Minority Leader?

So, I don’t think there has been any discussion over who will take over as minority leader in the House now that Dubois Porter is leaving to lose to Roy Barnes.

Consider this a semi-open thread on the topic of Dem leadership in the General Assembly, and who Roy would install as state chair should be actually win the governor’s mansion.


  1. iamnotasocialist says:


    And there is a good amount of chatter. Stacey Abrams seems to be the frontrunner.

  2. Melb says:

    Stacey Abrams needs to be the Minority Leader!! She is a fighter and intelligent and most important she follows through with what she says.

  3. Skyler Akins says:

    Stacey Abrams, or Stephanie Stuckey-Benefield would be GREAT, passionate Democratic Leaders!

  4. Tiberius says:

    No Carolyn Hugley or Nikki Randall? Is the entire leadership stepping aside for Adams?

    Could this be an Atlanta (Adams) vs. non Atlanta (Hugley or Randall) fight within the Black Caucus?

  5. Anonymole says:

    Since this is an open thread, I figured I would air out something that has always bugged me.

    On the anonymous tip line, it asks you “What is two plus four?” The answer is very simple. However, it does not accept “six” as an answer, only “6”. If you wanted to get “6” as an answer, wouldn’t it be less confusing to ask, “What is 2 plus 4?” instead?

    • analogkid says:

      That reminds me of another website issue:

      Why are threads open for comment for 60 days? Most threads have devolved into well-beaten dead horse territory by day 7.

  6. John Konop says:

    I live out in Cherokee and I have not met 1 Democrat in the house. With districts painted via gerrymandering so red and blue is it not polarizing people? Are we creating a society of two worlds in 1 country?

    • John Konop says:

      I really do think the demonization done by both parties is destroying our country. I am personally fiscally conservative and on social issues I lean toward being a libertarian. I have friends and family on all sides of the issues. And many have altered my opinion on a particular issue because even though I have personal beliefs, all circumstances have their own particular issues. And solving a problem is not always about being right but it is your ability to get people working together on the same page. Hence this is why win-win compromise is essential in any negotiation that works well long term. And it seems the polarizing districts works against solving problems.

    • ChuckEaton says:

      Aside from slightly changing the boundaries in one or two districts, the Georgia House and Senate districts are still the same districts that were drawn by a Federal Judge six years ago. They are probably the purest districts in the Country and certainly the fairest in Georgia for at least 150 years.

      The reason you haven’t met any Democrats is because you live in Cherokee, which is not exactly a hotbed of Democrat activity. If you’re itching to meet some Democrats, then I suggest you spend some time in South Dekalb County, where they have managed to draw 100% Democrat State House districts without any gerrymandering.

      • John Konop says:


        The point is simple a 100% red or blue district does not create an environment for problem solving in the house on a state or federal level.

        • ChuckEaton says:

          So are you saying we should use gerrymander a Democrat district into Cherokee County? I’m not sure how to do it, perhaps an umbilical cord from South Cobb.

          • John Konop says:


            No, but I do think if the lines were drawn correctly we would see more districts that are not gerrymandered. Both parties when they get in power spend time figuring out how to game the system to create the most seats.

            • ZazaPachulia says:

              Next door to me sits Fayette County — generally considered one of the state’s most conservative. Thanks to gerrymandering, the county is split into 5 house districts, three of which are safely Democrat and two are safe Republican.

              I don’t know if you could gerrymander a blue seat into Cherokee, but you certainly can in Fayette with Clayton and Fulton right next door.

              • ChuckEaton says:

                Maybe there are two things going on in this thread.

                1. Gerrymandering- which our current House and Senate districts are not gerrymandered. Our districts were drawn by a Federal Judge, from up North, who had no interest in the State of GA. I’m not sure how you could find a more independent source. The districts are “cleaner” than any state in the Union.

                2. Section 5 of the VRA, where the Federal Government discriminates against a select few states, based on past sins having no connection to the current residents, and forces these states into drawing districts based on skin color. Obviously, the Judge, as any person or group drawing these districts, would have to take this unique Federal law into consideration.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  The VRA needs to go, but I am happy with our current lines. I hope our next set looks just as good. Does anyone remember what they looked like under Barns?

                • One caveat – our districts were drawn by a judge whose instructions were to take the districts in place at the end of the 90’s and modify them to reflect changes in population. In other words, once the 2001 maps were thrown out, judges like to go back to the last Constitutional map drawn by an elected body and use that as its basis.

                  Ironically enough, by my count the current map (were this still the 90’s) would support something like 105 Democrats, maybe a little more or less. Things can change faster than you can plan.

                  The interesting thing about the current map is that as the years go on it is approaching party parity, I think if you could use the current map thru the 2012 elections you’d have very close to a 90/90 split, although at the same time, fewer than 10 or 15 individual districts would actually be competitive.

              • The Northern part of Fayette (that touches Clayton and Fulton) is pretty heavily Democratic these days. Fayette has “5” districts, but a lot of those are in multiple counties. I think based on actual size when you add up the fractional parts of districts it has more like 3 house districts. And since it’s about a 65/35 R/D county these days, I think you will find that the 2 Republican districts, which cover the majority of the county, are proportionally representing the 65% of R’s there, and that the 3 Democratic districts, which are mostly based in other counties, probably add up to about 1 whole district and accurately represent the 35% of D’s who mostly live in that Northern part.

                Maybe in the next redistricting they’ll just try to draw the 3 districts like horizontal stripes and you’d ultimately get more or less the same result – 2 R’s and 1 D district covering the north stripe.

                • Icarus says:

                  I’m a bit familiar with this one.

                  Fayette County got used as a rounding error to comply with VRA-5. As such, slivers of North Fayette that are majority minority were given to house districts in Fulton and Clayton.

