Yeah, I am not entirely sure why she is so hell bent on running for Governor and not the Senate. I think it is possible she could survive another loss but she would be boxed out of Georgia electorally. I am not sure why she wanted to face Kemp, who has for the most part been careful and is popular in Georgia. She would have to hope to get a prominent position in a Democratic administration or hope for something unforeseen happening. She is a very smart and driven woman and has a lot of political strengths, but she does have a legitimate weaknesses. We have never had a black woman governor in the USA. Not to mention that she fat and physically unattractive. She does poll very well with women across all demographics but really doesn't poll well with black men. We will see what happens, a lot is going to change momentum-wise with all of these races. I still think there is a 50/50 chance that Walker and Kemp both win. Georgia is a changing state, but relying on the same Democratic turnout in a mid term in Georgia is risky.
Nah. Most adult Americans know that Trump is active and still has a lot of followers. They may NOT want to know, but they know - the media covers it constantly and Trump is in the news more than even the current President.
A few thoughts on these - her Presidential aspirations are dead unless she can win a statewide race. Beto's mistake was running for President and proving not up to the task, which wrecked his glow. If he had just run for Senate or Governor again, I think he'd have had a shot. But like Beto, to be a serious Presidential contender, she needs to win something. Her biggest selling point can't be "I almost won" or State House Minority Leader. Within Georgia, neither Senate seat is an option for a while - 6 years is the earliest, and that's only if Warnock loses this November. That puts her Presidential run at 3032 at the earliest and no one knows what the landscape will be then. Plus, Governors don't get stuck with the national baggage that Senators do, so running for President as a Governor is much easier than running as a Senator - while it worked for Obama, being in the Senate is usually a political minefield to run for President. I think Governor is her best option here - and she seems to be trailing by 5ish points, which is not impossible to overcome. Dems have been way outperforming the polling since Dobbs, so it could be a very close race if the political environment doesn't change much. I think looking at it a year ago, she was probably hoping the Trump-Kemp feud would help her out too.
Becoming President obviously has a lot of luck involved and I agree with you in general terms that you need to win a governorship or senate seat to become President. There are exceptions obviously. I don't remember GHWB ever winning a senate or governorship but he was also Vice President first. We see that Trump won without any political office but that is an entirely different situation. I suspect based on what I have read about with Abrams and what other people that know her have said, she wanted to be Governor of Georgia far more than Senator. First, from what I can tell, I suspect she really believed and likely still does, that she will beat Kemp. Second, she seems to be someone that would prefer the duties and responsibilities of having control over Georgia, rather having less state control as a Senator. She is a very ambitious woman but she also is very focused on the state of Georgia. Right now the Democrats nationwide are riding a bit of a wave after Dobbs and Trump's stupidity. However, the last poll I saw for the Governorship has Kemp up by a strong +8. That is a pretty big bulge if it is the case. Other ones have it at +5 for Kemp. We will see, at the state level polling can also be a bit slow and not exact. I expected this to be a close race to begin with. Within the state of Georgia, Kemp is fairly well liked and moderates seem to gravitate to him. As for Abrams, I think she will do a great job of mobilizing voters at the grass roots level and possibly that makes a difference. No one wants to hear it, but I do think her gender plays a part in this. She is outspoken and she can rub some the wrong way. I have heard and read that some liberals in Georgia are concerned she isn't getting as much of the black male vote as expected. If she loses, I think her best bet is to get a high position within a future administration and attempt to rebound that way. She could be Secretary of State or Attorney General and rehabilitate her name that way and try to move up. Americans seem to have less issues with women appointed to those positions.
Yes many Republicans did outperform polling in 2020 which is more proof that the election wasn't rigged by Democrats.
Abrams only chance for a prominent seat this year is governor. She wasn't goign to run for Senate unless for some reason Warnock couldn't and if she did try to primary Warnock the Democrat establishment would've turned on her. I think she does believe that she could beat Kemp and the polling puts her well within striking distance but I wouldn't put money on her. Kemp isn't Walker and given how beat off Trumpist challenges gives him some cushion from GA voters who don't like Trump and likely helped Ossoff and Warnock win but aren't really Dems.
I'm skeptical of a lot of state polling, but the internals in this are ... fascinating: https://assets.website-files.com/60...de General Election Baseline_FINAL_090922.pdf This is an Oklahoma poll. 57% of the respondents are GOP to 37% Dems. 57% of men are GOP. 57% of women are GOP. The GOP Senator is leading 52-37. The Lt. Gov GOP is leading 53-25. All of this is normal. In the race for Governor, the incumbent GOP (Kevin Stitt) is leading 43-42. Why? Women are voting 47-36 for the Dem. They are voting 49-35 for the GOP in the Senate and 47-28 for the GOP Lt. Gov. Stitt is known for signing a crazy abortion bill. He still likely wins, but if women vote like this nationwide, this election is going to be truly fascinating.
Waiting for: Fred: Lets see who the ghost really is.. Gang: OLD MAN MCCONNELL! Mitch McConnell: And I would've gotten away with it if not for you MEDDLING KIDS!
