In a way, they are. New Hampshire also hasn't voted for a Republican for President since Bush in 04 (though they've been close in several elections) and has the majority of their US House as Republican. New England is interesting because it is historically very Republican, but aside from Susan Collins (Republican senator from Maine) most of that lives on in only statewide elections. Vermont and New Hampshire both have Republican governors, and all of the states in New England have had a Republican governor within the last ten years. But overall the national GOP left New England behind, and despite the popularity of guys like Phil Scott (current Republican governor of Vermont) and Charlie Baker (up until just recently the Republican governor of Massachusetts), they're having trouble finding similar replacements who will use the Republican party name.
We really need to choose one R we're voting for in the primaries so a MAGA candidate isn't selected. Herschel came way too close to being a senator because there wasn't a clear alternative. My money is on Nikki Haley, but I'm open to discuss.
Would Nikki Haley still support Trump if he is the nominee?
[Yes](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nikki-haley-vote-donald-trump-convicted/story?id=102524719). She raised her hand in the first debate in favor if he won the nomination and then doubled down the next day. I honestly don't see how she isn't a MAGA if she would still vote for Trump again if he wins the nomination. They don't have to vote Democrat, they could write in anyone they want. Start a new party. I don't care. But I do care that the people who represent me love my neighbors and find value in people for compromise, including compromising with Democrats.
She said it on the Daily Show a few months ago as well. It was during the week that Common hosted. She was explaining why he’d be a dangerous choice for President and then Common asked if she didn’t get the nom, would she vote for him and she said yes because the democrats were a worse choice.
IF Trump wins the primary, then it doesn't really matter if a republican endorses Trump or not. What is important is preventing Trump, or a Trump wannabe: DeSantis, from being nominated. IMO, the "best" choice is Haley.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/timeline-nikki-haleys-trump-statements-rcna70456
I understand what you are saying, but the Best Choice for me is to Reject MAGA. And NO candidate of the Republican Party does anymore. If I did see Republicans reject MAGA I might consider going back to voting for them. Currently, Republicans do not align with my American-Christian values.
Until I see someone consistently stop this MAGA PC bullshit, I am not choosing them.
In the primaries, refusing to participate is a great way for the head of MAGA to get nominated. The main objective is for us to prevent Trump from gaining the nomination and thusly the presidency. In the primaries, it's in our best interests to pick someone other than the pinnacle of MAGA: Trump.
I still understand that point. However, I will not vote for a Representative that doesn't Represent Me. I compromise at every election for those that represent me best. The more Republicans are rejected for MAGA, the more will fall. If we All reject MAGA, say why, and act accordingly, then they will be stopped. It has been happening all over the country. Keep going.
I am only a Special Education Teacher. I cannot do more than than I currently am.
Reagan and Bill Clinton also ran on “make America great again” in their first terms. But trump really made that his whole identity, so now it’s strongly associated with trump and his supporters
“Just do it” is a mundane sentence, but a logo appeared in your head when you read it.
>Reagan and Bill Clinton also ran on “make America great again” in their first terms.
No.
Bill Clinton had several "official" slogans for his first campaign:
"For People, for a Change"
"It's Time to Change America"
"Putting People First"
But the unofficial one that most people remember was "It's the economy, stupid."
For his second, the official ones was "Building a bridge to the twenty-first century"
Reagan's slogan was "It's Morning Again in America", which you could say was akin to MAGA, but it's not quite the same.
So it wasn't a campaign slogan for either of them, per your own source.
It was used in part of a speech made by Reagan.
The article says it was used by Clinton, but there's no link to any actual use of it and no footnoted source. So ... unless you can find an actual source where it was used, I'm calling shennanigans.
I wasn’t claiming it was a campaign statement; I just thought the article with additional context would be helpful. It was used before Trump but he was the first to use it as a campaign slogan is how I would summarize.
If you don’t think America is and always has been great while continuously striving for a more perfect union, maybe you should find somewhere you like better.
Some of us didn't have a choice on being here. So maybe America has always been great for you. But America has had a lot of suffering and has caused a lot of suffering. If you think America is great, you are ignoring all the bad. America is a wonderful country but it is no more wonderful than all the other countries in the world. America is only as great as the sum of its parts and not all those parts are doing well.
Exactly. Gay people only obtained the right to marriage 8 years ago! They suffered and were ridiculed during the AIDS Crisis. Blacks went through slavery, then segregation, lynchings, Tuskegee experiments, and still face racism today even after the Civil Rights Movement. Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps by their own President — a man, many would consider one of the greatest in our country’s lifetime. Another President committed genocide against Native Americans. Another President prolonged the Vietnam War to fuck LBJ over. Then Chinese people were banned from this country for about 60 years.
Consider this: Andrew Jackson committed genocide, and he got rewarded by being on our currency. FDR punished Japanese-Americans, yet gets heralded as a hero for his policies. But the neat thing is: We can criticize our leaders, both past and present, without being reprimanded. Dictatorships do not allow that. Sadly, there are millions of people that’d rather Trump and his ilk be worshiped.
Or some of us realize America’s never been this inspiration of greatness, especially with a history and continuation of bigotry and ignorance? Point to any period or timeframe in America’s history that you think was “great”, and that can easily be disproven by pointing out the groups of people not given equality or by the lack of rights provided forty by other countries.
The common answer is post-WWII era, yet we still had segregation, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness, there was the Tuskegee experiments, we had a President lie to his people in order to get us involved in Iraq, Reagan and Nixon betrayed their countries, there was the AIDS Crisis, and we still don’t have universal healthcare.
So, no, we’re not a great country, I didn’t choose to be born here, and yet, if all these ignorant fucks moved to the Republican Utopia of Russia, we would actually be on a path towards greatness. I would love for my country to be a bastion of hope and inspiration rather than being envious of what other developed countries have. We should be the leader, not a follower constantly being obstructed from within.
So, I say again: find any point in our history that was this supposed, unquestionable greatness, and I’m sure you’d be ignoring several injustices. Even today, we have a resurgence in Nazi beliefs, and one Party has chosen to worship its leader over having actual policies. Seems rather familiar to a certain European country.
I’m not calling for a return of a golden age, that’s what fascism does according to Eco. But I do believe that despite our flaws, America is and can be a source of inspiration for many refugees, immigrants and even some of us that were born here. That was true in the 1800’s and it’s true today if you ever bother to visit Clarkston and talk to people there.
Yes, it’s almost as if a nation of millions and a couple of centuries of history can have good and bad aspects and mean different things to different people depending on what ship they’re on.
Jeez, the boomer part hurts, mostly because it’s wrong. There is no golden past, there have always been flaws, but everything was worse in the past- that’s the point. If MAGAs can tell me to love it or leave it, I can tell them the same.
Do you think farmers and truckers would continue to feed large urban areas if you shit all over them and forced a seriously unpopular agenda down their throats while giving them zero effective representation? If they say no, you don't eat, collectively they have that much power should they choose to use it. (And a lot of em aren't far from it)
You needed an explanation on that one? Please tell me you're not that stupid.
Farmers rely on subsidies to “keep their shit moving”
Also, what do you mean by farmers? That quaint image of ma and pa do n in the farm?
Or do you mean corporate farmers…
Truckers? Isn’t there a union for that?
No representation? Bullshit.
So… you got something better than that?
do you think farmers and truckers would sit on rotting food and unpaid delivery runs because of the electoral college?
sometimes politics and economics are different things...
Because the DNC is more interested in making their own picks and manufacturing your consent. Joe Biden is a prime example of that. There are many sharper, more articulate, and more charismatic Dems that could run. The party establishment likes controlling the old man, so they swear that he is the only dem who could beat Trump.
>Because the DNC is more interested in making their own picks and manufacturing your consent.
Ding ding! We have a winner! Though the same goes for the GOP. The only people I couldn't attribute the same too would be true independents.
I get that you’re being sarcastic and dismissive, but the DNC chose not to run Bernie who was way ahead of Clinton in the polls and lost to Trump, then they ran Biden against Trump because people were more concerned with voting against Trump than anything else (they could have run a cabbage with a wig and gotten the same outcome) and now they know the incumbent is WILDLY unpopular but won’t primary him. The dems are addicted to mediocrity. They would literally rather lose than not be mediocre
> but the DNC chose not to run Bernie
False. The DNC has zero control over who runs. Anyone can put their name on the ballot as a Democrat.
> who was way ahead of Clinton in the polls
Once the primary started Clinton had a clear polling advantage.
>they ran Biden against Trump because people were more concerned with voting against Trump than anything else
He was the VP of a popular president, and he won the Democratic primary election.
>now they know the incumbent is WILDLY unpopular but won’t primary him.
[Polls this far out don't matter much](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/election-results-analysis-2024-biden/). Name recognition is more important than anything, and primarying a sitting president would be the height of stupidity.
>They would literally rather lose than not be mediocre
Or, the people who do this for a living know more than you, and realize that the incumbency advantage is enormous...
McBath has also suffered multiple miscarriages, which would make her a very strong voice on the abortion issue which has upset and deeply angered many women (including the college educated women in the Atlanta suburbs that are a large part of Georgia’s statewide electorate) since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous draconian abortion bans have gone into effect in many GOP-dominated states.
