Seems like the lessons of 2016 keep biting the parties in the ass. If your candidate sucks, the letter next to their name may not be enough.
Added context:
The GA general election had 3,961,154 (56.9% turnout) voters turn up. 2,358,026 White, 1,038,698 Black, and half a million or so other demographics.
The run off had 1,905,739 votes (27.2% turnout). 1,050,004 whites and 606,871 Blacks and 240,000 or so other.
Obviously race isn't an exact predictor of party, but it can be used for trends, especially in the south. Basically, well less than half of the white folks (a group that likely trends R) showed up the second time and 80% of the black folks (Which likely trend D) showed up again. That speaks to me of a pretty solid enthusiasm gap between the parties. A similar thing happened to Hillary. Especially after the DNC burned Bernie, a lot of Dems just didn't bother to go vote for an unlikable candidate. I suspect the same is true for Pennsylvania's Senate seat.
A popular, engaging candidate with *expletive deleted*it policies is probably better election-wise than a milquetoast one with good policies. A boring or compromised candidate with bad policies is just going to lose.
ref:
https://sos.ga.gov/data-hub-december-6-2022-runoff