortion didn’t help liberals flip a Georgia Supreme Court seat.

On May 21, voters in Georgia, Idaho, Oregon, Kentucky and California held key elections for Congress and nationally watched local races. Two key figures from one of Trump’s legal cases, Fani Willis and Scott McAfee, easily won their races, while conservatives won a Georgia Supreme Court election fought largely over abortion. In the House, progressives lost two key races in Oregon, while California voters picked a successor to Kevin McCarthy.

As usual, 538 reporters and contributors broke down the election results as they came in with live updates, analysis and commentary. Read our full live blog below.


0

Answer: Abortion wasn’t really on the ballot, despite Barrow’s attempts to make it so

Since control of the Georgia Supreme Court wasn’t up for grabs, it’s hard to see one seat’s election as a real referendum on abortion. Add in the fact that Barrow’s attacks on Pinson kind of fell flat — yes, Pinson previously defended the state’s abortion ban, but as solicitor general, it was his job to defend the law against a legal challenge — and it just wasn’t enough to galvanize voters.

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538


Answer: Incumbency advantage

The incumbency advantage probably played a role here. And awareness about this race was probably low, even as Barrow tried to elevate it and tie it to a consequential issue, like abortion. I agree with Cooper that perhaps the stakes weren't high enough.

—Meredith Conroy, 538 contributor


Answer: Abortion is a little different in Georgia

In addition to what Geoffrey and Cooper said, I’d also echo what Mary said about abortion polling in the state in an earlier post. Abortion is just a little less important to Georgia voters than it is nationally. That said, none of this means abortion won’t matter to voters in November. And as we’ve seen time and time again, the issue tends to give Democrats an edge.

—Monica Potts, 538


Answer: Part of the issue may simply be money

According to AdImpact, a lot less money was spent in support of Barrow than of Pinson.

But I'm actually struck by how little money was spent in this race at all! Just over 3 million dollars was spent in 2024 in support of either candidate, which is far less than we usually see for a high profile, competitive statewide election. This may have just flown under voters' radar in general, and having Pinson marked as the incumbent on the ballot may have also been enough to put him over the top.

—Mary Radcliffe, 538


Major outside spending could tip the scales in Oregon’s 3rd District

Looking ahead to Oregon's results, the Portland-based 3rd District hosts one of the big contests of the night. Longtime Rep. Earl Blumenauer's retirement has left open this solidly blue seat, and three contenders with progressive brands are competing for the Democratic nomination: state Rep. Maxine Dexter, former Multnomah County Commissioner Susheela Jayapal and Gresham City Councilor Eddy Morales. At first blush, Jayapal looked to be the front-runner, as she previously represented close to 30 percent of the 3rd District's overall population — far more than Dexter or Morales. She also sports ties to national progressives via her younger sister, Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Yet a late campaign cash bonanza may have turned the race on its head, to Dexter's benefit. Pre-primary financial reports through May 1 showed that Dexter had received a massive late boost to bring her campaign total to $919,000, ahead of Jayapal's $773,000 and Morales's $606,000. And from May 2 to May 19, Dexter reported $419,000 in major contributions, far more than her opponents' combined $150,000. Meanwhile, outside groups have spent more than $5 million either supporting Dexter or opposing Jayapal. The 314 Action Fund, a progressive group that supports candidates with science backgrounds, has doled out $2.2 million on ads promoting Dexter and a super PAC with unclear ties, Voters for Responsive Government, has spent $3.2 million on spots attacking Jayapal.

This surge of money has brooked controversy because it appears at least partly connected to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a bipartisan pro-Israel group opposed to progressive critics of Israel's military action in Gaza. While Dexter supports "a negotiated cease-fire" and Morales has called for aid to Gaza, Jayapal has emphasized her consistent and early calls for a cease-fire — so it would follow that groups like AIPAC would prefer that someone else wins. Tellingly, an analysis by Oregon Public Broadcasting found that a substantial portion of Dexter's last-minute donors have a history of giving to AIPAC, and some recently supported notable Republicans such as House Speaker Mike Johnson.

More controversially, The Intercept published reports in early May alleging that AIPAC funneled money to the 314 Action Fund to spend on Dexter's behalf, presumably because more direct intervention by AIPAC could backfire in a progressive-inclined district. The 314 Action Fund denied the allegations, and in the last pre-primary filing from the group on Monday evening, it turned out that a substantial chunk of the organization's recently raised cash came from billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and financier Rob Granieri. Either way, the money could prove to be a massive difference-maker for Dexter's campaign.

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538