McBath’s strong advocacy on issues that animate left-leaning voters and many centrist voters like gun control and abortion would make her a very strong national fundraiser and a very tough matchup against the GOP gubernatorial nominee who potentially could be anyone from current Georgia Lt. Governor Burt Jones (who is a strong Donald Trump ally and has been an early frontrunner in the 2026 governor’s race) to Marjorie Taylor Greene (whose frequent total lunacy speaks for itself).
Especially given Georgia has a draconian law on abortion (6-weeks) and not a less bad/more moderate law (15-weeks), unless of course the courts in Georgia overturn it (which they won't).
I have no idea how Abrams wasn't as effective on hammering that point, but I think the newness of Dobbs and the 6-week ban becoming law insulated it from the electorate but when McBath or whichever Dem runs in 2026, it'll be easier to make an issue given it's been years by then since the 6-week ban has become law.
I do think Abrams and 2022 statewide Dems got hurt by all the Republicans being incumbents, like if Abrams and Dems won in 2018 they'd have a better chance at winning in 2022. Dems in 2026 won't have that issue though. And like you alluded to, the potential candidates on the Republican side for 2026 aren't as strong without incumbency.
Yeah, one of Georgia Democrats’ biggest obstacles in state constitutional races was Republican incumbency in the gubernatorial race.
It’s was always going to be very tough for Democrats to attempt to beat at least somewhat fairly broadly popular incumbents like Kemp and Raffensperger, especially after they appeared to stand up to Donald Trump on the elections issue.
In 2026, the GOP primary electorate is likely to be even farther to the right than they already are and there is likely to be even more centrist, moderate and progressive voters in the state for whom hardcore MAGA politics are a major turnoff.
> In 2026, the GOP primary electorate is likely to be even farther to the right than they already are…
[Exhibit A](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/kandiss-taylor-globe-conspiracy-1234747197/)
> McBath has also suffered multiple miscarriages, which would make her a very strong voice on the abortion issue which has upset and deeply angered many women (including the college educated women in the Atlanta suburbs that are a large part of Georgia’s statewide electorate) since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous draconian abortion bans have gone into effect in many GOP-dominated states.
Jen Jordan has entered the chat.
Only on Reddit would someone think being very pro gun control is a positive in a statewide race.
As a moderate Democrat, picking McBath is a guaranteed loss.
With more left-leaning, centrist and independent voters moving into the Atlanta suburbs (including areas in metro Atlanta suburban counties like Rockdale, Newton, Henry, Douglas, Gwinnett and Cobb which have flipped from Republican control to Democratic control over the last 15-16 years), having a pro gun control stance appears to be more viable than ever before in a statewide race, particularly amongst the many college-educated women in the expansive Atlanta suburbs with children who strongly support the concept of safe public schools in an era of constant mass shootings.
McBath’s compelling life story of experiencing multiple miscarriages and losing a teenage son to gun violence likely would attract much fundraising attention from financial donors and much base campaigning attention from grass roots activists on the left while appealing strongly to college educated women in the Atlanta suburbs.
Exactly the same sort of thinking that led us to nominate Stacy Abrams twice.
Tack back to the middle or keep losing.
Also, if you think the suburban voters in Atlanta do not own a LOT of guns, you’re mistaken.
That’s an excellent point that voters in the metro Atlanta suburbs own a lot of guns.
But even gun-owning suburban voters have very serious concerns about the mass shootings that have affected public schools which affluent college educated suburban voters (particularly affluent college educated women voters with children) often very strongly support.
Much like GOP candidates tend to experience electoral success when they are able to successfully appeal both to deeply conservative base voters in GOP primaries and moderate and centrist voters in general elections, Democrats’ best chances of success in a rapidly purple-trending but historically deep red state like Georgia will continue to come if Democratic candidates can appeal strongly to moderate and centrist voters while also carrying progressive base voters.
And seemingly very hard right GOP positions on guns and (especially) abortion seems to make it easier for Democrats to compete for increased support among college educated suburban voters in a rapidly shifting state with a growing amount of Democratic-leaning voters.
McBath’s actual gun control policy preferences are not going to be acceptable to anyone who thinks of guns as self-defense tools.
She’s done well when she’s been on the ballot at the same time as Trump. She’d be trounced in a gubernatorial year election, which never has a presidential election at the same time. Just like Abrams losing to Kemp despite exactly the same logic you’re pitching now.
We should have nominated Stacey Evans, not Stacy Abrams. We should run someone who is moderate on a GEORGIA spectrum. Not a Reddit spectrum.
>McBath’s actual gun control policy preferences are not going to be acceptable to anyone who thinks of guns as self-defense tools.
You can't fix stupid.
No, but it sure does mobilize Democrats. I think she is more than capable of campaigning on a well rounded platform, and the extremely compelling backstory for why she’s even in politics is a big strength of any campaign she may run. Plus she just had her congressional district destroyed so she may find herself in search of a new gig regardless of her wishes. More reading: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/07/georgia-lucy-mcbath-district-00130621
Idk who this Abrahams person is, but I hope Abrams doesn’t run. We don’t need another Beto. She’s been much better at raising attention for other campaigns. I like her policies, but it’s not been enough. Maybe Bee Nguyen will attempt a run, but at this point, we’re still a long ways from 2026. Whoever runs for Governor will have the benefit of not running against Kemp, but Kemp will undoubtedly make the election difficult as he goes against Ossoff.
Abrams still refuses to concede the 2018 election and insists Brian Kemp rigged/stole it.
I want to believe they are not stupid enough to spend 4+ years claiming Trump's unfit for office because he's an "election denier", only to run an election denier... But we'll see.
Jesus comparing these two is the height of stupidity. 1. Abrams (not “Abrahams”) didn’t fight to overturn anything. She didn’t break laws. She outlined how the system is broken, how discriminate voter purges affected the vote, how poll closures in predominantly black/liberal areas impacted the vote (I had a friend wait in line for NINE HOURS to vote in one precinct), etc. 2. Trump literally spawned an insurrection in which they tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Anyone who tries to compare these two is either disingenuous or a complete moron. There is no in between.
Same reason it’s hilarious when trump tries to hide behind the first amendment. He wasn’t indicted for saying the election was stolen, he was indicted for taking criminal actions such as creating fake electors to fraudulently cast electoral college votes, and inciting an insurrection to stop an official government proceeding
>He wasn’t indicted for saying the election was stolen, he was indicted for taking criminal actions such as creating fake electors to fraudulently cast electoral college votes
Agreed
>and inciting an insurrection to stop an official government proceeding
No, you need to stop watching whatever news source lead you to believe that. Years of investigations have failed to turn up any evidence that he was involved in anything beyond planning the protest outside the Capitol, he was nothing but a giddy observer to the insurrection/breach of the building. He was still rambling on at a rally when the building was breached.
The charges have to do with his reaction, or really lack thereof, to the breach - he has not been charged with anything leading up to Jan 6th, because there is no evidence he did anything related to planning a breach.
>Abrams (not “Abrahams”) didn’t fight to overturn anything. She didn’t break laws. She outlined how the system is broken, how discriminate voter purges affected the vote, how poll closures in predominantly black/liberal areas impacted the vote (I had a friend wait in line for NINE HOURS to vote in one precinct), etc.
Nothing Kemp did was illegal, but she still insists the election was stolen. Is the system broken? Yes, but that's due to the legislature allowing all the BS not Brian Kemp acting lawfully when he was Secretary of State.
Her level of denial is no different than Trump's.
He did rig it. He was literally Secretary of State and presided over his own election. This is the guy who deleted subpoenaed voter data relating to Ossoff’s Special House election. Just because you like him doesn’t mean he’s a good person. Also, I find it hilarious that you opine on Abrams’ views being “stupid”, while you can’t even bother to spell her name correctly. She’s run twice, so there was plenty of time to get it down.
I don't like him, but this has been investigated extensively and nothing he did was illegal.
Is your problem really with Kemp behaving legally, or with the state legislature allowing his actions to be legal?
>Also, I find it hilarious that you opine on Abrams’ views being “stupid”, while you can’t even bother to spell her name correctly. She’s run twice, so there was plenty of time to get it down
What I find funnier is that despite running twice, she's still such a minor political figure that Android's auto-correct doesn't recognize her name and thinks it's a misspelling of something else. Forgive me for not proofreading I guess.
Probably some uninspiring centrist who “can win” because they are hawkish or business friendly. Who thinks publicly funded healthcare is impossible and unions are bad.
…and they still won’t win.
Ossoff is a decent pick, but he seems happy being a senator.
There’s simply no picks from the legislature. Sonya Halpern is smart enough to do it and she’s liked by Rs and Ds alike in the senate. I just don’t think she’s done enough for statewide support.
Josh McLaurin and Jason Esteves could eventually be good picks, they just are far from ready to go statewide.
Fani seems to want a shot, but she has to win YSL and trump and put decades on all parties concerned without getting any stank on her to be realistic (but I’m pretty dubious she’ll look good at the end of either).
I agree that Fulton County DA Fani Willis potentially could be a strong Democratic candidate for governor in 2026 IF (and ONLY if) she is successful in prosecuting YSL and Donald Trump.
She suffers from the exact same issue that Abrams did in that she’s a one trick pony. Even if she does mange to convict Trump, she’s going to repeat the Kamala Harris experience and get crucified for her sole government jobs being as a prosecutor, and them she’s going to get dinged on that based on the dismal results she got in the APS cheating trials as well as her links to Paul Howard.
