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 for one welcome a battleground in one way - it means that the candidates will be in the spotlight. What I don’t like is the outside influence and money that also comes with a battleground district.
I agree with desiring the elevated profile of the candidates in emerging national battleground areas like the Georgia 6th and 7th Congressional districts in the North Atlanta suburbs, as well as what seems to be the entire state of Georgia in the 2020 U.S. Senate race, while not necessarily completely favoring the massive amount of outside influence and money that comes with being a national battleground area.
But with Georgia's demographics continuing to shift the state's political scene towards the center and likely even towards the left, and with Democratic and progressive groups increasingly viewing (and salivating over) Georgia as being the next Virginia (deep-red state turned purple state turned bluish-purple state) and possibly as a larger version of the state of Maryland (a decidedly blue state), and with even the most local of politics becoming nationalized in this era of almost completely nationalized politics, it appears that we will have no choice but to live with all the effects that will come with Georgia being a battleground state for the foreseeable future.
I agree with desiring the elevated profile of the candidates in emerging national battleground areas like the Georgia 6th and 7th Congressional districts in the North Atlanta suburbs, as well as what seems to be the entire state of Georgia in the 2020 U.S. Senate race, while not necessarily completely favoring the massive amount of outside influence and money that comes with being a national battleground area.
But with Georgia's demographics continuing to shift the state's political scene towards the center and likely even towards the left, and with Democratic and progressive groups increasingly viewing (and salivating over) Georgia as being the next Virginia (deep-red state turned purple state turned bluish-purple state) and possibly as a larger version of the state of Maryland (a decidedly blue state), and with even the most local of politics becoming nationalized in this era of almost completely nationalized politics, it appears that we will have no choice but to live with all the effects that will come with Georgia being a battleground state for the foreseeable future.
2020 will be an interesting election year for Georgia. If Abrams decides to go after Perdue, it will be a big contrast. I think Perdue will still pull it off, unless he has a major gaffe or reneges on his pledge to only serve 2 terms. Abrams will have a lot of liberal support, but the conservative base will show up en masse as well - more to defeat her than to re-elect him.
The other variable will be the Democratic Presidential candidate. If it’s Biden (who of the potential declared and possible candidates is the most moderate with the best chance of winning) will that result in a lower turnout in the metro areas as it’ll be two old white guys running? Or will that mean that moderate Republicans and Independents will give Biden a chance but still vote for Perdue?
Abrams faces a bit of a quandary - if she runs against Perdue and loses, she’s done and can’t run against Kemp. Nobody backs a 2-time loser, no matter what their appeal. If she doesn’t run, and holds out for 2022, people may forget about her and it will be a midterm year again.
2020 will be an interesting election year for Georgia. If Abrams decides to go after Perdue, it will be a big contrast. I think Perdue will still pull it off, unless he has a major gaffe or reneges on his pledge to only serve 2 terms. Abrams will have a lot of liberal support, but the conservative base will show up en masse as well - more to defeat her than to re-elect him.
The other variable will be the Democratic Presidential candidate. If it’s Biden (who of the potential declared and possible candidates is the most moderate with the best chance of winning) will that result in a lower turnout in the metro areas as it’ll be two old white guys running? Or will that mean that moderate Republicans and Independents will give Biden a chance but still vote for Perdue?
Abrams faces a bit of a quandary - if she runs against Perdue and loses, she’s done and can’t run against Kemp. Nobody backs a 2-time loser, no matter what their appeal. If she doesn’t run, and holds out for 2022, people may forget about her and it will be a midterm year again.
Are you saying Biden has the best chance of winning the presidency or Georgia? Georgia, perhaps, but the presidency I disagree. The most "moderate" is not the one with the best chance of winning this time around, as Americans are hungry for universal healthcare and more progressive taxation. A liberal will likely do extremely well.
Are you saying Biden has the best chance of winning the presidency or Georgia? Georgia, perhaps, but the presidency I disagree. The most "moderate" is not the one with the best chance of winning this time around, as Americans are hungry for universal healthcare and more progressive taxation. A liberal will likely do extremely well.
You're describing a good chunk of the Democratic Party, not "America."
I don't think its clear whether the mass of the Democratic Party will move well left. The deep blue districts are moving well to the left. But the less blue and purple districts have elected a lot of people like veterans (as well as some way to the left).
Typically both parties tack to the center. They usually get creamed when they move to one extreme in presidential or statewide races.
Are you saying Biden has the best chance of winning the presidency or Georgia? Georgia, perhaps, but the presidency I disagree. The most "moderate" is not the one with the best chance of winning this time around, as Americans are hungry for universal healthcare and more progressive taxation. A liberal will likely do extremely well.
