Gubernatorial Race 2018 (Norwood, Buckhead: parlors, development, licensing)

[CaliDreaming01]

Originally Posted by bu2

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.

To me, it seems that you are assuming that everything will stay exactly the way it was in 2016 in a state that is rapidly changing demographically and in a time where politics are quite volatile. Also, votes are not skin color or eye color--people can change their votes, decide not to vote, etc.



In order to base the vote on the percentages of the 2016 election, you'd have to assume that 1) none of the people who voted for Trump in 2016 are having second thoughts about voting for him; 2) No Democrats who decided not to vote because they did not like Hillary will be voting for Abrams this year; 3) No 18 year old minorities decided to register to vote and no older GOP voters died in two years; 4) all Cagle voters are able to put aside their disappointment from the bitter runoff and turn out for Kemp; 5) Abrams will not be able to net any new Democratic voters from her massive voter registratoin drive, etc. etc.


I think there has already been concrete evidence to show that at least some of these assumptions are incorrect.

[CaliDreaming01]

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

You would think so, but I don't think that there is much the GOP can do to stop Dems from winning even with advance warning (outside of voter suppression). As the 2016 election shows, hating a candidate is not enough to get people to show up to vote for you. Kemp, like Clinton was for Democrats, is a polarizing candidate and a lot of GOP voters are uncomfortable with him. I just don't see them suddenly getting excited about him, especially the underhanded way he won the primary. In past years, even lukewarm support was enough to get Republicans over the finish line but this year Abrams has Democrats fired up.

[BELMO45]

A good point I just heard regarding the two governor elections in Georgia and Florida is what can Abrams and Gillum actually accomplish even if elected because Florida and especially Georgia have state congresses that are so insanely far to the right in many cases that everything is going to get tied up. The few times Nathan Deal even tried to push some things that were more middle or left they went nowhere

[JoeP]

What they can accomplish is stopping the far right agenda and further gerrymandering in 2001.

[bu2]

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.

That is really funny considering what is happening in DC right now.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by JoeP

What they can accomplish is stopping the far right agenda and further gerrymandering in 2001.

These days, split government usually means the redistricting goes to the courts. When one side or the other controls everything both parties gerrymander as much as they can.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by BELMO45

A good point I just heard regarding the two governor elections in Georgia and Florida is what can Abrams and Gillum actually accomplish even if elected because Florida and especially Georgia have state congresses that are so insanely far to the right in many cases that everything is going to get tied up. The few times Nathan Deal even tried to push some things that were more middle or left they went nowhere

Is that supposed to be an argument against voting for Abrams or Gillum?

As Joe P said, a Dem governor can prevent the GOP legislature from getting bills passed. So Abrams won't be able to enact a progressive agenda, but she has a chance of finding a middle ground with the legislature which could result in reasonable compromises and good, balanced lawmaking. Isn't that exactly what we want from government?

[JoeP]

These days, split government usually means the redistricting goes to the courts. When one side or the other controls everything both parties gerrymander as much as they can.

That's my point. With her in office, the state can't do what they did this decade. They may or may not work with her, but either way, they won't get their continued gerrymandering.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by bu2

That is really funny considering what is happening in DC right now.

A unified Republican government that can't seem to accomplish anything, including failing to repeal Obamacare after crying about for 8 years because they never actually stopped long enough to figure out what they would replace it with?

Their only achievements have been to gut regulations, screw up taxes for everyone but the top 0.1%, slash coprorate tax rates so companies could profit more, and nearly kick millions off of healthcare for fun.

Considering Democrats control no branches of government I'm unsure what you're implying, unless you mean the request that the current supreme Court nominee be properly vetted and have all of his actual documents sent to the committee instead of the 1% the Republicans have deemed non-damaging? And despite this, he will be rammed through anyway.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by BELMO45

A good point I just heard regarding the two governor elections in Georgia and Florida is what can Abrams and Gillum actually accomplish even if elected because Florida and especially Georgia have state congresses that are so insanely far to the right in many cases that everything is going to get tied up. The few times Nathan Deal even tried to push some things that were more middle or left they went nowhere

That's a bit of an exaggeration I'd say. The state legislature is certainly conservative but "insanely far to the right"? Nah.

Originally Posted by bu2

That is really funny considering what is happening in DC right now.

A SCOTUS nominee undergoing confirmation hearings?