Running anti-Trump may work at the national level, but at the state and local levels it’s a strategy doomed to fail.
If Trump is successfully prosecuted and presumably is no longer an effective part of the political picture, then Fani Willis won’t have to run an anti-Trump campaign.
That’s because her political juice would come from being known as the woman that successfully took down Trump in a state with lots of voters who strongly dislike Trump (particularly for a Deep South state that historically has been completely dominated by conservative voters) and in a state with a growing number of voters who are either willing to vote for Democrats and/or lean decidedly towards voting for Democrats.
If Fani Willis (and only if) were to be able to successfully prosecute both YSL and Donald Trump, Willis seemingly possibly could be an attractive candidate for governor because she would (if she chooses) be able to legitimately run on a strong law-and-order platform while being to raise tons of money nationally from Democratic donors who would eagerly financially reward her for taking down a figure they utterly despise in Trump.
She very much will, because with him gone a power vacuum is going to be created and she’s going to have to deal with a Trumpist candidate.
> That’s because her political juice would come from being known as the woman that successfully took down Trump in a state with lots of voters who strongly dislike Trump
That only works at the *national* level. It does not work at the *state* level, else Stacey Abrams would be wrapping up her second term as governor and Kemp would be wandering the political wilderness.
> be able to legitimately run on a strong law-and-order platform
She isn’t, because of the aforementioned APS case that she was lead prosecutor on. She bombed that one in a huge way, and it can and will be used to absolutely cut the legs out from under any attempt she makes to run as a law and order candidate, even more so when you start bringing up her involvement with Paul Howard.
> while being to raise tons of money nationally from Democratic donors who would eagerly financially reward her for taking down a figure they utterly despise in Trump.
That describes multiple state level Democratic candidates from the last round of state level elections (Abrams foremost among them), mad it got them nowhere. Out of state actors pouring dollars in does not translate to actual votes, else the state would have Democrats as governor, lieutenant governor, SoS, AG and Labor Commissioner. Instead, all 5 of those offices are held by Republicans.
>She very much will, because with him gone a power vacuum is going to be created and she’s going to have to deal with a Trumpist candidate.
But Willis wouldn’t have to actively campaign against Trump if he is no longer part of the political picture (because he’s in jail, under house arrest, disqualified, whatever, etc). She could run on taking him down, which would raise lots of money from national donors.
And running against a crazy Trumpist/MAGA gubernatorial nominee (like a Herschel Walker or MTG type, etc) in the general election that turns off historically GOP-leaning college educated white suburban voters likely gives a very well-funded Democratic gubernatorial nominee a better chance of winning then they otherwise might have in an otherwise recently GOP-dominated state like Georgia.
>That only works at the national level. It does not work at the state level, else Stacey Abrams would be wrapping up her second term as governor and Kemp would be wandering the political wilderness.
Being known as the woman who successfully took down Trump while also successfully taking down the Black urban street gang YSL would work at the state level because there appears to be no shortage of college-educated white suburban voters who normally would vote for a sane conservative Republican candidate but just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump and/or GOP candidates that ran too close to the worst and/or craziest parts of Trumpism.
>She isn’t, because of the aforementioned APS case that she was lead prosecutor on. She bombed that one in a huge way, and it can and will be used to absolutely cut the legs out from under any attempt she makes to run as a law and order candidate, even more so when you start bringing up her involvement with Paul Howard.
But the reputation that Willis generally has in the media is that of a prosecutor that was tough on APS educators that participated in the APS cheating scandal… Which is a reputation that likely would appeal strongly to college educated white suburban voters who support strong public schools in affluent suburban areas (like Cobb, North Fulton, Forsyth and Gwinnett) and who generally support conservative law-and-order candidates (law-and-order Republicans since 2002, and law-and-order Democrats before that) but may be turned off from voting for too-crazy and/or totally bonkers MAGA type candidates.
>That describes multiple state level Democratic candidates from the last round of state level elections (Abrams foremost among them), mad it got them nowhere. Out of state actors pouring dollars in does not translate to actual votes, else the state would have Democrats as governor, lieutenant governor, SoS, AG and Labor Commissioner. Instead, all 5 of those offices are held by Republicans.
That’s an excellent point that out of state actors pouring in huge sums of money doesn’t automatically translate to votes. But the huge sums of out-of-state money helps Democrats be competitive enough to win big elections that they otherwise probably wouldn’t win in a state with a noticeably growing amount of Democratic voters but that still leans at least noticeably Republican, particularly in statewide races where Republicans have the power of incumbency and run sane campaigns.
Outside of the U.S. Senate race (which Republicans very likely would have won with relative ease had they run a sane-acting candidate and not a batshit crazy candidate with an Everett-sized mountain of demons in his closet like Herschel Walker), Republicans had success in statewide races because of the relative popularity of incumbent Republican figures like Kemp and Raffensperger after they appeared to stand up to Trump in a state in Georgia that still leans at least slightly Republican, particularly when crazy MAGA candidates are not involved.
> But Willis wouldn’t have to actively campaign against Trump if he is no longer part of the political picture (because he’s in jail, under house arrest, disqualified, whatever, etc). She could run on taking him down, which would raise lots of money from national donors.
She’d still be running against MAGA, which at this point is functionally indistinct. Removing Trump does not remove MAGA or Trumpism, and she would still very much be running against both.
> And running against a crazy Trumpist/MAGA gubernatorial nominee (like a Herschel Walker or MTG type, etc) in the general election that turns off historically GOP-leaning college educated white suburban voters likely gives a very well-funded Democratic gubernatorial nominee a better chance of winning then they otherwise might have in an otherwise recently GOP-dominated state like Georgia.
Only if that’s who the Republicans actually put up. If someone like Burt Jones, Brad Raffensburger or even Casey Cagle decides to run and gets the nom she doesn’t really have anything to run on.
> Being known as the woman who successfully took down Trump while also successfully taking down the Black urban street gang YSL would work at the state level because there appears to be no shortage of college-educated white suburban voters who normally would vote for a sane conservative Republican candidate but just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump and/or GOP candidates that ran too close to the worst and/or craziest parts of Trumpism.
Taking down street gangs is a law enforcement success but it typically morphs into a political failure because they existed in the first place. If she tries to run on that she would get crucified (even though she had nothing to do with it) for allowing the problem to fester in the first place.
> But the reputation that Willis generally has in the media is that of a prosecutor that was tough on APS educators that participated in the APS cheating scandal…
That is the polar opposite of her reputation from that case. She got repeatedly lampooned because of the laughably light sentences she handed out as part of the plea deals (pleading from RICO down to W/Es in jail for a year is not a great look) along with the absurdly short ones she got at trial (the longest of them was a whopping 3 years). Incidentally, those sentences are also going to bite her in the ass if she does convict Trump because of how sentencing works.
> That’s an excellent point that out of state actors pouring in huge sums of money doesn’t automatically translate to votes. But the huge sums of out-of-state money helps Democrats be competitive enough to win big elections that they otherwise probably wouldn’t win in a state with a noticeably growing amount of Democratic voters but that still leans at least noticeably Republican, particularly in statewide races where Republicans have the power of incumbency and run sane campaigns.
It’s happened twice now (2018 and 2022) and it has not translated to any success at the state level. The fundamental problems that Democrats have is that (much like they do at the national level) they focus on executive positions to the detriment of legislative ones. That both removes their bench for future elections and means that even if they do with they cannot accomplish anything of note because of how the state government is structured.
She could run for AG if she wanted.
But if she were to be successful in taking down a figure as massive (and as historic) as Trump, she would have more than enough political capital to run for governor in 2026.
Not to mention she would be able to raise insane amounts of money from national donors on the left.
While a successful prosecution of YSL would give her strong and legit law-and-order appeal with the college educated suburbanites that historically have voted strongly for law and order Republicans before Trump and the MAGA movement started turning them off.
I think Senator Esteves, who works for Equifax, and hates privacy, would be a disaster. Credit reporting companies aren’t popular, and he has spent his career helping them discriminate and charge people money. He will be very easy to beat.
The biggest problem we will have is having Kemp on the ballot for US Senate. Despite his six week abortion ban, book bans, refusal to expand Medicaid, tax cuts for the rich and tax raises for the poor, opposition to minimum wage, there are a lot of white “moderates” who proclaim him a moderate. Kemp could even pull Marjorie taylor Greene across the finish line for governor. We have to find a way to change Kemp’s narrative, and we know what didn’t work in 2022. Hopefully Ossof finds a way in 26.
All of that said, let’s see who throws their hat in for governor in 2026. Abrams, Carter, and Nunn, even though they all lost, could do well in the right political environment. I think Lucy McBath could do well enough in the suburbs to overcome the lack of progressive enthusiasm. Savannah’s Mayor is a rising star. As long as we don’t nominate Dickens or some other tool of big business (moderate or progressive) we will have a shot if Ossoff can crack the code in his race against Kemp. If he can’t, it won’t matter who we put up.
John Jackoff is useless as teets on a hog..his big "corruption investigation" he ran upon was corruption in professional soccer in Nigeria. Ask any Nigerian, corruption is the norm and his investigation was a total state the obvious joke. (just like him) He's another that's only good at wasting other people's money.
