View Poll Results: What will be the result of the Midterms (vote twice!!)

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • GOP holds the House

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by less than 12 seats

    20 41.67%
  • Dems win the House by 12-25 seats

    12 25.00%
  • Dems win the House by 25-38 seats

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by 38+ seats

    1 2.08%
  • GOP gains 1 or more seats in the Senate (52-48 or more)

    29 60.42%
  • GOP holds the same number of seats in the Senate (51-49)

    7 14.58%
  • GOP loses seats but still holds the Senate (50-50 with Pence breaking tie)

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the Senate (49-51 or more)

    2 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 94 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 1870
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I’m not a big believer in generic party polls, but to give us a marker as this thread starts:

    “Vote Democrat” leads “Vote Republican” for Congress nationally, 44.6% to 40.0% in Nate Silver’s weighting of polls.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo
    I recall hearing something this week that due to the district by district demographics, “vote Democrat” needs to have something like a 9 point nationwide margin for the Democrats to be likely to take the house. I don’t recall the source, so definitely don’t quote me on it.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    Jawja

    We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

    It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

    So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

    But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

    Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

    Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

    Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

    Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

    -Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

    It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

    So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

    But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

    Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

    Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

    Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

    Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

    -Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans
    Hmm. Can mods give themselves a timeout? The above hardly seems balanced and impartial. I can explain in detail if needed, but I think it should be self-evident.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    I recall hearing something this week that due to the district by district demographics, “vote Democrat” needs to have something like a 9 point nationwide margin for the Democrats to be likely to take the house. I don’t recall the source, so definitely don’t quote me on it.
    It's all about the turnout. Whose base is energized the most? I don't think we'll know that until late October, there's just so much that can happen between now and then. And even then, early voting changes that dynamic nowadays. Also, will youngsters finally show up? I have my doubts.

    As for polls, I don't even pay attention anymore. Even though I took grad-level statistics, it was second only to P-chem in numbing my mind.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Neals384 View Post
    Hmm. Can mods give themselves a timeout? The above hardly seems balanced and impartial. I can explain in detail if needed, but I think it should be self-evident.
    I'm okay with Jason's post, as I don't see that it violates the ground rules he laid out below from a previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    After a lengthy discussion, the moderation team has decided that we will allow this thread to exist for now. However, as all of you should know there will be no partisan sniping allowed. And there can be no discussion of the merits of particular public policy issues. Keep it civil and analytical, not passionate, and we should be fine.
    Neals, you mention Jason's post not being "balanced and impartial," and I would say there are built-in limitations to just how "balanced and impartial" we can get with this thread. If, for example, people are going to be writing profiles on the candidates in their respective states as Jason did, I think it should be understood that Ds will be more familiar with D candidates, and Rs will be more familiar with R candidates. So I'm not sure we should expect Jason to profile the Rs in the Georgia Governor's race in as much detail as he lovingly profiled the D. Informing us about the D candidate is enough*, and if we want to find out more about the Rs, we can do that with searches.

    * My previous knowledge about the GA Governor's race was 0, and now it's more than 0.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Neals384 View Post
    Hmm. Can mods give themselves a timeout? The above hardly seems balanced and impartial. I can explain in detail if needed, but I think it should be self-evident.
    The phrase "the first ______ _______" seems pretty straightforward and easy to check for veracity and bias.

    Unless I am missing something.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

    It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

    So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

    But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

    Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

    Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

    Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

    Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

    -Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans
    Whoever wins between Abrams and Evans will have the advantage of not having to wage and pay for a runoff fight. The Republican candidate (I am guessing either Cagle or Kemp) will not.

    Evans has a really interesting story as well. She grew up very poor in or around Pooler (outside Savannah), and was the first of her family to go to college. She ultimately got a JD from UGA.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Whoever wins between Abrams and Evans will have the advantage of not having to wage and pay for a runoff fight. The Republican candidate (I am guessing either Cagle or Kemp) will not.

    Evans has a really interesting story as well. She grew up very poor in or around Pooler (outside Savannah), and was the first of her family to go to college. She ultimately got a JD from UGA.
    Now there's the problem...all the candidates are lawyers. Or is that too biased a statement?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    You know, I've read Jason's post several times now. I just don't get it. I see several factual statements. The only editorializing is by saying the story of one of the candidates is "compelling". By the complainer's own use of bold type, it appears their problem is with the "first female African-American governor ever". SMH. Maybe this thread won't survive, which would be a shame.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    The phrase "the first ______ _______" seems pretty straightforward and easy to check for veracity and bias.