We will see. As roughly half of Americans pay zero net federal income tax, I’m sure they would love more for nothing more out of pocket. Let someone else pay for it, right?
I’m not opposed to universal healthcare, but I’d like a clear plan of how to pay for it, without the hyperbole of 70% tax brackets and families earning $250K or more being called “rich” and told to “pay their fair share”. The numbers don’t add up.
This liberal candidate should tell the truth - nationalization of health care means rationing and prioritizing procedures, lowering doctor incomes and ratcheting down medication costs. And everyone needs to pay for it, like a Medicare premium now. This may actually be a good decision, but it needs to be honestly made, not like the lies told about ACA and the ridiculous attempts to repeal and replace it.
Keeping it back focused on Georgia, it would help a lot of people here, but people won’t vote for it. A liberal from CA or NY will lose. As they will in flyover states.
You're describing a good chunk of the Democratic Party, not "America."
I don't think its clear whether the mass of the Democratic Party will move well left. The deep blue districts are moving well to the left. But the less blue and purple districts have elected a lot of people like veterans (as well as some way to the left).
Typically both parties tack to the center. They usually get creamed when they move to one extreme in presidential or statewide races.
Ironically, had Biden run in 2016 he would have likely won. Obama would have supported him over Hillary (or stayed out of the fight), and he’s enough of a street fighter to take on Trump during the campaign without assuming he’d automatically win.
I’m just thankful for the electoral college. Having seen plenty of CA and NY and how they are governed I don’t want them as an example of what the country should look like as a whole.
Not sure that will work so well. Thankfully District 6 is starting to become more progressive on and cultured as more out of staters move in. McBath basically won on gun control - many upper income parents with young kids in that district aren't interested in gun rights at the expense of their kids potentially getting shot up in school.
And religious liberty crap is even less relevant at the national level.
It is worth noting that the 6th district is becoming less white, as more and more nonwhite professionals--doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, etc.--move in. They are not easily taken by the fascism that has taken over the Republican party, and they are right on board with McBath's gun safety stances.
It is worth noting that the 6th district is becoming less white, as more and more nonwhite professionals--doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, etc.--move in. They are not easily taken by the fascism that has taken over the Republican party, and they are right on board with McBath's gun safety stances.
True, but many of them are also immigrants who had to strive and work for everything. Legal immigrants who pay their own way frown greatly on illegals who are welcomed with open arms.
And professionals are generally higher earners who would feel the impact of higher taxes and “pay your fair share” rhetoric.
What it may do is focus future candidates towards their own electorate vs a state-wide or country-wide party line. This would be a good thing.
As to McBath’s gun safety stance, ok, but what else has she got? I look forward to seeing how she votes and which legislation she sponsors.
We will see. As roughly half of Americans pay zero net federal income tax, I’m sure they would love more for nothing more out of pocket. Let someone else pay for it, right?
I’m not opposed to universal healthcare, but I’d like a clear plan of how to pay for it, without the hyperbole of 70% tax brackets and families earning $250K or more being called “rich” and told to “pay their fair share”. The numbers don’t add up.
This liberal candidate should tell the truth - nationalization of health care means rationing and prioritizing procedures, lowering doctor incomes and ratcheting down medication costs. And everyone needs to pay for it, like a Medicare premium now. This may actually be a good decision, but it needs to be honestly made, not like the lies told about ACA and the ridiculous attempts to repeal and replace it.
Keeping it back focused on Georgia, it would help a lot of people here, but people won’t vote for it. A liberal from CA or NY will lose. As they will in flyover states.
America had a 90% top tax bracket for many decades. The 70% tax bracket isn't hyperbole, it's a viable solution to a country where the top 1% are hoarding everything while the rest fight for scraps. The thing about marginal tax brackets is they only apply to income over a certain threshold. Republicans try to scare people by saying the government wants to "take 70% of everything you earn" knowing it's a lie unless those people are making 10 million+ a year. And anyone making 10 million+ a year can afford to pay a higher percentage of that higher level income.
You say half of people pay no income tax, but that's the same "bottom 50%" that sturggle for food and healthcare. I'm sure they'd gladly pay some federal income tax in exchange for the same security enjoy by EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY that they won't die if they can't afford to treat an illness they develop.
And no, universal healthcare does not mean "rationing care" as it doesnt mean that in any other country either. Medicare is basically universal healthcare and it's not rationed, they go to the same medical facilities as anyone else. In fact, the only rationing of care I've heard of is what occurs in America when people skip going to the doctor or getting a needed procedure because their insurance company won't cover it. No one "rations care" more than America's insurance companies.