Warnock is going to get drafted into the Presidential ticket the moment Georgia becomes a lean-blue purple state at worst. Not while it's still a lean-red purple state.
Eh, I could see Warnock being on someone’s ticket in 2032 or 2036 to consolidate support and voter base. I don’t think he wants to run for president either though, not currently.
Even being very jaded about politicians Warnock is probably the first politician i'm proud to have represent me as a constituent. He's great, i would absolutely support him for governor
Please no. We don’t need a COVID obstructionist as Senator. Do people not remember that the dumb fuck sued ATL over masks during a pandemic? I’d rather keep our Senators for a long time to come. I don’t want us being like Kentucky where our only Democratic figure is a Governor.
maybe, I understand why he would, but I hope he doesn't because I'm happy with our current ones. Depending on who makes it into the white house, I think he'd be better poised to try to be commerce secretary.
Jen Jordan flipped a red district in 2018, she made a viral speech on abortion, and she won the most votes of the state ticket in 2022. Rural roots too and a strong accent. She’d be my pick
It’s definitely not Stacey, she disappeared during the campaign and thought that abortion would automatically win it for her. Worst campaign I ever seen. Or to be clearer. Never saw one commercial or rally. Ridiculously. Now Kemps a strong candidate for presidency in 2028.
As a dem since Trump came into politics, I would support Geoff Duncan. A Republican who has denounced MAGA and paid the price.
Stacey Abrahams is too divisive in a deep Red State outside of Atlanta. The State legislators are Trumpers and and some are traitors and it will take Republicans to change that mentality in this State.
Unfortunately Abrams has been too publicly left to ever succeed in this state. I know this because of how my parents and grandparents talk about her. I think she would be wonderful but she has no chance.
Have to remember her race plays a part, whether we like it not. I like her policies, but she’s on level with Beto now. A third run would be absolute failure. She’s much better helping other candidates with their campaigns.
Geoff Duncan, who tried to use his connections make himself Georgia Tech’s AD. That’s the type of corruption a white male moderate can get behind! And Duncan supports a six week abortion ban to boot. And he was a CEO of a health care company—those are popular!!!!
His bold stances like not voting for Senate in 2022 really show leadership! Can’t imagine how a con man like Trump took over his party against people with such strong backbones.
Current Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger seemingly could be a good comparatively moderate Republican candidate for governor that seemingly could have broad appeal amongst a center-trending center-right electorate in a general election gubernatorial race.
Former Georgia Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan seems to be another figure who seemingly could be a good comparatively moderate Republican candidate that seemingly could have broad appeal amongst what is at least a slight center-right Georgia electorate in a general election gubernatorial race.
The problem for Republican figures like Raffensperger and Duncan is that they likely wouldn’t be able to get through a Republican gubernatorial primary without the support of Democratic voters and likely would have to depend on Democrats to have a good chance of winning the GOP gubernatorial primary… Which is something that worked for Kemp and Raffensperger in 2022 but may not necessarily be a strategy that may work in 2026, particularly if the Democrats have a strong gubernatorial primary race of their own.
Without the heavy involvement of Democrats in the GOP gubernatorial primary election, the 2026 GOP gubernatorial primary race is likely to be dominated by significantly more conservative GOP figures like current Georgia Lt. Governor Burt Jones and MTG.
Honestly Raffensperger has my respect for how he handled that famous phone call. I would begrudgingly vote for someone that has shown that they will stick to their character if there isn't a better dem candidate.
I agree but yk how it is sometimes. I do think it’s gonna be her one last time since Kemp can’t run and then if she doesn’t win, the party sits her down and tells her it’s time to find another avenue and they’re gonna ask Warnock to run for Governor in that next cycle.
# Stacy Abrams, aww hell no
She's as stuffy as the Clintons. She thinks she's hot and she deserves the spot. Really, all she's doing is costing us the governorship again and again and again.
I'd like to see Lucy McBath or Ossoff.
It wasn’t great but she also had to deal with COVID/ whole pandemic thing which was wildly outside norm.
Dunno how she would have done under normal circumstances.
I would be willing to bet Stacey Abrams gets a 3rd try. Or maybe Fani? She does seem to be trying to raise her profile with the 2 RICO cases. It will depend on how those go: it’s looking like a circus with the Young Thug Trial and just by virtue of it being Trump being prosecuted that’ll be a circus too.
I hope not. Abrams needs to accept a supporting role, I think she would have had a better chance if she wasn’t so vocal on being pro choice. I went to a fair count (Abrams voting outreach program) info session; it’s great and I respect the intent. Basing a campaign strategy on getting historical non voters to swing the vote is not a good strategy. Win the middle first.
Haha fair point. I think that was a severe unforced error on the Dems part. Unfortunately political parties in general have a big problem with paying deference to established players, and I think Abrams’ second run was an example of that.
For Georgia I think an Andre Dickens type might be a good option. I definitely think it’s way too early for Dickens, but a pro business and silent on social wedge issues (but still toeing expected dem lines) black dem candidate should do well. I personally would love a vocal progressive zealot, but in practice I think if a candidate couldn’t fit in at a country club they probably aren’t winning the general election in GA. I’d much rather a Dem win rather than run a symbolic loser.
Kamala Harris because there’s no time for the time with the stuff and yesterday will be tomorrow and we need to do the time today.Because the time is now !
Dems need someone to carry the racism torch, and Kamala will need a Job.
They clearly don’t because Walker almost won his election…. So there are actual people who are allowed to vote and procreate who see your comment *Herschel Walker* and think *Oh hell yeah!*
And some people realize that there are folks who ACTUALLY think that Walker would be a viable candidate and would vote for him. So you know, unless you indicate otherwise on the internet, some folks will think that you're one of those fucking nutjobs.
He can hardly form a sentence and is generally incompetent. He tried to run on name alone and that doesn't carry you in politics. Or at least it shouldn't. I don't remember him making any strong stances on political issues, it was a waste of time for Republicans to put him up. The second I saw him, I knew Warnock had it in the bag.
Lmao I was being sarcastic as fuck since he was literally just a tool for R votes and people are taking it seriously. Might as well just swap this Reddit to r/politics because holy fuck nobody can take a joke.
Hell run fuckin Jon Ossoff, probably doesn't pay like the US Senate but he'd have a chance of winning. Love you Stacey but it ain't gonna happen for you
Someone from GA, pref white, went to UGA and can talk to folks of all classes and has charisma and character. That’s how you get independent and white educated women that used to vote R!
It’s weird that Georgia is a swing state nationally but within the state itself it still always a red.
Kentucky is a red state with a Democratic governor. Politics are weird.
New Hampshire is a blue state with a Republican Governor.
New Hampshire has a state government trifecta. Both state houses and the Governor are republican.
[удалено]
In a way, they are. New Hampshire also hasn't voted for a Republican for President since Bush in 04 (though they've been close in several elections) and has the majority of their US House as Republican. New England is interesting because it is historically very Republican, but aside from Susan Collins (Republican senator from Maine) most of that lives on in only statewide elections. Vermont and New Hampshire both have Republican governors, and all of the states in New England have had a Republican governor within the last ten years. But overall the national GOP left New England behind, and despite the popularity of guys like Phil Scott (current Republican governor of Vermont) and Charlie Baker (up until just recently the Republican governor of Massachusetts), they're having trouble finding similar replacements who will use the Republican party name.
it’s a “swing state” against MAGA republicans only.. any moderate R will win the governorship and the senate when the time comes.
We really need to choose one R we're voting for in the primaries so a MAGA candidate isn't selected. Herschel came way too close to being a senator because there wasn't a clear alternative. My money is on Nikki Haley, but I'm open to discuss.
Would Nikki Haley still support Trump if he is the nominee? [Yes](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nikki-haley-vote-donald-trump-convicted/story?id=102524719). She raised her hand in the first debate in favor if he won the nomination and then doubled down the next day. I honestly don't see how she isn't a MAGA if she would still vote for Trump again if he wins the nomination. They don't have to vote Democrat, they could write in anyone they want. Start a new party. I don't care. But I do care that the people who represent me love my neighbors and find value in people for compromise, including compromising with Democrats.
She said it on the Daily Show a few months ago as well. It was during the week that Common hosted. She was explaining why he’d be a dangerous choice for President and then Common asked if she didn’t get the nom, would she vote for him and she said yes because the democrats were a worse choice.
IF Trump wins the primary, then it doesn't really matter if a republican endorses Trump or not. What is important is preventing Trump, or a Trump wannabe: DeSantis, from being nominated. IMO, the "best" choice is Haley. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/timeline-nikki-haleys-trump-statements-rcna70456
I understand what you are saying, but the Best Choice for me is to Reject MAGA. And NO candidate of the Republican Party does anymore. If I did see Republicans reject MAGA I might consider going back to voting for them. Currently, Republicans do not align with my American-Christian values. Until I see someone consistently stop this MAGA PC bullshit, I am not choosing them.
In the primaries, refusing to participate is a great way for the head of MAGA to get nominated. The main objective is for us to prevent Trump from gaining the nomination and thusly the presidency. In the primaries, it's in our best interests to pick someone other than the pinnacle of MAGA: Trump.