    Unless I am missing something.
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    You know, I've read Jason's post several times now. I just don't get it. I see several factual statements. The only editorializing is by saying the story of one of the candidates is "compelling". By the complainer's own use of bold type, it appears their problem is with the "first female African-American governor ever". SMH. Maybe this thread won't survive, which would be a shame.
    The bolding of "the first..." came from Jason's post, not Neals'.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    The bolding of "the first..." came from Jason's post, not Neals'.
    Sorry, my bad. I didn't scroll up far enough when re-reading. My other point about editorializing still stands.

    Thanks for pointing out my error, apologies to neals.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    Maybe this thread won't survive, which would be a shame.
    Evidence of the further polarization of our country if we can't make it work here. As I say, this was one of my last places of civil discourse.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    FWIW, the 2016 thread showed me that the less picking of other posters' threads for bias, the better.

    I don't see anything wrong with Jason's post. If I did, however, I would keep it to myself and just stay on topic to avoid spinning off into sniping.

    $.02
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    My other point about editorializing still stands.
    Yes, Neals will hopefully explain, as I'm not certain I'm on the right track either as to what Neals was thinking was unbalanced in my post above. I'm perfectly fine with Jason's post.

    IF I wanted to pick nits, I would point out that all the R candidates would probably bristle at Jason describing them as "anti immigrant." They would probably say something like, "Hey, I'm pro legal immigration and anti illegal immigration, buddy." A standard R talking point. (Note: it would surprise me if any of the Georgia Rs unnecessarily campaigned on lowering legal immigration levels in a state race in a purple state.)

    But the problem with picking that nit is that all political sides have their own vocabulary/buzzwords and framing of issues. If we were on a D message board or facebook group, I would get shouted down for making the legal/illegal distinction and called disingenuous for making it. (And some would ding me for using "illegal immigrant" instead of "undocumented worker.") On an R message board or facebook group, that distinction is just assumed.

    For this thread to work, we all have to both:
    (1) Follow the ground rules that Jason laid out in good faith, AND
    (2) Have some tolerance when others don't use the exact phrasing that one is used to seeing. If someone wrote a post in good faith and is trying to inform (which is the explicit purpose of the thread), then all should be good.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

    It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

    So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

    But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

    Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

    Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

    Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

    Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

    -Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans
    As a resident of the state, the primary season has been fascinating. Both R and D appear to be running a populist campaign and don't appear interested in focusing on current governor Nathan Deal's legacy of economic development. Casey Cagle memorably killed a tax subsidy for Delta over their withdrawal of preferred rates for NRA members. As noted, Stacey Abrams is a progressive with backing from Sanders / Harris / Booker.

    Georgia has positioned itself incredibly well for ongoing economic development and is poised to be a finalist for Amazon's HQ2. It will be interesting to see whether the winner (from either side) continues such pursuit. It could easily be sunk by the Rs (each candidate has, I believed, pledged to sign a RFRA bill (other than perhaps Clay Tippins) which would presumably rankle the Bezos) or Ds (see e.g. the current situation brewing between Amazon and Seattle over taxes for affordable housing).

    Another position in Georgia that will be fascinating to watch is public service commission. This is not a very well known position but is immensely important as the PSC regulates Georgia Power which essentially sets power rates for everyone in the state. The PSC has long been viewed as in GP's pocket. With the publicity around Plant Vogtle from the turn of the year, there are a few Ds running pledging to break that grip. It will be very difficult to make the PSC go blue, even with just one seat (of 5), but if it will ever happen this is the year (given the massive amount of press the PSC has had with Vogtle).
    My Quick Smells Like French Toast.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Yes, Neals will hopefully explain, as I'm not certain I'm on the right track either as to what Neals was thinking was unbalanced in my post above. I'm perfectly fine with Jason's post.

    IF I wanted to pick nits, I would point out that all the R candidates would probably bristle at Jason describing them as "anti immigrant." They would probably say something like, "Hey, I'm pro legal immigration and anti illegal immigration, buddy." A standard R talking point. (Note: it would surprise me if any of the Georgia Rs unnecessarily campaigned on lowering legal immigration levels in a state race in a purple state.)

    But the problem with picking that nit is that all political sides have their own vocabulary/buzzwords and framing of issues. If we were on a D message board or facebook group, I would get shouted down for making the legal/illegal distinction and called disingenuous for making it. (And some would ding me for using "illegal immigrant" instead of "undocumented worker.") On an R message board or facebook group, that distinction is just assumed.

    For this thread to work, we all have to both:
    (1) Follow the ground rules that Jason laid out in good faith, AND
    (2) Have some tolerance when others don't use the exact phrasing that one is used to seeing. If someone wrote a post in good faith and is trying to inform (which is the explicit purpose of the thread), then all should be good.

    Bandit to Frog (1977): "When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the country you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are."

