Gubernatorial Race 2018 (tax rates, drive, district)

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

The national enthusiasm advantage Democrats have in this election is the only reason Abrams has any chance, but she will still lose imo. I truly hope I am wrong.

I think turnout will be the biggest factor, as it has been in most every recent election. Relatively heavy turnout is what got our past two presidents elected; low turnout is what cost Mary Norwood the Office of Mayor.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01

. The graph represents the U.s. electorate, not Georgia—those numbers are included in a separate link. . Even there women still make up a larger proportion of the electorate.



Maybe the pollster recognized that Democratic turnout was depressed in that election because HRC was such a polarizing candidate. They also generally ask questions about how likely a voter is to vote. No question Democrats have the enthusiasm edge here so I don’t see the use of equal number of Trump and Clinton voters as a huge issue.

I don't know how to answer your last paragraph. You are just really, really grasping.

[BELMO45]

Originally Posted by Iconographer

I think turnout will be the biggest factor, as it has been in most every recent election. Relatively heavy turnout is what got our past two presidents elected; low turnout is what cost Mary Norwood the Office of Mayor.

I’ve had a hard time guaging how well Democrats will do because too many of the elections being used as reference points for the blue wave had nuances. Cortez and Pressley who pulled off huge upsets in NY and MA were special elections and both saw absolutely awful registered democratic turnout. The Alabama election you had a female predator running and the PA election Lamb was basically a Bill Clinton redux. He was pretty much straight down the middle and not a true Democrat. My concern is that these elections have given the GOP side enough of a warning signal to come out I think sometimes the special elections going One Direction can ultimately be detrimental to the party who won them because it wakes up the party who lost and then they turn out and vote in the midterms they otherwise might have stayed at home for

[CaliDreaming01]

Originally Posted by bu2

I don't know how to answer your last paragraph. You are just really, really grasping.

Can you explain why you feel that is grasping?

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by BELMO45

I’ve had a hard time guaging how well Democrats will do because too many of the elections being used as reference points for the blue wave had nuances. Cortez and Pressley who pulled off huge upsets in NY and MA were special elections and both saw absolutely awful registered democratic turnout. The Alabama election you had a female predator running and the PA election Lamb was basically a Bill Clinton redux. He was pretty much straight down the middle and not a true Democrat. My concern is that these elections have given the GOP side enough of a warning signal to come out I think sometimes the special elections going One Direction can ultimately be detrimental to the party who won them because it wakes up the party who lost and then they turn out and vote in the midterms they otherwise might have stayed at home for

Neither Cortez nor Pressley were special elections. Those were primary elections.

[arjay57]

One thing I was thinking about is that with a legislature that is totally dominated by Republicans, it might make sense to have a Democratic governor. That way they keep a check on each other.

When one party controls both the legislative and executive branches of government, there's a tendency to run hog wild.

We've seen that at the national level.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01

Can you explain why you feel that is grasping?

You assume that having an electorate very different from 2016 is no problem in figuring out what will happen in 2018. The idea is to have a representative sample, not a tilted one.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

The national enthusiasm advantage Democrats have in this election is the only reason Abrams has any chance, but she will still lose imo. I truly hope I am wrong.

Voter suppression and the need to clear 50% to avoid a runoff are two other obstacles for Abrams.

They are high obstacles but not insurmountable.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by arjay57

One thing I was thinking about is that with a legislature that is totally dominated by Republicans, it might make sense to have a Democratic governor. That way they keep a check on each other.

When one party controls both the legislative and executive branches of government, there's a tendency to run hog wild.

We've seen that at the national level.

I disagree. When there's a republican leader and democratic legislature, it serves a check. Norms are followed, the government functions, but there is definitely a check.

When there's a democratic leader and republican legislature, as is typical of Republicans, they destroy the norms and block everything. For example, look in NC when the Republicans called a special session after Cooper (D) won the governship to strip him of all power. Or nationally when Republicans agreed their entire plan once taking over the legislature was simply to dent Obama a 2nd term. They even held open a supreme Court seat for a year.

I don't think Republicans serve as a good "check". They game the system to get what they want, and render government useless for the people when they don't get their way.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by Forhall

I disagree. When there's a republican leader and democratic legislature, it serves a check. Norms are followed, the government functions, but there is definitely a check.

When there's a democratic leader and republican legislature, as is typical of Republicans, they destroy the norms and block everything. For example, look in NC when the Republicans called a special session after Cooper (D) won the governship to strip him of all power. Or nationally when Republicans agreed their entire plan once taking over the legislature was simply to dent Obama a 2nd term. They even held open a supreme Court seat for a year.

I don't think Republicans serve as a good "check". They game the system to get what they want, and render government useless for the people when they don't get their way.

All true, but it's still better to have Abrams than Kemp because in that scenario, compromise is within the realm of possibility. If Kemp wins, it's going to be a far right gold rush with no brakes.