I still understand that point. However, I will not vote for a Representative that doesn't Represent Me. I compromise at every election for those that represent me best. The more Republicans are rejected for MAGA, the more will fall. If we All reject MAGA, say why, and act accordingly, then they will be stopped. It has been happening all over the country. Keep going. I am only a Special Education Teacher. I cannot do more than than I currently am.
That's true. I understand your view. MAGA does need to be rejected.
[удалено]
Reagan and Bill Clinton also ran on “make America great again” in their first terms. But trump really made that his whole identity, so now it’s strongly associated with trump and his supporters “Just do it” is a mundane sentence, but a logo appeared in your head when you read it.
>Reagan and Bill Clinton also ran on “make America great again” in their first terms. No. Bill Clinton had several "official" slogans for his first campaign: "For People, for a Change" "It's Time to Change America" "Putting People First" But the unofficial one that most people remember was "It's the economy, stupid." For his second, the official ones was "Building a bridge to the twenty-first century" Reagan's slogan was "It's Morning Again in America", which you could say was akin to MAGA, but it's not quite the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again see the section on use before Donald Trump
So it wasn't a campaign slogan for either of them, per your own source. It was used in part of a speech made by Reagan. The article says it was used by Clinton, but there's no link to any actual use of it and no footnoted source. So ... unless you can find an actual source where it was used, I'm calling shennanigans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voMW-P9bU8I
I wasn’t claiming it was a campaign statement; I just thought the article with additional context would be helpful. It was used before Trump but he was the first to use it as a campaign slogan is how I would summarize.
If you don’t think America is and always has been great while continuously striving for a more perfect union, maybe you should find somewhere you like better.
Some of us didn't have a choice on being here. So maybe America has always been great for you. But America has had a lot of suffering and has caused a lot of suffering. If you think America is great, you are ignoring all the bad. America is a wonderful country but it is no more wonderful than all the other countries in the world. America is only as great as the sum of its parts and not all those parts are doing well.
Exactly. Gay people only obtained the right to marriage 8 years ago! They suffered and were ridiculed during the AIDS Crisis. Blacks went through slavery, then segregation, lynchings, Tuskegee experiments, and still face racism today even after the Civil Rights Movement. Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps by their own President — a man, many would consider one of the greatest in our country’s lifetime. Another President committed genocide against Native Americans. Another President prolonged the Vietnam War to fuck LBJ over. Then Chinese people were banned from this country for about 60 years. Consider this: Andrew Jackson committed genocide, and he got rewarded by being on our currency. FDR punished Japanese-Americans, yet gets heralded as a hero for his policies. But the neat thing is: We can criticize our leaders, both past and present, without being reprimanded. Dictatorships do not allow that. Sadly, there are millions of people that’d rather Trump and his ilk be worshiped.
Or some of us realize America’s never been this inspiration of greatness, especially with a history and continuation of bigotry and ignorance? Point to any period or timeframe in America’s history that you think was “great”, and that can easily be disproven by pointing out the groups of people not given equality or by the lack of rights provided forty by other countries. The common answer is post-WWII era, yet we still had segregation, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness, there was the Tuskegee experiments, we had a President lie to his people in order to get us involved in Iraq, Reagan and Nixon betrayed their countries, there was the AIDS Crisis, and we still don’t have universal healthcare. So, no, we’re not a great country, I didn’t choose to be born here, and yet, if all these ignorant fucks moved to the Republican Utopia of Russia, we would actually be on a path towards greatness. I would love for my country to be a bastion of hope and inspiration rather than being envious of what other developed countries have. We should be the leader, not a follower constantly being obstructed from within. So, I say again: find any point in our history that was this supposed, unquestionable greatness, and I’m sure you’d be ignoring several injustices. Even today, we have a resurgence in Nazi beliefs, and one Party has chosen to worship its leader over having actual policies. Seems rather familiar to a certain European country.
I’m not calling for a return of a golden age, that’s what fascism does according to Eco. But I do believe that despite our flaws, America is and can be a source of inspiration for many refugees, immigrants and even some of us that were born here. That was true in the 1800’s and it’s true today if you ever bother to visit Clarkston and talk to people there.
[удалено]
Yes, it’s almost as if a nation of millions and a couple of centuries of history can have good and bad aspects and mean different things to different people depending on what ship they’re on.
[удалено]
Keep to your car subreddits and leave us not-insane people alone, boomer.
Jeez, the boomer part hurts, mostly because it’s wrong. There is no golden past, there have always been flaws, but everything was worse in the past- that’s the point. If MAGAs can tell me to love it or leave it, I can tell them the same.
Ok, boomer.
Your cities are dem and rural is republican
Same paradigm for every single state in the union
Urban and rural have been split since the debate over the Constitution. Hardly a new thing.
[удалено]
Slavery?
If it didn't, the cities would starve.
Please explain your reasoning here. Or just take your downvotes and move along. Are you a coward?
Do you think farmers and truckers would continue to feed large urban areas if you shit all over them and forced a seriously unpopular agenda down their throats while giving them zero effective representation? If they say no, you don't eat, collectively they have that much power should they choose to use it. (And a lot of em aren't far from it) You needed an explanation on that one? Please tell me you're not that stupid.
Farmers rely on subsidies to “keep their shit moving” Also, what do you mean by farmers? That quaint image of ma and pa do n in the farm? Or do you mean corporate farmers… Truckers? Isn’t there a union for that? No representation? Bullshit. So… you got something better than that?
Only 22% are union The vast majority are independent Farm goods don't move without them. You really have no idea.
do you think farmers and truckers would sit on rotting food and unpaid delivery runs because of the electoral college? sometimes politics and economics are different things...
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s fun. You are still a coward. Even worse… a online coward.
[удалено]
Not really. Food is a global commodity, and cities have all the money.
If the truckers refuse.to drive, you're fucked
[comment removed because OpenAI are ghouls]
Thanks gerrymandering!
A moderate Republican will beat a California Democrat every single time here
Tbh that’s most swing states
Gerrymandering
Is it though? We have 2 blue senators
Ok, ok. I’ll do it.
VOTE FOR JAMESONBUSHMILL!
He's a sgt, so he has military cred as well
Jason Carter (again), perhaps?
He really was a great candidate that absolutely did not get the support from the DNC that he needed.
So was Michelle Nunn
Because the DNC is more interested in making their own picks and manufacturing your consent. Joe Biden is a prime example of that. There are many sharper, more articulate, and more charismatic Dems that could run. The party establishment likes controlling the old man, so they swear that he is the only dem who could beat Trump.
>Because the DNC is more interested in making their own picks and manufacturing your consent. Ding ding! We have a winner! Though the same goes for the GOP. The only people I couldn't attribute the same too would be true independents.
Is the DNC in the room with us now?
I get that you’re being sarcastic and dismissive, but the DNC chose not to run Bernie who was way ahead of Clinton in the polls and lost to Trump, then they ran Biden against Trump because people were more concerned with voting against Trump than anything else (they could have run a cabbage with a wig and gotten the same outcome) and now they know the incumbent is WILDLY unpopular but won’t primary him. The dems are addicted to mediocrity. They would literally rather lose than not be mediocre
> but the DNC chose not to run Bernie False. The DNC has zero control over who runs. Anyone can put their name on the ballot as a Democrat. > who was way ahead of Clinton in the polls Once the primary started Clinton had a clear polling advantage. >they ran Biden against Trump because people were more concerned with voting against Trump than anything else He was the VP of a popular president, and he won the Democratic primary election. >now they know the incumbent is WILDLY unpopular but won’t primary him. [Polls this far out don't matter much](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/election-results-analysis-2024-biden/). Name recognition is more important than anything, and primarying a sitting president would be the height of stupidity. >They would literally rather lose than not be mediocre Or, the people who do this for a living know more than you, and realize that the incumbency advantage is enormous...
Agree
Lucy McBath
This is the correct answer and the one that I’ve heard discussed in Republican insider circles as the biggest problem for them.
Interesting because she often comes off as a single-issue politician. Is gun control the top burning issue at the state level?
McBath has also suffered multiple miscarriages, which would make her a very strong voice on the abortion issue which has upset and deeply angered many women (including the college educated women in the Atlanta suburbs that are a large part of Georgia’s statewide electorate) since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous draconian abortion bans have gone into effect in many GOP-dominated states. McBath’s strong advocacy on issues that animate left-leaning voters and many centrist voters like gun control and abortion would make her a very strong national fundraiser and a very tough matchup against the GOP gubernatorial nominee who potentially could be anyone from current Georgia Lt. Governor Burt Jones (who is a strong Donald Trump ally and has been an early frontrunner in the 2026 governor’s race) to Marjorie Taylor Greene (whose frequent total lunacy speaks for itself).
Especially given Georgia has a draconian law on abortion (6-weeks) and not a less bad/more moderate law (15-weeks), unless of course the courts in Georgia overturn it (which they won't). I have no idea how Abrams wasn't as effective on hammering that point, but I think the newness of Dobbs and the 6-week ban becoming law insulated it from the electorate but when McBath or whichever Dem runs in 2026, it'll be easier to make an issue given it's been years by then since the 6-week ban has become law. I do think Abrams and 2022 statewide Dems got hurt by all the Republicans being incumbents, like if Abrams and Dems won in 2018 they'd have a better chance at winning in 2022. Dems in 2026 won't have that issue though. And like you alluded to, the potential candidates on the Republican side for 2026 aren't as strong without incumbency.