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Yes, Neals will hopefully explain, as I'm not certain I'm on the right track either as to what Neals was thinking was unbalanced in my post above. I'm perfectly fine with Jason's post.

    IF I wanted to pick nits, I would point out that all the R candidates would probably bristle at Jason describing them as "anti immigrant." They would probably say something like, "Hey, I'm pro legal immigration and anti illegal immigration, buddy." A standard R talking point. (Note: it would surprise me if any of the Georgia Rs unnecessarily campaigned on lowering legal immigration levels in a state race in a purple state.)

    But the problem with picking that nit is that all political sides have their own vocabulary/buzzwords and framing of issues. If we were on a D message board or facebook group, I would get shouted down for making the legal/illegal distinction and called disingenuous for making it. (And some would ding me for using "illegal immigrant" instead of "undocumented worker.") On an R message board or facebook group, that distinction is just assumed.

    For this thread to work, we all have to both:
    (1) Follow the ground rules that Jason laid out in good faith, AND
    (2) Have some tolerance when others don't use the exact phrasing that one is used to seeing. If someone wrote a post in good faith and is trying to inform (which is the explicit purpose of the thread), then all should be good.
    Yikes... In retrospect I probably should have said "pro gun rights" and "anti-illegal immigration." I chose shorthands that could seem partisan and I am sorry if that offended some. Like many of the rest of you, I am at a loss to understand what would be out of bounds by the rest of the post. For what it is worth, describing a candidate's speaking style and delivery as compelling is perfectly fine. Whether you agreed with their policies or not, you would of course be able to describe Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barak Obama as compelling speakers. You can say George W has a folksy way of connecting with people no matter what you think about his presidency. You can say that Donald Trump knows how to rile up a crowd and get them cheering in a way that Hillary never really did and you would not be making a political statement, IMO. You'd be posting observations that, to me, would be perfectly fine in this thread.

    Also, as others have noted, I bolded the part about the first black, female governor because that is a big deal. It has nothing to do with party or partisanship. As I noted, that is why the Georgia race is getting more attention than many other governor races that could also be close this fall. If there was a black Republican candidate who had a legit shot at winning a governorship this fall, that too would be a big deal and worth noting in a post in this thread.

    Anyway, though I am the lead moderator on this thread, other mods will be checking it and they will let me know if I cross the line. As I said, I am sorry for the shorthands I posted about gun and immigration policy. I am going to give myself a short timeout from this thread (I'll read, but won't post for at least 8 hours) as a penalty.

    -Jason "sigh... I feel like we are off to a bad start and I blame myself..." Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Neals384 View Post
    Hmm. Can mods give themselves a timeout? The above hardly seems balanced and impartial. I can explain in detail if needed, but I think it should be self-evident.
    Like others, I found Jason's post to be pretty down the middle, particularly since I think that he was emphasizing the points that the candidates themselves are emphasizing in their campaigns. I should probably just let Neal's speak for him/herself, but my assumption is that his/her issue is with Jason's comment "But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool." He/she likely sees that as an endorsement of Abrams, which I believe is against the ground rules that were set up.

    However, the optimist in me assumes that this is more of a universal statement by Jason, and if the African-American female candidate happened to be on the other side of the aisle, like Diamond and Silk (I recently read an article about them in the NY Times so they are the first ones to come to mind), Jason would have felt the same way. I think/hope we should all agree that a state with a well-known history of racism electing a minority candidate on their merits is a positive step forward for America, regardless of their stances. If we can't agree on that point, then please shut this thread down immediately.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oregon

    Georgia Governor

    Well, the long write up on Abrams reads like a campaign mailer. The paragraph on the Rs reads like a script for a negative campaign ad. I think it goes over the top in its one-sidedness.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    each candidate has, I believed, pledged to sign a RFRA bill (other than perhaps Clay Tippins)
    Tippins has refused to sign the pledge, I believe.

    And good call on the PSC race. And also agree, odds are that it (and most other state offices downballot of governor) remain Republican.


    ---

    I respect Neal's take, but from where I sit FWIW Jason was just setting out the facts. The Georgia Republican candidates for governor are all strong Second Amendment supporters who oppose most if not all so-called "gun control" legislation. Many of them are running very openly against illegal immigration. Those are strong selling points to much of their base here, and I don't think it is editorializing to point that out. While Jason's verbiage might give a hint as to his leanings on the subjects, it seems pretty far from arguing substantive policy which is the verboten third rail.

    Again, though, reasonable minds can differ.
    Last edited by OldPhiKap; 05-21-2018 at 09:49 AM.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

Similar Threads

  1. Oscars 2018
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-09-2018, 11:23 PM
  2. 2017-2018 team vs 2018-2019 team
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2018, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •