Georgia Senate runoff runs neck-and-neck
ATLANTA — Businessman David Perdue on Tuesday had a slight lead in a tight race against Rep. Jack Kingston for Georgia's Republican Senate nomination.
With more than 80 percent of precincts reporting, Perdue garnered 50.4 percent of the vote to Kingston's 49.6 percent.
The winner will take on Democrat Michelle Nunn and Libertarian Amanda Swafford in a contest that will help determine which party controls the Senate for the final two years of President Obama's administration.
Perdue and Kingston topped five other candidates in a May primary, but neither reached the majority necessary to win outright.
Both candidates greeted their supporters at their respective campaign parties Tuesday evening in Atlanta. Kingston was at the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center in Atlanta. Perdue was at a hotel in the Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta.
Kingston hugged supporters and talked with some of them.
Perdue also acknowledged his supporters and spoke with assembled media. “Let's get a decision, and let's go fight the Democrats in the fall, that's what I'm ready to do,” he told reporters. “I have a real peace about this. If Congressman Kingston wins this, he'll have my full support. I'll help him prosecute the failed record of the last six years.”
Perdue led the primary in May. Nunn is one of the few chances for Democrats to pick up a Republican-held seat this fall as the party tries to maintain its majority.
Republicans know they can ill afford to lose retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss' seat if they hope to elect the six additional senators they need to run the chamber.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.