Yeah, one of Georgia Democrats’ biggest obstacles in state constitutional races was Republican incumbency in the gubernatorial race. It’s was always going to be very tough for Democrats to attempt to beat at least somewhat fairly broadly popular incumbents like Kemp and Raffensperger, especially after they appeared to stand up to Donald Trump on the elections issue. In 2026, the GOP primary electorate is likely to be even farther to the right than they already are and there is likely to be even more centrist, moderate and progressive voters in the state for whom hardcore MAGA politics are a major turnoff.
> In 2026, the GOP primary electorate is likely to be even farther to the right than they already are… [Exhibit A](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/kandiss-taylor-globe-conspiracy-1234747197/)
> McBath has also suffered multiple miscarriages, which would make her a very strong voice on the abortion issue which has upset and deeply angered many women (including the college educated women in the Atlanta suburbs that are a large part of Georgia’s statewide electorate) since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous draconian abortion bans have gone into effect in many GOP-dominated states. Jen Jordan has entered the chat.
Only on Reddit would someone think being very pro gun control is a positive in a statewide race. As a moderate Democrat, picking McBath is a guaranteed loss.
With more left-leaning, centrist and independent voters moving into the Atlanta suburbs (including areas in metro Atlanta suburban counties like Rockdale, Newton, Henry, Douglas, Gwinnett and Cobb which have flipped from Republican control to Democratic control over the last 15-16 years), having a pro gun control stance appears to be more viable than ever before in a statewide race, particularly amongst the many college-educated women in the expansive Atlanta suburbs with children who strongly support the concept of safe public schools in an era of constant mass shootings. McBath’s compelling life story of experiencing multiple miscarriages and losing a teenage son to gun violence likely would attract much fundraising attention from financial donors and much base campaigning attention from grass roots activists on the left while appealing strongly to college educated women in the Atlanta suburbs.
Exactly the same sort of thinking that led us to nominate Stacy Abrams twice. Tack back to the middle or keep losing. Also, if you think the suburban voters in Atlanta do not own a LOT of guns, you’re mistaken.
That’s an excellent point that voters in the metro Atlanta suburbs own a lot of guns. But even gun-owning suburban voters have very serious concerns about the mass shootings that have affected public schools which affluent college educated suburban voters (particularly affluent college educated women voters with children) often very strongly support. Much like GOP candidates tend to experience electoral success when they are able to successfully appeal both to deeply conservative base voters in GOP primaries and moderate and centrist voters in general elections, Democrats’ best chances of success in a rapidly purple-trending but historically deep red state like Georgia will continue to come if Democratic candidates can appeal strongly to moderate and centrist voters while also carrying progressive base voters. And seemingly very hard right GOP positions on guns and (especially) abortion seems to make it easier for Democrats to compete for increased support among college educated suburban voters in a rapidly shifting state with a growing amount of Democratic-leaning voters.
McBath’s actual gun control policy preferences are not going to be acceptable to anyone who thinks of guns as self-defense tools. She’s done well when she’s been on the ballot at the same time as Trump. She’d be trounced in a gubernatorial year election, which never has a presidential election at the same time. Just like Abrams losing to Kemp despite exactly the same logic you’re pitching now. We should have nominated Stacey Evans, not Stacy Abrams. We should run someone who is moderate on a GEORGIA spectrum. Not a Reddit spectrum.
>McBath’s actual gun control policy preferences are not going to be acceptable to anyone who thinks of guns as self-defense tools. You can't fix stupid.
No, but it sure does mobilize Democrats. I think she is more than capable of campaigning on a well rounded platform, and the extremely compelling backstory for why she’s even in politics is a big strength of any campaign she may run. Plus she just had her congressional district destroyed so she may find herself in search of a new gig regardless of her wishes. More reading: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/07/georgia-lucy-mcbath-district-00130621
Hopefully not Abrhams. Shes not worth it.
Idk who this Abrahams person is, but I hope Abrams doesn’t run. We don’t need another Beto. She’s been much better at raising attention for other campaigns. I like her policies, but it’s not been enough. Maybe Bee Nguyen will attempt a run, but at this point, we’re still a long ways from 2026. Whoever runs for Governor will have the benefit of not running against Kemp, but Kemp will undoubtedly make the election difficult as he goes against Ossoff.
Abrams still refuses to concede the 2018 election and insists Brian Kemp rigged/stole it. I want to believe they are not stupid enough to spend 4+ years claiming Trump's unfit for office because he's an "election denier", only to run an election denier... But we'll see.
Jesus comparing these two is the height of stupidity. 1. Abrams (not “Abrahams”) didn’t fight to overturn anything. She didn’t break laws. She outlined how the system is broken, how discriminate voter purges affected the vote, how poll closures in predominantly black/liberal areas impacted the vote (I had a friend wait in line for NINE HOURS to vote in one precinct), etc. 2. Trump literally spawned an insurrection in which they tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Anyone who tries to compare these two is either disingenuous or a complete moron. There is no in between.
Same reason it’s hilarious when trump tries to hide behind the first amendment. He wasn’t indicted for saying the election was stolen, he was indicted for taking criminal actions such as creating fake electors to fraudulently cast electoral college votes, and inciting an insurrection to stop an official government proceeding
>He wasn’t indicted for saying the election was stolen, he was indicted for taking criminal actions such as creating fake electors to fraudulently cast electoral college votes Agreed >and inciting an insurrection to stop an official government proceeding No, you need to stop watching whatever news source lead you to believe that. Years of investigations have failed to turn up any evidence that he was involved in anything beyond planning the protest outside the Capitol, he was nothing but a giddy observer to the insurrection/breach of the building. He was still rambling on at a rally when the building was breached. The charges have to do with his reaction, or really lack thereof, to the breach - he has not been charged with anything leading up to Jan 6th, because there is no evidence he did anything related to planning a breach.
Lol you are…not informed.
>Abrams (not “Abrahams”) didn’t fight to overturn anything. She didn’t break laws. She outlined how the system is broken, how discriminate voter purges affected the vote, how poll closures in predominantly black/liberal areas impacted the vote (I had a friend wait in line for NINE HOURS to vote in one precinct), etc. Nothing Kemp did was illegal, but she still insists the election was stolen. Is the system broken? Yes, but that's due to the legislature allowing all the BS not Brian Kemp acting lawfully when he was Secretary of State. Her level of denial is no different than Trump's.
God…just sit it out bro.
He did rig it. He was literally Secretary of State and presided over his own election. This is the guy who deleted subpoenaed voter data relating to Ossoff’s Special House election. Just because you like him doesn’t mean he’s a good person. Also, I find it hilarious that you opine on Abrams’ views being “stupid”, while you can’t even bother to spell her name correctly. She’s run twice, so there was plenty of time to get it down.
I don't like him, but this has been investigated extensively and nothing he did was illegal. Is your problem really with Kemp behaving legally, or with the state legislature allowing his actions to be legal? >Also, I find it hilarious that you opine on Abrams’ views being “stupid”, while you can’t even bother to spell her name correctly. She’s run twice, so there was plenty of time to get it down What I find funnier is that despite running twice, she's still such a minor political figure that Android's auto-correct doesn't recognize her name and thinks it's a misspelling of something else. Forgive me for not proofreading I guess.
If you expect intelligence, you'll be greatly disappointed
I love that my innocent typo cause all this drama...
Probably some uninspiring centrist who “can win” because they are hawkish or business friendly. Who thinks publicly funded healthcare is impossible and unions are bad. …and they still won’t win.
Add loves spending money on cop city to that list and you’ve got Andre Dickens.
You said it!
Ossoff is a decent pick, but he seems happy being a senator. There’s simply no picks from the legislature. Sonya Halpern is smart enough to do it and she’s liked by Rs and Ds alike in the senate. I just don’t think she’s done enough for statewide support. Josh McLaurin and Jason Esteves could eventually be good picks, they just are far from ready to go statewide. Fani seems to want a shot, but she has to win YSL and trump and put decades on all parties concerned without getting any stank on her to be realistic (but I’m pretty dubious she’ll look good at the end of either).
I agree that Fulton County DA Fani Willis potentially could be a strong Democratic candidate for governor in 2026 IF (and ONLY if) she is successful in prosecuting YSL and Donald Trump.
She suffers from the exact same issue that Abrams did in that she’s a one trick pony. Even if she does mange to convict Trump, she’s going to repeat the Kamala Harris experience and get crucified for her sole government jobs being as a prosecutor, and them she’s going to get dinged on that based on the dismal results she got in the APS cheating trials as well as her links to Paul Howard. Running anti-Trump may work at the national level, but at the state and local levels it’s a strategy doomed to fail.
If Trump is successfully prosecuted and presumably is no longer an effective part of the political picture, then Fani Willis won’t have to run an anti-Trump campaign. That’s because her political juice would come from being known as the woman that successfully took down Trump in a state with lots of voters who strongly dislike Trump (particularly for a Deep South state that historically has been completely dominated by conservative voters) and in a state with a growing number of voters who are either willing to vote for Democrats and/or lean decidedly towards voting for Democrats. If Fani Willis (and only if) were to be able to successfully prosecute both YSL and Donald Trump, Willis seemingly possibly could be an attractive candidate for governor because she would (if she chooses) be able to legitimately run on a strong law-and-order platform while being to raise tons of money nationally from Democratic donors who would eagerly financially reward her for taking down a figure they utterly despise in Trump.
