Barrow v. Burns debate coverage.

Blogging for Max has some details:

Facing off before an audience of 300 students at Georgia College and State University, both men agreed on some of the most divisive issues facing Americans. Both support staying the course in Iraq rather than pulling out. And both called for tighter border security as the answer to illegal immigration, opposing amnesty for illegal workers already in the U-S.

But Burns said Barrow’s party affiliation matters, because if Democrats wrest control of Congress a majority would support drawing troops out of Iraq and relaxing immigration enforcement — with or without Barrow’s support.

9 comments

  1. Overincorporated Fulton says:

    I mean, Max makes pretty much the only point he can against John…that even if John has an independent streak he still caucuses with Nancy Pelosi and votes to make her Speaker of the House. However, I think that this is too complicated a point to make to voters and is not one that is likely to get them to switch their support to Burns. Single-member districts make legislative politics in the U.S. very personal, so my thinking is that John’s independence is an asset regardless of party affiliation. People don’t generally think of Congress as a whole when they vote but rather about their individual congressman.

  2. Decaturguy says:

    I think a better argument for Barrow would be something like this: “My opponent would be an rubber stamp for President Bush. He owes him, particularly since he flew in for a fundraiser for him last week. On the other hand, I will continue to be an independent voice, making decisions based on what is best for this district.”

  3. Decaturguy says:

    Then amend my statement to say:

    “My opponent would be an rubber stamp for President Bush. He will owe him, particularly since he will host a fundraiser for him next week. On the other hand, I will continue to be an independent voice, making decisions based on what is best for this district.

  4. atlantaman says:

    “People don’t generally think of Congress as a whole when they vote but rather about their individual congressman.”

    I agree this occurs most of the time, but there are occurences when the public nationalizes the Congressional elections. Some of these instances have been: Democrat landslide during Roosevelt’s implementation of the New Deal, Democrat landslide after Watergate, Republican landslide during Contract with America, and folks are talking about a Democrat landslide becuase of Bush’s poor approval rating (personally I hope this will not be the case).

    The irony is in Georgia Barrow has to sidestep the whole Pelosi Democrat taking control of the House, but in other more moderate/liberal parts of the country the Dems are playing that issue up. In Republican Chrisopher Shays (a fairly Liberal Republican) Connecticut district that’s the main reason the Dems are giving to vote against him, so the Dems can take control of the House and stand-up to Bush.

  5. atlantaman says:

    “My opponent would be an rubber stamp for President Bush. He will owe him”

    While you probably hate Bush, in Barrow’s district having Bush come in and raise money for you is not necessarily a negative. It might not be the huge positive it once was, but even if it’s a wash issue there is no point in Barrow wasting any free press or paid advertising on it.

  6. Decaturguy says:

    Atlantaman,

    If you consider the new redrawing of the district, Bush would have got 48% in 2000 and 50.4% in 2004 had the current lines been drawn the way there are now, then.

    Sonny Perdue would have got 46% and Saxby Chambliss would have got 44% in the district with the redrawn lines in 2002.

    So, this is not a solidly Republican district. It is 40% African American.

    Bush was much more popular in 2004 than he is now. I don’t think Barrow would lose anything by trying to associate Burns with Bush and portraying himself as independent of him.

    But because Barrow is afraid of his own shadow, he will probably not.

  7. atlantaman says:

    I never thought it was a solidly Republican distirct, but was unaware of the numbers you just gave. I’m more inclined to agree with you now, but still don’t believe there would be that high level of anti-Bush intensity of say an major urban city or Northern district.

Comments are closed.