Conventional wisdom is the party in power loses the midterm. The translation could simply be that the party in power gets to make policies and there are both high expectations for them to meet their promises and a backlash when they enact policies that overreach. Very little room to hit it just right and thus they usually lose in the midterm. Who is in power this midterm cycle? Democrats, of course. And The Supreme Court. Oh, then there is also Trump (losers usually go away but this guy refuses to, dragging that loss forward). Why Things May Really Be Different for This Midterm Election - The New York Times (nytimes.com) By Nate Cohn But this cycle, there really is something different — or at the very least, there is something different about the reasons “this cycle might be different.” This cycle, the arguments for Democratic strength cut at the heart of the underlying theories for why the party in power struggles in midterms. And that gives me a little more pause about blowing them off. ... But this cycle, it’s the Republicans who achieved one of their most important policy objectives — the equivalent of the Great Society or Obamacare — when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and fulfilled a half-century-long political goal of the conservative movement. I can’t think of an equivalent precedent for anything like this. If you can — a good example of when the party out of power achieved the most significant policy change of a president’s first term — feel free to send us an email at dear.upshot@nytimes.com.
No, no, no. The scheme was so sophisticated that all Republicans except Donald Trump did well but the same ballots were rigged against him! Don't you see! Hugo Chavez's software was so sophisticated that it only overrode the votes for president and nothing else!
Midterms should be an easy decision for most Americans. do Americans want a party that gets things done (covid response, inflation reduction act, averting the rail strike) Or do they want to have the country run by a bunch of maniacs again, who still thinks the election was stolen, took away women's body autonomy, uses welfare money to pay for volleyball stadiums, and ships 50 migrants to another city for a political stunt.
I don't know how the eventual results will. What I can say is that women view reproductive rights very differently than men. Women LIVE them and it is something that they often think about and it is something that they tend to discuss amongst themselves. Family planning, bodily autonomy and repression are themes that almost all women have in common. It has a real chance to be a genuine wedge issue where women cross over. It isn't discussed often but women are a minority when it comes to power and position in society. They are keenly aware they live in a patriarchy and there are double standards. Most of the people discussing all of this are males, and out perspective is very skewed by our gender.
There are a lot of white women that benefit from the social construct once they are in a strong family dynamic where they are seeing some benefits from having a white male partner. They see some financial benefits, they see it can benefit their children and they want harmony in the home. So they are willing to overlook some degree of sexism and other social issues that they otherwise are less harsh on than males traditionally (LGBTQ, worker rights, social services). Accordingly, we see a lot of these women vote Republican like their white suburban husbands. These are typically women in their late 30's and older but make up a large voting block in a country with very competitive elections. However, when you see Roe v. Wade over turned, and then Republican majority states discussing no exceptions on abortion under any circumstances; and you have a prominent Senator saying they will vote on an abortion ban; that is a topic that hits women directly between the eyes, regardless of race or most financial standings. They all can imagine getting pregnant on purpose or by accident and being forced by a male dominated government to carry a child to completion regardless of whatever terrible consequence there may be. Women are keenly aware of what those types of laws and that type of movement can lead to. So it is very possible that enough women will either vote, who otherwise would not vote, will defy their party badge and selectively vote against those white men that are pushing for extreme abortion outcomes. I think a lot of men would be surprised what their wives and daughters and sisters believe when it comes to bodily autonomy and reproductive rights when it comes to the extremes being pushed. This isn't simply politics to women, these are basic fundamental rights that are being decided by male politicians. We will, of course, have those that are against abortion at all costs that are very religious, and they are going to be highly motivated to vote Republican. However, these people traditionally are dependable voters to begin with. How many new voters will come from this group of people? They are a minority of the total population but highly politically involved. I don't think the overturn of Roe v. Wade and the comments from Republicans at the state and Senate level are going to change a lot of votes when it comes to males. There have been a lot of vocal younger while males criticizing the SCOTUS ruling, but these men were already part of the younger well educated, while suburban Democrats that we are seeing emerge. Further, as these men cannot get pregnant, I don't think that the positions taken by some Republicans on abortion will be as long term important for men. Promise to cut taxes or other more male centric carrots dangled by the GOP will be enough to persuade these men to pull the lever for the GOP. Overall this SHOULD be a good election for the GOP. The USA has a post COVID haze, inflation is simply out of control and the worst in nearly 50 years, Joe Biden is not a very popular President, the Democrats are wed to the LGBTQ issue which has its most extreme members getting the most media attention, we have the Russia issue and a general sense that the malaise over this country since 2001 needs to be broken. If the Republicans don't take the Senate, they really need to reconsider their extreme positions on things like LGBTQ school issues and immigration and personal rights and freedoms. I personally believe that the antics of Abbott and DeSantis and the extreme positions taken by old white men at the state levels on reproductive rights are going to really hurt the Republicans and could cost them the Senate. We saw that the extreme positions taken by Trump on immigration early on hurt his party a lot in the 2018 mid terms as well.
Abortion is 1 thing, but Republicans also want to cut Medicare and Social Security? How popular is that?
I assume they just don’t tell them, but I’d love to see how they’d successfully spin those policy positions
“Evil baby eater Nancy Pelosi wants the country to continue to pay your Medicare and social security!”
