Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do agree Georgia is demographically closer to pluralism than many Southern states.
However, the fact that most other non-white demographic groups are so disengaged in the civic and political process that it seems almost null-and-void how close Georgia is to racial pluralism. Georgia has the "Texas Problem" where demographically speaking there should be more political competitiveness, but the lack of will on the part of many of the political left to engage non-whites and the lack of civic engagement on the part of many well educated, economically stable non-whites. Hence why there are 'blue islands' there in a deeply red political state similar to Texas and here in Georgia.
A variable that has not be taken into consideration is the level of education attainment and quality of education. Like Texas, Georgia has an education system that doesn't do the best of jobs educating its populous. Outside of Atlanta (like outside of the Texas Big 4 metro areas), education attainment is very low statewide. Per the 2010 Census data, less than 60% (59.8%) of Georgians are graduating from high school. Virginia and Maryland, on the other hand, are amongst states with the some of the highest education attainment rates and highest ranked states for quality of education. Although Virginia is a very rural state outside of the NoVa, Greater Richmond, and the Hampton Roads, they have figure out a way to overcome that rural lower education attainment dilemma even outside of their urbanized regions.
Much of this comes down to generational shifts of political philosophy and the raise of civic engagement and education in the 2nd generation of other non-white ethnic groups because many assume racial diversity then it is automatic political competitiveness. Statistically, that's not really an accurate assessment. Concurrently, the State of Georgia needs to become more aggressive at raising the quality of education statewide and workforce training (for those whom may not want to go to traditional college), not just in Metro Atlanta exclusively. Otherwise, the rest of the state will ultimately be the 'wet blanket' to the political shift because overall education stats and economic mobility more tied to political progressiveness than racial diversity of a state. Texas maybe a better mirror to Georgia than Maryland or even Virginia.
The bolded part of your comments raise an excellent point... That states like Maryland and Virginia are actually very good mirrors to Georgia, it's just that Maryland and Virginia have much stronger and much more functional state Democratic Party apparatuses than Georgia... Which is one major reason that the Democrats are much stronger in state politics in Maryland and Virginia than they are in Georgia where the state Democratic Party collapsed into total oblivion back in the late 2000's and early 2010's during a time when Georgia's population of minorities and moderate/progressive whites has been exploding.
When Georgia's state Democratic Party apparatus becomes more functional and focused, Democrats are likely to perform better in state politics in a demographic environment that is very much to their favor in Georgia.
The bolded part of your comments raise an excellent point... That states like Maryland and Virginia are actually very good mirrors to Georgia, it's just that Maryland and Virginia have much stronger and much more functional state Democratic Party apparatuses than Georgia... Which is one major reason that the Democrats are much stronger in state politics in Maryland and Virginia than they are in Georgia where the state Democratic Party collapsed into total oblivion back in the late 2000's and early 2010's during a time when Georgia's population of minorities and moderate/progressive whites has been exploding.
When Georgia's state Democratic Party apparatus becomes more functional and focused, Democrats are likely to perform better in state politics in a demographic environment that is very much to their favor in Georgia.
It's also a difference in white people in Georgia and states like Virginia and Maryland. In those states, a large chunk of the white population is educated and progressive. Elections are won with a combination of minority voters and progressive whites. In Georgia, the white population (especially outside of Atlanta) is heavily uneducated and conservative in comparison. This makes it easy for rual Georgia keep the state under heavy Republican control. Combined with gerrymandering at the district level, Republicans had a supermajority until very recently.
It's also a difference in white people in Georgia and states like Virginia and Maryland. In those states, a large chunk of the white population is educated and progressive. Elections are won with a combination of minority voters and progressive whites. In Georgia, the white population (especially outside of Atlanta) is heavily uneducated and conservative in comparison. This makes it easy for rual Georgia keep the state under heavy Republican control. Combined with gerrymandering at the district level, Republicans had a supermajority until very recently.
That is a really good point that the white population is culturally and socially conservative and less-educated in Georgia when compared to states like Virginia and Maryland where a larger chunk of the population appears to be more educated and progressive.
(...In Georgia, 29.4% of adults aged 25 and older possessed a Bachelor's Degree or higher compared to 36,9% of adults aged 25+ in Virginia and 38.4% of adults aged 25+ in Maryland in 2016.)
But even though Georgia may lag Upper South Atlantic states like Virginia and Maryland (and Delaware) in the number of adults aged 25+ with a college education, the 29.4% of adults aged 25+ with a Bachelor's Degree or higher in Georgia actually leads all other states in the greater Southeastern U.S. outside of VA, MD and DE (including AL, FL, TN, NC, SC, KY, WV, MS, AR and LA).
Out of that entire 14-state greater Southeastern U.S. region, Georgia actually is fourth in the proportion of adults aged 25 and older with a Bachelor's Degree or higher behind only Delaware (30.5%), Virginia (36.9%) and Maryland (38.4%).
Because of metro Atlanta's status as a massive hub of economic activity for the Southeastern U.S., Georgia actually does pretty well (apparently better than the almost all of the rest of the Deep South) when it comes to how much of its population is college-educated.
It also should be noted that even states dominated by one very large major metro area/region like Illinois (Chicago) and New York (New York City) along with Virginia (Northern Virginia suburbs of D.C. in recent years) have large populations of less-educated conservative rural whites who vote overwhelmingly Republican... It's just that states like Illinois, New York and Virginia have even larger numbers of moderate and progressive urban and suburban Democratic voters that always overwhelms the large conservative rural vote that goes for Republicans in those states.
Which here in Georgia, there is actually a really good opportunity (and has been a really good opportunity) for Democrats to pick up support from the fast-growing legions of minority and moderate/progressive white voters in the Atlanta suburbs with large numbers of moderate suburban voters leaving a Republican Party that has appeared to shift further and further to the right in many key instances (guns, Trump, etc) in recent election cycles.
The main reason why Democrats have not capitalized on that prime opportunity to pick up large numbers of minority and moderate/progressive suburban voters in the Atlanta suburbs is because Georgia Democrats have not been in any position organizationally to capitalize on that prime opportunity.
Between about 2006 and 2013 the Democratic Party of Georgia was basically a non-existent entity with no money and no organization. The party was basically just a physical building with no real function beyond the name. As many people might often say about a physical entity with no soul, "there was no there, there."
At one point in early 2013, the Democratic Party of Georgia was in such bad shape that it only had about a little over $10,000 in the bank was only days away from having the utilities shut-off at its headquarters in Atlanta. The party was basically in a state of severely incompetent dysfunctionality while the state's population of minority and moderate/progressive voters was booming during the 2000's and 2010's.
Their severe lack of competence in executing even the most basic of functions like fundraising and reaching out to their base is the major reason why Democrats have struggled during a time period over the last 10-15 years when they probably should have been much more competitive in a state like Georgia.
I’m kinda surprised they rolled with Abrams knowing there is no way she could win. It’s a non-incumbent year and a moderate Democrat could have put up a fight, especially with Cagle going a little loony lately.
I’m kinda surprised they rolled with Abrams knowing there is no way she could win. It’s a non-incumbent year and a moderate Democrat could have put up a fight, especially with Cagle going a little loony lately.
I’m kinda surprised they rolled with Abrams knowing there is no way she could win. It’s a non-incumbent year and a moderate Democrat could have put up a fight, especially with Cagle going a little loony lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forhall
Evans has a shot.
Forhall makes a good point that (despite some recent polling showing Stacey Abrams with a noticeable lead over Stacey Evans in the Democratic gubernatorial primary race) the Democratic gubernatorial primary race has yet to be decided (the primary election will be held on May 22) and Stacey Evans still has a legitimate shot at winning it with nearly 2 months to go.
thomass also raises some good points with the comments about a moderate Democrat potentially being able to put up a fight in the general election with this being a non-incumbent year.
Technically, it is a non-incumbent year with sitting Georgia Governor Nathan Deal being limited to two consecutive terms in office... But because he has been in office in the very powerful position of Lt. Governor and the President of the Georgia state Senate for 3 terms (12 years), and has basically been grooming for a future run for Governor since first being elected Lt. Governor back in 2006, Casey Cagle is basically widely viewed (by voters, Georgia media and politicos) as the 'incumbent successor' to that office.
After having served 3 terms (12 years) in office as Lt. Governor and President of the Georgia state Senate, Casey Cagle is basically in a position that is somewhat very similar to where (legendary former Georgia Governor) Zell Miller was when he ran for Governor in 1990 after having served 4 terms in office as Lt. Governor and President of the Georgia state Senate.
After having served 3 terms in office as Lt. Governor/President of the GA state Senate, Casey Cagle is the most-powerful Lt. Governor that the state of Georgia has ever had other than Zell Miller who, after serving 4 terms as Lt. Governor/GA state Senate President, went on to become the state's most popular governor ever in the modern era at the end of his 2 terms in that office.