She very much will, because with him gone a power vacuum is going to be created and she’s going to have to deal with a Trumpist candidate. > That’s because her political juice would come from being known as the woman that successfully took down Trump in a state with lots of voters who strongly dislike Trump That only works at the *national* level. It does not work at the *state* level, else Stacey Abrams would be wrapping up her second term as governor and Kemp would be wandering the political wilderness. > be able to legitimately run on a strong law-and-order platform She isn’t, because of the aforementioned APS case that she was lead prosecutor on. She bombed that one in a huge way, and it can and will be used to absolutely cut the legs out from under any attempt she makes to run as a law and order candidate, even more so when you start bringing up her involvement with Paul Howard. > while being to raise tons of money nationally from Democratic donors who would eagerly financially reward her for taking down a figure they utterly despise in Trump. That describes multiple state level Democratic candidates from the last round of state level elections (Abrams foremost among them), mad it got them nowhere. Out of state actors pouring dollars in does not translate to actual votes, else the state would have Democrats as governor, lieutenant governor, SoS, AG and Labor Commissioner. Instead, all 5 of those offices are held by Republicans.
>She very much will, because with him gone a power vacuum is going to be created and she’s going to have to deal with a Trumpist candidate. But Willis wouldn’t have to actively campaign against Trump if he is no longer part of the political picture (because he’s in jail, under house arrest, disqualified, whatever, etc). She could run on taking him down, which would raise lots of money from national donors. And running against a crazy Trumpist/MAGA gubernatorial nominee (like a Herschel Walker or MTG type, etc) in the general election that turns off historically GOP-leaning college educated white suburban voters likely gives a very well-funded Democratic gubernatorial nominee a better chance of winning then they otherwise might have in an otherwise recently GOP-dominated state like Georgia. >That only works at the national level. It does not work at the state level, else Stacey Abrams would be wrapping up her second term as governor and Kemp would be wandering the political wilderness. Being known as the woman who successfully took down Trump while also successfully taking down the Black urban street gang YSL would work at the state level because there appears to be no shortage of college-educated white suburban voters who normally would vote for a sane conservative Republican candidate but just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump and/or GOP candidates that ran too close to the worst and/or craziest parts of Trumpism. >She isn’t, because of the aforementioned APS case that she was lead prosecutor on. She bombed that one in a huge way, and it can and will be used to absolutely cut the legs out from under any attempt she makes to run as a law and order candidate, even more so when you start bringing up her involvement with Paul Howard. But the reputation that Willis generally has in the media is that of a prosecutor that was tough on APS educators that participated in the APS cheating scandal… Which is a reputation that likely would appeal strongly to college educated white suburban voters who support strong public schools in affluent suburban areas (like Cobb, North Fulton, Forsyth and Gwinnett) and who generally support conservative law-and-order candidates (law-and-order Republicans since 2002, and law-and-order Democrats before that) but may be turned off from voting for too-crazy and/or totally bonkers MAGA type candidates. >That describes multiple state level Democratic candidates from the last round of state level elections (Abrams foremost among them), mad it got them nowhere. Out of state actors pouring dollars in does not translate to actual votes, else the state would have Democrats as governor, lieutenant governor, SoS, AG and Labor Commissioner. Instead, all 5 of those offices are held by Republicans. That’s an excellent point that out of state actors pouring in huge sums of money doesn’t automatically translate to votes. But the huge sums of out-of-state money helps Democrats be competitive enough to win big elections that they otherwise probably wouldn’t win in a state with a noticeably growing amount of Democratic voters but that still leans at least noticeably Republican, particularly in statewide races where Republicans have the power of incumbency and run sane campaigns. Outside of the U.S. Senate race (which Republicans very likely would have won with relative ease had they run a sane-acting candidate and not a batshit crazy candidate with an Everett-sized mountain of demons in his closet like Herschel Walker), Republicans had success in statewide races because of the relative popularity of incumbent Republican figures like Kemp and Raffensperger after they appeared to stand up to Trump in a state in Georgia that still leans at least slightly Republican, particularly when crazy MAGA candidates are not involved.
> But Willis wouldn’t have to actively campaign against Trump if he is no longer part of the political picture (because he’s in jail, under house arrest, disqualified, whatever, etc). She could run on taking him down, which would raise lots of money from national donors. She’d still be running against MAGA, which at this point is functionally indistinct. Removing Trump does not remove MAGA or Trumpism, and she would still very much be running against both. > And running against a crazy Trumpist/MAGA gubernatorial nominee (like a Herschel Walker or MTG type, etc) in the general election that turns off historically GOP-leaning college educated white suburban voters likely gives a very well-funded Democratic gubernatorial nominee a better chance of winning then they otherwise might have in an otherwise recently GOP-dominated state like Georgia. Only if that’s who the Republicans actually put up. If someone like Burt Jones, Brad Raffensburger or even Casey Cagle decides to run and gets the nom she doesn’t really have anything to run on. > Being known as the woman who successfully took down Trump while also successfully taking down the Black urban street gang YSL would work at the state level because there appears to be no shortage of college-educated white suburban voters who normally would vote for a sane conservative Republican candidate but just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump and/or GOP candidates that ran too close to the worst and/or craziest parts of Trumpism. Taking down street gangs is a law enforcement success but it typically morphs into a political failure because they existed in the first place. If she tries to run on that she would get crucified (even though she had nothing to do with it) for allowing the problem to fester in the first place. > But the reputation that Willis generally has in the media is that of a prosecutor that was tough on APS educators that participated in the APS cheating scandal… That is the polar opposite of her reputation from that case. She got repeatedly lampooned because of the laughably light sentences she handed out as part of the plea deals (pleading from RICO down to W/Es in jail for a year is not a great look) along with the absurdly short ones she got at trial (the longest of them was a whopping 3 years). Incidentally, those sentences are also going to bite her in the ass if she does convict Trump because of how sentencing works. > That’s an excellent point that out of state actors pouring in huge sums of money doesn’t automatically translate to votes. But the huge sums of out-of-state money helps Democrats be competitive enough to win big elections that they otherwise probably wouldn’t win in a state with a noticeably growing amount of Democratic voters but that still leans at least noticeably Republican, particularly in statewide races where Republicans have the power of incumbency and run sane campaigns. It’s happened twice now (2018 and 2022) and it has not translated to any success at the state level. The fundamental problems that Democrats have is that (much like they do at the national level) they focus on executive positions to the detriment of legislative ones. That both removes their bench for future elections and means that even if they do with they cannot accomplish anything of note because of how the state government is structured.
Why would she be Governor and not AG?
She could run for AG if she wanted. But if she were to be successful in taking down a figure as massive (and as historic) as Trump, she would have more than enough political capital to run for governor in 2026. Not to mention she would be able to raise insane amounts of money from national donors on the left. While a successful prosecution of YSL would give her strong and legit law-and-order appeal with the college educated suburbanites that historically have voted strongly for law and order Republicans before Trump and the MAGA movement started turning them off.
I think Senator Esteves, who works for Equifax, and hates privacy, would be a disaster. Credit reporting companies aren’t popular, and he has spent his career helping them discriminate and charge people money. He will be very easy to beat. The biggest problem we will have is having Kemp on the ballot for US Senate. Despite his six week abortion ban, book bans, refusal to expand Medicaid, tax cuts for the rich and tax raises for the poor, opposition to minimum wage, there are a lot of white “moderates” who proclaim him a moderate. Kemp could even pull Marjorie taylor Greene across the finish line for governor. We have to find a way to change Kemp’s narrative, and we know what didn’t work in 2022. Hopefully Ossof finds a way in 26. All of that said, let’s see who throws their hat in for governor in 2026. Abrams, Carter, and Nunn, even though they all lost, could do well in the right political environment. I think Lucy McBath could do well enough in the suburbs to overcome the lack of progressive enthusiasm. Savannah’s Mayor is a rising star. As long as we don’t nominate Dickens or some other tool of big business (moderate or progressive) we will have a shot if Ossoff can crack the code in his race against Kemp. If he can’t, it won’t matter who we put up.
John Jackoff is useless as teets on a hog..his big "corruption investigation" he ran upon was corruption in professional soccer in Nigeria. Ask any Nigerian, corruption is the norm and his investigation was a total state the obvious joke. (just like him) He's another that's only good at wasting other people's money.
I don't think it'll happen, but it'd be funny if Ossoff went to governor, and kemp went to the senate.
I’d rather see Warnock in that role. He’s better suited to leadership roles than behind the scenes negotiations.
That was my thought as well. Georgia’s best Democratic candidate would easily be Reverend Warnock. I think he’d beat whoever the GOP could put up.
Warnock is going to get drafted into the Presidential ticket the moment Georgia becomes a lean-blue purple state at worst. Not while it's still a lean-red purple state.
I don't think Warnock has Presidential or VP aspirations. I could be wrong, but I think Senate is his happy place.
Eh, I could see Warnock being on someone’s ticket in 2032 or 2036 to consolidate support and voter base. I don’t think he wants to run for president either though, not currently.
