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.
Interesting - Georgia's Secretary of State claims that the Department of Homeland Security tried to breach his department's firewall without any notification before, during, or after. The SoS handles elections.
Can't turn a state blue honestly...Dems lost state level control about about 15 years ago, with the explosion of the Atl suburbs. Has driven them crazy since. Jimmy Carter's grandson, Jason, ran for governor in 2014, mainly on the meme of the incumbent Republican governor being bad for education; including ruining the lottery funded Hope Scholarship.
Really, really funny thing is that Zell Miller, the former tow term Dem governor and blue dog Senator, who started the Hope Scholarship, endorsed the incumbent Gov Nathan Deal, who was reelected in 2014. By 8%; Deal (R) 52.7% to Carter (D) 44.9%. A libertarian won 2.4%.
Demographics are changing and Dems are counting on monolithic new demographics vote to help them. Not a slam dunk, as many of the 'new' demographics voters are conservative.
Interestingly the big news out of Georgia this year was some of the Atlanta suburbs starting to flip Democratic. That won't make up for rural/exurban areas going even more R but longer term it is interesting. Something tells me this was such a one-off election much of what we saw won't be repeated. But some of it will. Now we get to view what were trends and what were anomolies.
Yes, a couple were closer. Exurban counties are now playing a larger role, due to their pop gains. So one voting block - if you will - is exiting the suburbs for the exurbs, while another is 'taking' its place. The vote margins in the second ring of counties, surrounding ATL were overwhelmingly for Trump. Actually, I believe the last three elections were 'anomalies', though.
The Dems seemed to have proved, that without the celebrity of a first AA president they could not win. Had Pres Obama had the personality, and campaign style of Mrs Clinton, he would not have won. So, it really takes the package of slogan, demographics, campaign style and charisma for any candidate to win.
Obama had the complete package in '08 and '12, Trump in '16. Like the fabled blue wall, Trump proved that parties cannot rely 'truisms'. I think the assumption of certain demographics always voting certain ways is a fallacy in the long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie
Interestingly the big news out of Georgia this year was some of the Atlanta suburbs starting to flip Democratic. That won't make up for rural/exurban areas going even more R but longer term it is interesting. Something tells me this was such a one-off election much of what we saw won't be repeated. But some of it will. Now we get to view what were trends and what were anomolies.
The Dems seemed to have proved, that without the celebrity of a first AA president they could not win. Had Pres Obama had the personality, and campaign style of Mrs Clinton, he would not have won. So, it really takes the package of slogan, demographics, campaign style and charisma for any candidate to win.
You have a point but I almost see the same image in reverse. This election has convinced me that Obama didn't so much win by being black and raising the black vote (although in 08 it helped) as much as he won by showing up. He actually campaigned in a much more varied set of locations and did the boring things like trying to reduce his losing margin in rural Iowa or Michigan as much as he tried to spike his numbers in Philly or NC's Research Triangle. Clinton probably campaigned as hard but she didn't tend to her base or even show up in a lot of less friendly areas. And now that the votes are counted complete- the problem was she didn't pull black votes in areas where she didn't even campaign (Milwaukie & Detroit) and she didn't win white votes at all. Obama did better with both working class and white voters.
Kemp writes: "On November 15, 2016, an IP address associated with the Department of Homeland Security made an unsuccessful attempt to penetrate the Georgia Secretary of State's firewall. I am writing you to ask whether DHS was aware of this attempt and, if so, why DHS was attempting to breach our firewall."
November 15 was a full week after the election.
The letter goes on say that the systems under attack contained the personal information of over 6.5 million Georgians, 800,000 corporate entities and over 500,000 licensed or registered professionals.
“At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network," writes Kemp. "Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network.”
Apparently DHS was voluntailry offering assistance earlier to shore up state election systems. Many other states seems to have accepted the DHS offer. Georgia did not.
The federal government wants to help states keep hackers from manipulating the November election, amid growing fears that the U.S. political system is vulnerable.
But Georgia’s top election official is balking at the offers of assistance — and accusing the Obama administration of using exaggerated warnings of cyberthreats to intrude on states’ authority.
...
“It seems like now it’s just the D.C. media and the bureaucrats, because of the DNC getting hacked — they now think our whole system is on the verge of disaster because some Russian’s going to tap into the voting system,” Kemp, a Republican, told POLITICO in an interview. “And that’s just not — I mean, anything is possible, but it is not probable at all, the way our systems are set up.”
Now the feds are worrying about tampering from outside interests... yet THEY got caught trying to snoop around and hack into the Georgia database.
Makes me wonder if they get people to hack into these systems for the purpose of scaring people into giving DHS access into their election systems. Whatever the case may be - it's the states' responsibility to fix it.
Just remember President Reagan's words, I'm from the government and I am here to help you. Meaning federal government generally, but it is good guidance for all levels of government. Another; Trust, but verify.
You have a point but I almost see the same image in reverse. This election has convinced me that Obama didn't so much win by being black and raising the black vote (although in 08 it helped) as much as he won by showing up. He actually campaigned in a much more varied set of locations and did the boring things like trying to reduce his losing margin in rural Iowa or Michigan as much as he tried to spike his numbers in Philly or NC's Research Triangle. Clinton probably campaigned as hard but she didn't tend to her base or even show up in a lot of less friendly areas. And now that the votes are counted complete- the problem was she didn't pull black votes in areas where she didn't even campaign (Milwaukie & Detroit) and she didn't win white votes at all. Obama did better with both working class and white voters.
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.