The Abrams-Evans matchup in the Democratic gubernatorial primary race reflects the ongoing heated debate in the Democratic Party over whether the party should go in a more hard-left Bernie Sanders type of direction (represented by Stacey Abrams) or whether the party should go in a more moderate/centrist direction (represented by Stacey Evans). This is a debate that appears to still be in the early stages and will be likely to last for many years going forward.
No matter who wins the Democratic gubernatorial primary, the party is going to have to find a way to energize its base of minority and progressive white voters while reaching out strongly to moderate suburban (and exurban and rural) voters who may typically vote heavily for Republicans at this point in time.
Also, no matter who wins the gubernatorial primary (whether it be a farther left-leaning Bernie Sanders protégé like Stacey Abrams or a more moderate/centrist-leaning candidate like Stacey Evans), Democrats are going to be likely to struggle to get over the 50% hump that will be needed to win the general election, because:
> Of the high political/electorate liabilities that both Abrams and Evans will have running for governor as Democrats in a Republican-dominated state...
> Because of the widely-held perception across the political spectrum (particularly with most non-Democratic base voters) that Casey Cagle is the next in line and 'heir-to-the-throne' (so to speak) to be governor after Nathan Deal leaves office...
> And because of the very strong statewide grassroots network of support that Casey Cagle has built during his time in office as Georgia's 2nd-most powerful Lt. Governor/GA Senate President ever.
With Cagle coming off of a race in 2014 in which he earned more votes than any other candidate running for office in Georgia that year (more votes than even Georgia Governor Nathan Deal during his re-election campaign or U.S. Senator David Perdue during his election campaign), Democrats will do well to get to 45% in the general election.
(...Casey Cagle won re-election to a third consecutive term as Lt. Governor by a margin of 58% to 42% over his Democratic opponent, Connie Stokes in 2014.)
It appears that political conditions could be right for Democrats to be more competitive than might be expected and attract more than 45% of the vote in the Governor's race. But Cagle has got to be expected to move away from the far/hard-right and tack back towards the center of the political spectrum where he has done well with moderates, Independents and African-American voters in the past.
If Stacey Abrams is the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, she likely could be strong with African-American voters, but likely may have high political/electoral liabilities with white voters. Abrams will also have an exceedingly high political liability with her personal finances, which Republicans will be relentless and vicious in using against her with a conservative Georgia electorate in the general election campaign.
If Stacey Evans is the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, she likely could be strong with moderate white female voters, but likely may have significantly high political/electoral liabilities with African-American voters with whom Casey Cagle appears to do remarkably well with as a Republican.
His attacks against Delta Airlines for their disassociation from the NRA last month appeared to help Cagle solidify his base of conservative outer-suburban, exurban and rural Republican voters. With his base strongly in tow and either relentless attacks on Stacey Abrams' personal finances and/or his seemingly high appeal to African-American voters in a potential general election race against Stacey Evans, Cagle is likely to get the votes he needs to get to 50% + 1 in the general election.
The main thing that potentially could slow Cagle down and help the Democratic gubernatorial nominee is if Republican President Donald Trump has some kind of extreme down in any number of possible ways.
The only thing that potentially could stop Casey Cagle from winning the election for governor is some of kind of major ethics scandal.
Democrats also potentially could be helped if the #MeToo and #NeverAgain movements against sexual misconduct and gun violence, respectively, are ever able to gain any meaningful electoral traction in Georgia before general election voting begins in October.
OK I know I am slow on this, but I did not know that Stacey Abrams graduated from Yale Law School and worked a prestigious big downtown law firm for several years before entering politics. This a woman from a very humble, black working class background in MS. That alone lets me know that this woman is capable of big things and that even if she's not successful this year, she will in all likelihood be a force in GA politics for some time.
Is it possible we are underestimating Abrams? Especially when it comes to appealing to white voters, I'm thinking that there is no way a woman who graduates from Yale and is successful at a corporate law firm is not able to make whites feel comfortable with her. Not saying that she would get huge percentages of white voters, but that she might be able to pick up enough left-leaning whites and non-black minorities to competitive.
Last edited by CaliDreaming01; 04-05-2018 at 08:24 AM..