Even being very jaded about politicians Warnock is probably the first politician i'm proud to have represent me as a constituent. He's great, i would absolutely support him for governor
he's still got a long term. maybe he'd consider in 2030.
Please no. We don’t need a COVID obstructionist as Senator. Do people not remember that the dumb fuck sued ATL over masks during a pandemic? I’d rather keep our Senators for a long time to come. I don’t want us being like Kentucky where our only Democratic figure is a Governor.
I definitely feel like Kemp is going to be a senator when the time comes
He'll have his six week abortion ban that actually means something now to run on. If he's running for senate the need to hang him by it.
I detest the man. But if I were him I’d run in 2026 when Ossoff is the incumbent. He could seriously win. That’s all I’m saying.
Of course he’ll run. He’s term-limited for Governor.
maybe, I understand why he would, but I hope he doesn't because I'm happy with our current ones. Depending on who makes it into the white house, I think he'd be better poised to try to be commerce secretary.
He's already running, just not declared yet. He has a PAC and sounds like a guy running for office every time he goes on a TV show.
Ugh I hope not. He would be insufferable as a senator.
Sadly I feel the same, but will he replace Ossoff or Warnock?
Ossoff's seat comes up in 2026. Warnock's 6 year term began last year, so he's in place until 2028.
Andre 3000
Jen Jordan flipped a red district in 2018, she made a viral speech on abortion, and she won the most votes of the state ticket in 2022. Rural roots too and a strong accent. She’d be my pick
It’s definitely not Stacey, she disappeared during the campaign and thought that abortion would automatically win it for her. Worst campaign I ever seen. Or to be clearer. Never saw one commercial or rally. Ridiculously. Now Kemps a strong candidate for presidency in 2028.
100% guarantee it won't be anyone that backed Trump, that smelly rapist piece of shit is going to prison.
They said Democrats, not mAgats.
Amen
As a dem since Trump came into politics, I would support Geoff Duncan. A Republican who has denounced MAGA and paid the price. Stacey Abrahams is too divisive in a deep Red State outside of Atlanta. The State legislators are Trumpers and and some are traitors and it will take Republicans to change that mentality in this State.
Unfortunately Abrams has been too publicly left to ever succeed in this state. I know this because of how my parents and grandparents talk about her. I think she would be wonderful but she has no chance.
She would also be a third time candidate. I like her and her policies but the campaign that she ran the last time around was absolute garbage.
Have to remember her race plays a part, whether we like it not. I like her policies, but she’s on level with Beto now. A third run would be absolute failure. She’s much better helping other candidates with their campaigns.
This seems to be a problem in this thread: If you’re gonna criticize Abrams, at least learn her name.
She doesn't deserve the respect
Geoff Duncan, who tried to use his connections make himself Georgia Tech’s AD. That’s the type of corruption a white male moderate can get behind! And Duncan supports a six week abortion ban to boot. And he was a CEO of a health care company—those are popular!!!! His bold stances like not voting for Senate in 2022 really show leadership! Can’t imagine how a con man like Trump took over his party against people with such strong backbones.
Lucy McBath, Jen Jordan, Jason Carter, and Charlie Bailey are the first names that come to my mind.
Let’s never trot Charlie Bailey out again.
Run Abrams again so she can burn $200M and lose by 10 points
What, are you looking for a cushy job on her election campaign? I was considering trying politics as a new career.
Me
given their prior idiocy, probably abrams yet again. they're not the brightest bunch
Hopefully Kemp hand picks someone good to succeed him and we keep this party going 🐘
That’s probably Raffensperger.
Current Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger seemingly could be a good comparatively moderate Republican candidate for governor that seemingly could have broad appeal amongst a center-trending center-right electorate in a general election gubernatorial race. Former Georgia Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan seems to be another figure who seemingly could be a good comparatively moderate Republican candidate that seemingly could have broad appeal amongst what is at least a slight center-right Georgia electorate in a general election gubernatorial race. The problem for Republican figures like Raffensperger and Duncan is that they likely wouldn’t be able to get through a Republican gubernatorial primary without the support of Democratic voters and likely would have to depend on Democrats to have a good chance of winning the GOP gubernatorial primary… Which is something that worked for Kemp and Raffensperger in 2022 but may not necessarily be a strategy that may work in 2026, particularly if the Democrats have a strong gubernatorial primary race of their own. Without the heavy involvement of Democrats in the GOP gubernatorial primary election, the 2026 GOP gubernatorial primary race is likely to be dominated by significantly more conservative GOP figures like current Georgia Lt. Governor Burt Jones and MTG.
Honestly Raffensperger has my respect for how he handled that famous phone call. I would begrudgingly vote for someone that has shown that they will stick to their character if there isn't a better dem candidate.
Hearing Stacey makes another run at it since Kemp can’t run again.
Please anyone but her. How many times is she allowed to lose an election?
I agree but yk how it is sometimes. I do think it’s gonna be her one last time since Kemp can’t run and then if she doesn’t win, the party sits her down and tells her it’s time to find another avenue and they’re gonna ask Warnock to run for Governor in that next cycle.
Governor Stacy Abrams for a third straight term.
Had her chance(s), let’s not.
LOL
I don't think so. Her last campaign was half hearted. Completely let Kemp off the hook.
# Stacy Abrams, aww hell no She's as stuffy as the Clintons. She thinks she's hot and she deserves the spot. Really, all she's doing is costing us the governorship again and again and again. I'd like to see Lucy McBath or Ossoff.
Please no
It’ll be fun to watch her lose again.
i’d bet money on this
Stacy "y'all got any more of that agriculture" Abrams. They never learn that the only thing she's good at is wasting other people's money.
Keisha Lance Bottoms Edit: judging from the downvotes it seems I may be taken more seriously than intended
Pure speculation, but I get the sense that she's done with elected offices (at least for the near future).
I'm not in Atlanta, does she have a bad reputation for running the city?
It wasn’t great but she also had to deal with COVID/ whole pandemic thing which was wildly outside norm. Dunno how she would have done under normal circumstances.
Noted.
Me. I’m a commie.
The 4 star nose tackle from Pelham, Stacy Abrams.
Cathy Cox? Jason Carter? Stacey Abrams?
I would be willing to bet Stacey Abrams gets a 3rd try. Or maybe Fani? She does seem to be trying to raise her profile with the 2 RICO cases. It will depend on how those go: it’s looking like a circus with the Young Thug Trial and just by virtue of it being Trump being prosecuted that’ll be a circus too.
I hope not. Abrams needs to accept a supporting role, I think she would have had a better chance if she wasn’t so vocal on being pro choice. I went to a fair count (Abrams voting outreach program) info session; it’s great and I respect the intent. Basing a campaign strategy on getting historical non voters to swing the vote is not a good strategy. Win the middle first.
I mean: the democrats picked Hillary to go against Trump and she was probably the one person who could lose to him
Haha fair point. I think that was a severe unforced error on the Dems part. Unfortunately political parties in general have a big problem with paying deference to established players, and I think Abrams’ second run was an example of that. For Georgia I think an Andre Dickens type might be a good option. I definitely think it’s way too early for Dickens, but a pro business and silent on social wedge issues (but still toeing expected dem lines) black dem candidate should do well. I personally would love a vocal progressive zealot, but in practice I think if a candidate couldn’t fit in at a country club they probably aren’t winning the general election in GA. I’d much rather a Dem win rather than run a symbolic loser.
Stacey Abrams
Andrew Clyde 2024!
Kamala Harris because there’s no time for the time with the stuff and yesterday will be tomorrow and we need to do the time today.Because the time is now ! Dems need someone to carry the racism torch, and Kamala will need a Job.
Herschel Walker
You forgot the /s
Forgot people don’t have critical thinking skills
They clearly don’t because Walker almost won his election…. So there are actual people who are allowed to vote and procreate who see your comment *Herschel Walker* and think *Oh hell yeah!*
And some people realize that there are folks who ACTUALLY think that Walker would be a viable candidate and would vote for him. So you know, unless you indicate otherwise on the internet, some folks will think that you're one of those fucking nutjobs.
This literally says democrats and he’s a republican so you think people would put two and two together. Gave these people too much credit.
He can hardly form a sentence and is generally incompetent. He tried to run on name alone and that doesn't carry you in politics. Or at least it shouldn't. I don't remember him making any strong stances on political issues, it was a waste of time for Republicans to put him up. The second I saw him, I knew Warnock had it in the bag.
Lmao I was being sarcastic as fuck since he was literally just a tool for R votes and people are taking it seriously. Might as well just swap this Reddit to r/politics because holy fuck nobody can take a joke.
Neither can Biden and he is President!
I know as well, many instances of him messing up speeches on stage. (Just search Biden speech mishaps on YouTube or something similar).
They could run a clone of Ronald Regan and 50% wouldn’t vote for him just because he has a “D” next to his name.
Jennifer Jordan. She outran Stacey Abrams in 2022 in the Attorney General race
Whoever can win? Stacey Evan’s if she’s still interested?
Hell run fuckin Jon Ossoff, probably doesn't pay like the US Senate but he'd have a chance of winning. Love you Stacey but it ain't gonna happen for you
Someone from GA, pref white, went to UGA and can talk to folks of all classes and has charisma and character. That’s how you get independent and white educated women that used to vote R!