2020 will be an interesting election year for Georgia. If Abrams decides to go after Perdue, it will be a big contrast. I think Perdue will still pull it off, unless he has a major gaffe or reneges on his pledge to only serve 2 terms. Abrams will have a lot of liberal support, but the conservative base will show up en masse as well - more to defeat her than to re-elect him.
I agree that Georgia's large base of conservative voters would be very likely be more motivated to show up at the polls en masse to defeat a progressive candidate like Stacey Abrams even more so than actually to support David Perdue for re-election.
A similar thing happened in 2008 and 2012 when conservative voters in a deep-red state like Georgia showed up at the polls in large numbers much more motivated to vote against Barack Obama more than to vote for the Republican nominee (John McCain in '08, Mitt Romney in '12).
Though, if President Donald Trump is on the ballot in 2020 and is a viable candidate (I honestly have no idea whether he will be a viable candidate or will even be on the ballot with the very self-destructive way he very often tends to operate his administration), David Perdue may likely get a huge boost from Trump in a way that is similar to the way that Brian Kemp got a huge (massive) boost from Trump during the 2018 gubernatorial campaign... IF Trump is on the ballot and/or is a viable candidate in 2020.
Though, even if Trump is or is not part of the electoral and/or campaign equation in 2020, I think that Perdue would have a really tough (extremely tough) outing against a candidate like Abrams in 2020.
That is because Abrams would have an early start on raising money from national progressive and Democratic donors (both small donors and large mega-donors) this time around, being that she is a known quantity this time around where as the fundraising and national media attention did not really truly kick in for her until the general election in the 2018 gubernatorial race.
I think that Perdue would also have a particularly tough time with Abrams because of how Trump's presidency has severely alienated college-educated suburban female voters... The same college-educated suburban female voters that had been a fairly very dependable bloc of voters for GOP voters in general elections in many states (including Georgia) before 2016 when Trump won the GOP nomination for President.
The GOP took a massive beating with college-educated female suburban voters in 2018, not just in Georgia but all around the country.
If Trump (or a severe hangover from Trump) is a major part of the electoral equation in 2020, the road for David Perdue and the GOP will not get any easier, but will only get that much tougher than it might have already been in 2018.
That road could be especially tough for Perdue and the GOP against a Democratic candidate like Abrams who will generate the funds needed to continue to register massive numbers of progressive Democratic base voters while also appealing heavily to moderates (particularly in the Atlanta suburbs) who used to be rock-solid dependable GOP voters but have been completely turned off and alienated from the GOP by Donald Trump's exceedingly volatile (and often emotionally unstable) presidency.
I agree that Perdue can win re-election in 2020. But the continued extreme volatility of Donald Trump (of whom David Perdue is a close political ally) makes that road to re-election excessively tougher for Perdue, especially if he runs against a high-caliber Democratic candidate like Stacey Abrams, who is likely to generate even more money and even more newly-registered Democratic voters than she did in 2018.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68
The other variable will be the Democratic Presidential candidate. If it’s Biden (who of the potential declared and possible candidates is the most moderate with the best chance of winning) will that result in a lower turnout in the metro areas as it’ll be two old white guys running? Or will that mean that moderate Republicans and Independents will give Biden a chance but still vote for Perdue?
While I had seen some media outlets view Biden as being a possible early-on frontrunner in the Democratic primary in 2020, I have been seeing some media reports this week declaring California U.S. Senator Kamala Harris as the early frontrunner of the 2020 Democratic primary field.
With the rising influence of the Millennial generation and the intense activity of Democratic base, I suspect that the party may look to go in a more diverse direction towards younger and possibly female candidates, likely as an intentional rebuke against a figure like Donald Trump, whom many voters (especially in the Democratic Party) view as a proxy for white nationalists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68
Abrams faces a bit of a quandary - if she runs against Perdue and loses, she’s done and can’t run against Kemp. Nobody backs a 2-time loser, no matter what their appeal. If she doesn’t run, and holds out for 2022, people may forget about her and it will be a midterm year again.
I agree that it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a figure like Stacey Abrams to continue to advance her political ambitions after losing two big races.
But on the other hand, if Stacey Abrams were to actually defeat David Perdue and win the 2020 Georgia U.S. Senate Race, she could always come back and run for governor at a future date, whether it be against an incumbent Brian Kemp in 2022 (if he unfortunately turns out to be an unpopular and/or ineffective governor), or (what potentially could be much more viable option) in 2026 after serving a full six-year term in the U.S. Senate... When the Governor's office potentially would be open after Brian Kemp finished a second term and when Georgia's demographics potentially would be much more favorable to electing a progressive Democratic governor.
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.