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 17 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,503 posts, read 44,177,623 times
Reputation: 16920
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01
OK I know I am slow on this, but I did not know that Stacey Abrams graduated from Yale Law School and worked a prestigious big downtown law firm for several years before entering politics. This a woman from a very humble, black working class background in MS. That alone lets me know that this woman is capable of big things and that even if she's not successful this year, she will in all likelihood be a force in GA politics for some time.
Is it possible we are underestimating Abrams? Especially when it comes to appealing to white voters, I'm thinking that there is no way a woman who graduates from Yale and is successful at a corporate law firm is not able to make whites feel comfortable with her. Not saying that she would get huge percentages of white voters, but that she might be able to pick up enough left-leaning whites and non-black minorities to competitive.
I'm with you on these points. I just wish that she was at this juncture of the campaign a bit more forthcoming with her policy positions and reactions to the rather profound issues confronting the state. I don't need to hear any more about how impressive she is (we're already convinced) or what a feather in Georgia's cap it would be to have the first black female governor (of course it would be). I need to see her go into pitbull mode when it comes to the foolhardy Cagle and his minions. She seems to be missing opportunities that Evans is seizing upon:
I'm with you on these points. I just wish that she was at this juncture of the campaign a bit more forthcoming with her policy positions and reactions to the rather profound issues confronting the state. I don't need to hear any more about how impressive she is (we're already convinced) or what a feather in Georgia's cap it would be to have the first black female governor (of course it would be). I need to see her go into pitbull mode when it comes to the foolhardy Cagle and his minions. She seems to be missing opportunities that Evans is seizing upon:
Evans' response is an in-your-face attack on the legality of Cagle's action. Abrams' is a limp, scripted press release offered by a subordinate.
Guess which one earned my respect?
It is so hard choosing between the two Stacies for me because I love both of them. I sure hope that these two work together after the primary no matter who wins. I would lose a lot of respect for the loser if she didn't wholeheartedly try to get a Dem elected.
OK I know I am slow on this, but I did not know that Stacey Abrams graduated from Yale Law School and worked a prestigious big downtown law firm for several years before entering politics. This a woman from a very humble, black working class background in MS. That alone lets me know that this woman is capable of big things and that even if she's not successful this year, she will in all likelihood be a force in GA politics for some time.
Is it possible we are underestimating Abrams? Especially when it comes to appealing to white voters, I'm thinking that there is no way a woman who graduates from Yale and is successful at a corporate law firm is not able to make whites feel comfortable with her. Not saying that she would get huge percentages of white voters, but that she might be able to pick up enough left-leaning whites and non-black minorities to competitive.
I agree that there could be some potential that a highly-accomplished black, female candidate like Stacey Abrams is being underestimated.
But a major challenge for a candidate like Stacey Abrams is that there still does not appear to be enough left-leaning whites and non-black minorities participating in the electorate at high enough numbers to see a candidate like her elected over a strongly advantaged Republican candidate like a Casey Cagle who has the power of 12 years of incumbency as Lt. Governor and also as one of the most powerful figures ever to hold the position of Lt. Governor outside of former Georgia Governor, U.S. Senator and 4-term Georgia Lt. Governor Zell Miller.
Another major challenge for a candidate like Stacey Abrams is that her aforementioned personal financial challenges makes her particularly vulnerable to attacks from Republicans on that issue... Attacks that are certain to resonate with the state's dominant bloc of moderate suburban white voters who (outside of the 2016 Presidential Election) most often typically vote for Republican candidate and who likely also will be extremely uneasy about seeing a progressive black female candidate like Stacey Abrams be elected the governor of a state with an electorate (still) dominated by conservative white voters.
Abrams has talked of wanting to generate increased turnout by minority and progressive white voters to help make Democrats much more competitive in statewide elections in Georgia.
The talk of generating increased turnout from minority and progressive white voters is definitely the track that Georgia Democrats need to be on to be competitive moving forward. But Georgia Democrats don't seem to quite to be there just yet.
Both Democratic gubernatorial candidates have extremely high political liabilities that will give them very significant vulnerabilities against a Georgia GOP that will be energized and that will be anxious to go on the offensive to keep Georgia state government under strong Republican control for at least one more election cycle and subsequent 4-year gubernatorial term.
Democrats have the potential to make some significant gains, particularly in terms of building and generating increasing turnout from minority and progressive white voters.
But Democrats will undoubtedly once again be facing an uphill battle to remain competitive during a gubernatorial election cycle in a state that (while trending towards purple status in the not-too-distant future) continues to be dominated by conservative voters who distrust Democrats much more than they distrust Republicans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
