Why Ossoff Keeps Winning in Georgia

Trump loyalty, unserious candidates, and Georgia voters left with no real choice

Back in August, I asked a simple question: Are Georgia Republicans loyal to Trump—or loyal to Georgia? Five months later, as we enter 2026, the answer is clearer—and more discouraging—than before.

I remain convinced that Jon Ossoff needs to be replaced. His record on women’s sex-based rights is indefensible. Voting against protections for girls’ sports, dodging constituents, and hiding behind party talking points while calling himself a “girl dad” is not leadership. I’ve written that plainly, repeatedly, and with receipts. I am politically independent and oppose Ossoff on substance.

But here’s the problem no one in the Georgia GOP seems to want to confront: wanting Ossoff gone does not magically produce a serious replacement. And as of now, Republicans still haven’t shown they have one.

---

The Georgia GOP’s Candidate Problem Hasn’t Improved

The three leading Republican contenders—Derek Dooley, Mike Collins, and Buddy Carter—continue to campaign less like future U.S. senators and more like regional brand ambassadors for Donald Trump.

That might win a primary. It also signals that loyalty matters more than judgment—and Georgia voters have learned to read that cue.

Georgia is not Alabama. It is not Wyoming. And it is no longer safely red. It is a narrow, expensive, high-scrutiny battleground state where seriousness, discipline, and independence actually matter.

Ossoff understands this. His campaign memo didn’t offer bold vision; it highlighted Republican infighting and cast him as the grown-up in the room. That strategy only works if the opposition keeps proving him right.

So far, they are.

That lack of judgment is already catching up to the field. One of the leading contenders, Mike Collins, is now under review by the U.S. House Ethics Committee following allegations outlined by the Office of Congressional Conduct involving the hiring practices of a top aide. Collins has denied the claims, calling them baseless. But ethics reviews have a way of lingering—sometimes for months or years—and the mere existence of an inquiry creates exactly the kind of cloud incumbents exploit.

Georgia has seen this before. In 2020, Jon Ossoff ran successfully against corruption allegations surrounding then-Sen. David Perdue. An ethics inquiry—regardless of outcome—is political oxygen for an incumbent. And it underscores the broader problem: candidates elevated before they are fully vetted become liabilities, not alternatives.

---

MAGA Loyalty Is Not a Governing Philosophy

I’ve been clear about this before, and nothing has changed: blind loyalty to Trump is not conservative, populist, or pro-Georgia. It is just lazy politics.

When Trump signs executive orders testing the limits of free speech, or when his administration experiments with government ownership of private industry, Georgia voters notice. When Republicans reflexively cheer every move—without analysis, without hesitation, without even pretending to think independently—Georgia voters notice that too.

And they remember.

Georgia’s political DNA includes deep skepticism of federal overreach, corporate-government entanglement, and foreign adventurism dressed up as “strength.” Which makes the recent chest-thumping over the Maduro capture especially revealing.

---

On Maduro: Serious People Ask Serious Questions

All three GOP contenders rushed out nearly identical statements celebrating the U.S. military-backed operation against Nicolás Maduro. “Peace through strength.” “Justice served.” “No other president could have done this.”

But not one of them paused to ask the obvious question that even mainstream commentators raised. As Kat Timpf put it:

“Let me get this straight: We go to a country, capture their leader, bomb it, and say we run it now—and that’s not war. But when they send cocaine here, that people willingly snort—that’s war? That doesn’t make any sense.”

You don’t have to be anti-Trump to recognize the problem here. You just have to be capable of independent thought. And for many Georgia mothers, that independence shows up in one unavoidable question. As Kat Timpf also asked:

“Question to people who support a U.S. military-backed regime change effort in Venezuela:

Do you support sending your own self—or your children—to fight and potentially die for this cause, or do you only support sending other people’s children?”

Georgia doesn’t benefit from unserious foreign policy cheerleading. We benefit from senators who understand restraint, constitutional limits, and the difference between national interest and political theater.

Georgia mothers don’t confuse strength with spectacle—and they don’t outsource sacrifice to other people’s families.

---

Women See Through This—Even If Parties Don’t

The reality that Republicans keep missing is that Georgia women are politically homeless right now.

Democrats like Ossoff have openly betrayed women on sex-based rights, Title IX, and sports. Republicans correctly point that out—but then offer candidates who seem incapable of standing up to Trump even when his agenda conflicts with Georgia values, constitutional norms, or basic common sense.

Women notice that too.

We notice when critique is dismissed instead of engaged. We notice when party leadership blocks writers instead of answering arguments. We notice when loyalty tests matter more than judgment.

I’ve been blocked by the Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party without a single prior interaction—after writing a critique about vetting, standards, and candidate quality. That tells me something important: this is a party culture that struggles with correction.

And parties that can’t tolerate critique don’t improve. They calcify.

---

This Is How Ossoff Wins Again

Democrats are increasingly confident about Ossoff’s reelection—not because he’s beloved, but because women are being offered no credible alternative.

He runs as steady.
They run as chaotic.

He campaigns on process and incumbency.
They campaign on vibes and Trump proximity.

And until Republicans put forward a candidate with:

• a real governing record,

• the discipline to break from Trump when Georgia’s interests require it, and

• the seriousness to appeal beyond a primary electorate

Ossoff will keep coasting.

Not because Georgia loves him—but because the alternative isn’t credible.

---

Wanting Better Means Demanding Better

This is not an endorsement of Ossoff.
Nor is it a softening of my criticism.

It is realism.

Georgia deserves a senator who will defend women’s sex-based rights and uphold constitutional limits—who understands that loyalty to Georgia sometimes means saying no to party leadership, powerful personalities, and the loudest voices in the room.

As of now, the Georgia GOP still hasn’t shown it can produce that person. And until it does, Ossoff’s biggest asset won’t be his record.

It will be his opposition.