                  Somehow, the panel who drew the maps determined that one pricinct of Peachtree City which has some of the most exclusive subdivisions were in a “community of interest” with the houses at the end of Hartsfield’s runways in College Park.

                  In addition to sacrificing the community of interest madate, however, is a bigger problem. While the majority of the population is still far and away Republican, the local delegation is majority Democrat, given the number of Democrats who represent small segments of the population in the Northern county.

                  • Because of things like the VRA but also the fact that not every county’s population is within +/- 1% (or 5% depending) of a multiple of the number of people in a district, these things have to happen somewhere.

                    Take Athens – as Democratic as Fayette is Republican but I believe their local delegation is 3 R’s, 2 D’s. In this case because of actual gerrymandering by the Republicans on the Senate map. But politics is politics and fair is fair. At least in Fayette’s case the 65% of voters who feel slighted on this one issue can take comfort knowing that the rest of the state’s government is dominated by the elected officials they vote for.

                    • ChuckEaton says:

                      I can’t deny there were a few instances that boundaries were nudged, but trying to be as objective as possible, the districts are about as fair as you can get. Now, as we head into redistricting, I’ll be the first to say that the right to draw districts are part of the spoils of war. Which is why you guys desperately need Barnes sitting at the table. Although, I’m guessing the VRA will give Rahm Emanuel an extra seat at the Georgia drawing table.

                    • To agree with an expand on something Chuck said. A map that is on the whole deemed fair and equitable is bound to contain various inequities that you hope add up to 0 (if you assign positive values to things that benefit you and negative values to things that don’t).

                      On a similar note, I’m told that back in the 2001 redistricting many Republican officeholders were allowed to more or less draw their personal districts (or make changes) how they saw fit if the area they came from was not important to the overall goal of the map. So that’s the flip side of the coin, a map that overall wasn’t fair was in individual cases more than fair to certain players.

                      If the worst complaint Republicans in Fayette County have about the last 10 years of Georgia politics when Republicans have won almost every race that mattered is that their local delegation meeting has 1 Democrat more than it should and 1 Republican fewer, sounds like things have been more than fair to them.

                  • ZazaPachulia says:

                    Actually, 74 (Dem – Salaam) covers about half of Fayetteville (including the hospital and the high school) and stretches all the way to Peachtree City along Hwy. 54.

                    66 (Dem-Fludd) goes into Peachtree City as far as McIntosh High School. Those two districts are big time gerrymandered and encompass a huge chunk of the county’s population — likely close to 40-percent.

                    Then you have Jordan’s district (Dem), which covers the east side of Fayetteville as far south as South Jeff Davis Road — south of the city’s limits.

                    These districts aren’t gerrymandered just in the north part of the county. 72 (Ramsey-R) is completely within the county — mostly Peachtree City and part of Fayetteville. Yates’ district (the other R) only covers a tiny portion of southern Fayette and stretches through Spalding and up into Henry County… If we’re getting technical here.

                    • If we’re truly getting technical, here’s the districts and what percentage of Fayette’s total Presidential vote in 2008 (including allocating for absentee/early votes) came from each district:

                      D districts:
                      66 – 16%
                      74 – 18%
                      77 – 6%
                      Total: 40%

                      R Districts:
                      72 – 49%
                      73 – 11%
                      Total: 60%

                      So, by those totals, what is a 3:2 split for actual population is represented in the local delegation by a 2:3 split for the Republicans. That’s a 1 person error on each side compared to what the math “should” say it should be. As I said in an above post, politics is politics and fair is fair.

              • Gary Cooper says:

                You can’t. Cherokee has about a 10% Democrat voting population and that small number is spread out through the county and not centralized in one location. You would have a better chance at gerrymandering a Libertarian district out of that county than a Democratic one.

            • polisavvy says:

              I agree with you and excellent post. Take the 8th Congressional District. Barnes’ gerrymandering has Covington in the same district as Moultrie. What were people thinking when they did that one? You are so true — it’s nothing but a game.

              • What are you thinking? The Republican legislature, not Barnes, drew that map in 2005. The prior map had some jagged cut outs in the old 3rd district, but it was much more geographically centered on middle Georgia.

        • Progressive Dem says:

          The fact is we do not have very much competion between the parties in Congressional and legislative races, and it is our best interest to have more competition. It is good for everyone. It requires leadership and doesn’t rely on dumbing down to the soundbites. Incumbents don’t like it. Tough.

          Barrow and Marshall are the only Georgia members with competitive districts. They aren’t appealing to the far right or left. There is no Democrat/Republican competition in all of the other districts. That’s not good.

          • ChuckEaton says:

            Couldn’t agree more. That’s one of the great ironies of our two legislative body system. The Founding Fathers intended House districts to be more competitive and repsonsive to the people, but through gerrymandering, and the subsequent fact that most House districts are not competitive, the Senate is actually more responsive and competitive than the House. I don’t think you can gerrymander a state boundary, but under this Administration, nothing would surprise me; anything is possible under the Commerce Clause.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          I think our Districts are just as fair as Iowa’s. The Iowa counties are drawn as squares, and we use geography for most of our county lines. That being said, they still split counties just as much as we do, not much more, but not much less.

    • Tiberius says:

      Ther is NO WAY the GOP is losing the House. The chance is so minimal that it is not worth the apparently abundance of free time we all have here.

      A conversation about the World Cup game between Spain and Holland would be more practical.

    • Tiberius says:

      GAliberal, do you think the Black Caucus would be unified in their desire for a member to be minority leader? Would they take the approach “it is our turn to have the leadership?” I see them having a vote and them voting in unision when the Caucus votes.

Comments are closed.